06._DPE_Evaluation_RFQ_Liberia_Project_Final_2_13_17_(JN)r3.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 ________________________________. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY (BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED SET FORTH HEREIN IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (TYPE OR PRINT) 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (TYPE OR PRINT) 31c. DATE SIGNED

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION (REV. 2/2012)

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

STANDARD FORM 1449

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, & 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS 77

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 2-13-2017

Janet Carlson (202) 772-6309 03-13-2017 @ 1PM ET

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700, Merle Phillips, PSC Rep. MCC Washington DC 20005

X

X

N/A

X

Millennium Challenge Corporation

CGM

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

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

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6 and conducted per the procedures of FAR Subpart 13.5, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

MCC seeks a Contractor to provide Independent Evaluation Services for the Liberia Energy Project

See enclosed solicitation and all attachments for pertinent details.

See CONTINUATION Page

X X

Jacqueline H. Naranjo

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 2 of 77

SECTION B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

Price/Cost Schedule

CLIN DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY U/I UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Base Period-Phase I Direct Labor Time & Materials Contract Period: Base POP Begin: MAY 2017 POP End: JAN 2018

1 LO __________________ __________________

0002 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Contract Period: Base POP Begin: MAY 2017 POP End: JAN 2018

1 LO __________________ __________________

1001 Option Period I-Phase II Direct Labor Time & Materials Contract Period: Option 1 POP Begin: FEB 2018 POP End: JUL 2019

1 LO __________________ __________________

1002 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Contract Period: Option 1 POP Begin: FEB 2018 POP End: JUL 2019

1 LO __________________ __________________

Option Period II-Phase III Direct Labor Time & Materials Contract Period: Option 2 POP Begin: AUG 2019 POP End: MAY 2021

1 LO __________________ __________________

2002 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Contract Period: Option 2 POP Begin: AUG 2019 POP End: MAY 2021

1 LO __________________ __________________

3001 Option Period III-Phase IV Direct Labor Time & Materials Contract Period: Option 3 POP Begin: JUN 2021 POP End: APR 2025

1 LO __________________ __________________

3002 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Contract Period: Option 3 POP Begin: JUN 2021 POP End: APR 2025

1 LO __________________ __________________

GRAND TOTAL __________________

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 3 of 77

*MCC reserves the right to set the contract ceiling above the total estimated price to account for potential deviations due to unforeseen circumstances. However, the Contractor will be expected to perform in good faith in accordance with their proposed cost estimates.

FAR 52.216-1 – Type of Contract (Apr 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a time-and-materials (T&M) contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

Accounting and Appropriation Data

[RESERVED]

Funding Type

This contract will be funded, at time of award, with no-year Due Diligence funding. As such, funding obligated to this contract may be used during the life of the contract.

Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts

In accordance with clause MCC 52.232-72, “Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts,” funds in the amount of [TBD] have been allotted to this contract. It is contemplated that funds now obligated under this contract will cover the work to be performed until [TBD].

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.

Labor Rates & Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

Labor rates at the inception of a contract period will carry through as “fixed-price” without adjustment for the life of that contract period. Using the template below, Offerors must include all proposed labor categories, fully-burdened hourly rates and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for each contract period identified in B.1.

Base Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Total Total Labor Hours Total Labor Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total ODCs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Est. Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Base Period – Period of Performance TBD (est. 9 months) Item # Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total Total (Base Period)

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 4 of 77

Option Period I – Period of Performance TBD (est. 18 months)

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

1002 Subcontract(s) – Data Collection Lot 1 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00

Total (Option Period I)

Option Period II – Period of Performance TBD (est. 22 months)

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

2002 Subcontract(s) – Data Collection Lot 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00

Total (Option Period II)

Option Period III – Period of Performance TBD (est. 46 months)

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

3002 Subcontract(s) – Data Collection Lot 1 $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00

Total (Option Period III)

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 5 of 77

TOTAL COST SUMMARY

Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - - Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

Subcontract(s) – Data Collection Lot 1 $3,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00

ODC Sub-Total Total Estimated Cost

NOTE (1): MCC anticipates approximately $3 million worth of data collection subcontracting costs for which the requirements are unknown at this time. To be fair to all vendors providing a quotation, a plug number is utilized for data collection subcontracting costs in the respective years in which data collection is expected to occur. However, if you believe this plug number is inadequate, please advise during the Question and Answer period of the solicitation. “Data Collection Subcontract(s),” as used in the tables above, refers only to the cost of subcontracting a data collection firm. It does not include any prime contractor labor associated with overseeing/managing the data collection effort; this time should be incorporated into the level of effort proposed under the respective “Direct Labor” CLIN. Subcontracting costs for data collection are subject to the requirements of FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts.

NOTE (2): A job description shall be included for each labor category proposed. The job description must identify essential and non-essential tasks that are assigned to a specific position.

It must also identify reporting relationships and shall also describe required qualifications, minimum requirements, working conditions and desirable qualifications, and clarify how each Key Personnel and the overall team meet the qualifications required for this requirement.

(End of SECTION B)

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 6 of 77

Introduction and Background

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a U.S. Government corporation whose mission is to provide assistance that will support economic growth and poverty reduction in carefully selected countries that demonstrate a commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizenry. For more information on the MCC, please visit www.mcc.gov.

The MCC M&E Policy states that every Project must undergo an independent evaluation. The Policy defines two types of evaluations:

Impact Evaluation – A study that measures the changes in income and/or other aspects of well-being that are attributable to a defined intervention. Impact evaluations require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual, which estimates what would have happened to the beneficiaries absent the project. Estimated impacts, when contrasted with total related costs, provide an assessment of the intervention’s cost-effectiveness.

Performance Evaluation – A study that seeks to answer descriptive questions, such as: what were the objectives of a particular project or program, what the project or program has achieved; how it has been implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring and are sustainable; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision making. MCC’s performance evaluations also address questions of program impact and cost-effectiveness.

On October 2, 2015, the United States of America through MCC and the Government of Liberia (GoL) signed a US$257 million Compact designed to reduce poverty through economic growth by investing in energy and road maintenance projects in Liberia. The selection and design of Compact Projects was informed by a Constraints Analysis focused on identifying the binding constraints to economic growth in Liberia and a subsequent Root Cause Analysis that sought to identify the underlying causes of those constraints. The Compact supports key development priorities of the GoL as identified in the Agenda for Transformation, a five-year development strategy for FY 12-17, and Liberia RISING 2030, which is Liberia’s long-term vision of socio-economic and political transformation and development. The Compact officially entered into force on January 20, 2016 and will close on January 19, 2021.

Scope

The Contractor shall provide MCC with Independent Evaluation Services in support of the Liberia Energy Project under the Liberia Compact.

Liberia Compact Background

The goal of the Liberia Compact is to reduce poverty through economic growth. This will be accomplished through two Projects: (1) the Energy Project and (2) the Roads Project. The objectives of the Projects are to: (i) provide access to more reliable and affordable electricity; and (ii) improve the planning and execution of routine, periodic and emergency road maintenance. These objectives are expected to be realized through MCC’s investments, which aim to increase power generation and the share of generation from renewable sources, and improve overall power sector performance, and to provide funding and support to improve the road maintenance system. This evaluation will focus on the Energy Project, which is described further below.

Liberia has an electrification rate of less than two percent and one of the highest electricity tariffs in the world at US$0.49 per kilowatt hour (kWh). The average cost of generation for countries in sub-Saharan Africa is about US$0.15 per kWh, ranging from US$0.05 in energy-rich countries such as Nigeria to about US$0.25 for less energy-endowed countries like Cabo Verde. According to the World Bank, “the main reason for high cost of electricity in Liberia is the dependency on high-cost diesel generation.” The Constraints Analysis asserts that these costs mainly result from the destruction of Liberia’s hydroelectric dam, which was the country’s single largest source of power before its civil war, and the diminished capacity of the Liberia Electricity Corporation (LEC) which provided as much as 191 Megawatts (MW) of electricity prior to the war. LEC currently provides 22 MW of power, which is an increase from 9.6 MW in 2009.

SECTION C: DESCRIPTIONS/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 7 of 77

Liberia’s power supply is also unreliable with frequent planned and unplanned outages. The Compact’s Energy Project aims to address a number of problems facing Liberia’s energy sector through four Activities.

C.3.1. Project 1, Activity 1: The Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity aims to address the overarching problem in the energy sector, i.e., the lack of access to affordable and reliable electricity by increasing the amount of electricity generated in Liberia, facilitating a decrease in the overall electricity tariff, and helping to increase reliability and adequacy of electricity. This Activity builds on ongoing rehabilitation efforts funded by the Government of Norway, the German Development Bank, and the European Investment Bank. Initially, the Mt. Coffee Hydropower Plant (MCHPP) was to be rehabilitated to a rated capacity of 66 MW with the GoL providing 20% of the costs. Rehabilitation costs increased substantially as a result of cost overruns and changes to the design, delays caused by the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak, and the decision to expand MCHPP’s capacity to 88 MW in part due to the expected availability of MCC funding.

The Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity to be funded under the Compact assumes responsibility for the GoL’s financial commitments and includes the following specific components:

Additional costs required to provide a total installed generation capacity of up to 88 MW

Funding to cover gaps between existing stakeholder commitments and a total cost to complete the rehabilitation of MCHPP in an amount not to exceed $357 million

The cost of a second 66 kV transmission line from MCHPP to the Paynesville substation

The cost of rehabilitating the raw water intake at MCHPP from the power house to the MCHPP site boundary1

Costs related to the establishment of certain dispute adjudication boards

Rehabilitation work at MCHPP is underway. As of November 2016, MCC has disbursed approximately $73 million of its commitment. The first of four 22MW turbines was commissioned in December 2016 The current schedule is to commission another turbine every few months, with the last expected to come online in August 2017. The complementary works on the dam, transmission lines, and substations are also underway.

Most of the remaining activities in the Energy Project are intended to support the results of the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity and address other root causes of the overarching problem in the sector. These Activities are all in varying stages of design and will likely begin implementation at different times. The current status of each follows the Activity descriptions below.

C.3.2. Project 1, Activity 2: Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activity aims to address the weak policy and regulatory environment by providing support to the key institutions responsible for policy making, investment planning, asset management, and environmental and social oversight of the sector – namely the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy (MLME), LEC, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This Activity comprises three Sub-Activities:

Establishment of an Independent Regulator Sub-Activity. Building upon planned programming from the European Union and the Government of Norway which focuses on the development of MLME’s Department of Energy, this Sub-Activity will assist the Department of Energy in standing up an independent regulatory agency over a three year period, including developing a financial model for the sector and designing a regulatory information system. MCC is currently working with donors to coordinate the technical assistance that will support implementation of the regulator. Implementation is expected to begin during the fourth quarter of the first year of the Compact. The Sub-Activity will include a number of studies, including a demand and willingness to pay survey that will map types and locations of small and medium enterprises, economic enclaves and markets, and households, as well as identify barriers to access for these potential customers. This is critical given the

1 This component is being funded under the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity but is logically and physically connected to the water transmission line that will be rehabilitated under the Mt. Coffee Support Activity.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 8 of 77 importance of increased electricity demand to returns to the Energy Project. MCC will also support demand-based planning and developing solutions to overcoming those barriers (the “Connection Assessment Analysis”). While an implementation model for solutions proposed in the Connection Assessment Analysis has not been identified, support could take the form of a technical assistance consultant, where a portion of compact funding could serve as a contingency fund to support further infill and intensification if necessary to reach expected levels of electricity demand.

Institutional Strengthening for the EPA Sub-Activity. This Sub-Activity aims to enhance the capacity of the EPA to better manage its core functions.

Management Support to LEC Sub-Activity. This Sub-Activity aims to support the tendering and implementation of a management services contract for LEC. The plan to enter a new management services contract, which was selected by the GoL and informed by a study of public management and private sector participation options for LEC, aims to contribute to a financially sustainable utility. Other management options, such as a concession, are still within LEC’s long-term vision for the utility and the initial work on that may start within the Compact’s life.

A consultant is currently preparing the procurement documentation for a new management contractor for LEC.

The new contractor, which will be supported by Compact funding, is expected to be in place by early 2017.

C.3.3. Project 1, Activity 3: Mt. Coffee Support Activity aims to provide additional support to the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity to mitigate environmental and social risks and ensure long-term sustainability. For example, MCC funding will support:

The provision of small-scale community infrastructure (e.g., bridges, culverts, floating walkways) at 36 key locations around the Mt. Coffee reservoir in order to ensure communities and/or settlements surrounding the MCHPP reservoir are not permanently blocked from accessing their farms, settlements, and/or other social services (e.g., health clinics, schools) as a result of reservoir impoundment (expected in October 2016); and other small-scale technical assistance (e.g., training and capacity building) aimed at mitigating negative impacts of the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity on members of surrounding communities2 (e.g., limited relocation away from land located along the St. Paul River);

Additional human resources support to LEC, including the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), to ensure timely and professional management, oversight and reporting of environmental and social impacts and risks, including those related to resettlement;

A watershed management plan (including climate change and fisheries studies); and

Rehabilitation of the raw water transmission line from MCHPP to the White Plains Water Treatment Works to ensure more sustainable supply of water and reduce risks to the White Plains facility and water quality associated with salt-water intrusion in the St. Paul River.

C.3.4. Project 1, Activity 4: The LEC Training Center Activity aims to improve capacity in the energy sector by building LEC’s technical, operational, financial, and administrative capacity, and forming the core base for training of technicians in the electricity sector. This Activity includes the following components: (1) Construction of, and provision of equipment and training materials for, the LEC Training Center; (2) Development of a training curriculum, in the following core areas: (i) transmission and distribution, (ii) electrical, (iii) mechanical, (iv) hydro-electric and (v) other specialized training; and (3) Training for the director, instructors, and support staff of the LEC Training Center, who will be hired as employees of LEC.

This Activity is currently under design, though designs will not be finalized and implementation will not begin until necessary staffing is complete within the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) Liberia.3

2 Sixteen to seventeen settlements exist around MCHPP and will be affected by the rehabilitation effort. The precise number is in flux given ongoing resettlement efforts and the expectation that a few of the settlements will be consolidated. See Annex 1 for more information about the size and locations of these settlements.

3 MCA-Liberia is the Accountable Entity responsible for implementation of the Liberia Compact.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 9 of 77

Staffing is expected to be complete by the end of 2016.

The Energy Project will also include technical assistance support to strengthen socially inclusive and gender responsive planning and implementation capacity of MLME and LEC as a part of the Energy Sector Reform Activity, and a separate effort to increase productive uses of electricity by enhancing capacity, skill and entrepreneurship development of women and youth as a part of the Mt. Coffee Support Activity. These efforts are targeted at increasing the ability of women and youth (including business owners in these groups) to become LEC customers, ensure satisfaction with their service, and also enable training participants to establish and/or expand businesses, generate employment, and increase their incomes.

The following diagram attempts to illustrate the expected causal relationships between the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity and targeted outcomes of that Activity. This diagram will be expanded to incorporate other Energy Activities as they are further defined to the extent they are necessary to achieve the outcomes targeted by the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity, and/or separate logics will be developed for any Activities that are not necessary to achieve the outcomes targeted by the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 10 of 77

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 11 of 77

As noted in the program logic diagram and in the description of benefits below, the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity depends on planned and ongoing external efforts to extend the transmission and distribution network in Liberia. LEC reports that nearly 140,000 new connections are planned by several donors over the next three years. All of these connections will be in or around Monrovia.

Expected benefits and beneficiaries.

Currently, the supply and distribution of electricity in Liberia is extremely limited, both in terms of the number of connections and the total demand of those connections. Current customers pay a high tariff, due to the expensive fuel price for the high speed diesel generators that are currently used for LEC’s entire supply of electricity. After the completion of the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity, existing customers on the grid will receive a one-time benefit of the drop in tariff, and after that will receive benefits based on their consumption of grid-delivered electricity, as measured by the amount they pay for electricity. For those already on the grid, they are expected to have a fairly minimal increase in demand due to the change in cost (in general, the price elasticity of demand for electricity is fairly low, though the income elasticity of demand for electricity is higher, so if there is an overall increase in incomes, we would expect demand to rise more quickly). The majority of the increase in demand is expected to be gained through additional connections to the grid. The economic rate of return depends heavily on this increase in demand from new connections.

For new customers to the grid, they see a one-time benefit based on their estimated willingness to pay, and after that similarly receive benefits based on their consumption of grid-delivered electricity, as monetized by the amount they pay for electricity. Costs in the model include all costs related to the rehabilitation of MCHPP, plus the costs that consumers will have to pay to connect to the grid and any cost they incur in readying their dwellings or businesses to connect to the grid (i.e., any wiring changes or other upgrades, as indicated upon inspection).

The Mt. Coffee Support Activity, LEC Training Center Activity, and the Energy Sector Reform Activity costs are included in the analysis, but potential benefits are not quantifiable at present due to the early stage of design.

Currently, the ERR point estimate for the Energy Project is 11 percent with an estimated ERR range, including all costs, of 3 – 17 percent, depending largely on the number of additional connections made by LEC during the lifetime of the compact. Having sufficient demand connected to the grid remains the largest risk to the ERRs reaching the hurdle rate.

The economic analysis for the Energy Project is attached as Annex 2.

The following table represents the breakdown of the Energy Project budget:

Activity Budget Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity $146,800,000 Mt. Coffee Support Activity $18,100,000 LEC Training Center Activity $5,500,000 Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activity $31,190,000 Total $201,590,000

Objectives

This evaluation contract will cover the entire Energy Project. Only one of the four Activities (Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity) is fully designed at this stage. However, preliminary evaluation questions have been outlined for all of the Activities as well as the Gender and Social Inclusion (GSI) investments. It is expected that the evaluation designs for the non-Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activities will be smaller in scope given their scale and expected contribution to Project results.

Descriptions of the expected number of rounds and methods of data collection are outlined for each evaluation below to

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 12 of 77 help inform bidders’ technical quotes.4

It is expected that the timing of baseline data collection will be determined by the needs of each Activity and therefore the timing may vary across evaluations.

In contrast, data collection for the interim round is expected to happen concurrently for all evaluations (i.e., around the end of the Liberia Compact). Bidders should budget to prepare separate interim evaluation reports for each evaluation listed below. However, these may be consolidated in the future once we have greater clarity on linkages between the targeted outcomes of each investment, targeted audiences, etc.

Endline data collection for all Activities is also expected to happen in the same general timeframe as determined by the needs of the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation/Capacity Building and Sector Reform evaluation. Again, bidders should budget for each evaluation to be presented in a separate final report although, similar to the interim analysis, it is possible that these reports will be consolidated based on the considerations above.

It is expected that data collection will be managed by the Independent Evaluator, either by subcontracting a firm, hiring individuals to collect the data, or collecting it directly.

MCC has designated $3,000,000 as a “data collection plug number” for the three rounds data collection that will managed by the Evaluator. That amount may be adjusted to accommodate actual data collection plans that are proposed and justified based on the approved evaluation design. Costs associated with developing the evaluation materials, supervising data collection, cleaning the data, and ensuring data quality should be included in bidders’ labor/level of effort quotes for all contemplated data collection.

MCC also anticipates a maximum of 26 trips to Liberia and 10 trips to Washington, DC during the period of performance, though actual travel plans will depend on the approved evaluation design and work plan. Quotes should estimate the travel, lodging, and per diem-related expenses related with these trips. The rationale for the number and timing of missions should be explained fully in the quotes.

To summarize the guidance above, cost quotes should:

Estimate the evaluation labor and non-travel ODCs required to evaluate all four Activities and the GSI investments within the Energy Project, including addressing the evaluation questions outlined below

Include a plug number of $3,000,000 for all rounds of data collection or justify why a larger data collection budget might be warranted

Include ODC estimates for travel, along with a justification for the number of trips included

For the purposes of the technical and financial quote, the bidders should provide their estimated level of effort to complete evaluation tasks by task and team member separately for each evaluation.

C.4.1. Evaluation 1: Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities. The evaluation of the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities will primarily focus on measuring impacts to the grid, end users, LEC as a utility, and the broader energy sector.

It is expected that the evaluation will include three rounds of data collection and analysis and use a before-after comparison complemented by qualitative methods; however bidders are encouraged to propose additional methods for measuring program outcomes:

The baseline round is expected to rely on utility data, household and enterprise surveys and should explore

4 Note that the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and the Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities are expected to contribute to a joint set of outcomes; as such, it is expected that these Activities will be evaluated together. It is possible other Activities will be integrated into this evaluation but that will depend on the extent to which they contribute to overlapping outcomes, which is unknown at this time. For now, they have been presented as separate evaluations below.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 13 of 77 whether and how to exploit pre-existing geospatial data such as the nighttime lights dataset. A baseline report will be produced during the Compact period.

The interim round is expected to rely on utility data and qualitative methods to answer the evaluation questions, Overarching a-d, and Grid-level, Utility, and Energy Sector Impacts, under Section C.4.2 below. An interim report will be produced around the end of the Compact.

The final round is expected to rely on utility data and follow-up qualitative methods and household and enterprise surveys, to revisit the questions, Overarching e and End user Impacts, under Section C.4.2 below and to measure end user effects per the questions in “End user impacts”, below. A final report will be produced during the post- Compact period. The timing of post-Compact data collection and the final evaluation report should be aligned with the program logic and projections of when results are expected to occur (for example, in the ERR).

C.4.2. The preliminary questions for the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform evaluation are listed below. These questions may be refined in discussions with the Evaluator and other stakeholders.

Overarching:

a. Were the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities evaluable?5

b. Were the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities implemented as planned?

c. What was the quality of implementation of the Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities?

d. What lessons can be drawn from the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities to inform future investments?

e. To what extent, if any, does a comparison of the assumptions made in the economic model ex ante, actual program implementation, and evaluation findings generate lessons that can be applied to future economic models?6

Grid-level impacts:

To what extent, if any, has increased electricity generation contributed to increased reliability of Liberia’s electricity supply, such as a reduction in planned and unplanned outages and improvements in voltage stability?

To what extent, if any, has increased electricity generation contributed to increased adequacy of Liberia’s electricity supply, e.g., a reduction in the gap between electricity supply and demand?

Utility impacts

How has the electricity tariff changed since MCHPP was rehabilitated? To what extent does it cover the costs of electricity generation and other operating costs?

Is the Operations Maintenance and Training (OMT) contract delivering on its obligations? Is LEC honoring its obligations to the OMT contract? What are the GoL/LEC’s plans for operations and

5 See Task 1, below, and the Evaluability Assessment Tool in Annex 3 in order to unpack this evaluation question.

6 See Task 15, below, in order to unpack this evaluation question.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 14 of 77 maintenance after the OMT contract ends? To what extent has GoL/LEC planned for that responsibility?

To what extent, if any, has LEC’s management improved since the new management contract became effective? What progress has the GOL made toward establishing a longer-term management arrangement for LEC?

How sustainable is LEC as a utility? What are the biggest barriers to its sustainability?

Energy sector impacts

What effect, if any, did the increased reliability and availability of electricity have on the operations of informal independent power producers in Monrovia?

To what extent, if any, have energy sector reform activities contributed to improvements in electricity regulation, policy formulation and monitoring? How sustainable are these improvements?

End user impacts:

To what extent, if any, have the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities affected the number of users connecting to the grid and the demand for electricity?

Have there been changes in the demand for connections among unconnected households?

How did new households, commercial, industrial and other consumers decide whether to connect?

For potential consumers of these types (particularly industrial customers) that have not connected, why have they not connected?

What barriers do potential consumers face when trying to connect to the grid?

Have there been changes in electricity demand for consumers already connected to the network?

Have there been changes in electricity demand for unconnected households that already had access to electricity?

What is the observed price elasticity of demand?

To what extent, if any, do increases in energy availability and reliability lead to changes in energy sources used (such as moving away from the use of generators, kerosene, etc.)? To what extent, if any, have the Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation and Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activities resulted in cost savings for energy users?

To what extent, if any, have customers invested in new energy-intensive appliances or equipment and increased use of existing energy-intensive appliances or equipment?

What is the effect of the increased availability and reliability of electricity on time use (e.g., time spent on wage, non-farm enterprise and farm labor, household production, leisure and school work)?

What is the effect on labor market participation on the extensive margin?

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 15 of 77

How have changes in the reliability of electricity affected connected and unconnected households’ perceptions of service quality?

What, if any, spillover effects has the increased availability and reliability of electricity had on neighboring non-electrified households (if feasible to detect)?

How are the above effects moderated by sex of household head or enterprise owner, income group, and commercial enterprise type, if at all?

C.4.3. Evaluation 2: Mt. Coffee Support Activity. It is expected that this evaluation will include two rounds of data collection and analysis:

The interim round is expected to include an implementation analysis and measure short-term outcomes targeted by the Activity. It will likely rely on water utility data and qualitative methods such as document review, site visits, key informant interviews, and focus groups. An interim report will be produced around the end of the Compact.

The final round is expected to focus on an analysis of sustainability issues and the evolution of outcomes produced by the Activity over time. It will likely rely on water utility data and qualitative methods such as site visits, key informant interviews, and focus groups. A final report will be produced during the post-Compact period.

C.4.4. The preliminary questions for the Mt. Coffee Support evaluation are listed below. These questions will be refined based on further definition of the Activity and in discussion with the Evaluator and other stakeholders.

Overarching:

Was the Mt. Coffee Support Activity evaluable?

Was the Mt. Coffee Support Activity implemented as planned?

What was the quality of implementation of the Mt. Coffee Support Activity?

What lessons can be drawn from the Activity to inform similar efforts in the future?

To what extent, if any, does a comparison of the assumptions made in the economic model ex ante, actual program implementation, and evaluation findings generate lessons that can be applied to future economic models?7

Outcome-related:

To what extent, if any, did the reservoir crossing infrastructure provided improve community members’ access to their settlements, farms, homes, and/or social services (e.g., health clinics, schools)?

To what extent, if any, did the watershed management plan contribute to more effective operation of MCHPP from an environmental and biological perspective?

To what extent, if any, has the water transmission line increased the supply of water to the White Plains facility and reduce risks associated with salt-water intrusion?

7 At present, economic analysis only exists for the MCHPP Activity, with the cost of all Energy Activities compared to the benefits from the MCHPP Activity. If a separate model is developed for the Mt. Coffee Support Activity, this evaluation question will apply here as well. See Task 15, below, in order to unpack this evaluation question.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 16 of 77

How sustainable are the results of the Mt. Coffee Support Activity?

C.4.5. Evaluation 3: LEC Training Center Activity. It is expected that this evaluation will include three rounds of data collection and analysis:

The baseline round is expected to assess how LEC currently trains staff and what options currently exist for people who are interested in working in the energy sector more generally. This information will provide context for the analysis that takes place later in the evaluation. This round will likely rely on qualitative methods such as document review, key informant interviews, and observation.

The interim round is expected to include an implementation analysis and may measure short-term or intermediate outcomes targeted by the Activity. It will likely rely on qualitative methods such document review, key informant interviews and observation. An interim report will be produced around the end of the Compact.

The final round is expected to focus on sustainability issues and short-term or intermediate outcomes targeted by the Activity, and contrast results with findings from the interim round, if applicable. It will likely rely on methods collection such as document review, key informant interviews, and may include focus groups or a small-scale survey with trainees and/or trainers. A final report will be produced during the post-Compact period.

C.4.6. The preliminary questions for the LEC Training Center evaluation are listed below. These questions will be refined based on further definition of the Activity and in discussion with the Evaluator and other stakeholders.

Overarching:

Was the LEC Training Center evaluable?

Was the LEC Training Center implemented as planned?

What was the quality of implementation of the LEC Training Center?

What lessons can be drawn from the LEC Training Center Activity to inform similar efforts in the future?

To what extent, if any, does a comparison of the assumptions made in the economic model ex ante, actual program implementation, and evaluation findings generate lessons that can be applied to future economic models?8

Outcome-related:

How is the LEC Training Center functioning in practice? How effective is the LEC Training Center Activity at recruiting and graduating trainees?

To what extent is the LEC Training Center meeting skill needs at LEC or in the energy sector both in terms of the number of people trained and the quality and relevance of skills provided? To the extent that the LEC Training Center trains people for energy sector jobs outside of LEC, to what extent do trainees obtain employment in the energy sector?

How sustainable is the LEC Training Center?

C.4.7. Evaluation 4: GSI Investments. The following section focuses on the evaluation plan for the GSI investments, (i.e., gender-related technical assistance to MLME and LEC; and capacity, skill, and entrepreneurship development efforts for women and youth). It is expected that the evaluation will include

8 At present, economic analysis only exists for the MCHPP Activity, with the cost of all Energy Activities compared to the benefits from the MCHPP Activity. If a separate model is developed for the LEC Training Center Activity, this evaluation question will apply here as well. See Task 15, below, in order to unpack this evaluation question.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 17 of 77 three rounds of data collection and analysis:

The baseline round is expected to assess how MLME and LEC currently incorporate socially inclusive and gender responsive planning into their operations. This information will provide context for the analysis that takes place later in the evaluation. This round will likely rely on qualitative methods such as document review and key informant interviews.

The interim round is expected to include an implementation analysis and may measure short-term or intermediate outcomes targeted by the Activity. It will likely rely on qualitative methods such document review, key informant interviews, focus groups, and/or a small-scale survey with participants. An interim report will be produced around the end of the Compact.

The final round is expected to focus on sustainability issues and short-term or intermediate outcomes targeted by the Activity, and contrast results with findings from earlier rounds. It will likely rely on qualitative methods such as key informant interviews, focus groups, and/or a small-scale survey with participants. A final report will be produced during the post-Compact period.

C.4.8. The preliminary questions for the GSI investment evaluation are listed below. These questions will be refined based on further definition of the investments and in discussion with the Evaluator and other stakeholders.

Overarching:

Were the GSI investments evaluable?

Were the GSI investments implemented as planned?

What was the quality of implementation of the GSI investments?

What lessons can be drawn from the GSI investments to inform similar efforts in the future?

To what extent, if any, does a comparison of the assumptions made in the economic model ex ante, actual program implementation, and evaluation findings generate lessons that can be applied to future economic models?9

Outcome-related:

To what extent, if any, has the technical assistance provided improved socially inclusive and gender responsive planning within MLME and LEC? How so? Were enterprises, especially those owned by women and youth, able to connect to grid electricity? To what extent, if any, do female and youth customers report increased satisfaction with LEC service? What explains those changes?

To what extent, if any, have the capacity, skill, and entrepreneurship development efforts contributed to increased productive uses of electricity?

To what extent, if any, have the capacity, skill, and entrepreneurship development efforts contributed to sustainable business creation or expansion? What role has grid electricity played in participants’ decisions to start or expand a business? What other factors contributed to these decisions? To what extent, if any, are participating enterprises profitable and/or expanding employment opportunities?

How, if at all, did the GSI investments contribute to that success?

Roles and Responsibilities of MCC, MCA-Liberia, and Independent Evaluator

9 At present, economic analysis only exists for the MCHPP Activity, with the cost of all Energy Activities compared to the benefits from the MCHPP Activity. If a separate models is developed for the Mt. Coffee Support Activity, this evaluation question will apply here as well. See Task 15, below, in order to unpack this evaluation question.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 (Liberia Energy Project) Page 18 of 77

MCC, MCA, and the independent evaluator, all play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating independent evaluations. The MCC and MCA roles are as follows:

C.5.1. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC): MCC is responsible for oversight of the independent evaluator 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.

Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation. MCC will work with the independent evaluator and MCA to ensure the evaluation design follows the rules of program design and implementation. When possible, MCC will work with the independent evaluator 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 evaluator will 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,10 and if is not possible to adhere to the roll-out plan, will inform the independent evaluator in order to adapt the evaluation design.

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

Manage the independent evaluators. MCC will develop Terms of Reference for the independent evaluators and manage the contracting process, including Request for Quotes, quote review, selection of the independent evaluator, development of a work plan, and supervision of the independent evaluator 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 independent evaluators’ reports to ensure technical and factual accuracy. While MCC will provide feedback, the independent evaluator 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 independent evaluator.

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.

C.5.2. Millennium Challenge Account (MCA): MCA is responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation,…