MCC-16-RFQ-0096_0001-_FINAL-2.pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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

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

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

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

(Type or print) (Type or print)

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

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

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

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

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 5

See block 16C

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

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

To all Offerors/Bidders

MCC-16-RFQ-0096

X

The amendment shall:

14a) Extend the due date for proposals from April 15, 2015 1:00 PM EST to April 28, 2016 1:00 EST;

14b) Revise the second sentence in Section M.3.1.1 to read as follows: “The contractor shall submit specific reference information related to the evaluation methods proposed and the relevant project sectors.”

14c) Revise Item 2 under Section C.2.3.9 to read as follows: “Removal of the Beneficiary Analysis components from the prior evaluation methodology.” MCC would like offerors to remove the Beneficiary Analysis from the prior methodology, but maintain the Economic Rate of Return analysis.

14d) Provide responses to questions received, see Attachment 1.

Please see continuation pages...

CONTINUATION PAGE (Changes are so noted)

Attachment 1 to Amendment 0001 to MCC-16-RFQ-0096

# Reference Question Answers

1 Section C.2.3.9.

(p.8)

Could MCC provide placeholder or “plug” figures for data collection costs and travel costs?

This procurement does not use placeholder or plug figures for data collection costs. As the project is now completed, offerors should be able to create budget estimates based on the information provided. As indicated in the RFQ under section C.2.3.9., “In terms of data collection rounds, the former evaluation methodology had anticipated an interim survey round starting in 2015 and a final survey round starting in 2016. Both rounds were anticipated to last one (1) full year.

Given the timing of this solicitation, as the basis of their proposals, offerors should assume that interim data collection will begin in 2017 and endline data collection will begin in 2018. While endline data collection should be assumed to take a full year (which would include multiple rounds to cover the multiple cropping seasons), interim data collection should be assumed to include a single round instead of a full year.

Section F provides an estimate timeline for these activities.”

2 Section F.2. (p.

27 – 30)

Could MCC please provide LOE guidance for each phase of the evaluation?

Each offeror should provide their own estimates of the LOE required to meet the government’s requirement using the offerors’ preferred approach and staffing arrangements.

3 Section H.9.2.2.

(p 40)

Section H.9.2.2. of the RFP lists “Senior xyz” as one of the key personnel. Can you please provide the expected title for that person?

Section H.9.2.2. includes “senior xyz” as a placeholder. There are no predefined labor categories that offerors must include. Thus it is up to the offeror to identify the labor categories that are necessary to fulfill this requirement and to propose key personnel based on their technical approach.

4 Section M.3.1.1.

(p. 91)

In Section M.3.1.1. on the past performance it states that “The contractor shall submit specific reference information related to evaluation methods proposed and

The sentence has been revised to read, “The contractor shall submit specific reference information related to the evaluation methods proposed and the relevant project sectors.”

the infrastructure sector.” Does MCC indeed want bidders to provide information on experience in the infrastructure sector?

5 Attachments Will the baseline data provided by MCC from the previous evaluator be in raw format, i.e., has not been cleaned?

Data will be provided in the raw format provided from the data collection firm. In many cases, some initial data cleaning was conducted by the data collection firm (such as fixing discrepancies during double data entry). However, these would not be considered to be final, analysis datasets and may require further data cleaning prior to analysis.

6 Section C.2.3.10.3. -4 & 5

(p. 10 – 11)

Is soil testing required to answer questions about soil erosion and soil fertility for treatment and control respondents in non-PAP sample?

It is up to the offeror to propose the methods that are best suited to answering the research questions included in the proposal.

7 Section C.2.3.3.

(p. 6)

The RFP states that, prior to this call for new evaluation services, there distinct, but related, evaluations had previously been planned for the ADP activities, including a randomized control trial covering 710 of the total 2240 hectares on the new perimeter at Di (“The Di Lottery”). However, the “Final Data Quality Review Report Di Irrigation Investment on Persons Not Affected by the Project” and the evaluation design report by IMPAQ both say that 600 hectares of land were available for distribution to Non-PAPs who did not receive land in Phase 1 of the project. It is correct to assume that 710 hectares of land were initially planned for distribution via a lottery but only 600 hectares were actually distributed through a lottery?

The figures used in the design report were the original estimates of the land that was to be available for the lottery. These figures were repeated in the report on the baseline survey (which was done prior to the actual lottery). However, once allocation to PAPs and the “defavorized villages” were completed, there were a total of 710ha remaining, which were then allotted through the lottery. Thus, 710ha should be considered the final figures.

8 Sections C.2.3.2.

and C.2.3.4.

Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? I available, please provide the incumbent contract number.

As stated in section C.2.3.2., a previous evaluator had designed three separate, but related evaluations that cover some portions of the scope of the current solicitation; the previous evaluator worked under contract number MCC-10-0111-CON-20/TO-02.

Section C.2.3.4. provides additional detail regarding the components that had not previously been covered by an evaluation, but which are expected to be added to the forthcoming evaluation currently being solicited.

9 If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

See the response to Question 8. This solicitation should be treated as a new government requirement for evaluation services.

10 Section L.2.1.

(p.83)

The due date is listed as 4/15/16 in multiple places in the FBO. The first page of the RFQ shows the due date of 4/28/16. Please confirm the due date.

The due date for the quotes is changed from April 15, 2016 to April 28, 2016 at 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.

11 Section C.2.3.3

(p. 6)

Please clarify and confirm that the evaluator will not have to develop a time and materials cost estimate for phases 2 and 3 until after the completion of phase 1, since the scope of the last two phases is dependent upon the findings of the initial phase.

Offerors must provide a full cost estimate for all three phases in response to this request for quote. MCC will use these to compare the overall costs of a “standardized” evaluation design. To help in building this standardized cost estimate, all of the evaluation information included in Section C should be taken into account. In particular, offerors should assume the following:

i. Continuation of the currently established methodologies outlined in section C.2.3.3.

ii. The additional evaluation methods for the project components outlined in section C.2.3.4.

iii. The known methodology changes in section C.2.3.9. Note the change listed on page 1 of this amendment, which revises Item 2 within this section to specify that MCC would only like offerors to remove the Beneficiary Analysis from the prior methodology, and to maintain the Economic Rate of Return analysis.

Final Time and materials cost estimates for phases 2 and 3 will be developed after completion of phase 1 and submitted as part of a proposed evaluation design report.

Cost estimates included in the vendor’s proposal should be sufficiently detailed to support the time and material cost estimates included in the proposal.

All other terms and conditions of this Request for Quote remain in full force and effect.

End of Amendment 0001