MCC-15-RFQ-0187_-_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 91

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 07-30-2015

RAY STANIEWSKI (202) 521-3656 8/31/15 1:00 PM EST

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

X

N/A

CGM

875 Fifteenth St., NW

Contracts and Grants Management Division 875 15th St., NW, Suite 200

Ray Staniewski, Contract Specialist

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

Post Compact evaluation checking the Engineering and Economic viability of the Ghana I & Tanzania I Roads Projects

One BPA Call Order to be awarded for the Ghana I Roads Project and one BPA Call Order to be awarded for the Tanzania I Roads Project.

X X

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 2 of 91

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1. B.1 Price/Cost Schedule B.2. Accounting and Appropriation Data B.3. Labor Rates B.4. Direct Labor Rates B.5. Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts B.6. Time and Materials No-Year Funding

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. Introduction and Background C.2. Ghana C.3. Tanzania C.4. Scope C.5. Objective C.6. Ghana C.7. Tanzania C.8. Roles and Responsibilities C.9. Core Contractor Tasks C.10. Core Contractor Reporting C.11. Core Contractor Deliverables

PACKAGING AND MARKING

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. Quality Control Plan F.2. Deliverables F.3. Deliverable Instructions F.4. Acceptance Criteria F.5. Period of Performance F.6. Place of Performance F.7. Travel Requirements

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1. MCC 52.201-70 -- Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) And / Or Project Monitor (PM) (JULY 2012) H.2. MCC 52.203-70 -- Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (July 2012) H.3. MCC 52.204-70 – Security Requirements for Contractor Personnel (MAY 2013) H.4. MCC 52.209-70 – Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Implementation Contract (July 2012) H.5. MCC 52.232-70 – Invoice Instructions (MAY 2013) H.6. MCC 52.232-72 -- Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts (Nov 2006) H.7. MCC 52.232-73 -- Travel Reimbursement (May 2013) H.8. MCC 52.232-74 -- ODC Reimbursement (JAN 2007) H.9. MCC 52.242-70 -- Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Registration (AUG 2011) H.10. MCC 52.243-70 -- Increase In Services (OCT 2006) H.11. MCC 52.245-70 – Contractor Acquired MCC Government Property Overseas (JULY 2012) H.12. Key Personnel H.13. Provision on Peer Review and Posting of Reports H.14. Provision on Insurance Maintenance H.15. Disclaimer for Deliverables H.16. Provision on Stakeholder Input for Evaluation Products H.17. Provision on Human Subjects Protection H.18. Personally Identifiable Information and Confidentiality H.19. Provision on Delivered Work Product Free From 3rd Party Rights

CONTRACT CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS

I.1. FAR 52.212-5 -- Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items (May 2015) I.2. FAR 52.214-34 -- Submission of Offers in the English Language (Apr 1991) I.3. FAR 52.214-35 -- Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency (Apr 1991) I.4. FAR 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999) I.5. 52.217-9 -- Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000) I.6. 52.232-18 -- Availability of Funds (Apr 1984) I.7. 52.252-2 -- Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

J.1. Attachment 1: ANNEX 1 – Sample Contractor Progress Report J.2. Attachment 2: ANNEX 2 – Contractor SOW J.3. Attachment 3: ANNEX 3 - Evaluation Design Report - Outline J.4. Attachment 4: ANNEX 4 - Data Collection Quality Protocols J.5. Attachment 5: ANNEX 5 - Final Evaluation Report – Outline

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 3 of 91

J.6. Attachment 6: ANNEX 6 - MCC Data Documentation Requirements J.7. Attachment 7: ANNEX 7 - Informed Consent Template J.8. Attachment 8: ANNEX 8 - Tanzania Transport Sector Project Maintenance Regime Evaluation J.9. Attachment 9: ANNEX 9 - Data Collection Inventory J.10. Attachment 10: Travel Form – DS-4086 J.11. Attachment 11: Travel Form – DS-4086A J.12. Attachment 12: Medical Accommodation Procedures

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

L.1. Conflict of Interest L.2. Inquiries / Questions Concerning the Solicitation L.3. Quotation Due Date L.4. Quotation Response L.5. Quotation Volumes L.6. Quotation Format L.7. Page Limits L.8. Preparation of Volume 1 – Technical Quotation L.9. Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation L.10. Staffing and Required Expertise

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014) M.2. Technical Capability M.3. Past Performance M.4. Price Evaluation

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 4 of 91

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

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

0001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of ____________________ Time & Materials Base Year PoP TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

1001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of ____________________ Time & Materials Option Period I

2001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of ____________________ Time & Materials Option Period II

3001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of ____________________ Time & Materials Option Period III

4001 Post Compact evaluation of the Roads Project for the country of ____________________ Time & Materials Option Period I

GRAND TOTAL _______________

[RESERVED]

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.

[RESERVED]

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 5 of 91

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

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.

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-0187 Page 6 of 91

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

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.

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.

In August 2006, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a 5-year $547 million Compact with the Republic of Ghana aimed at reducing poverty through agribusiness development, specifically by increasing the production of high-value cash and food crops and by enhancing the competitiveness of agricultural products in regional and international markets. The Compact was implemented by Ghana’s Millennium Development Authority (MCA) and closed in February 2012.

The Ghana Compact was concentrated in 30 of Ghana’s 170 districts1 and is comprised of fourteen activities within three projects – Agriculture, Transportation and Rural Development. The Transportation Project was designed to reduce the transportation costs affecting agricultural commerce at sub-regional and regional levels in Ghana. The N1 Highway Activity aimed to reduce the bottleneck in accessing Kotoka International Airport and the Port of Tema by upgrading of 14 kilometers of the N1 Highway, renamed the George W. Bush Motorway, in Accra between the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange and Mallam Junction. This is a 55mm Asphalt Concrete Wearing Course, 100mm Asphalt Binder Course, 225mm crushed stone base course, 250mm natural gravel cement stabilized subbase on a 300mm selected subgrade.

The Trunk Roads Activity upgraded 75 kilometers of trunk roads in the Afram Basin Zone between Agogo in Asanti-Akyem North District and Dome in Kwahu North District. These were primerseal (10mm) plus double surface dressings on a 200mm base, 200mm gravel subbase and a 300mm selected subgrade.

Under the Agriculture Project, MCC funded the rehabilitation of 357 km of rural feeder roads in 40 segments – some bituminous and some gravel surfaces – across seven districts in Ghana.

Although monitoring data was collected for each activity, no evaluations were designed or undertaken for the N1 Highway or Trunk Roads during the compact period. In 2009, MCA hired the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago to design an impact evaluation of the Feeder Roads Activity. They collected market price data for products in 150 communities near the roads and another 150 similar communities that were comparatively far from the roads. To date, no follow up survey has been conducted.

1 At the beginning of the compact, MCA operated in 23 Districts, which later became 30 after redistricting by Government of Ghana (GoG) in 2008. Now the figure is 42 following another redistricting in 2012.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 7 of 91

The Tanzania I Compact was implemented over a period of five (5) years from 2008 to 2013, by the Millennium Challenge Account- Tanzania (MCA-T) with funding and technical assistance from the Government of the United States of America, acting through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and counterpart funding from the Government of Tanzania.

The Transport Project consists of four Activities:

Mainland Trunk Roads: Upgrading of approximately 430 kilometers of trunk roads to bitumen pavement standards for the following road segments: Tanga-Horohoro, Tunduma– Sumbawanga and Namtumbo - Songea and Peramiho – Mbinga (on Mtwara Corridor);

Zanzibar Rural Roads: Upgrading of up to 35 kilometers of rural roads on Pemba Island

Road Maintenance: funding to improve maintenance management efficiency2

C.3.2.3.1. The Road Maintenance activity provided equipment and technical assistance to TANROADS (Mainland) and MOIC (Zanzibar) for the purpose of improving roads maintenance capabilities at the two institutions. The underlying assumption of the Activity was that equipment and technical assistance would lead to more accurate planning and implementation of maintenance activities.

C.3.2.3.2. The outcomes expected to be realized through the Road Maintenance Activity were:

(1) improved capacity within TANROADS to plan and implement asphalt pavement strengthening and overlay projects in a cost effective manner, and (2) improved capacity within MOIC and the Zanzibar Roads Fund Board to effectively plan, fund, and implement road maintenance activities on the Zanzibar road network.

C.3.2.3.3. The overall impact of the various components of this Activity should be assessed as a rigorous political economy analysis of the sustainability of the current level of maintenance of the Mainland and Zanzibar roads constructed under the compact, and the political context in which decisions were made to maintain or not maintain the roads.

C.3.2.3.4. No funds or TA were provided for maintenance of the Mafia Island Airport Runway.

However, an evaluation of the maintenance regime on the island should still be included in the evaluation.

Mafia Island Airport: Upgrading 1.4 kilometers of Mafia Island Airport Runway.

Monitoring data was collected for each activity during implementation and baseline data was collected for 1, 2, and 4. 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.3

2 See Annex 8 for further details on the funds provided to the Government of Tanzania for roads maintenance management.

3 Monitoring data will be provided to the Contractor prior to beginning the evaluation. Baseline reports and data for the Mainland Trunk Roads and Mafia Island Airport evaluations are available online. The baseline report and data for the Zanzibar Rural Roads evaluation may be provided to the Contractor if deemed necessary.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 8 of 91

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

To conduct post-compact cost-benefit analysis (or economic rate of return (ERR) analysis), including 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.4

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.

To analyze the origin-destination (O-D) data that is related to the post-compact cost-benefit analysis described under item number one to understand current road usage patterns and demand side benefits of the road investment.

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

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

MCC intends to pursue these evaluation exercises in a number of partner countries that have implemented investments in roads in compact programs, and this scope of work refers specifically to MCC investments in Ghana and Tanzania. There will be future opportunities to compete for work in Moldova, Senegal, Mozambique, Mongolia, Philippines, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, El Salvador, Liberia, and any other MCC country with roads investments.

The objective of each call order awarded will be to hire a firm to conduct economic analysis (HDM- 4/RED) and performance evaluations (maintenance / transport sector work) of roads investments in Ghana and Tanzania. 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 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.

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

4 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.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 9 of 91 incomes in recipient countries.5 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.

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

Research Area 1: Evaluation of the economic viability of MCC-funded road projects at compact closeout or 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.

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.6 Currently, MCC makes post-compact maintenance and project-life assumptions about its infrastructure investments. In addition, in select countries, MCC provided additional financial resources to help strengthen road maintenance activities via technical assistance, policy reform, maintenance matching funds, capacity building, training or conditions precedent.

C.5.3.2.1. 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.5.3.2.2. 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 not expected to be needed until 5-7 years after construction, however routine and emergency maintenance may be required sooner.

C.5.3.2.3. 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

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

6 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-0187 Page 10 of 91 this analysis is 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.

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 shall analyze this data to compare to baseline data and/or provide an overview of how the road is currently being used.

C.5.3.3.1. 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.

Research Area 4: Evaluation of the transportation market structure and the formal and informal institutions that regulate and govern the transportation market. MCC will 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 partners7, relevant government ministries, communities and Implementing Partners) to gather information regarding the project design and implementation.

Research Area 5: Country Specific Research Areas. In some cases, there may be outcomes identified for MCC road investments that would not be covered under Research Areas 1-4. In

7 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-0187 Page 11 of 91 these cases, and only when evidence exists to support the likelihood of these outcomes stemming from the road investment, limited additional data collection may be conducted in order to evaluate the outcomes.

Evaluation of the prices of goods and wages for individuals living near and traveling on the roads.

The original program logic predicted that prices would fall and wages would rise for individuals living in communities along the road. MCC is interested in understanding whether this assumption was valid and what has happened to prices and wages for communities affected by the rehabilitated roads. The Contractor shall work with MCC to identify the most rigorous, scientific, and cost-effective way to answer this question. MCC is particularly interested in exploring the following methods: expanding the vehicle intercept survey to include questions about the prices of goods and wages for individuals transported along the road at the original and destination; rigorous qualitative work to understand the prices of goods and wages of individuals in communities near the road; and analyzing the baseline data collected on the Feeder roads and any other existing data to understand the impact of the roads on prices and wages in the surrounding communities.

In Ghana, the Contractor shall collect the expanded vehicle intercept data and any qualitative data along all feeder roads that MCC planned to rehabilitate as part of the original Compact design, regardless of whether they were rehabilitated as part of the Compact.

The Tanzania I Transport Project included, along with the Mainland and Zanzibar Roads investments, the renovation of the Mafia Island Airport Runway as of the sub-projects under The Transport Sector Project. The objective of the sub-project was to address problems regarding access to the island due to the poor condition of its airport and lack of feasible alternative transport options.

Specifically, the sub-project sought to:

Refurbish the runway, apron and taxiway and establishment of boundary security; conduct additional environmental assessments, together with any resulting Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) consistent with the World Bank Operational Policy and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) each as needed and as satisfactory to MCC;

Co-ordinate and supervise the construction works.

The Mafia Airport Runways investment should be assessed separately from the Mainland and Zanzibar roads investments. The Contractor shall collect all the required data inputs in order provide a closeout Economic Rate of Return (ERR) for the runway investment. MCC has not adopted a standard cost benefit methodology for runway investments;

The Contractor shall propose a relevant cost benefit model in their proposal (i.e. FAA, EU, etc.) that will include a structural design assessment to determine the residual life of the investment. The Contractor shall propose an appropriate software and methodology that is incorporated into the proposed cost benefit model.

Each organization, MCC, the MCA and its designated representatives, and the Contractor, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating economic analysis and independent

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 12 of 91 evaluations. Their roles are as follows:

MCC.

C.8.1.1.1. MCC is responsible for oversight of the Contractor and quality control of its activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

C.8.1.1.1.1. 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.8.1.1.1.2. 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.8.1.1.1.3. 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.8.1.1.1.4. 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.8.1.1.1.5. 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 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 Contractor.

C.8.1.1.1.6. 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.

MCA.

C.8.1.2.1. The relevant MCA, or its designated representative, in each country is responsible for building local ownership and commitment, including the following specific responsibilities8:

8 For open Compact, the Contractor shall need to coordinate with the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as the government representative. However, for many closed compacts, for which there is no longer an MCA, this is not applicable.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 13 of 91

C.8.1.2.1.1. 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. 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.8.1.2.1.2. 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 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 Contractor.

C.8.1.2.1.3. 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.

Contractor.

C.8.1.3.1. 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.8.1.3.1.1. 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.

C.8.1.3.1.2. 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.

C.8.1.3.1.3. Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards. Using the program logic as a foundation, the 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.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 14 of 91

C.8.1.3.1.4. Ensure appropriate review of evaluation materials and research protocols.

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 Contractors will document all approvals and informed consent procedures throughout the evaluation time period.

C.8.1.3.1.5. Manage the data collection firms. As appropriate, the Contractor shall develop Terms of Reference for the data collection firms, with technical support from MCC and the MCC. In this scenario, the 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.

C.8.1.3.1.6. Data collection. Whether the MCA, MCC or Contractor contracts the data collection firm, the Contractor is responsible for quality control over data collection activities, including HDM-4 data collection, interviewer training, pre-testing, and implementing data quality review checks during data collection.

C.8.1.3.1.7. Lead data cleaning, analysis, interpretation of results. The Contractor is responsible for leading any necessary data cleaning and consultation with the data collection firm to produce final analysis files. The 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.

C.8.1.3.1.8. Produce evaluation reports. The Contractor is responsible for sharing initial evaluation reports with local stakeholders and MCC for review and feedback.

However, given the 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 Contractor is responsible for documenting all feedback and Contractor responses.

C.8.1.3.1.9. Through this review process, the Contractor’s role is to assert independence in order to produce a high quality, unbiased evaluation of the program. The Contractor shall 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.8.1.3.1.10. 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

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 15 of 91 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.

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

Task 1: Assess Evaluation Plan and Develop Work Plan

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

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.

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. Note that the updated methodology, key personnel and work plan will become part of the contract once accepted by

MCC.

The Contractor shall review the 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:

The Contractor shall review project files pertaining to road investments (and runway for Tanzania) in the selected country. 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 shall 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.

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.

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 Contractor shall update the estimated Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) costs.

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 16 of 91

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.

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.

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

The Contractor shall review baseline data and reports from the Ghana 1 Compact and provide a comprehensive review on existing literature linking prices, wages, and roads.

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.

In the methodology discussion, the Contractor shall include but is not limited to:

C.9.1.13.1. The Political Economist9 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.9.1.13.2. The Contractor shall propose political economy questions and a methodology to address them, as part of a rigorous analysis of institutional outcomes in the sector.

These should be selected in close consultations with MCC.

C.9.1.13.3. 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, as the case may be 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.

The Contractor shall provide a consolidated Evaluation Assessment Report on 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.

Task 2: Develop Evaluation Design Report

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.

9 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-0187 Page 17 of 91

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.

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 3 Evaluation Design Report Outline as a reference.

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.

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.9.2.4.1. 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.9.2.4.2. 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.

C.9.2.4.3. 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.9.2.4.4. 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.9.2.4.5. In developing the Evaluation Design Report, the Contractor shall do the following:

C.9.2.4.5.1. 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.9.2.4.5.2. 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.9.2.4.5.3. 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

MCC-15-RFQ-0187 Page 18 of 91

Compact, and following the completion of works.

C.9.2.4.5.4. 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.9.2.4.5.5. The Contractor shall identify how the expanded vehicle intercept survey will be designed and implemented.

C.9.2.4.5.6. The Contractor shall identify how the additional qualitative data collection and/or expanded vehicle intercept survey will be conducted and procured in Ghana only.

C.9.2.4.6. For the Tanzania Runway: The Contractor shall propose an appropriate ERR calculation methodology in the proposals methodology statement. The ERR calculation methodology shall be an internationally approved and recognized approach (i.e. FAA).

Once accepted by MCC, the Contractor shall calibrate the ERR model for the selected runway project.

C.9.2.4.7. 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 2 until the Evaluation Management Committee approves the Evaluation Design Report.

Task 3:…