MCC-16-RFQ-0131_0001_-_Guatemala_Education_Project.pdf

5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

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)

(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 10

See Block 16C

N/A

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-0131

X

X X

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to questions and requests for clarification submitted by the June 6, 2016 deadline for questions, and to extend the due date for quotes from 1 PM EST June 24, 2016 to 1 PM EST July 1, 2016.

Maxwell Sarpong, CO

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 2

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES – GUATEMALA EDUCATION PROJECT (MCC-16-RFQ-0131)

Number Questions Responses

1.

Can MCC please confirm that this is NOT a small business set-aside and does NOT have small business requirements?

On page 73, Section M.1. (a) North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code and small business size standard, states: The NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition appear in

Block 10 of the solicitation cover sheet (SF 1449).

However, the small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, but which proposes to furnish an item which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

On SF 1449 Block 10 the “Unrestricted” box is checked

This is not a small business set aside, it is unrestricted, and full and open to all eligible vendors who are desirous of submitting a quote.

2.

Are data collection subcontractors in Guatemala required to be registered in the SAM system?

Per page 9, (Note (1), subcontracting costs for Data collection are subject to the requirements of FAR

52.244-2, Subcontracts

The data collection subcontractors in Guatemala are not required to be registered in System for Award

Management (SAM). However, the prime contractor is required to be registered in SAM.

3. Please confirm that “technical description of the items being offered” is just a reminder to submit our technical narrative addressing all of the requirements in the RFP.

On page 73, Section M.1.(b)(4), it states that offers must show: A technical description of the items being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary.

Yes, this is just a reminder to submit a technical narrative in your response.

4. Can MCC please confirm that these two requirements do not apply to this solicitation?

On page 73, Section M.1. it states

(d) Product samples. When required by the solicitation, product samples shall be submitted at or prior to the time specified for receipt of offers. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, these samples shall be submitted at no expense to the Government, and returned at the sender’s request and expense, unless they are destroyed during preaward testing.

(e) Multiple offers. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions or commercial items for satisfying the

The RFQ states the clause in its entirety, however, these paragraphs do not pertain to this requirement since MCC is purchasing services under this contract.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 3 requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.

5. Can MCC please clarify what is the exact nature of who is in charge of data collection?

Section C.4.1.1. says “PRONACOM, and MINEDUC are responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation, oversight of the data collection firm” on page 19. Then, section C.4.1.3.6.

says that the Independent Evaluator Roles and

Responsibilities includes to “Implement data collection, including the management of data collection firms” on page 21.

The evaluator is responsible for procuring, managing, and overseeing data collection.

As an accountable entity, and implementing partner PRONACOM and MINEDUC should be consulted regarding the data collection effort.

6. Could MCC please confirm how long the

DIPLOMADO is expected to be?

As per the Project 1, Activity 1: Quality of Education in Support of Student Success, the Ministry of

Education (MINEDUC) will develop a Teacher

Continuing Education Program

It will be for a duration of one year and provide an estimated 600 hours of training, including at least 20 hours of classroom activities and an estimated 10 hours per month of distance learning and online educational resources for independent study

7. Could MCC please confirm whether the deliverable list is up to date?

Per section F.3 Deliverables in the RFQ

At this time, the deliverable list is up to date. However, the dates may move depending on when this contract is awarded and when project implementation starts.

8. Could MCC please confirm that the profile of the senior analyst/political economist is up to date?

Per page 46-47 in the Key Personnel section of the

RFP

This is an error and it should be correctly stated as: “rigorous political economy analysis of education sectors”.

9. Can the Past Performance tables be included in the appendices along with other important charts, graphs, resumes, and CVS?

Page 70 L.7.1 Important charts, graphs, resumes and

CVs of Key Personnel may be included in an appendix to the Technical Quotation without a page limit.

Per page 71 section, L.8.9 of the RFQ the Quotation shall include 3 current or past projects of similar scope and size including project points of contact using the matrix table.

Past Performance will be included in Volume 1’s (Technical

Quotation) appendix.

9. Would MCC clarify whether the education threshold program is national in scale or whether the implementer will be working in specific regions?

The schools networks will be implemented in certain regions.

These are still being confirmed with the ministry. However, the institutional reform component will

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 4 be implemented at the national level.

10 Activity 1 includes training for teachers, principals, and administrators. Is it important for MCC to be able to estimate the impacts of each of these components separately? Or is MCC interested in understanding the joint impact of all Activity 1 components?

If possible we would like to estimate the impacts of each component and the interaction.

between those components.

However, the ability to do this will depend greatly on the roll-out strategy and coordinating with the ministry.

11. For the purposes of sampling, would MCC clarify the number of schools that administrators oversee? How are these schools grouped? At a municipal or district level?

MCC expects the program to work in 5 departments and to select about

50 – 75 % of the municipalities in those 5 departments to comprise the project’s area of influence. We expect to cover about 450 schools of about 800 on the five departments.

12. How many administrators will MINEDUC expect to train under the threshold program?

The Quality of Education Activity seeks to strengthen competencies of teachers, principals, and administrators. We expect this to cover 2400 teachers, 450 principals, 30 regional supervisors and 15 central administrators in the headquarters of the Ministry.

13. How many schools would typically be in a school network? How are these schools assigned?

The school network structure envisioned by the Ministry of

Education includes a lower secondary school as the core of the network, with several (3-6) primary schools linked. Within a territorial jurisdiction, the networks will be exhaustive (cover all relevant schools) and exclusive (a school belongs to only one network).

14. When should we expect the first diplomado courses to be offered? How long is the course and how often will new cohorts initiate participation in the diplomado?

It was originally envisioned that the first diplomados would be offered in 2017 with a second cohort in

2018, but this will likely be delayed by a year.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 5

15. Does MCC know what universities or organizations will offer the diplomado courses? Will it be necessary for the courses to be held on those universities’ or organizations’ campuses, or is the location flexible to enable offering the courses outside the main urban centers?

MCC will allow for flexibility with regards to the location.

16. On pages 46-47, the RFP indicates that the Political

Economist should demonstrate experience in rigorous political economy analysis of infrastructure sectors. Please confirm that this description is accurate.

This is an error, it should correctly be stated as ”rigorous political economy analysis of education sectors”.

17. Page 10, Section C.2: MCC states that “the efforts undertaken by the Government in the implementation of institutional reforms” are “defined in the Proposal for the Transformation of Secondary Education and

Ruta Crítica (see Annex A).” Annex A only contains

Ruta Crítica. Could MCC please provide the Proposal for the Transformation of Secondary Education?

The proposals for secondary education are attached. However, both are only in Spanish.

18. Page 11, Section C.2.1: MCC states “below is a table of preliminary target numbers for the Quality of

Education Activity,” but no table is provided. Could

MCC please provide the table of preliminary target numbers for this Activity?

The Quality of Education Activity seeks to strengthen competencies of teachers, principals, and administrators. We expect this to cover 2400 teachers, 450 principals, 30 regional supervisors and 15 central administrators in the headquarters of the Ministry.

19. Page 18, Section C.3.6.3, Footnote 4: MCC states that the “political economy analysis should explore…the role of contingency in the road sector.” Could MCC please clarify this reference and the importance of the road sector to the Education Project?

This is an error. Please disregard the footnote.

20. Page 19, Section C.4.1.2: MCC states that

“PRONACOM and MINEDUC are responsible for…oversight of the data collection firm.” Can MCC please confirm that the evaluator, as the entity contracting the data collection firm during the evaluation, is responsible for oversight of the data collection firm?

The evaluator is responsible for procuring, managing, and overseeing data collection.

As accountable entity, and implementing partner PRONACOM and MINEDUC should be consulted regarding the data collection effort.

21. Page 23, Section C.5.3.4: MCC states that “when necessary, the Evaluator will utilize existing [data collection] instruments to improve coordination across

MCC independent evaluations for meta-analysis.”

Could MCC please specify which existing instruments it anticipates the Evaluator might use to facilitate meta-analysis across MCC independent evaluations?

DIGEDUCA has existing student learning assessments. The evaluator should seek to work with

DIGEDUCA to use and modify, if necessary these assessments, so as to use existing tools, and build

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 6 capacity with the ministry of education.

22. Page 46-47, Section H.11.3: MCC specifies that the

Senior Analyst/Political Economist should have demonstrated experience in rigorous political economy analysis of infrastructure sectors. Could MCC please clarify whether this requirement applies to the

Education Project Evaluation, and if yes, provide further information on the infrastructure sector’s relevance? If no, could MCC provide additional detail about the requirements for the Senior Analyst/Political

Economist position?

This is an error it should read

“demonstrated experience in rigorous political economy analysis of education sectors”

23. Page 76, Section M.3-M.5: Could MCC please provide the weightings of the evaluation criteria?

MCC will not be assigning weights to the evaluation criteria.

24. Could MCC provide additional information on the

Education Consultant? What are the responsibilities of the Education Consultant?

If available, could MCC please share the Education

Project’s implementation plan, and/or other details on the program implementation?

The education consultant contract has yet to be awarded. As such, the implementation plan will be forthcoming.

25. Could MCC verify that the Education Project implementers will collect ongoing monitoring data on outputs and outcomes?

Yes, the implementers will be responsible for the monitoring data on outputs and outcomes.

26. Page 19 Section C.4.1.2 of the RFQ states that

“DIGEDUCA is responsible for any data collection and analysis and will this play a large role in shaping and carrying out the evaluation”. Moreover, page 13 Section

C.3.5 states that “all data collection efforts will be the full responsibility of the evaluator, including preparation of the TOR’s, procurement of the data collection firm (if necessary), implementation, quality control, and analysis. Would MCC please elaborate on the role that DIGEDUCA will play in data collection for the evaluation?

The evaluator is responsible for procuring, managing, and overseeing data collection.

However, as accountable entity, and implementing partner PRONACOM and MINEDUC should be consulted regarding the data collection effort.

In addition, DIGEDUCA, within

MINEDUC, has the existing student learning assessments, as well as other data collection tools. If it is feasible, the evaluator should utilize the capacity within DIGEDUCA to implement data collection rather than look for a private data collection firm.

27. Annex A Ruta Crítica: Prioridades del Plan de

Implementación Estratégica de Educación, provides detailed information to the bidder regarding the program and the education strategy. Is this document available in

See response to question #17.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 7

English? If so, could MCC please provide bidders with a copy?

28. Could MCC please provide the referenced document

Proposal for the Transformation of Secondary

Education?

See response to question #17.

29. To help inform the design of the methodology, would

MCC be able to provide bidders with any other relevant program design documents?

All of the design documents available were attached in the solicitation.

30. Could MCC please clarify difference between school network, PTA, and parent council?

The school network is defined in

#13 above. PTA is not used in the document but the US PTA’s are somewhat similar to the Parent’s

Councils described in the solicitation.

31. Could MCC please clarify if school networks and PTA technical support will target lower secondary schools only, or if it will target primary schools as well?

The main engagement will be with lower secondary schools. Networks do include primary schools, but that is with the objective of improving transition between primary and lower secondary schools.

32. Could MCC please elaborate on the channel for dissemination of information about secondary offerings to primary school parents?

This has not yet been determined.

33. Could MCC please clarify the extent to which action plans of parent councils will be standardized across schools?

This has not yet been determined.

34. Page 13 Section C.3.6 of the RFQ makes reference to teacher diagnostics. Could MCC please provide further details on the teacher diagnostics component of activity

1?

Teachers will need to take an exam before and after the diplomado that assesses their knowledge of the national curriculum and pedagogy.

35. On Page 17, the Impact Evaluation questions make reference to gender sensitive job counseling. Could

MCC please provide more details regarding the TVET program and the gender sensitive job counseling?

Moreover, could MCC please explain to whom exactly the gender sensitive job counseling will be administered?

At this time MCC is unable to provide that information.

36. Could MCC clarify whether the Diplomado program will involve in-service or pre-service training? If the former, will teachers continue teaching while participating in the program?

This program will involve in-service only.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 8

37. Could MCC please elaborate if the Diplomado program will have a standardized teacher certification exam?

Could MCC please explain if the training content is

“new” or if it rather reinforces what teachers should have learned during earlier phases of their education/certification?

Yes, there will be a standard exam.

Much of the training content will be new.

38. Could MCC please provide additional details regarding the duration of the Diplomado program?

See response to question # 37.

39. Could MCC please explain who will be targeted by

Diplomado? Specifically, will it be mandatory or voluntary?

It will be voluntary.

40. Will Diplomado be tailored to LS teachers in general, or will there be separate tracks for grade 7, 8 and 9 teachers, respectively? Will there be separate tracks by subject?

In addition to some common material, the material will be tailored by subject and modality.

41. Will grade 9 exit examination data (including school-level completion data and examination scores) be made available to the evaluation team?

Yes

42. Is there a standardized method for tracking pupils at the national level (i.e., unique ID which follows the student through grades and across schools)?

Yes, there are unique IDs for every students

43. Is there a standardized method for tracking teachers at the national level (i.e., unique ID which follows teachers even if they transfer schools)?

Yes.

44. Could MCC please elaborate on the requirements for ex-ante Cost-Benefit Analysis or Cost-Effectiveness analysis as described in section C.4.1.3.2?

A general description of CBA at

MCC is on our website. A formal cost-benefit analysis model is not required for MCC’s Threshold

Programs. However, this and cost-effectiveness analysis can be useful analytical tools for making decisions, comparing outcomes across education projects, etc. The impact of a project is important but so is understanding the cost associated with that impact. MCC strives to invest in cost-effective projects. When, how, and if these analyses are produced will depend on the overall project and its evaluation strategy.

45. Does MCC know if the government of Guatemala maintains a central business registry? If so, might it be

Unknown.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 9 possible to access this database to inform the evaluation of activity 2?

46. Does MCC know if the government of Guatemala conducts a regular labor market population survey? If so, does MCC know with what frequency the data is collected as well as the lowest geographic unit of aggregation for which the data is representative?

Unfortunately, MCC does not have any knowledge about a labor market population survey.

47. Could MCC share any documents related to the organizational structure of the TVET program?

No.

48. For each of the components of activities 1 and 2, is there any indication of the level at which they will likely be rolled out (e.g., school, district, etc.)?

See questions 11-15

49. Is this solicitation only for 1 single individual consultant or would you allow a team of consultants to work on this project? The duties described and the scale of the project indicate a team of education consultants would better serve to meet the objectives listed in the RFQ. Please advise if you only allow one person to be hired or a team of professionals to do this job.

MCC expects a team of consultants to work on this. Please refer to the staffing requirements for further details.

50. In the RFQ the Subcontracts "Data Collection" of a combined $1,000,000 is not explained. The note

"MCC anticipates approximately $1 million worth of data collection subcontracting costs for which the requirements are unknown at this time." leaves it ambiguous as to what exactly you require data collection for and would this be the obligation for the designated Contractor to provide such services in the event of an award? Is this "data collection" in reference to:

C.3.2. Where necessary to capture accurate measurement of results, the Independent Evaluator may propose data collection in addition to the data collection already recommended or required elsewhere in this Statement of Work.

C.3.5. All data collection efforts, in conformity with the Evaluator’s approved Evaluation Design Report, will be the full responsibility of the Evaluator, including preparation of TORs, procurement of a data collection firm (if necessary), implementation, quality control, and analysis.

If this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor then is it fair to assume the cost of this "Data Collection" would be different from the stated value of $1,000,000

The $1,000,000 is an estimate of the cost for the primary data collection related to the evaluation as state in

C.3.5. This includes both baseline, endline, and any midline data collection needs to estimate the effect of the intervention. Yes the cost of the data collection is unknown, which is why vendors are not expected to bid on the scope of the data collection at this time. For consistency, in pricing your quote, bidders may want to divide the $1 by the 5 pay periods, and allocate

$200,000 (one-fifth) to each period.

MCC-16-RFQ-0131 Amendment 0001 Page 10

(for 5 years) as the actual cost would be highly dependent on several variables including the data collection company who is contracted to do this task?

51. Where is the place of performance for this contract? Is it exclusively located in Guatemala City or would the

Contractor have to travel throughout Guatemala to different towns? Can you provide a list of all the expected geographic locations the Contractor must travel to for his/her duties? We can suffice with just the town names if addresses are not available. We need this to calculate travel and logistical costs. Is there a recommended location for the Contractor to reside in for the 5 year term of this Project? Should the

Contractor rent an apartment in Guatemala City if that is where the bulk of the work will be done?

The ANNEX_J_Evaluation_Services_Travel_SOW document cannot be filled out accurately without the exact locations of where the Contractor must travel to during the course of the project in Guatemala.

Please see the response to question

11. The work will be done across 5 departments in Guatemala. The list of departments and municipalities has not be finalized.

It is up to the contractor to determine the best location based on cost and efficiency for work.

We do not expect the Travel SOW to be completed at this time. This annex was include for the vendor’s reference.

(END OF AMENDMENT 0001)