MCC-15-RFQ-0187_0007_Q_ _A.pdf

5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF 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).

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)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

ACHECK

ONE

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

0007 SEE BLOCK 16

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-3553

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-3553 Ray Staniewski, Contract Specialist (KTR) (202) 521-3656

To all Offerors/Bidders

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.10A MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO

MCC-15-RFQ-0187

07-30-2015 X

X X

____1

, p p g p ** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 1:00 PM, EST, June 17, 2016. p

___________ co

The purpose for this Amendment to this solicitation is to:

a) Extend the response due date from 1:00 PM, EST, June 7, 2016 to 1:00 PM, EST, June 17, 2016.

b) Provide the questions received and the MCC answers.

No other changes, additions or deletions are made by this amendment.

JACQUELINE H. NARANJO

Contracting Officer

6/3/2016Digitally signed by Jacqueline H. Naranjo DN: cn=Jacqueline H. Naranjo, o=Millennium Challenge Corporation, ou=Administration & Finance, email=naranjoj@mcc.gov, c=US Date: 2016.06.03 14:00:31 -04'00'

CONTINUATION PAGE

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 0007 Page 2 of 6

The following questions were received for this solicitation. MCC’s responses are also provided herein.

1. Item 8 on the cover page of the revised RFP states that the offer due date is 1:00pm EST August 31, 2015.

Please confirm that the correct due date is 1:00pm EST June 7, 2016 as stated in Amendment 6.

This Amendment is extending the current “Due Date” for all responses from 1:00 PM Eastern Time, June 7, 2016 to a new “Due Date” of 1:00 PM Eastern Time, June 17, 2016. Therefore, the date in Item 8 of the SF 1449 should read “06/17/16 at 1:00 PM ET.”

2. Section C.6 states that MCC may be interested in an evaluation of prices of goods and/or wages.

a) Should bidders cost this aspect of the proposal?

Yes. Bidders should cost out a preliminary assessment as part of the proposal. This assessment should help to determine whether MCC will exercise the option for a more rigorous design to answer the question.

b) Similarly, is this work included in the LOE estimates provided, or would that be amended based on MCC’s determination of whether to move forward with this component?

The LOE estimate provided includes the preliminary assessment. However, it does not include the LOE that would be needed if MCC chooses to exercise the option of the more rigorous evaluation to answer this question.

Given that this question is difficult to answer under the best of evaluation designs, MCC reserves the right to exercise the option of pursuing a larger survey until after the preliminary assessment has been conducted. Therefore, Section C.6 is amended to add the following sub-section:

C.6.2. A preliminary assessment of this research question must be conducted by the Contractor as part of the basic requirements of the contract. The implementation, however, will be treated as an optional task (CLIN 3001) which will be exercised at MCC’s discretion based on the findings of the preliminary assessment.

Offerors shall include, as part of their Technical Quotation, a plan for a preliminary assessment of this question. If MCC determines that there is enough evidence to pursue a larger study, then CLIN 3001 will be exercised. If CLIN 3001 is exercised, MCC anticipates that data collection would be similar in LOE to what was conducted in the Baseline study for this activity (https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/54). Offerors shall price out Option CLIN 3001 accordingly in their Cost Quotation for Ghana.

3. Section C.9 refers to a variety of documentation and project files which should be included as part of this contract. Does MCC have an estimate of the quantity and availability of these materials and files (including pre-project data points, previous studies conducted, network condition assessments, and monitoring data)?

MCC will provide the relevant project documentation for the evaluations. See Question 13.

4. We have noted that road safety data is not called for in the research areas in Section C. Is road safety an area that MCC is interested in for this evaluation?

MCC recently started contracting iRAP ratings of completed roads at completion of the road project. This is not currently planned for roads MCC improved in the past.

5. The headers of Sections C.9-C.11 use the term “Core Contractor” but only refer to the contractor. Does MCC differentiate between a “Core Contractor” and “Non-Core Contractor”?

The word “core” in the headings in Sections C.9 – C.11 refers to the Core Tasks, Core Reporting and Core Deliverables, respectively. It is not a differentiation of types of contractors.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 0007 Page 3 of 6

6. Does MCC have a breakdown of the expected LOE (Section F.4.1) by team member? Can offerors propose different levels of effort, based on team composition?

MCC does not have a breakdown of expected LOE by team member. Offerors may propose different levels of effort based on the proposed team composition, insofar as the LOE is consistent with the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.

7. L.3. states that offers are to be submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF. L.6.6 states that the quotation format is Microsoft Word and Excel. Would MCC please confirm if the cost quotation is to be submitted in PDF with accompanying budget tables in MS Excel?

See Question 31.

8. L.7.1 of the revised RFP states that the Technical Quotation is limited to 20 pages. However, a previous Q&A (Amendment 003, released August 31, 2015) stated that the limit for the Technical Quotation is 30 pages.

Please confirm that the limit page limit for the Technical Quotation is still 30 pages.

Given the reduced scope of the revised solicitation, the page limit for the Technical Quotation has been reduced to 20 pages.

9. Please confirm that the page limitation referred to in Question 8 above applies to each of the two country proposals, and is not the total combined page limit for both proposals.

The page limit is 20 pages per country. Offerors may bid on Ghana only, Tanzania only or both Ghana and Tanzania.

10. Is MCC expecting or requiring the use of a data collection firm (Note 2, Section L.9.1)?

It is up to the discretion of the firm whether they wish to subcontract any or all data collection tasks or collect the data with their own staff and expertise. Proposals will be assessed based on the same quality and total cost factors whether subcontracted or not.

11. Given the response to the previous version of the solicitation, and the relatively minor changes made to this version, could MCC please clarify whether there was any aspect of offerors’ responses which was missing or particularly misaligned to MCC’s needs; in an effort to ensure more responsive proposals during this round of responses?

In the original version of this solicitation, MCC requested that firms conduct both a roads analysis and a political economy analysis of the road maintenance regime. It was determined that no offeror could adequately cover both analyses. Therefore, the political economy analysis was removed in Amendment 0006.

12. How do you anticipate that MCC’s decision to suspend its partnership with Tanzania will impact the Tanzania contract?

MCC does not anticipate any adverse impact on this contract as a result of the suspension of Tanzania’s second compact.

13. To what extent will materials and contacts be available from the now-closed Tanzania Compact?

MCC will provide access to all relevant project documentation. In addition, there is a post-Compact M&E point of contact at the Ministry of Finance who will facilitate access to counterparts within the mainland and Zanzibar road authorities.

14. Is MCC able to provide an expected award date for this work?

MCC expects to award this requirement by/before the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2016).

15. Is there an overarching budget ceiling or estimated price range for these activities?

MCC expects Offerors to be able to estimate reasonable costs based on the stated requirements.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 0007 Page 4 of 6

16. Task 3.2 (Annex 4, p. 68) requires data collection with the GoT. To what extent will MCC facilitate contacts with GoT officials?

See Question 13.

17. Could MCC clarify the intent behind the revision to C.6.1?

Improved road conditions are expected to reduce traveler time and vehicle operating costs as estimated with HDM-4 models. Theory suggests two other effects of improved roads: 1) With competitive transport markets, the prices paid for transport services should decline; and 2) with reduced transport prices, the price-dispersion of goods shipped over the improved roads should decline (i.e., prices and wages in sending and receiving markets should converge.) MCC is seeking proposals that would test for these two effects.

18. What activities does MCC anticipate taking place in the base year vs. the option years?

MCC anticipates that the evaluation can be completed in 18 months. The expected LOE for the base year and first option year reflect this expectation. The small amount of LOE for the second option year is to cover final revisions, clearances and data anonymization.

19. Please confirm that bidders only need to budget for the base year.

Offerors must budget for the entire contract period (base and option years) in the format prescribed at Section L.9.

20. I understand that the Tanzania/Ghana tender has not been awarded yet. Does your email address just the original bidders or is open to all?

This amendment is posted on FedBizOpps and is therefore open to all interested parties.

21. In order for Offerors to more easily comply with MCC's preference for the Technical Quotation to be submitted in a single file (L.5, p55), please confirm that Offerors may submit their technical quotations in Adobe PDF format.

Line L.6.6. on page 56 of the amended solicitation should read “In Microsoft Word, Excel or PDF format.”

See Question 31 for further details on quotation format.

22. Please confirm that Key Personnel include only the Team Leader, Road Maintenance Expert and Transport Economist.

The Key Personnel are the Team Leader, Transport Economist and Road Maintenance Expert. However, a single individual may satisfy the requirements for more than one key personnel, provided they have the needed skill and experience as well as sufficient time budgeted.

23. Section L.8.6 (page 56) states "Quotations shall include CVs of each proposed expert..." (emphasis added).

Section L.8.8. refers to CVs in a clause that concerns Key Personnel. Please confirm that Offerors should submit CVs only for Key Personnel.

Offerors must submit CVs of Key Personnel and may submit CVs of other relevant technical experts proposed for the team.

24. Annex 4: Data Collection Quality Protocols, Research Area 1: ERR and HDM4, (p66) states "Deflection measurements shall be taken by the FWD for all bitumen surfaced roads and by the Benkelman Beam (BB) for Gravel Roads." Please confirm that Offerors can propose alternative testing protocols for the gravel roads, as long as the information provided meets that which could be obtained from the Benkelman Beam.

The offeror may propose alternate testing protocol, but these should be documented to MCC’s satisfaction and will be assessed as part of the technical validity of the proposal.

25. C.3.2.2. (pg.7) Zanzibar Rural Roads: Upgrading of up to 35 kilometers of rural roads on Pemba Island. Please

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 0007 Page 5 of 6 confirm that the 35km of rural roads are gravel roads.

The roads on Pemba Island are bitumen.

26. The questions and answers from the original R.FQ included the following statement: Annex 8 Section B: "IRI equipment was procured for use on Pemba Island but is currently not on the island." Please clarify whether the IRI equipment has arrived on Pemba.

The evaluators should plan to provide the equipment as needed.

27. Section L.7.1 (pg. 56 of the revised solicitation) states that the page limit for the technical quotation is 20 pages. Amendment 3 to the original solicitation (Question 12) raised the technical page limit to 30 pages. Please confirm the correct page limit for the technical quotation is 30 pages.

See Question 8.

28. Please confirm that Offerors may include an executive summary that will not count against the page limit for the technical quotation.

The executive summary, if included, will count against the page limit for the Technical Quotation.

29. With regard to the job descriptions that are referenced in Section L.9.l, please confirm that:

a. Job Descriptions should be submitted for Key Personnel only.

Job descriptions must be submitted for all proposed labor categories.

b. Job Descriptions should be submitted in a technical annex that will not count against the page limit for the technical quotation.

The job descriptions may be submitted in an appendix to the Technical Quotation that will not count against the page limit. Job descriptions must also be included in the Cost Quotation.

30. In Section F.4.1., the RFQ provides a table with MCC’s expected Level of Effort. Can MCC confirm that the figures in the table in this section are for each country and not for both countries combined?

Indeed, the LOE estimate is for each country and not for both countries combined.

31. In Section L.3., the RFQ suggest submission of proposals in either Word or PDF formats. In Section L.5., the RFQ states, “Each Offeror’s quotation submitted in response to this solicitation shall be prepared as two (2) electronic files:” and subsequently in L.6.6, the RFQ states with respect to software, “In Microsoft Word and Excel software”. Can bidders presume that MCC would like both Technical and Cost Proposal Volumes submitted in either Word or PDF format as in L.3 and that bidders need not submit separate Excel files for their cost proposals?

The Technical and Cost Volumes may be submitted in either Microsoft Word or PDF format. However, the Cost Quotation (Volume 2) must be supplemented with an Excel spreadsheet reflecting the offeror’s proposed cost breakdown in the format described at Section L.9.

Therefore, Sections L.3 and L.6.6 are hereby revised to clarify that submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, and/or PDF formats, with a requirement to supplement the Cost Quotation with an Excel spreadsheet that provides the offeror’s cost breakdown in the format prescribed by Section L.9.

32. Section L 7.1. is silent on whether MCC would like to see an Executive Summary. Would MCC prefer that bidders prepare an Executive Summary of their proposals and if so, would that Executive Summary count toward the 20 page limit for the Technical Quotation?

Offerors may, at their discretion, include an Executive Summary; if provided, it will count against the 20 page limit.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 0007 Page 6 of 6

33. Section L 8.9. requires submission of three past project references. Typically MCC does not include Past Performance in the page limit for Technical Proposals. For this proposal, can we assume that Past Performance material is in addition to the 20 page limit for the Technical Quotation?

Yes, Past Performance material may be included in an appendix to the Technical Quotation, which will not count toward the 20 page limit.

34. In Section L.9.1, MCC directs that local data collection should be costed as an ODC. If bidders retain local technical consultants for tasks other than data collection, e.g. local professional services, would MCC prefer to see these costs characterized as an ODC or should bidders represent local technical consultants as direct labor with local labor categories?

Offerors are free to propose in the manner they see fit, consistent with their normal accounting practices and their proposed technical approach. Either way (i.e., whether the costs are characterized as ODCs or as direct labor with local labor categories), the Cost Quotation must be explicit about the intended role/purpose of the labor category or ODC, including, if applicable, a note that these services will be performed by local consultants.

35. Is data collection the responsibility of the Contractor?

Yes, data collection is the responsibility of the Contractor.

36. The Brief requires the contractor to prepare the data collection ToR and supervise the data collection but requires at the same time to provide the cost of the data collection itself (see note at Section L.8.8.4.). Could you please provide some clarification regarding this issue? Could you please state what do we need to quote for Data Collection?

A full TOR and quote for data collection is not required for the proposal, but data collection must be costed out, with detailed estimates of the relevant unit costs, as part of the Cost Quotation.

(End of Amendment 0007)