MCC-15-RFQ-0148_Amendment_0001.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 6

08/10/2015

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St, NW Suite 200 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

To all Offerors/Bidders

MCC-15-RFQ-0148

07-15-2015

X

X X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 08/31/2015 @ 1:00 PM EST.

In accordance with the information provided in block #11 above, the purpose for this amendment to solicitation # MCC-15-RFQ-0148 is to:

a) Provide the questions and answers submitted to MCC.

b) Extend the due date of offers for this solicitation from 08/18/2015 to 08/31/2015 at 1:00 PM EST.

c) See "Continuation Page" at top of page two of this amendment for all questions and respective answers.

MCC-15-RFQ-0148 Amendment 0001 Page 2 of 6

CONTINUATION PAGE

The following are questions submitted in accordance with the date and time of the original solicitation.

1. Section L.10.3 on page 41 and Section F.3 on page 19 mentions that the estimated total days in country for the Contractor is 90 and that the estimated total number of trips is 2. In section C on page 5, it is stated that MCC estimates a total cost of $28,960 for travel-related expenses over the course of the two trips. We have several questions on these travel requirements:

a. Does this recommendation allow for only one expert to be in the country for the total estimated days? Or can there be a mix of experts who will cumulatively be in the country for 90 days? More than one team member may travel if that is necessary per the agreed evaluation design.

b. Can the 90 days be split across more than two trips if that is in line with the evaluation plan? Yes.

c. Should 90 days be considered a rough estimate that may be adjusted based on the evaluation plan or the maximum number of days in country? The 90 days are currently a maximum based on the government’s best estimate if effort. However, the offeror should indicate their proposed level of effort required to complete the tasks described. Ultimately, the number of travel days will be dependent on the agreed work plan based on the agreed evaluation design.

d. It is our understanding that the 90 days for travel only relate to Phase 2 and do not include the evaluability assessment. Are we correct? No, travel is allowed in Phase 1.

e. Does the amount of $28,960 include the contracting organization’s indirect costs? Yes, the statement at section C.2.5. applies to total costs. See Answer 1.c., above.

2. Annex 8 on page 67 and Annex 9 on Page 69 present formats for the Independent Evaluation Final Report and Evaluator Progress Report, respectively. However, the RFQ does not include a template for the proposal.

Based on this it is our understanding that applicants are free to choose their own structure for the technical proposal as long as the technical proposal meets the criteria in Section L. Are we correct? If not, are we required to adhere to the order in section C or section L? Offerors may choose the structure for their technical proposal.

3. In Section L on page 41, the RFQ mentions that the estimated total level of effort is 920 hours. We have two questions on the estimated total level of effort:

a. Page 4 (B.3) & page 11 (Task C 5.1) state that this will be an incrementally funded contract with Phase 1 fully funded. It is thus our understanding that the level of effort is for Phase 1 only. Can MCC please confirm that the level of effort of 920 hours is for Phase 1 only? Or does this level of effort include Phase 2 as well? This level of effort is estimated for the entire evaluation.

b. Do the 920 hours only include key personnel or are non-key personnel included in the 920 hours? This figure was developed based on key personnel. While offerors may offer other key personnel or support positions, this figure reflects MCC’s estimate for the level of effort required to complete the required tasks.

4. Section C.5.5.1 on page 13 mentions that “this ex-post evaluation will rely heavily on (i) existing data, and/or low-cost data collection, such as mini-surveys or focus groups that can be managed directly by the evaluator.”

It is our understanding that the evaluator may also propose to work with local data collection firms. We have several questions on this

a. Is it correct that the evaluator can also work with local data collection firms? That is correct if additional data collection is deemed necessary per the approved evaluation design.

MCC-15-RFQ-0148 Amendment 0001 Page 3 of 6

b. If yes, does MCC recommend specific processes for selecting the local data collection firm? No. This is at the discretion of the offeror.

c. If yes, could MCC please elaborate on these processes?

5. Section C.2.6.8.8.4 mentions several existing data sources:

a. Can MCC please confirm that all these data sources will be made available to the evaluator following the signing of the contract? That is correct, though the winning offeror will have to sign a data use agreement to obtain datasets that include identifiers. If yes, would there be information to follow-up with the respondents? The household surveys include such identifiers; the other sources do not include identifiers for individuals but do include them for the health centers.

b. Can MCC please present the sample sizes for these data sources including information on whether the respondents benefited from specific elements of MCC-supported activities? Not at this time.

6. All of the following data sources focused specifically on patients and staff benefiting from the improvements in infrastructure.

a. Continuous Multipurpose Survey (CMS) This survey was mentioned in the RFQ for the sake of completeness but it was not representative of the project areas, so was replaced with the Impact Evaluation Multipurpose Survey. Details can be discussed further with the winning offeror.

b. IEMS The IEMS baseline covered approximately 1,300 households from 115 villages for Health Center sample, and approximately 400 households in 34 Enumeration Areas for OPDs the OPD sample.

c. ART Patient Cohort Study Includes aggregate records from 62 health centers in Lesotho.

d. Outpatient Monthly Summary Report Data

Includes aggregate records from 51 health centers in Lesotho. Data consists solely of the number of adult and child patients of each sex who visited the clinic between February and July of 2010.

e. Exit Survey

A survey of approximately 1,500 patients undergoing treatment at 68 health centers in Lesotho.

f. Staff Satisfaction Survey

A survey of approximately 200 staff at 66 health centers in Lesotho.

g. Health Facility Survey

131 Health Centers and 14 Out Patient Departments. Staff interviews targeted the most senior staff person at the facility. The target sample size for patients was two adult women (aged 18 years or over); two adult men (aged 18 years or over); two care givers who are bringing dependents for care, i.e., children younger than 18 years, old aged (over 65 years of age) or disabled people.

7. Do the health center and outpatient department patient data from exit surveys to the baseline survey and ART

Patient Cohort Survey include unique patient identifiers with which it would be feasible to merge the data?

These datasets do not include individual identifiers but they do include identifiers for the Health Centers.

8. Section C.2.6.8.8 discusses the original independent evaluation.

MCC-15-RFQ-0148 Amendment 0001 Page 4 of 6

a. Could MCC share any outputs (such as evaluation reports and survey instruments) with potential applicants? The original evaluation design report and survey instruments have been provided. Here is the link: https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/163 . Be sure to look at the attachments at the bottom of the page as well.

f

9. Section C.2.6.8.8.3 discusses “Construction delays that rendered the HC impact evaluation infeasible.”

a. Could MCC please elaborate on the nature of these construction delays and the roll-out of the HCs over time and across regions? Delays resulted from a number of factors including the structure of contracts, i.e., design and build, with which contractors and the construction supervisor were unfamiliar leading to confusion about the contract requirements; sites being spread across large geographic areas, which increased the time and costs for construction; low contractor technical and financial capacity to handle the relatively large work packages causing design, site and other management problems as well as cash flow issues which resulted in implementation delays. More details on the specific rollout over time and across regions will be provided to the awardee.

10. Section C.2.6.3 on page 5 mentions that the HC Activity renovated, rehabilitated, furnished, and equipped

138 of the country’s 188 health centers.

a. Can MCC please elaborate on the characteristics of the 138 health centers that benefitted from MCC support and the 50 health centers that did not? How did they differ from each other? Details to be provided to the awardee.

11. Page 51 present the questions for the evaluability assessment.

a. Would MCC consider accepting slight revisions of the evaluability assessment based on the ideas about evaluability assessments of the applicant? The awardee may propose changes for MCC’s consideration.

12. Section L.9.8.11 on page 40 suggests the addition of a staffing plan.

a. Can this staffing plan be added as an Appendix? Yes.

13. Section L.9.9 on page 40 suggests the inclusion of 3 descriptions of current or past projects.

a. Can these descriptions be added as an Appendix? Yes.

14. Section L.9.8.9 on page 40 suggests the inclusion of an illustrative work plan.

a. Can this work plan be added as an Appendix? Yes.

15. Section C.5.1 on page 11 suggests “this will be an incrementally funded contract. Phase 1 Tasks (Evaluability Assessment and Evaluation Design Report) will be fully funded, with Phase 2 tasks (Evaluation Material/Data Collection and Final Report/Dissemination) dependent on approval of the Evaluation Design Report and associated budget.”

a. Does MCC require the applicants to submit a full budget for Phase 1 and 2 at this stage or is it sufficient to submit a budget for Phase 1 only at this moment? Offerors should submit a budget that covers Phase 1 and 2 of the evaluation.

b. If yes, it is our understanding that we only have to submit a budget for Phase 1 and that Phase 1 and Phase 2 refer to the Base Period and Option Period I, respectively. Is our understanding correct? Not quite. The proposal should be for the full performance of the contract. Once an award is made, phase I will be fully funded. Upon completion of phase I and acceptance by MCC phase II will then be fully funded and the contractor will be able to progress with that requirement.

c. It is our understanding that MCC requires a full technical proposal for the evaluability assessment and the evaluation. Is our understanding correct? The technical proposal must address all four tasks described in the RFQ.

https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/163

MCC-15-RFQ-0148 Amendment 0001 Page 5 of 6

16. Based on F.6 - period of performance, (on page 21) and L.10. - Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation

(on page 38) it is our understanding that we only have to submit a budget for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and that Phase 1 and Phase 2 refer to the Base Period and Option Period I, respectively.

a. Is our understanding correct? See below.

b. If yes, it is our understanding that we have to submit a budget for Base Period and Option Period I and not for Option Period II, Option Period III, Option IV, and Option Period V. Are we correct? Please disregard the reference to “Option Periods”; budgets should be presented by Phase and task.

Technical Quotation

1. Can the past performance chart (L.9.9, page 40) be submitted as an appendix, or will it count toward the 20 page limit for the Technical Quotation?

Past Performance can be submitted as an appendix. Does NOT count towards the 20 page limit.

2. Project Evaluability Assessment (PEA) can be an iterative process. We wonder whether a PEA (Project

Evaluability Assessment) was already done at an earlier stage of the Compact development, on the whole project or individual activities within the project. If so, are these documents publicly available? An Evaluability Assessment has not been conducted for this project.

3. The RFP mentions several surveys and sets of administrative data collected at different times, but it is unclear whether any of these surveys can be assumed to be baseline data, i.e. collected before the project interventions.

It would be helpful to know the timeline of completion of each component of the Project, to get a better sense of what needs to be collected again. Is this information available, or should we assume it will be determined during Phase I? Details on project implementation will be provided to the awardee.

4. Are the survey instruments from previous studies (Impact evaluation multipurpose survey; exit survey; staff satisfaction; ART patient cohort; health facility survey) available, and could we review copies? This would help us to assess what questions they cover and what gaps remain. Survey instruments have been provided.

5. What were the selection criteria for the treatment and control group in the original independent evaluation?

Was the control group selected from the MCC target population area or from the general population? The original evaluation design was a randomized rollout, where the control health centers were to receive the intervention 12-18 months after matched treatment health centers. Health Centers were stratified by eco-region (lowlands, foothills, river valley, and mountains) and infrastructure need (extreme, high, non-priority).

Within each stratum, excluding those of extreme-need, Health Centers were randomly assigned to treatment and control. Additionally, matching was conducted to enhance the comparison between treatments and control Health Centers.

6. What are the specific requirements for Lesotho IRB approval and will there be separate approval processes required for each phase? An IRB is only required if primary data collection is approved for Phase 2. Possible IRBs may be discussed at that time and costs are expected to be included in the $75,000 plug number provided.

If an IRB is necessary, MCC does not specify a particular IRB for its evaluators.

7. Please provide more specifics about ‘local stakeholders’ mentioned in C.5.6.4. (Names, location). Local stakeholders include staff at the Lesotho Millennium Development Agency, former Millennium Challenge

MCC-15-RFQ-0148 Amendment 0001 Page 6 of 6

Account staff, representatives at the Ministry of Health, and other entities that received support under the Lesotho Health Project. Specific points of contact will be shared with the awardee.

8. For previously collected data from the original evaluation, with the exception of the administrate data, what were the time points for data collection (monthly, bi-annually etc.)? The data were all collected at one point in time.

9. Is the MCC amenable to a quasi-experimental evaluation if that is the most rigorous type of evaluation possible within the current operating environment? MCC does not have pre-conceived ideas about the appropriate methodology for this evaluation.

10. Are any of the program administrators who were responsible for the various components of the Lesotho Health

Project implementation available to participate in qualitative interviews? If so, how many? Yes, specific points of contact will be provided to the winning offeror.

Cost Quotation

1. The MCC Business Forecast lists the anticipated dollar value range for this procurement as $0-$150,000. Is

$150,000 the recommended budget ceiling? If so, does that include the $75,000 plug figure for Data Collection Costs? The “Forecast” is basically a notice of what may occur in the future. These are “estimated” figures that do not reflect the $75,000 plug figure. However, offerors should provide cost proposals that reflect their true estimated costs based on the Statement of Work and their technical expertise.

2. Is the $75,000 plug figure for Data Collection Costs for data collection only, or are costs related to data analysis activities be included in that figure as well? The $75,000 only includes data collection costs; costs associated with analysis are captured in the 920 hour estimate for level of effort.

3. Does MCC have a preferred budget template or budget format, such as a detailed budget breakdown by activity or phase? Yes, please show all details associated with each task.

4. Should a budget justification or budget notes be included with the Cost Quotation? Yes.

END