MCC-16-RFQ-0015_-_Solicitation_-_10NOV15_1113.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:

SIZE STANDARD:

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 ________________________________. YOU’RE 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 100

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 11/10/2015

Raymond Staniewski (202)521-3656 30 NOV 2015, 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 (KTR) (202) 521-3656

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

MCC seeks a Contractor to revise the design of and implement an impact evaluation of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project of the Senegal Compact.

See CONTINUATION Page

X X

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 2 of 100

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

Price/Cost Schedule Accounting and Appropriation Data Other Direct Costs Funding Contract Type

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

Scope Background and Objectives Evaluation Summary Tasks

PACKAGING AND MARKING

Disclaimer for Deliverables

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

Reporting Deliverables Deliverable Instructions Acceptance Criteria Period of Performance Place of Performance

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

Description of Agreement Invoices

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

MCC 52.201-70 – Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Project Monitor (PM) (JULY 2012) MCC 52.204-70 – Security for Contractor Personnel (May 2013) MCC 52.209-70 – Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Implementation Contract (July 2012) MCC 52.232-70 – Invoice Instructions (May 2013) MCC 52.232-72 -- Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts (NOV 2006) MCC 52.232-73 -- Travel Reimbursement (MAY 2013) MCC 52.232-74 -- ODC Reimbursement (JAN 2007) MCC 52.242-70 -- Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Registration (AUG 2011) MCC 52.243-70 -- Increase In Services (OCT 2006) MCC 52.245-70 – Contractor Acquired MCC Government Property Overseas (July 2012) Overall Staffing Plan Key Personnel Provision on Peer Review and Posting of Reports Provision on Insurance Maintenance Provision on Stakeholder Input for Evaluation Products Provision on Human Subjects Protection Personally Identifiable Information and Confidentiality Provision on Delivered Work Product Free from 3rd Party Rights Provision on MCC Decision Points to Proceed with the Evaluation Addition of Deliverables for Payment in Case of Significant Delay

CONTRACT CLAUSES

FAR 52.212-4 -- Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items (May 2015) FAR 52.212-5 -- Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items (May 2015) .. 49 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) FAR 52.217-9 -- Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000) FAR 52.244-2 – Subcontracts (Oct 2010) – Alternate I (June 2007) FAR 52.252-2 -- Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Annex I - Previous Design Report Annex II - Baseline Report (from 2012 baseline survey) Annex III - Evaluation Design Report Template Annex IV - MCC Informed Consent Statement Guidance Annex V - MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Guidelines Annex VI - Interim/Final Report Outline Annex VII - Progress Report Outline Annex VIII - Travel SoW Annex IX - US Dept. of State Travel Form DS-4086 Annex X - US Dept. of State Travel Form DS-4086A Annex XI - Medical Accommodation Procedures

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 3 of 100

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

FAR 52.212-3 -- Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items (March 2015)

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

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 evaluation Criteria FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014) Technical Capability Past Performance Price Evaluation Exclusion of Quotes and Communications

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 4 of 100

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

Price/Cost Schedule

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

0001 LABOR

Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Firm-Fixed-Price Base Period (Phase I) PoP TBD (Estimated 6-8 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

0002 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Cost Reimbursement Base Period (Phase I) PoP TBD (Estimated 6-8 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

Sub-Total:

1001 LABOR

Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Time & Material* Option Period I (Phase II) PoP TBD (Estimated 12-18 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

1002 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Time & Material* Option Period I (Phase II) PoP TBD (Estimated 12-18 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

Sub-Total:

2001 LABOR

Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Time & Material* Option Period II (Phase III) PoP TBD (Estimated 12-18 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

2002 OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project, including the Land Tenure Security Activity for the country of Senegal Time & Material* Option Period II (Phase III) PoP TBD (Estimated 12-18 MO)

1 LO ______________ ______________

Sub-Total:

GRAND TOTAL: _______________

*MCC reserves the right to negotiate a FFP with the successful offeror for Phases II and III prior to exercising each option period.

Accounting and Appropriation Data

{RESERVED}

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 5 of 100

Other Direct Costs Offerors shall include all proposed Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for each project phase identified in

B.1 and detailed in Section C.4.2 through C.4.12.

Funding The contract is funded with No-Year Due Diligence funding. As such, funding obligated to the respective contract may be used during the life of the order.

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

Contract Type 52.216-1 -- Type of Contract (Apr 1984) -- The Government contemplates award of a Firm-Fixed-

Price contract for the base period of performance resulting from this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

(End of SECTION B)

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 6 of 100

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

Statement of Work Scope

MCC seeks Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project in Senegal, including the Land Tenure Security Activity, which closed on September 23, 2015.

Background and Objectives MCC seeks a new Contractor to revise the design of and implement an impact evaluation of the Irrigation and Water Resource Management Project of the Senegal Compact. It is anticipated that quantitative methods will be supplemented by applicable qualitative methods in order to best address the range of questions being posed under this evaluation.

Project Summary

The Irrigation and Water Resource Management 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 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 and improving access to markets and services. This irrigation-focused project is strategically investing in irrigation schemes that are designed to increase rural incomes and employment and to enhance the competitiveness of the rural economies in the Senegal River Valley, Senegal’s rice production heartland. The project is anticipated to safeguard and expand production on irrigated land in the Valley’s Delta area and develop an irrigated perimeter in Ngalenka (Department of Podor). It will also address long-standing land tenure constraints by formalizing the farmers’ land rights, enabling a secure legal framework for continued investment. The Government of Senegal is implementing the 5-year MCC Compact via the Millennium Challenge Account-Senegal. The Compact ends on September 23, 2015.

The Delta Activity:

The Senegal River Valley benefits from a very favorable environment for intensive irrigation.

However, low agricultural yields have been a persistent problem due to the poor quality of the existing irrigation and drainage infrastructure; insufficient delivery of available water to agricultural areas; and lack of an appropriate drainage system. The Project will address these constraints via upgrades and rehabilitation of the main canal and drainage system in order to increase the volume of irrigable water, expand cropping intensity, and secure use of land currently at risk of abandonment due to soil salinization and insufficient flows. This will allow farmers to expand their rice, tomatoes and onions cultivation on an additional 7,800 hectares and increase overall production on 35,200 hectares.

The Ngalenka Activity:

The Ngalenka activity will increase agricultural production in a remote rural area through the construction of a new 450-hectare irrigated perimeter. The works include land levelling, intake and drainage pumping stations and construction of nine kilometers of primary and secondary canals, a six kilometer protection dike, 16 kilometers of drains, water control structures and 34 kilometers of access tracks. Spring 2014 marked the first growing season of rice, which benefitted 1,673 beneficiaries grouped into 53 water user groups, including 13 women’s groups. The establishment of the perimeter has been accompanied by training for the user groups, resettlement measures, a reforestation program and strengthening of existing land

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 7 of 100 rights.

Land Tenure Security Activity and Program Sustainability:

Intended to improve the investment climate in the Project intervention zones and to mitigate the potential for future land conflict due to increased demand for irrigated land as a result of the Irrigation Project, the Land Tenure Security Activity has developed and implemented transparent, fair, and efficient processes for land allocation to ensure equitable and secure access to land in the irrigated perimeters, fully covering and extending beyond the Irrigation Project’s intervention zones. As of late 2014, land rights have been fully formalized on the Ngalenka perimeter, where beneficiary groups, such as women and youth, have in the past had limited access to land.

MCC is working closely with SAED (Société Nationale d’Aménagement et d’Exploitation des Terres du Delta), the agency providing irrigation water supply and drainage services in the Valley, to improve their financial sustainability and operational efficiency towards a performance-oriented maintenance management system. SAED serves seven water user communities in the Delta, who play a crucial role in water resource management. These committees are receiving comprehensive training as part of the Project aimed at ensuring their necessary operational roles in the irrigation system maintenance and management.

Evaluation Summary An initial difference-in-difference design served as the basis for baseline data collection in 2012

(which collected data on 2,677 treatment and comparison households for the Delta and 1,853 treatment and comparison households for Ngalenka). A copy of the Design Report and final Baseline Report can be found in Annexes I and II, respectively. As described in section C.3, offerors to this RFP will be expected to assess the prior evaluation design, project implementation and design, as well as the baseline data in order to provide a revised and updated design for the final stages of the evaluation. The first phase of work will include the revised evaluation design and work plan. Phase two is anticipated to include the implementation of interim data collection and completion of the Interim Evaluation Report. Phase three is anticipated to include the final data collection and completion of the Final Evaluation Report. However, the specific activities (such as surveys or qualitative data collection) included under the option periods (and their timing) may be altered, depending on the final Design Report provided by the Contractor.

All data collection efforts, in conformity with the Contractor’s approved Evaluation Design Report, will be the full responsibility of the Contractor, including preparation of TORs, procurement of a data collection firm (if necessary), implementation, quality control, and analysis. All costs associated with data collection shall be included in the offeror’s price proposal.

It is expected that the results from the interim data collection will inform whether or not it is pertinent for MCC and the Contractor to continue forward with the final data collection. Thus, a thorough assessment of short and medium term outcomes will be critical for the interim data collection. Based on the results found, an assessment will be made about how and whether to move forward with the final data collection.

The anticipated research questions (which may vary somewhat from the Design Report in Annex I) are listed below. The Contractor shall be expected to work with MCC, the MCA, and local stakeholders to assess and finalize this list as a part of the elaboration of the Evaluation Design Report. To the extent possible, these questions should also include an assessment of why or why not changes were observed.

Use and availability of water

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 8 of 100

Has there been a change in the main source of water/type of irrigation used?

Has the quantity of water available in the Delta irrigation system increased?

Has the supply of water become more reliable?

How have farmer perceptions of the availability of water and the reliability of the system changed as a result of the project?

Has there been an increase in the amount of land that is irrigated and the intensity to which it is irrigated?

Has there been a change in the total costs per hectare to provide adequate irrigation to the land (either for farmers or for the overall system)?

How does the functioning of Water User Associations affect the use and availability of water? Did the Compact have any effect on this functioning? Why/ why not?

Agricultural production

Has there been a change in farmer behavior?

Have there been changes in production-related investments?

Has there been an increase in the land area under production and in the level of intensity of the land area under production?

Has there been an increase in the volume of agricultural production and yields?

Has there been an increase in the volume of high value crops (for example vegetables) or crops that are very intensive in water use (rice)?

Household income and its component parts

What is the impact of the project activities on the components of household income?

How has the distribution of household income (between different types of income, such as agricultural/non-agricultural income) changed?

What is the impact on the level of total household income?

Perception of land security

Is there an improvement in perception of land tenure security? If so, why?

What is the trend (increasing/diminishing) in the perception of level of access to land on the part of different categories of the local population (women, landless, youth…)?

Is there an impact of enhanced land security on investments in land?

Has the awareness of local populations regarding why and how to formalize their land rights increased?

Has there been an increase in demand for formalized land rights?

Are the costs of formalizing land rights perceived as reasonable? Has this perception changed over time?

Land conflicts

Is there a reduction in the number of land conflicts?

What is the trend in the nature and scale of land conflicts?

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 9 of 100

Is there a perception that management of land conflicts has improved?

Is there a perception that the risk of land conflict has been reduced?

Is there an impact of reduced land conflict and/or improved management of conflict on investments in land?

Effectiveness of land administration

Has the (real) performance of local governments improved in the domain of land management (e.g., information management, formalization of land rights, land allocation principles and procedures, awareness/knowledge and competence of land commissions in official land policy, procedures and practices)?

Is there improvement in local perceptions regarding the quality of local land governance?

Is there a perception of increased access to local government land managers and administrators?

Are local government land management agencies receiving adequate/increasing technical support from central government land agencies and other technical agents?

Effects of the land activity outside the intervention zone.

To what extent, and in what ways, has the land activity achieved effects beyond the compact intervention zone?

What are the prospects for the land activity benefits (such as improved land allocation practices) to be extended further after the end of the compact?

MCC anticipates that several changes (in addition to those proposed by the Contractor) to the prior evaluation design may be needed, including:

An assessment of the viability of the identified treatment and comparison areas, given known contamination of some comparison areas by the LTSA intervention (see the Baseline Report in Annex II for details)

Augmentation of qualitative design methods and tools

Elimination of the Social Safeguard Measures component to the evaluation (this part of the project is no longer going to be implemented)

Additionally, steps are likely be needed to identify which of the households surveyed under the baseline survey actually benefited from land on the Ngalenka perimeter (the ability to match the land allocation roster to the baseline data has not yet been assessed)

Roles and Responsibilities: The MCC, MCA, along with the Contractor, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating the independent evaluations. The MCC and MCA roles are as follows:

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC): MCC is responsible for oversight of the Contractor and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

Set the evaluation priorities and evaluation questions. Using the program logic as the foundation, MCC will develop the evaluation priorities and evaluation questions based on existing evidence, the evidence gap, and the learning priorities for the sector and agency.

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 10 of 100

Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation. MCC will work with the Contractor and MCA to ensure the evaluation design follows the rules of program design and implementation. When possible, MCC will work with the Contractor and MCA to develop a program implementation roll-out plan that enables a rigorous evaluation design. When it is not possible to develop a coordinated roll-out plan, MCC and the Contractor shall ensure the evaluation design is based on feasible methodologies given program design and implementation. 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 evaluation design.

Determine the evaluation budgets. MCC will develop an evaluation budget, including Contractors, expected data collection requirements, and any other activities related to the evaluation.

Manage the Contractors. MCC will develop Terms of Reference for the Contractors and manage the contracting process, including Request for Proposals, Proposal Review, selection of the Contractor, development of a work plan, and supervision of the Contractor in line with the work plan and agreed deliverables.

Quality review of evaluation materials. Using the program logic as a foundation, MCC is responsible for reviewing evaluation materials, including the design report and survey materials, for feasibility, technical and factual accuracy, and adherence with international standards.

Quality review of evaluation reports. MCC is responsible for reviewing Contractors’ reports to ensure technical and factual accuracy. While MCC will provide feedback, the Contractor is ultimately the author of the evaluation reports and may or may not take into consideration MCC’s comments. MCC therefore develops an Official Statement for each evaluation 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.3.6.1.6.1. Through this review process, MCC’s role is to enable the Contractor’s independence in order to produce a high quality, unbiased evaluation of the program. MCC 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.

Lead final public dissemination efforts. MCC is responsible for leading public dissemination of results, 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 evaluation results are disseminated on the MCC website, and results are disseminated to appropriate stakeholders in a timely fashion.

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA): MCA (and/or the relevant Post-Compact Entity) is responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation, oversight of the data collection firm, and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation. MCA will work with the Contractor and MCC to ensure the evaluation design follows the rules of program design and

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 11 of 100 implementation. When possible, MCA will work with the Contractor and MCC to develop a program implementation roll-out plan that enables a rigorous evaluation design. MCA will work with MCC to ensure commitment to the roll-out plan by local stakeholders, and if it is not possible to adhere to the roll-out plan, will inform MCC in order to request the Contractor adapt the evaluation design.

Quality review of evaluation materials. Using the program logic as a foundation, MCA is responsible for reviewing evaluation materials, including the design report and survey materials, for feasibility, technical and factual accuracy, and adherence with international standards.

Quality review of evaluation reports. MCA, or a designated representative, is responsible for reviewing Contractors’ reports to ensure technical and factual accuracy.

While MCA will provide feedback, the Contractor is ultimately the author of the evaluation reports and may or may not take into consideration MCA’s comments. MCA therefore develops an Official Statement for each evaluation report to confirm the technical and factual accuracy of the report, or clarify any differences on technical or factual issues between MCA and the Contractor.

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.

Tasks Contractor Roles and Responsibilities: The Contractor is responsible for the overall design, implementation, and dissemination of the evaluation, including the following specific responsibilities:

Develop a rigorous evaluation design given rules of implementation and feasibility of options.

Using the program logic and the previous evaluation design as the foundation, Contractors must assess the program design and implementation to develop the most rigorous evaluation design feasible, whether it is a performance or impact evaluation, and identify the most appropriate evaluation methodology feasible given the context. The Contractor is responsible for developing an evaluation design report, in consultation with MCC and MCA, which summarizes the evaluation design, sampling, analysis plan, and other critical design elements of the evaluation. (Tasks 1-2)

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

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 survey instruments or other data collection tools in order to answer critical evaluation questions. Note that “survey” here refers primarily to quantitative surveys, but may also refer to qualitative instruments where appropriate (Task 4 and Task 8)

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

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 12 of 100 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. (Task 4 and Task 8)

Implement data collection, including the management of the data collection firms (if a subcontracted firm is required). The Contractor shall develop Terms of Reference for the data collection firms, with technical support from MCC and the MCA. 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. (Task 5 and Task 9)

Ensure quality control during data collection. The Contractor is responsible for quality control over data collection activities, including interviewer training, pre-testing, and implementing data quality review checks during data collection. (Task 5 and Task 9)

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. (Task 6 and Task 10)

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. (Task 6 and Task 10)

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.

Lead public dissemination efforts. The Contractor is responsible for leading 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 evaluation. 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 7 and Task 11)

Base Period (PHASE I) Task 1: Assess Evaluation Plan

The Contractor shall conduct an Evaluability Assessment on all existing documentation related to the program and proposed evaluation plan provided by MCC and MCA using the MCC Evaluability Assessment Tool.

The Contractor shall assess the previous evaluation design, including a review of the existing baseline data, the status of treatment and comparison groups, and the feasibility of continuing

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 13 of 100 with the previous evaluation design. The Contractor shall also examine the prior evaluation design and identify additional methods/analyses to strengthen or enhance the design.

The Contractor shall also identify and assess the work being done by other donors in the region (of which there are several) to determine whether or not it will be possible to disentangle the effects of MCC’s work from that done by other donors. The feasibility of disentangling effects shall be reflected in the Evaluation Design Report and the proposed evaluation methodology.

The Contractor, with MCC and MCA assistance, shall identify all MCC and MCA self-evaluation activities and determine how the independent evaluation will (i) validate findings of self-evaluation(s), (ii) use self-evaluation(s) to inform the independent evaluation, particularly around understanding what was designed, what was implemented, and understanding any necessary course corrections, (iii) complement the self-evaluation(s) by expanding on self-evaluation activities.

The Contractor shall provide an Evaluability Assessment Report on the Problem Diagnostic, Program Logic, Risks & Assumptions, Proposed Research Questions, Methodology, and other Metrics

Develop a Work Plan with expected deadlines for deliverables. Any revisions to the Work Plan will be submitted in the Contractor’s Progress Reports.

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.

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 III: Evaluation Design Report Outline as a reference.

In addition to revising the evaluation methodologies, the Contractor shall also propose a revised schedule for interim and final data collection. These revised dates will be documented in the Work Plan (or a revision to the Work Plan).

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 may lead local workshops and/or virtual reviews of the Design Report by MCA and Implementing Entities.

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.

The Contractor shall submit the Evaluation Design Report to MCC and will be asked to present

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 14 of 100 to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Contractor.

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.

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 for approval.

Task 3: Monitor program implementation and conduct risk assessment

The Contractor is responsible for continuous monitoring of program implementation to ensure implementation occurs according to design and any deviations from design are properly documented. This requires collaboration with MCC, MCA sector leads and implementing entities to ensure continuous support for and commitment to the evaluation design.

For impact evaluations, this requires a minimum of quarterly status updates (which are separate from standard Quarterly Reports as described in Section F.1.) of implementation according to the treatment (to ensure the intervention is implemented in the agreed treatment areas) and control (to ensure the intervention is not implemented in the agreed control areas).

The Contractor is responsible for flagging any serious concerns or risks regarding the internal validity of the evaluation throughout this period.

Option Period I (PHASE II) Task 4: Revise Interim Evaluation Materials

Contractor shall not proceed with Phase II. Successful completion of Phase 1 of the Evaluation and approval of the Evaluation Design Report is a decision point for MCC regarding the Evaluation. The MCC will provide the Contractor with a contract modification exercising “Option Period I (Phase II)” to proceed with tasks under Phase II of the Evaluation. The Contractor shall not proceed with tasks under Phase II until the contract modification to do so has been received from the MCC Contracting Officer.

Baseline survey materials were created in support of the evaluation in 2012. However, based on the Contractor’s revised evaluation design, the Contractor is responsible for any necessary updates and revisions to the Interim Evaluation Materials, including questionnaires, data collection protocols, and training materials, based on lessons learned.

The Evaluation will provide evaluation materials in both French and English. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of any and all translations.

The Contractor is responsible for ensuring household surveys last no longer than 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.

The Contractor shall complete a written report following the pilot testing of the interim Evaluation Materials as well as a written review of the back-translation.

The Contractor shall document feedback from local stakeholders and any response to feedback.

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

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

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 15 of 100

Contractor. Any revisions to the report deemed necessary by the Contractor shall be incorporated into the final draft.

Task 5: Prepare and Implement interim data collection

The Contractor is responsible for developing and implementing all data collection efforts required through the approved Evaluation Design Report.

The Contractor shall develop all necessary TORs for data collection subcontractors, and the Contractor shall recruit and manage any necessary subcontracted firms or staff required to implement data collection efforts. All associated costs shall be included in the offerors price proposal.

The Contractor shall ensure appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval of research protocols, survey instruments, and informed consent procedures (please reference the MCC Informed Consent Statement Template Annex IV).

In accordance with Section H, the Contractor shall 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.

The Contractor 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.

The Contractor 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.

The Contractor 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.

After completion of interim data collection, the Contractor shall submit a Data Collection Report which, at a minimum, shall provide information regarding the survey completion status, challenges encountered and mitigation measures, data quality control measures, and next steps for the evaluation.

Task 6: Develop Interim Report and Data Files

The Contractor is responsible for overseeing all data cleaning alongside the data collection firm and for ensuring high quality data.

Using the raw dataset, the Contractor shall produce a cleaned analysis dataset that follows MCC’s guidelines for public use data, see Annex V - MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Requirements.

This will include STATA do files and final merged analysis files for documentation purposes.

In addition, the Contractor shall produce a full set of metadata (in English) for each survey that follows MCC’s guidelines for public use data, see Annex V - MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Requirements.

The Contractor is responsible for data analysis and developing the Interim Report (in both French and English). The Interim Report outline will be developed in consultation with the MCC M&E lead. Please reference Annex VI - Interim/Final Report Outline as a reference.

The Contractor shall ensure that the Interim Report includes gender and social analysis as described in the evaluation design report (task 2), including examining differences in characteristics by gender, age, income and other social variables as appropriate, and analyzing

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 16 of 100 the results of social/gender questions and special studies.

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

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.

The Contractor shall submit the Report to MCC and present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Contractor. Any revisions to the report deemed necessary by the Contractor shall be incorporated into the final draft.

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.

Task 7: Disseminate Interim Results

Once the final report is reviewed by the Evaluation Management Committee, the Contractor is responsible for:

Presentation at MCC headquarters

Presentation at MCA/accountable entity headquarters

The Contractor shall also be responsible for reviewing any materials developed by MCC public relations for dissemination on the MCC website for quality assurance.

Participation in other MCC-financed dissemination and training events, such as MCC M&E College and the Annual MCC Impact Evaluation Workshop

As stated in the introduction, the findings of the interim data collection will inform the utility of the final data collection. If it is decided (by the Contractor or by MCC) that final data collection is not warranted, then it is likely that additional effort will be needed regarding the presentation of interim results. In this event, the budget for this task will be re-evaluated at that time.

Option Period II (PHASE III) Task 8: Revise Final Evaluation Materials

Contractor shall not proceed with Phase III. Completion of Phase II of the Evaluation is a decision point for MCC regarding the Evaluation. As described in section C.2., the findings of the Interim Evaluation Report will provide MCC and the Contractor with important information regarding the utility of proceeding with Phase III of the Evaluation. The MCC will provide the Contractor with a contract modification exercising “Option Period II (Phase III)” to proceed with tasks under Phase III of the Evaluation. The Contractor shall not proceed with tasks under Phase II until the contract modification to do so has been received from the MCC Contracting Officer.

Though on-going updates to the Evaluation Design Report should be completed by the Contractor as needed, as a part of the preparation for final data collection, the Contractor shall submit a revised Evaluation Design Report.

The Contractor is responsible for any necessary updates and revisions to the Final Evaluation Materials, including questionnaires, data collection protocols, and training materials, based on

MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 17 of 100 lessons learned.

The Evaluation will provide evaluation materials in both French and English. The Contractor is responsible for the quality of any and all translations.

The Contractor is responsible for ensuring household surveys last no longer than 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.

The Contractor shall complete a written report following the pilot testing of the final Evaluation Materials as well as a written review of the back-translation.

The Contractor shall document feedback from local stakeholders and any response to feedback.

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

The Contractor shall submit the Evaluation Materials to MCC and present to the Evaluation Management Committee. All feedback and response to feedback will be documented by the Contractor. Any revisions to the report deemed necessary by the Contractor shall be incorporated into the final draft.

Task 9: Prepare and Implement final data collection

The Contractor is responsible for developing and implementing all data collection efforts required through the approved Evaluation Design Report.

The Contractor shall develop all necessary TORs for data collection subcontractors, and the Contractor shall recruit and manage any necessary subcontracted firms or staff required to implement data collection efforts. All associated costs shall be included in the offerors price proposal.

The Contractor shall ensure appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approval of research protocols, survey instruments, and informed consent procedures (please reference the MCC Informed Consent Statement Template Annex IV).

In accordance with Section H, the Contractor shall 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.

The Contractor 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.

The Contractor 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.

The Contractor 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.

Per the previous Evaluation Design, final data collection is anticipated to take approximately a year (actual time frame is to be determined by the Contractor’s final Evaluation Design Report). During the data collection process, the Contractor shall complete quarterly reports (separate from the standard Progress Reports) as updates to MCC and as the basis for payment.

Interim Data Collection Reports shall be provided each quarter as an update on data collection progress, followed by a Final Data Collection Report which shall summarize the entire data collection process. These reports, at a minimum, shall provide information regarding the survey status, challenges encountered and mitigation measures, data quality control measures, MCC-16-RFQ-0015 Page 18 of 100 and next steps.

Task 10: Develop Final Report and Data Files

The Contractor is responsible for overseeing all data cleaning alongside the data collection firm and for ensuring high quality data.

Using the raw dataset, the Contractor shall produce a cleaned analysis dataset that follows MCC’s guidelines for public use data, see Annex V - MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Requirements.

This will include STATA do files and final merged analysis files for documentation purposes.

In…