MCC-17-RFQ-0005__Amendment_0001_(Signed).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 12

0001 See Block 16C

20170015

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700

Washington DC 20005

POC: Carlos Torres-Roman

Email: torresromanci@mcc.gov

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700

Washington DC 20005

To all Offerors/Bidders

MCC-17-RFQ-0005

10/18/2016

X

X X

SUBMISSION DEADLINE IS HEREBY EXTENDED FROM 11/14/2016 @ 3:00 PM ET to 11/21/2016 @ 3:00 PM ET.

N/A

See Continuation Pages.

Jacqueline H. Naranjo

Contracting Officer naranjoj Typewritten Text 11/8/2016 naranjoj Typewritten Text

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 2 of 12

A. Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation

The quotation submission deadline is extended from November 14, 2016 at 3:00 PM ET to

November 21, 2016 at 3:00 PM ET. Section L.3 of the solicitation is revised accordingly.

Annex I through Annex X located on pages 74 through 96 of Solicitation number MCC-17-RFQ-

0005 are replaced in their entirety with Annex I through Annex XIII in this amendment (attached separately).

The language found in Section C.9, page 20, Task 7, second bullet is removed in its entirety.

The language found in Section L.8, page 66, under “Data: Discuss data considerations” is revised to read as follows: “Discuss the Contractor’s relevant experience, particularly experience in designing and implementing performance evaluations and with qualitative research methods.”

Section J is replaced in its entirety with the following list of attachments:

ANNEX I ISWD Project Logic

ANNEX II PEM Good Practice Guide

ANNEX III Evaluability Assessment (Draft)

ANNEX IV Evaluation Design Report Template

ANNEX V Informed Consent Statement

ANNEX VI MCC Data Documentation and Anonymization Guidelines

ANNEX VII Nesstar Template

ANNEX VIII Evaluation Baseline Report Template

ANNEX IX Evaluation Final Report Template (Outline)

ANNEX X Evaluator Progress Report

ANNEX XI Evaluation Services Contractor Travel SOW

ANNEX XII Medical Accommodation Procedures and Travel Forms DS-4086 and DS-4086A

ANNEX XIII Past Performance Questionnaire

B. The following are questions submitted by interested parties and the Government’s responses.

An offeror’s question may not appear in the exact wording or format submitted due to consolidation of questions.

1. Question: Page 14 says: “The evaluation of Activity 1 should include two areas: 1) monitoring the progress of the students enrolled in the programs that receive the Large Competitive Grants, including post-graduation achievements.” Is it possible also to survey students enrolled in programs that did not receive grants, as a comparison?

Answer: Yes, it may be possible to survey current TVET programs although this may take some coordination. In addition, the existing programs may not provide a true comparison given that the grant facility aims to fund new and innovative programs and fields of study. There is also substantial amount of variation between programs that fall into the TVET category.

2. Question: On Page 14 of the RFQ, it states that “The evaluation of the ISWD project will be a performance evaluation that includes analysis of longitudinal data…as well as a rigorous qualitative research.” Does this statement preclude the bidder from proposing more rigorous methods to assess the impact of the four project components?

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 3 of 12

Answer: The bidders are not precluded from proposing a more rigorous methodology but we will take into account the cost of the proposed methodology as it compares to what evidence will be attained. In addition, the qualitative methods component should not be overlooked. The qualitative component will provide valuable insights into how new and innovative programs can be created and linked with the labor market demands.

3. Question: What fraction of institutions applying to the Large Scale Competitive grants do you expect to award?

Answer: It depends more on the value of each award and the number of viable applications.

4. Question: Is data collection expected to occur mostly in Tbilisi or the scope should be national?

Answer: It will depend on where the grantees are located.

5. Question: How will the Large Scale Competitive grants be awarded? Please specify if, for example, type of scoring system will be implemented?

Answer: This is included in Annex II in the grants manual.

6. Question: Page 5, Section B.6 states that labor rates are not adjustable “for the life of that contract period.” Can MCC please confirm that each option period is considered a new contract, and therefore new rates can be proposed for each year, but that those rates do not escalate within each year?

Answer: Each option period is considered a new “contract period.” Therefore, offerors may propose different rates for each period, but those rates must remain fixed within the respective period.

7. Question: Page 24, Section E.1, and page 27, Section F.3 both state that MCC has two weeks to provide detailed comments from submittal of the full report. However, there is no guidance in the RFP as to the expected number of iterations of each deliverable. In order to accurately price the level of effort associated with the back-and-forth of deliverable finalization, can MCC confirm that, provided comments are sufficiently responded to, they expect to provide no more than two rounds of comments on each deliverable?

Answer: Key deliverables such as the Evaluation Design Report, and Baseline, Interim, and Final Reports are reviewed by the PM and then sent to local stakeholders and the MCC country staff for review, resulting in 2-3 revisions.

8. Question: Page 73, Section M.3 states that the offer shall submit past performance

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 4 of 12 questionnaires, and that the offeror’s references may submit their completed questionnaires directly to MCC. Can MCC confirm that questionnaires can be submitted either along with our proposal package or directly to MCC, and not that direct submission to MCC is a requirement?

Answer: The questionnaires may be submitted along with the proposal package or directly to

MCC by the offeror’s references. Direct submission to MCC is not a requirement, but an option.

9. Question: Page 69, Section M.1 states that offers must include “A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 52.212-3(b) for those representations and certifications that the offeror shall complete electronically).” Page 64, Section K, requires that offerors must submit a copy of SAM registration verification in the offer. Can MCC confirm that submitting evidence of current SAM registration will fulfill the requirement for representations and certifications, as these have been completed through SAM?

Answer: Yes, submitting evidence of current/active SAM registration will fulfill the requirement for representations and certifications.

10. Question: Can offers be submitted in Microsoft Word, Excel or PDF?

Answer: As stated on Page 65, Section L.6 Quotation Format, “Files shall be formatted to print on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with the exception of charts, such as MS-Project, that can be presented on 11 x 17 inch pages. Single-spaced typed lines, including figures and glossaries. 1-inch margins. Times New Roman font, in no smaller than 12-point for text. Times New Roman font, 10-point for spreadsheets and any font size for graphics as long as they are legible. In

Microsoft Word, Excel and PDF software. All quotation pages must be numbered. It is the responsibility of each offeror to ensure that all documents included in their offer prints completely and fits the entire image on each page.” Please note: The price tables for the Cost

Quotation (i.e., the templates at Section B.6) must be submitted in Excel format, even if any narrative portion of the Cost volume is submitted in Word or PDF.

11. Question: Can MCC provide an independent government cost estimate for this evaluation?

Answer: No.

12. Question: RFQ page 8 refers to a project logic (Annex I). Will MCC please provide this annex?

Answer: See Part A of this amendment, “Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation.”

13. Question: Can MCC please provide more information on the implementation of the

Competitive Program Improvement Grants activity to date? For example:

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 5 of 12

a. How many grantees were awarded this year? Will there be more grants awarded in subsequent years?

b. How are grantees distributed across sectors/industries (i.e. are they evenly spread, or concentrated in a particularly industry).

c. Where are grantees located? Are they concentrated in Tiblisi or are they spread out over all nine regions? Are Abkhazia and Tskinvali excluded?

d. How long is a typical Level 4 or Level 5 TVET program? What is the average/expected duration of student enrollment in these programs?

Answers:

a. 10 in total. There is no funding and provision to announce/award the second round of PICG facility.

b. Grantees are distributed across various sectors/industries. We have IT sector, agricultural sector, fishery, maritime, mount guiding, railway industry, aviation and other sectors.

c. A majority of them are in Tbilisi, but some are in regions (i.e. Batumi, Poti, Gudauri, Mestia). Yes, Abkhazia and Tskinvali are excluded. Currently Georgian authorities do not have control over these regions.

d. The maximum duration of Level 4 or Level 5 TVET programs are 24 months. Please see below the expected duration and number of students per program.

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 6 of 12

# Applicant Partner

Institutions Grant

Amount

Matching

Contribu-tion Program Level

Training

Duration

Months

Students per

Cohort

New

Program

First

Cohort

Year

LEPL

Batumi

State

Maritime

Academy

1,373,735 287,300 4 164

Welder IV 18 54 √ 2017 Apr

Sailor/fisher V 24 60 √ 2017 Apr

Port Logistics Mng. V 24 20 √ 2017 Apr

Terminal Crane Operator V 24 30 √ 2017 Apr

Georgian

Mountain

Guide

Association

Swiss Mountain

Guide Association

(SMGA)

Switzerland technical University of Munich; Georgia

National Tourism

Administration, Mountain Resort

Development

Agency; College

Tetnuldi

562,369 202,069 5 40

Tracking guide IV 12 10 √ 2016 Oct

Alpine Guide V 18 5 √ 2016 Oct

Ski Guide V 18 6 √ 2016 Oct

Mountain Guide V 21 5 √ 2016 Oct

Ski-Teacher (1-3 levels) III 6/level 10 √ 2016 Oct

Int. Certificate SPRAT I-III

Level III 12/level 4 2016 Oct

Vocational

College

"Phazisi"

University of

Eastern Finland;

Georgian

Federation of

Children

Foundation;

Education, Science and Technological

Development

Foundation for

Tomorrow's

Success; Black Sea

Aquaculture

Company

829,000 100,000 3 45

Fish Breeding Technician IV 18 15 √ 2017 Apr

Fish Processing Specialist IV 20 15 √ 2017 Apr

Fish Laboratory Technician IV 16 15 √ 2017 Apr

Vocational

GTU; CISCO

international

395,035 60,000 4 200

Systems Administrator V 6 30 2018 Sep

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 7 of 12

College

"Tetnuldi" Ascademt Georgian

Branch; Tkibuli

Technological

Institute; Didi

Jikhaishi College;

other professional colleges

Computer Net

Administrator V 6 30 2017 Sep

IT Support Technician III 4 110 2017 Sep

Computer Network and

Systems Technicians IV 6 30 √ 2018 Sep

Aviation

University

Aviacompany

Tusheti

770,097 133,290 3 105

Helicopter Pilot V 24 20 √ 2017 Sep

Aircraft and engine maintenance technician V 24 45 √ 2017 Sep

Aircraft Avionics and electrics system technician V 24 40 √ 2017 Sep

Community

College

"Spectri"

Pearson Education

Limited, UK;

Public College

"Akhali Talga"

2,071,119 1,129,800 8 322

Welder IV 6 40 2017 Apr

Welder V 6 40 2017 Apr

Electrician IV 6 66 2017 Apr

Electrician V 6 40 2017 Apr

Air-con IV 6 40 2017 Apr

Air-con V 6 20 2017 Apr

Sewage IV 6 46 √ 2017 Apr

Sewage V 6 30 √ 2017 Apr

Technical

University/

BP

BP Georgia

2,362,910 3,205,297 6 120

Industrial mechanic IV-V 24 24 2017 Sep

Industrial electrician, low voltage IV-V 24 24 2017 Sep

Industrial electrical, high voltage IV-V 24 24 √ 2017 Sep

Process Operator IV-V 24 24 √ 2017 Sep

Instrumentation technician IV-V 24 24 √ 2017 Sep

Short term courses IV-V 1 300 2017 Sep

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 8 of 12

Railway

Deutsche Bahn

International

GmbH; Iowa State

University, GTU

2,291,900 2,244,417 8 125

Track repairer V 18 15 2018 Sep

Electrical Mechanic V 24 15 2018 Sep

Rolling Stock Mechanic V 24 15 2018 Sep

Rail car Maintenance mechanic V 24 20 2018 Sep

Rail carrier V 24 15 2018 Sep

Signalization, centralization and blocking mechanic V 30 15 2018 Sep

Locomotive driver III 24 15 √ 2018 Sep

Testing inspector NA 24 15 √ 2018 Sep

Agricultural

University of Georgia

Wageningen

University

Research Centre;

Centre for

Development

Innovation, Netherlands; Elva

Community

Engagement, GEO;

Nergeta - GEO;

Imereti Greenery, Georgian Farmners

Association

744,815 131,977 3 200

Farmer V 25 80 √ 2017 Sep

Veterinary Service

Specialist IV 22 50 √ 2017 Sep

Viticulturist -oenologist III 18 70 √ 2017 Sep

Institute of

Public

Affairs

(GIPA)

RRC International

Training and

Consultancy

Limited, UK

655,020 66,650 1 80

Occupational health Safety and Environmental

Specialist/manager V 24 80 √ 2017 Sep

TOTAL 12,056,000 7,560,800 45 1401

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 9 of 12

14. Question: RFQ page 14 refers to Annex II PEM’s Best Practice Guidance. Will MCC please provide this annex?

Answer: See Part A of this amendment, “Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation.”

15. Question: RFQ Section C.7 paragraph 1 mentions that the evaluator is not expected to answer every question included. However, Section C.7 paragraph 4 states, “The evaluation should, however, address the central evaluation questions for each activity (listed below).” Can MCC please clarify whether the Offeror's proposal should demonstrate how it will directly address all evaluation questions in paragraph 4?

Answer: It’s not necessary to answer all of the questions, but to propose a methodology that can prioritize those questions and collect the critical data to answer them. The questions will be reviewed again with local stakeholders during the design phase, so a good proposal will show how to include that stakeholder feedback in the evaluation design.

16. Question: Can MCC please clarify whether the evaluator will have any input into the data collection firm selection process other than providing input for the TOR for procurement?

Answer: Yes, MCC, MCA-Georgia (MCA-G), and the evaluator work together to procure and manage the data collection firm, although the contract is directly managed by MCA-G.

17. Question: RFQ page 11, Section C.4, indicates that the “evaluators must assess the program design and implementation to develop the most rigorous evaluation design feasible, whether it is a performance or impact evaluation.” However, RFQ page 14, Section C.7, states that “the evaluation of the ISWD project will be a performance evaluation.” Will MCC please clarify whether Offerors are expected to design a performance evaluation or an impact evaluation?

Answer: This should be a performance evaluation.

18. Question: RFQ page 8, Section C.2, states that “the total funding for the ISWD project is USD

16,000. $12,000 is devoted to activity 1 and $4,000 is devoted to activities 2 - 4.”

a. Are these units of funding in millions or thousands? I.e. that it should be $16 million in total funding for ISWD, $12 million for activity 1, and $4 million for activities 2 - 4?

b. RFQ page 15, Section C.7 suggests a 75/25 split between activity 1 and activities 2 - 4.

However, given the varying nature of the activities, we do not believe this LOE split to be feasible. Can MCC please clarify whether there is a further breakdown of cost per activities

2 - 4 so that Offerors can allocate LOE accordingly?

Answer:

a. Units of funding are in millions.

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 10 of 12

b. MCC does not have a further cost breakdown. This was mentioned to ensure that bidders knew that the majority of LOE should go to the Grants evaluation.

19. Question: Can MCC please clarify whether the “Data Sources” listed in RFQ Section C.8, page

17 are data that are currently being collected by ISWD?

Answer: These will be collected by the TVET Providers.

20. Question: Per RFQ Section C.9, page 20, the outline of Task 7 indicates that this is an impact evaluation with treatment and control groups. Will MCC please clarify the timeline associated with the selection and implementation of the treatment and control groups/areas?

Answer: See Part A of this amendment, “Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation.” Per

Question 17, this will be a performance evaluation.

21. Question: RFQ page 66 states that Offerors must “discuss the contractor’s relevant experience, particularly experience in designing and implementing impact evaluations using a randomized control trial methodology and implementing data collection.” This conflicts with RFQ page 14, which states that “the evaluation of the ISWD project will be a performance evaluation that includes analysis of longitudinal data on employment rates and placements, as well as rigorous qualitative research.” Will MCC please confirm that the contractor should discuss relevant experience in performance evaluations, not impact evaluations?

Answer: The staffing plan should cite experience relevant to projects of similar nature and similar geographic regions. Yes, we are planning a performance evaluation, so we would expect that technical experience demonstrate past work be relevant to performance evaluations and qualitative research methods. See Part A of this amendment, “Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation,” for changes to Section L.8.

22. Question: RFQ Section L.9 instructs the Offeror to estimate the number of trips to be taken, while the rest of the solicitation indicates that trips will be determined as needed. Can MCC please confirm that Offerors should propose a per trip estimate, and need not estimate the number of trips to be taken?

Answer: The number of the trips is flexible. However, we would expect that the offeror would be able to estimate the number of trips needed based on the proposed methodology.

23. Question: RFQ page 22 states that part of the dissemination of final results includes

“participation in other MCC-financed dissemination and training events such as MCC M&E

College and the Annual MCC Impact Evaluation Workshop.” Can MCC please clarify whether attendance at these events will be funded by the event or whether Offerors should budget for

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 11 of 12 them? If offerors should budget for them, can MCC please indicate the location and frequency of the events?

Answer: These events occur every two years, and typically travel is funded out of the evaluation contract. Budgeting for 1 or 2 trips (for 1 team member) should be sufficient.

24. Question: RFQ page 44 states the Key Personnel education requirements. Will MCC please clarify whether education and experience equivalents are acceptable? For example, will two years of experience be acceptable in place of a Masters of Arts? Will a Masters of Arts plus X number of years of experience be acceptable in place of a PhD, and if so, how many years of experience?

Answer: Yes, equivalents are acceptable. In general, a Bachelor’s Degree is equivalent to four

(4) years of experience; a Master’s Degree is equal to six (6) years; and a PhD is equal to eight

(8) years. If the candidate has a Bachelor’s Degree, for instance, then only two additional years of experience are required to meet the minimum requirement of a Master’s Degree. Please note that this is in addition to the experience requirements for the position. For instance, if a position requires a Master’s Degree and five (5) years of experience in the field, but the candidate only has a Bachelor’s Degree, then the candidate will need seven (7) years of experience to meet the minimum qualification requirement. NOTE: All experience/education must be clearly stated in the staff member’s CV.

25. Question: Are publications in peer reviewed journals for past work preferred for Key

Personnel?

Answer: MCC does not have a preference for what is used as past work as long as the work is relevant to the project (region, sector, or both).

26. Question: Does MCC anticipate that as a part of its evaluation findings, the independent evaluator will provide an ex-post ERR/beneficiary analysis of the ISWD?

Answer: Yes, we would expect to see an ex-post CBA analysis.

27. Question: Given that PEM was awarded the IWSD contract in 2014 and the performance evaluation baseline period will start in January 2017, can MCC clarify at what stage project activities are currently and when they are expected to conclude?

Answer: The grants were awarded in Fall 2016, and implementation will start in Spring 2017.

28. Question: Please provide more detail about the target TVETs, such as their number and geographic spread.

MCC-17-RFQ-0005/Amendment 0001 Page 12 of 12

Answer: See response to Question 13.

29. Question: The RFQ refers to Annex 1, Project Logic (pg. 8 of RFQ) and Annex 2, PEM’s Best

Practice Guidance (pg.14 of the RFQ) that do not appear to be attached. Could MCC please share these annexes with the bidders?

Answer: See Part A of this amendment, “Changes Incorporated into the Solicitation.”

30. Question: Section F, page 25-27 of the RFQ indicates baseline data collection due dates in 2017 and final data collection in 2020/2021. Can MCC please confirm that there will be no interim data collection for this evaluation?

Answer: This depends on the evaluation design proposed, but if interim data is collected it will likely be a smaller subset of indicators and thus not as costly.

31. Question: Section L.8, page 66 of the RFQ states “Quotations shall include CVs of each proposed expert, specifically identifying language capabilities (English), depth of relevant subject matter expertise, and prior experience in Georgia.” Can MCC please confirm that CVs are only required for proposed Key Personnel?

Answer: Confirmed. CVs are only required for proposed Key Personnel.

32. Question: Previous MCC solicitations have included a clause indicating that past performance questionnaires are not required for MCC projects. We have been unable to find a similar clause in solicitation number MCC-17-RFQ-005. Could you kindly confirm that offerors are not required to submit past performance questionnaires for MCC funded contracts?

Answer: Yes, that is correct. Past performance questionnaires are not required for MCC-funded contracts. Only the information in the past performance matrix/table is required for any MCC-funded contracts being used as past performance references.