MCC-15-RFQ-0025_-_Solicitation.pdf

PAGE 1 OF 1. REQUISITION NO.

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NO. 5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

a. NAME b. TELEPHONE NO. (No Collect Calls) 8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME:

9. ISSUED BY CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS UNRESTRICTED OR SET ASIDE: % FOR:

SMALL BUSINESS

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS

(WOSB) ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

8(A)

NAICS: 541330

SIZE STANDARD: $15M

11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13b. RATING

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFP

15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY CODE

17a. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR CODE FACILITY CODE 18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

TELEPHONE NO. DUNS: DUNS+4:

PHONE: FAX:

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER 18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a UNLESS BLOCK BELOW IS CHECKED

SEE ADDENDUM

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

ITEM NO. SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

(Use Reverse and/or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary)

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA 26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Govt. Use Only)

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1, 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3 AND 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED.

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN _______________ 29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF. ___________________________________ OFFER COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND DATED ________________________________. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY (BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED SET FORTH HEREIN IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (TYPE OR PRINT) 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (TYPE OR PRINT) 31c. DATE SIGNED

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION (REV. 2/2012)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

STANDARD FORM 1449

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, & 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS 77

MCC-15-RFQ-0025

RAY STANIEWSKI (202) 521-3656 31 AUG 2015 1:00 PM/EST

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005-2227

X

X

N/A

X

Millennium Challenge Corporation

CGM

875 Fifteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20005-2227

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005-2227 Ray Staniewski, Contract Specialist (KTR) (202) 521-3656

Interior Business Center M/S D-2773 7301 West Mansfield Avenue Lakewood, CO 80235-2230

Economic Analysis and Evaluation Services for MCC-funded Transportation Activities in Senegal.

X X

08/12/2015

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 2 of 77

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 Price/Cost Schedule Accounting and Appropriation Data Labor Rates Direct Labor Rates & ODCs Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts Time and Materials No-Year Funding

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SCOPE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Objective Roles and Responsibilities Core Contractor TASKS Core Contractor Reporting Core Contractor Deliverables Travel

PACKAGING AND MARKING

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLE INSTRUCTIONS

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Overall Staffing Plan

KEY PERSONNEL

MCC 52.209-70 – Organizational Conflicts of Interest (MCC Custom)

CONTRACT CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS

FAR 52.212-5 -- Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items (May 2015) FAR 52.214-34 -- Submission of Offers in the English Language (Apr 1991) FAR 52.214-35 -- Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency (Apr 1991) FAR 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999) 52.217-9 -- Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000) 52.232-18 -- Availability of Funds (Apr 1984) 52.252-2 -- Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: ANNEX I – Sample Contractor Progress Report Attachment 2: ANNEX II – Contractor SOW Attachment 3: ANNEX III - Evaluation Design Report - Outline Attachment 4: ANNEX IV - Data Collection Quality Protocols Attachment 5: ANNEX V - Final Evaluation Report – Outline Attachment 6: ANNEX VI - MCC Data Documentation Guidelines Attachment 7: ANNEX VII - Informed Consent Statement Template Attachment 8: ANNEX VIII - Travel Form – DS-4086 Attachment 9: ANNEX IX - Travel Form – DS-4086A Attachment 10: ANNEX X - Medical Accommodation Procedures

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

evaluation Criteria

Conflict of Interest FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014) Technical Capability Past Performance Price Evaluation

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 3 of 77

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

Conflict of Interest Inquiries / Questions Concerning the Solicitation Quotation Due Date Quotation Response Quotation Volumes Quotation Format Page Limits Preparation of Volume 1 – Technical Quotation Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 4 of 77

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 Price/Cost Schedule

CLIN Description of Supplies/Services Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of Senegal Time & Materials Phase I PoP TBD (Estimated 6-12 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

0002 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of Senegal Time & Materials Phase II – Part 1 PoP TBD (Estimated 15-18 MO)

0003 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of Senegal Time & Materials Phase II – Part 2 PoP TBD (Estimated 15-18 MO)

0004 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of Senegal Time & Materials Phase III PoP TBD (Estimated 10-12 MO)

GRAND TOTAL: _______________

Accounting and Appropriation Data

[RESERVED]

Labor Rates Labor Rates at the inception of a Base Period or an Option Period will carry through as “Fixed-Price” without adjustment for the life of that Base Period or Option Period.

Direct Labor Rates & ODCs Offeror to include all proposed labor categories, hourly rates & Other Direct Costs for each phase & part.

Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts In accordance with clause MCC52.232-72, “Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts,” funds in the amount of [TBD] have been allotted to this contract. It is contemplated that funds now obligated under this contract will cover the work to be performed until [TBD].

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 5 of 77

The Contractor shall not perform work on the contract which exceeds the total amount actually allotted by the Government to the contract. The Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government to this contract. The contractor assumes the risk for any increased costs beyond what the Government obligates.

Time and Materials No-Year Funding The call order is funded with No-Year Due Diligence funding. As such, funding obligated to this call order may be used during the life of the order.

(End of SECTION B)

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 6 of 77

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

SCOPE

C.1.1. MCC requires a contractor to provide Economic Analysis and Evaluation services for MCC-funded transportation activities in Senegal. Specifically, MCC is looking for the following assistance:

C.1.1.1. To conduct post-compact cost-benefit analysis (or economic rate of return (ERR) analysis) for select completed road projects including data collection, assessment and analysis;

C.1.1.2. To conduct post-compact political economy and technical engineering analysis of a country’s road maintenance practices, particularly with respect to roads that received MCC assistance, to assess whether previous assumptions about levels of maintenance have held and whether unexpected maintenance needs have been met.

C.1.1.3. To analyze the origin-destination (O-D) data that is related to the post-compact cost-benefit analysis (under No. 1) to understand current road usage patterns.

C.1.1.4. To analyze the transportation market structure to understand whether vehicle operating cost savings may be passed on to consumers.

C.1.1.5. To conduct a context specific transportation demand analyses and data collection linked to the logical framework of the road project in Senegal, that is not reflected in the HDM4 model, e.g.

prices, wages.

C.1.2. These activities will require conducting an analysis of roads using the Highway Development and Management (HDM-4) model or the Roads Economic Decision (RED) model, as appropriate for the specific road. This will involve collecting data required for HDM-4 analyses as specified under these terms of reference, and when available, comparing with existing data collected by government entities and other stakeholders. The objectives of the data collection and analysis are to ensure that the HDM-4 model is properly modeled vis a vis the constructed road; to establish current condition of the road and the nature of traffic flows along it; to determine the cost effectiveness of the MCC road investment using final costs and validated road data; and understand why any changes, if any, occurred from the initial ERR to the final ERR.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

C.2.1. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. Government corporation whose mission is to provide assistance that will support economic growth and poverty reduction in carefully selected countries that demonstrate a commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizenry. For more information on the MCC, please visit www.mcc.gov.

C.2.2. MCC supports innovative strategies and accountability for measurable results in order to optimize the cost-effectiveness of the whole life cycle process of a road from needs assessment to design, program implementation and contracting, periodic condition assessment and maintenance. As such, it is essential that MCC’s economists, contractors, and engineers learn from the sustainability and impact of investments after the completion of a Compact.

C.2.3. Senegal

C.2.3.1. The Roads Rehabilitation Project is one of two projects implemented as part of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact, signed in 2009, by the Governments of the United

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 7 of 77

States and Senegal. The goal of the $540 million Compact (270 billion franc CFA) is to reduce poverty through economic growth by opening up productive agricultural zones in the country and improving access to markets and services. The Roads Rehabilitation project will connect major population centers and agricultural production areas through rehabilitation of 372 kilometers on two of Senegal’s critical transport corridors: National Road #2 (Route Nationale 2 ~ RN2) in the Saint Louis region and National Road #6 (Route Nationale 6 ~ RN6) in the Casamance. The Government of Senegal is implementing the 5-year MCC Compact via the Millennium Challenge Account-Senegal. The Compact is due to complete on September 23, 2015.

C.2.3.2. The RN2 is the northernmost road in Senegal and is a strategic connector corridor from Dakar Harbor to Mauritania and Mali and to other large cities in Senegal. The RN2 road investment will upgrade and widen approximately 120 kilometers of road from Richard Toll to Ndioum, and will construct the Ndioum Bridge and its access ramps. Completion of the bridge and access ramps is expected at the end of 2014. Rehabilitation works on the RN2 will be finished in mid-2015. This investment will contribute to the development of economic potential in the Senegal River Valley, a zone known for its potential as a producer of rice. The Ndioum Bridge will connect the Island of Morphile with the RN2 and the main road network.

C.2.3.3. The RN6 is the single primary road available for transportation of local agricultural products from Casamance to the rest of Senegal without having to travel via The Gambia and serves as an essential connector with Guinea Bissau, Guinea (Conakry), and Mali. The investment in this region focuses on upgrading and widening 252 kilometers of the RN6 from Ziguinchor to Kounkane, and rehabilitating the Kolda Bridge. The completion of works on the bridge is expected by December 2014. The primary roads works on the three lots of the RN6 are expected to conclude by Sept 2015. The RN6 investments will stimulate economic potential in the Casamance as a result of better access to markets in a region known for its strong agricultural potential.

C.2.3.4. Monitoring data was collected for each activity during implementation and baseline data was collected at the household and business level in 2012. However, the decision was taken to revise the original evaluation approach and focus instead on HDM-4/RED modeling as described in this SOW, so the baseline data may not be relevant.

C.2.3.5. The Senegal evaluation work will be completed in three phases. Phase I will include tasks 1 and 2 (expected to last 4-6), Phase II will include tasks 3 and 4 (expected to last 30-36 months), and Phase III will include tasks 5 and 6 (expected to last 10-12 months). In addition, in the final contract, Phase II work will be separated into Part 1 and Part 2. The offeror is expected to provide an estimate for the complete work of all phases in their proposal. However, the contract will be incrementally funded for each of the four periods, and the Contractor shall wait for a written directive from MCC before beginning on future Phases or Parts of Phases under the contract.

Objective

C.3.1. The objective of this evaluation will be to hire a firm to conduct economic analysis (HDM-4/RED) and performance evaluations (maintenance/transport sector work) of roads investments in Senegal. This work will support two objectives derived from MCC’s core principles: accountability and learning. Accountability refers to MCC and MCA’s obligations to report on their activities and attributable outcomes, accept

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 8 of 77 responsibility for them, and disclose these findings in a public and transparent manner. Learning refers to improving the understanding of the causal relationships between interventions and changes in poverty and incomes.

C.3.2. MCC calculates the likely impact on economic growth of its programs by analyzing whether the proposed programs are consistent with international evidence on drivers of economic growth and by use of cost-benefit analysis. The essence of such an analysis is a straightforward comparison of costs and benefits, where the costs are the MCC-funded grants and the benefits are increases in incomes in recipient countries.1 For roads projects, these benefits are typically proxied with a consumer surplus approach by estimating the decline in vehicle operating costs and time savings for road users using HDM-4 or RED, as determined by the characteristics of the road investment. A performance evaluation is a study that seeks to answer descriptive questions, such as: were the objectives of a particular project or program achieved; were there any unanticipated outcomes; how was it implemented, what were the challenges; how is it perceived and valued;

are expected results occurring and sustainable; and other questions that are pertinent to assessing the effectiveness of a particular intervention. MCC’s performance evaluations can also address questions of program impact and cost-effectiveness.

C.3.3. This call order will focus on five principal areas of research:

C.3.4. Research Area 1: Evaluation of the economic viability of MCC-funded road projects post-compact by undertaking a cost-benefit analysis and estimating the ERR and net present value of the investments using the HDM-4 or RED modeling software. In pursuit of this research area, the Contractor shall assess the quality of pre-existing data (as available) and collect the updated data required for modeling, such as traffic, roughness, deflection, and origin-destination. The Contractor shall use the data gathered and the results of the analysis to provide an assessment of each identified road.

C.3.4.1. The final cost-benefit analysis is expected to be completed at the end of the 4 year contract period. In the interim, the Contractor shall conduct repeat traffic counts over the three year period in order to assess the patterns at which changes in traffic counts are realized once a road is rehabilitated.

C.3.5. Research Area 2: Evaluation of MCC’s assumptions about the sustainability of improvements in infrastructure based on a rigorous political economy analysis that incorporates appropriate and available data.2 Currently, MCC makes post-compact maintenance and project-life assumptions about its infrastructure investments.

C.3.5.1. The accuracy of MCC’s maintenance assumptions has not yet been formally tested and assessed post-compact. The goal of this analysis is to improve and update these assumptions for future projects. To this effect, the Contractor shall assess the maintenance financial needs relative to the actual maintenance expenditures - and the actual condition of the roads - to inform MCC of post-Compact maintenance levels relative to the assumptions made in the original ERR model and closeout ERR cost-benefit models. The Contractor shall also use this analysis to assess the efficacy of MCC sponsored road maintenance activities.

C.3.5.2. Given that many MCC roads are recently completed, they may be in relatively good condition and not yet been affected by the maintenance regime of a country. The study should also look at maintenance levels of comparable roads to MCC that are older in order to get a clearer indication of the maintenance status of the road network. In general, periodic maintenance is

1 For more information about MCC’s economic analysis methods, visit http://www.mcc.gov/pages/docs/doc/guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis.

2 A political economy analysis should explore some aspects of the way incentives shape behavior as well as the power, interests, agency, ideas, the subtleties of building and sustaining coalitions, and the role of contingency in the road sector.

http://www.mcc.gov/pages/docs/doc/guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 9 of 77 not expected to be needed until 5-7 years after construction, however routine and emergency maintenance may be required sooner.

C.3.5.3. Beyond understanding the accuracy of the assumptions, the Contractor shall also provide political economy analysis of the formal and informal decision-making that determines road maintenance of MCC’s investments and similar roads. The goal of this analysis will be to understand the political and economic factors driving decisions around a country’s road maintenance. The Contractor shall analyze how maintenance does or does not occur including planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight relative to what is written or documented.

The Contractor shall assess how maintenance funding is allocated and in what priority vis a vis capital expenditures.

C.3.6. Research Area 3: Study of road users, based on O-D data collected for the HDM-4/RED model, that examines how goods and people are traveling along MCC project roads, where they are going, and what the motivations for the journey are. As part of Research Area 1, the Contractor shall conduct an origin-destination survey on an agreed roads segments. In order to meet the needs of Research Area 3, this survey may need to be expanded slightly from a standard O-D survey to collect information about where people or goods are traveling to/from and why (e.g. for people, is the trip for business/employment, school, health, social, etc.), how much they are paying for their trip and how long it takes on average, and what type/quantity/value of goods are being transported. This information will allow stakeholders to understand travel patterns and characteristics; measure trends; provide input to travel demand model development, forecasting, and planning for area‐wide transportation infrastructure needs and services; and, monitor progress in implementing transportation policies. The Contractor should analyze this data to compare to baseline data and/or provide an overview of how the road is currently being used.

C.3.6.1. The Contractor shall develop a plan to conduct a vehicle intercept survey, either on the MCC-funded road or at business centers near the road segments to collect this data. Vehicle intercept surveys provide a detailed picture of the trip patterns and travel choices of road users. The expanded vehicle intercept survey will include questions about the purpose of the trip, origin/destination of the vehicle and any passengers, travel times, fares for passenger and goods, and cargo type and estimated value for goods.

C.3.7. Research Area 4: Evaluation of the transportation market structure and the formal and informal institutions that regulate and govern the transportation market. MCC would like to explore the structure and competitiveness of the transportation sector to understand how likely vehicle operating cost savings that result from road improvements are to be passed on to transport consumers, such as public transport users or farmers transporting their produce to market. While this information does not factor into the economic analysis, MCC is interested in understanding how road users who do not own their own vehicle may stand to benefit in the short-term. The Contractor shall work with MCC to decide what methods will best answer these questions and whether a political economy analysis would provide additional insight into the impact of the market structure on consumer pricing and the sustainability of the investment. However, separate survey-based data collection is not expected as part of this task. This research question will be informed by the data collected as part of the HDM-4 analysis and the expanded vehicle intercept surveys to understand whether cost savings for vehicle owners are passed on to passengers in the form of lower fares for people and goods.

The Contractor shall collaborate with all stakeholders (primarily MCC, MCA partners3, relevant government ministries, communities and Implementing Partners) to gather information regarding the project design and implementation.

C.3.8. Research Area 5: Country Specific Research Areas. In the Senegal context, MCC wishes to explore the

3 After an MCC compact concludes, MCA organizations are sometimes disbanded, and they appoint a designated representative within the government to carry on any additional functions related to evaluation or auditing. All references to MCA in this document refer to both the MCA organizations and their designated representatives.

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 10 of 77 trends in vehicle traffic growth/change over time. Thus, as a part of the three year analysis in Senegal, the Contractor shall assess, through repeat traffic counts (at least twice per year), the patterns in which changes in traffic are realized as well as an analysis of what is driving those changes. Though MCC anticipates at least biannual traffic counts to be necessary to address this research area, MCC also expects offerors to provide their own recommendations regarding the frequency of traffic counts. To this end, MCC also encourages offerors to consider automated traffic counting mechanisms in addressing Research Area 5.

Roles and Responsibilities

C.4.1. Each organization, MCC, the MCA and its designated representatives, and the Contractor, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating economic analysis and independent evaluations. Their roles are as follows:

C.4.1.1. MCC. MCC is responsible for oversight of the Contractor and quality control of its activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

C.4.2. Set the evaluation priorities and evaluation questions. Using the program logic as the foundation, the Contractor shall work with MCC to develop the evaluation priorities and evaluation questions based on existing evidence, the evidence gap, and the learning priorities for the sector and agency.

C.4.3. Build buy-in and ownership of the research and analysis. MCC will work with the Contractor and MCA to ensure the research and analysis is based on feasible methodologies given program design, implementation and local context. MCC will work with MCA to ensure commitment to the roll-out plan by local stakeholders, and if is not possible to adhere to the roll-out plan, will inform the Contractor in order to adapt the tasks.

C.4.4. Determine the budget. MCC will work with the contractor to develop a budget for expected data collection requirements and any other activities related to the call order.

C.4.5. Quality review of the work plan. Using the program logic and MCC guidance as a foundation, MCC is responsible for reviewing the Contractor’s work plan for feasibility, technical and factual accuracy.

C.4.6. Quality review of deliverables. MCC is responsible for reviewing the Contractor’s reports to ensure technical and factual accuracy and adherence with international standards. While MCC will provide feedback, the independent Contractor is ultimately the author of the reports and may or may not take into consideration MCC’s comments. MCC therefore develops an Official Statement for each report to confirm the technical and factual accuracy of the report, or clarify any differences on technical or factual issues between MCC and the independent Contractor.

C.4.7. Lead public dissemination efforts. MCC is responsible for leading any public dissemination of results (where applicable), in particular ensuring a feedback loop internally in order to inform future decision making on similar program investment, design, and implementation. This requires ensuring the results are disseminated on the MCC website and disseminated to appropriate stakeholders in a timely fashion.

C.4.7.1. MCA. The relevant MCA, or its designated representative, in each country is responsible for building local ownership and commitment, including the following specific responsibilities:

C.4.8. Build buy-in and ownership of the research and analysis. MCA will work with the Contractor and MCC to ensure the research and analysis is based on feasible methodologies given program design, implementation and local context.

C.4.9. Quality review of deliverables. While MCA will be requested to provide feedback, the independent Contractor is ultimately the author of the reports and may or may not take into consideration MCA’s

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 11 of 77 comments. MCA therefore develops an Official Statement for each report to confirm the technical and factual accuracy of the report, or clarify any differences on technical or factual issues between MCA and the independent Contractor.

C.4.10. Facilitate public dissemination efforts. MCA, or a designated representative, is responsible for facilitating public dissemination of results, in particular ensuring a feedback loop in-country in order to inform future decision making on similar program investment, design, and implementation.

C.4.10.1. Contractor. The Contractor is responsible for the overall design and implementation of the research and analysis (with collaboration from MCC, especially with respect to the maintenance assessment), along with dissemination of results, including the following specific responsibilities:

C.4.10.1.1. Develop a rigorous evaluation design given the research areas laid out in this SOW, technical requirements for data collection, rules of implementation, and feasibility of options. The Contractor shall assess the existing program information, data and documents to determine whether the analysis can be completed feasibly as detailed in this SOW. If not, the Contractor shall use the program logic as the foundation and assess the program design and implementation to develop the most rigorous evaluation design possible. The Contractor is responsible for developing an evaluation design report, in consultation with MCC and MCA, which summarizes the evaluation design, sampling, analysis plan, work plan, deliverables, and other critical design elements of the evaluation. (Task 1 and Task 2)

C.4.11. Support MCC and MCA (when necessary and feasible) to build buy-in and ownership of research and analysis. The Contractor shall meet with MCC and local stakeholders to develop the evaluation design and work plan based on program design and implementation. In addition, the Contractor shall continuously present the objectives, materials, and interim and final results for MCC and local stakeholders to maintain commitment. (Task 1 and Task 2)

C.4.12. Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards. Using the program logic as a foundation, the independent Contractors define how key outcomes will be measured and develop the HDM- 4 data collection methodology, survey instruments, or other data collection tools in order to answer critical evaluation questions that address the key research areas. Note that “survey” here refers to the expanded vehicle intercept surveys, but may also refer to qualitative instruments where appropriate (Task 3)

C.4.13. Ensure appropriate review of evaluation materials and research protocols. Independent Contractors are responsible for ensuring all evaluation materials, including the evaluation design, survey instruments, sampling strategy, data collection and entry protocols are reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB).

IRB review and approval is required before any data collection commences. The independent Contractors will document all approvals and informed consent procedures throughout the evaluation time period. (Task 3)

C.4.14. Manage the data collection firms. The Contractor shall develop Terms of Reference for the data collection firms, with technical support from MCC and the MCC. The independent Contractor is responsible for managing the contracting process, including Request for Proposals, Proposal Review, selection of the data collection firm, development of a work plan, and supervision of the data collection firm in line with the work plan and agreed deliverables. (Task 4)

C.4.15. Supervise data collection. The independent Contractor is responsible for quality control over data collection activities, including HDM-4 data collection, interviewer training, pre-testing, and implementing data quality

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 12 of 77 review checks during data collection. (Task 4)

C.4.16. Lead data cleaning, analysis, interpretation of results. The independent Contractor is responsible for leading any necessary data cleaning and consultation with the data collection firm to produce final analysis files. The independent Contractor is responsible for leading all analysis in line with the agreed analysis plan developed with MCC, and consulting with MCC should the analysis plan need to be revised or adapted. (Task 5)

C.4.17. Produce evaluation reports. The independent Contractor is responsible for sharing initial evaluation reports with local stakeholders and MCC for review and feedback. However, given the independent Contractor is the author of the evaluation reports, local stakeholder and MCC feedback may or may not be taken into consideration for the final report. The independent Contractor is responsible for documenting all feedback and Contractor responses. (Tasks 5)

C.4.17.1. Through this review process, the independent Contractor’s role is to assert independence in order to produce a high quality, unbiased evaluation of the program. The independent Contractor should ensure that various stakeholders understand that while MCC, MCA, and other stakeholders may provide guidance and leadership on evaluation questions and feasibility of methodology, once an approved evaluation design is in place, feedback on analysis and interpretation of results is limited to statements on the continued technical and factual accuracy of the analysis.

C.4.18. Lead public dissemination efforts. The Contractor is responsible for leading any public dissemination efforts facilitated by MCA and MCC (such as local workshops and conferences), but also additional conferences or other opportunities to publicly disseminate the results of the research. The Contractor shall advise MCC on any public dissemination opportunities and collaborate as appropriate. As per Section H, the Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all public release documentation is reviewed to minimize any risk to respondent confidentiality. This may require submission of internal use only and public release reports. (Task 6)

Core Contractor TASKS In order to execute the design and implementation of the evaluation, the Contractor is responsible for the following tasks:

Phase I

C.5.1. Task 1: Prepare for Field Work and Assess Evaluation Plan

C.5.1.1. The Contractor shall begin the planning and logistics required to complete the assignment including the mobilization of all equipment and personnel.

C.5.1.2. The Contractor shall provide an updated Work Plan to complete the assignment within the contractual period of performance. The Work Plan will include expected deadlines for deliverables. Any revisions to the Work Plan will be submitted to MCC for approval.

C.5.1.3. The Contractor shall discuss their methodology for addressing each Research Area and provide any additional modifications to the accepted methodology and key personnel from the initial country specific procurement in the Evaluation Assessment Report.

C.5.1.3.1. Note that the updated methodology, key personnel and Work Plan will become part of the contract once accepted by MCC.

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 13 of 77

C.5.1.4. Review of ERR models and existing data necessary for each of the research areas and use this analysis to inform their discussion of methodology, including but not limited to:

C.5.1.4.1. The Contractor shall review project files pertaining to road investments in Senegal.

These will be provided by MCC as available. Project files consist of the following:

signed contracts for the work, all amendments/variation orders, the as-built drawings including geotechnical reports and results. The Contractor will also be provided with any previously collected IRI, deflection, traffic data collected at the end of the work by MCA/MCC or its representative. The Contractor shall notify MCC of any omissions or problems in a timely manner in order for MCC to assist the Contractor in completing this review.

C.5.1.4.2. The Contractor shall thoroughly review the before-project Economic Rate of Return models used and assumptions including the appropriate documentation and justification of the data inputs that served to establish the project baseline ERR. The Contractor shall provide recommendations/observations to MCC on any suggested corrections/adjustments/ modifications that may be required. Summarized guidelines provided herein will be peer-reviewed and integrated in the future practices of MCC.

C.5.1.5. MCC will provide the Contractor with all available final costs including the Design and Supervision Costs, Variation Orders and Claims Costs, Resettlement Costs, Environmental and Social costs not included in Design and Construction Costs, receiving country contributions, Project Management and Technical Support Costs. The estimated Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) costs shall be updated by the contractor.

C.5.1.6. The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive review of political analysis literature on maintenance regimes to inform the discussion of what methodology they recommend to address Research Area 2.

C.5.1.7. The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive review of the studies that have used vehicle intercept surveys and what type of questions have been answered using this methodology.

C.5.1.8. The Contractor shall provide a comprehensive review of literature on transportation market structure.

C.5.1.9. The Contractor shall review both the availability and quality of all data pertaining to roads that have been rehabilitated under MCC’s compacts in the relevant country.

C.5.1.10. The methodology discussion shall include but is not limited to:

C.5.1.10.1. The Political Economist4 should propose a methodology to assess MCC's impact on the maintenance regime as well as future prospects (sustainability) of MCC’s investments in road maintenance. The approach should be rigorous and consider recent methodologies in order to address a variety of questions identified in close cooperation with MCC.

C.5.1.10.2. The Contractor shall propose political economy questions and a methodology to

4 While this political economy analysis of road maintenance should not be seen as an endorsement for any one approach or methodology, Ramalignam (2011) , Booth and Golooba-Mutebi (2009) , Fritz, Levy and Ort (2014) , Wales and Wild (2012) , Ramalingam, Laric, and Primrose (2014) , Duncan and Williams (2010) , Pettit (2013) , and Haider and Rao (2010) provide a discussion of some of these analyses that are employed by and for other donors).

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 14 of 77 address them, as part of a rigorous analysis of institutional outcomes in the sector.

These should be selected in close consultations with MCC.

C.5.1.10.3. The Contractor shall also develop a methodology for determining road maintenance needs based on the actual constructed pavement to establish a realistic case and compare this to the actual case, to be approved by MCC. The methodology should be based on a justified and documented analytical engineering approach. The Contractor shall review each country’s road maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) files for each road to understand how much money has been spent and is planned on being spent on routine and periodic maintenance per road financed by MCC funds. The Contractor shall determine if the maintenance performed to date is appropriate and identify any potential areas of concern.

C.5.1.11. The Contractor shall provide a consolidated Evaluation Assessment Report that summarizes the existing data, Program Logic, Risks & Assumptions, ERR models, Proposed Research Questions, Methodology, Metrics, and field data requirements related to the task of assessing the cost-effectiveness of road maintenance activities.

C.5.2. Task 2: Develop Evaluation Design Report

C.5.2.1. The Contractor shall conduct missions to the field as needed to discuss program design and implementation issues to inform the evaluation design, as well as engage local stakeholders (MCA and Implementing Entities, as well as local government) on the proposed evaluation.

This includes hosting local stakeholder workshops to develop/refine research questions, assess appropriate and feasible quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies, develop evaluation timeline, and build local stakeholder commitment to the evaluation design.

C.5.2.2. The Contractor shall develop the Evaluation Design Report, including all technical analysis required for assessing and confirming internal validity, power calculations, and required sample sizes. The Evaluation Design Report outline will be developed in consultation with the MCC M&E lead. Please reference Annex III Evaluation Design Report Outline as a reference.

C.5.2.3. As per MCC’s Gender Policy and Gender Integration Guidelines, the Contractor shall ensure that evaluation design, data collection requirements, and analysis address gender and other social differences as appropriate. This involves including research questions that address social and gender dimensions of the project logic, assumptions, and project design; disaggregating impacts by gender, age, income, and other social difference (e.g. ethnicity) as appropriate;

including special modules or studies as needed.

C.5.2.4. The Contractor shall document feedback from local stakeholders and the response to that feedback. In order to obtain feedback, the Contractor shall lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of the Design Report by MCA and Implementing Entities.

C.5.2.4.1. In accordance with Section H, the Contractor is responsible for allowing any key local stakeholders the opportunity to submit a public Statement of Difference or Support, as agreed with MCC and the MCA/designated representative.

C.5.2.5. The Contractor shall submit the Evaluation Design Report to MCC and may be asked to present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Contractor.

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 15 of 77

C.5.2.5.1. As per Section H, MCC may: (i) select to obtain external peer review; and (ii) make the Report and peer reviews public on the MCC website.

C.5.2.6. The Contractor shall continue to maintain the Evaluation Design Report as the evaluation develops. The Evaluation Design Report will remain a living document that is updated by the Contractor as necessary and resubmitted to MCC as necessary.

C.5.2.7. In developing the Evaluation Design Report, the Contractor shall do the following:

C.5.2.7.1. The Contractor shall determine the appropriate sources of in-country data to establish current values for economic parameters in HDM-4 pertaining to vehicle fleets that are relevant to the modeling exercise.

C.5.2.7.2. The Contractor shall perform a level 1 HDM-4 calibration specific to the country context for the modeling of roads in the select country. The calibration procedure including all documentation, references and sources in documented format shall be provided to MCC for review and approval before use in running the economic model.

C.5.2.7.3. The Contractor shall review all road maintenance and technical assistance documents provided by the country with the objective of analyzing and understanding how supplemental road maintenance activities (institutional reform, policy reform, etc.) was planned, carried out and completed during the Compact, and following the completion of works.

C.5.2.7.4. The Contractor shall review all documents on the institutional structure of the roads sector in the selected country provided by country with the objective of analyzing the transportation market structure and the regulatory environment that governs the transportation market in country.

C.5.2.7.5. The Contractor shall identify how the expanded vehicle intercept survey will be designed and implemented.

C.5.2.8. Alongside the elaboration of the Evaluation Design Report, the Contractor shall also finalize the budget for the Phase II work, documenting and justifying any changes from the Contractor’s original budget, which, upon negotiation and approval by MCC, will be incorporated into the contract.

C.5.2.9. At the conclusion of Task 2, the Contractor shall provide the Evaluation Design Report to MCC as described in Section G below. The Contractor shall not proceed to Task 3 until the Evaluation Management Committee approves the Evaluation Design Report.

Phase II

C.5.3. Task 3: Develop Evaluation Materials

C.5.3.1. Upon MCC’s formal approval of the Evaluation Design Report, MCC will provide the Contractor with a technical directive to proceed with Task 3. The Contractor shall not proceed with future tasks until said technical directive is receive from MCC.

C.5.3.2. Upon receipt of the technical directive to continue, the Contractor shall proceed according the

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 16 of 77 approved work plan to prepare all materials necessary to collect all data required for the modeling of the selected country roads using HDM-4. These data include: International Roughness Index (IRI), Deflection, Traffic, Geometry, and the Adjusted Structural Numbers, Surface Distress (Cracking, Rutting, Potholing, etc.), AADT including O-D surveys, expanded vehicle intercept surveys, and Qualitative Data. For the collection of field data, the Contractor shall take all appropriate safety precautions, including the use of crash trucks, signage, signal trucks, cones and flaggers as identified in the contractor’s approved methodology.

C.5.3.3. The Contractor shall develop all data collection protocols and instruments in accordance with the standards outlined in Annex IV.

C.5.3.4. The Contractor shall submit all documentation requested by MCC in Annex IV to verify that data collection is proceeding according to the quality standards outlined by MCC.

C.5.3.5. The Contractor shall develop all data collection firm TORs and submit them to MCC for approval.

C.5.3.6. The Contractor shall lead development of any necessary survey instruments for data extraction from existing sources or data collection for new sources.

C.5.3.7. The Contractor shall develop survey materials in English and French. When necessary, the Contractor shall utilize existing instruments to improve coordination across MCC independent evaluations for meta-analysis. The Contractor is responsible for any necessary pilot testing of survey instruments and review of back-translations conducted by data collection firms prior to data collection start.

C.5.3.8. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that any surveys last no longer than necessary and last a maximum of 120 minutes without written consent from the Evaluation Management Committee. The Contractor is responsible for reporting on the average survey time resulting from the pilot test and from field work.

C.5.3.9. The Contractor shall document feedback from local stakeholders and response to the feedback.

In order to obtain feedback, the Contractor shall lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of the Evaluation Materials by MCA and Implementing Entities.

C.5.3.10. The Contractor shall submit the Evaluation Materials to MCC and may be asked to present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Contractor.

C.5.3.11. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of the English, French, and local language survey instruments.

C.5.3.12. If updating to Evaluation Materials is required during the study period (such as in between traffic counts or Origin-Destination surveys), the Contractor shall submit those changes for approval by MCC.

C.5.4. Task 4: Prepare and Supervise data collection

C.5.4.1. The Contractor shall collect all data listed in Annex 4 and approved by MCC in the Evaluation Design Report to address all the Research Areas.

MCC-15-RFQ-0025 Page 17 of 77

C.5.4.2. The Evaluator is responsible for developing and overseeing all data collection and entry protocols and implementation. This requires ensuring appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval of research protocols, survey instruments, and informed consent procedures (please reference the Annex VII MCC Informed Consent Statement Template).

C.5.4.2.1. In accordance with Section H, the Contractor should assess the local IRB requirements and determine whether or not additional, international-level IRB approval is required in order to ensure adherence to international standards.

C.5.4.3. For each data input, the Contractor shall provide a comparison with the pre-project data point (if available) with possible suggestions for any differences. If major differences occurred, the Contractor shall provide recommendations to MCC on how to improve data collection practices in the future to improve the accuracy of the cost-benefit modeling and to maximize the impact of its investments. The pre and post data points should be shown in the itinerary diagrams.

C.5.4.4. The Evaluator is responsible for overseeing the training of data collection staff, field work, and data entry. This must be managed in coordination with MCC and MCA.

C.5.4.5. The Contractor shall collect (or assemble, if data are already available) aerial imagery of each road and overlay the collected data (IRI, traffic, deflection, O-D, Adjusted Structural Number and any road condition evaluation data uncovered.) The purpose is to convey in a high level format the essential elements driving the ERR, both positively and negatively.

C.5.4.6. For road maintenance, the Contractor shall provide a separate page showing the detailed structural analysis and calculation for remaining structural life and the traffic information including all assumptions. For the political economy analysis of road maintenance, survey and other raw data should also be provided to MCC as it pertains to the social network analyses, systems dynamics or other methodology used to assess the sector.

C.5.4.7. The Evaluator is responsible for conducting and documenting quality control checks of data as it is collected and entered in order to reduce data collection and entry error.

C.5.4.8. The Evaluator is responsible for establishing a system for frequent communication with the data collection firm throughout data collection and entry, through email, phone, and site visits.

C.5.4.9. At the end of each data collection round (i.e. each round of traffic counts or set of data collection efforts), the Contractor shall submit to MCC a Data Collection Report summarizing, at a minimum, the implementation of the data collection effort, any challenges encountered (and mitigation measures takes), quality control checks put in place, and a summary of the key results from the data collection. In the offeror’s proposal, each anticipated data collection effort should be clearly specified, with a separate price for each data collection effort. Payment for each round of data collection will be made upon approval of the corresponding Data Collection Report.