06._MCC-17-RFQ-0010_0001_(Signed).pdf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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

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

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 NSN 7540-01-152-8070

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

(Type or print) (Type or print)

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

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

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

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

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

(X)

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 11

03/07/2017

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 14th Street NW Suite 700 Washington DC 20005-2227

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-2227 Janet Carlson, Contract Specialist (KTR) (202) 772-6309

To all Offerors/Bidders

MCC-17-RFQ-0010

02-13-2017

X

X X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 1:00 PM (EST) 03/21/2017

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to Solicitation MCC-17-RFQ-0010 is to:

a) Provide the Questions on RFQ MCC-17-RFQ-0010 and MCC’s responses.

b) The Base Period of the Contract is corrected to state in F.1 May 2017 – January 2018.

c) Extend the response deadline from 1:00 PM ET on March 13, 2017 to 1:00 PM ET on March 21, 2017.

No other changes are made to this solicitation.

Jacqueline H. Naranjo Contracting Officer naranjoj Typewritten Text 3/7/2017

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 2 of 11

CONTINUATION PAGE

BLOCK 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Continued)

Solicitation #MCC-17-RFQ-0010

Impact Evaluation of MCC’s Liberia Energy Project

Questions and Answers – MCC-17-RFQ-0010

Q – Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number MCC-17-RFQ-0010 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

A – This Independent Evaluation of the Liberia Energy Project is a new requirement for the Government.

Q – Can my company propose a team of individual consultants with qualifications and relevant experience & background that meet or exceed the requirements of the RFQ?

A – Companies have the discretion to include sub-contractors as part of their team proposed to meet the requirements of the RFQ, but refer to Section L for specific information requested to demonstrate that the solution meets the government’s requirements. Note that regardless of the existence or number of subcontractors, the company (prime contractor) has the overall responsibility for performance under the contract.

Q – Do you expect resumes for both key personnel and non-key personnel to be included in the proposal?

A – Per Section L.8.6., “Quotations shall include CVs of each proposed staff member...” Letters of Commitment, however, are only required for Key Personnel.

Q – Do you expect respondent to this RFQ to identify specific candidates for each of the labor categories project title?

A – Specific candidates should be identified for the three key personnel positions identified in Section H.11. Other personnel/staffing requirements are as stated: See Sections H.11, L.8.2, L.8.6, and L.8.9.

Q – What is the expectation from MCC with regard to all key personnel and non-key personnel working out MCC HQ?

Can we assume some of the non-key personnel will not work out of MCC HQ 100% of the time or we can assume some percentage of their time working out of our home office or field office?

A – The requirement is as stated: See Section F.2.

Place of Performance

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 3 of 11

Q – What percentage of the time can we assume for the personnel to spend outside United States for this RFQ?

A – The requirement is as stated: See Section C.4.

Objectives, page 12 and Section L.9.1. The actual amount of travel will be based on the contractor’s proposed work plan, including when they will need to interact with local stakeholders. The task description in Section C should help inform when it would be beneficial to be in Liberia.

Q – Can I have the list of interested vendors that have shown interest in this RFQ but not shown on the fbo.gov interested vendor list? I am interested in pursuing opportunity for teaming arrangement and/or subcontracting.

A – MCC does not maintain such a list.

8 Q – Please clarify if offerors need to submit the Past Performance Questionnaires for MCC funded evaluations.

A – If the project is an MCC contract, a Past Performance Questionnaire is NOT required. Simply include the information in the past performance matrix (L.8.10).

9 Q – Section L.6.6 of the RFQ notes that submissions should be in PDF, Microsoft Word, and Excel format (for price tables). Please clarify if the main text of the Technical Quotation and Cost Quotation should be submitted as both MS Word and PDF, or if we may submit as either MS Word or PDF.

A – Either MS Word or PDF formats are acceptable, except for the price tables which must be in Excel format.

10 Q – Non-Key Personnel: do they need to meet the required/preferred qualifications?

A – The requirement is as stated: See Section H.11.

The evaluation team, as a whole, must meet the “required expertise” factors identified on page 51 of the RFQ. It is preferred that the team also possess the “preferred expertise” factors listed on page 51.

11 Q – In reference to “non-key personnel” and “overall team”, is this to be determined by the contractor or is this determined by the government/MCC?

(reference M.2).

A – The offeror may propose the team that they deem suitable for the project based on the requirements stated in Section H.11.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 4 of 11

12 Q – Section C.4.1 states: “The baseline round is expected to rely on utility data, household and enterprise surveys and should explore 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”.

a. How many household an enterprise surveys were completed? Was the survey data only conducted around Monrovia? Or were other areas included?

b. What is the sample data set required for the follow on research? Is there a requirement to use the same data pool?

c. Regarding the sixteen or seventeen existing settlements around MCHPP anticipated to be affected by the rehabilitation effort, were any of these households included in the pre-existing data?

d. What data sets have been completed? Can we rely on the data? Who conducted the analysis?

e. Will the successful bidder have access to the details of household and enterprise surveys completed or just the summary data, and how was the data collected? i.e., examples are informal and formal surveys, direct and participatory observation, interviews, focus groups, etc.?

A –

a. No surveys have been conducted by MCC.

b. See above.

c. Various data have been collected in the communities surrounding Mt. Coffee. MCC has some of the data and can pursue the remaining data if it is needed for the evaluation:

Socioeconomic household survey:

The contractor that was hired to conduct an environmental and social impact assessment and prepare a resettlement action plan undertook a household survey of 139 households from six of the nearby settlements and conducted focus groups with the community members in 2012. This smaller group of communities was expected to be directly affected by the reservoir re-filling. However, as the areas covered by the Resettlement Action Plan continue to evolve, it is possible that not all of the affected households were included in this baseline survey. The following data were collected:

Population, number of persons Housing infrastructure Land use and agriculture Household assets, economic activities and incomes Gender issues (heads of HHs, especially female-headed) and vulnerable groups

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) baseline assessment:

A WASH baseline was conducted in January- February 2016 and covered the following topics in 16 of the local communities:

Water supply: Availability and quality of water for drinking, cooking and bathing, suitability for long-term needs, constraints regarding water access, health and hygiene issues etc.

Sanitation: Access to latrines/facilities, waste disposal, maintenance, hygiene practices, constraints and issues facing women during menstruation etc.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 5 of 11

Hygiene: Hygiene practices, health issues, outreach services, educational programs, vulnerable groups etc.

Data were collected on social factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, vulnerability (e.g. disabilities) etc.

regarding community needs, in order to understand the number, types, location and design of WASH facilities suitable for communities in settlements.

To collect the data described above, a contractor visited 16 communities surrounding Mt. Coffee and undertook the following activities in each:

Settlement Meetings: To provide information about why the contractor was in the settlement and what they were doing.

Meetings also included gathering information on community committees.

Focus Group Discussions (FGD): Held with groups of men and women separately to gather gender differentiated data regarding WASH issues and livelihoods. This included a mapping exercise to show the ideal location of facilities in relation to the houses in the settlements.

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): In addition to collecting data in the local communities, the contractor held Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with relevant stakeholders in Liberia to understand the WASH landscape in terms of the national requirements, current interventions being undertaken and capabilities of potential partners for implementation.

Livelihoods Assessment

A livelihoods assessment was conducted in July 2016 in a subset of the 16 settlements and relied on:

Meetings with the Mt Coffee Project Implementation Unit and Community Liaison Officers (CLOs).

Meetings with NGOs and Ministry of Agriculture to further understand the agricultural context and successful

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 6 of 11 innovations that have worked in Liberia, as well as gather information on capabilities and resources to undertake such programs.

Participatory Rural Appraisal based settlement meetings and focus groups to assess challenges and constraints on the commencement of livelihoods restoration activities associated with agricultural livelihoods including:

o Holding sample focus discussions with different stakeholder groups e.g., men, women, youth, farmers etc.

across a representative sample of impacted communities.

o Visiting and assessing relocation sites to evaluate the sites and identify constraints and obstacles to engaging in new activity.

Women and men were consulted on specialized gender roles in livelihoods activities, and in addition, their perception of the responsibilities of the opposite sex. They were also consulted on required resources and associated health challenges related to livelihoods activities. In addition, challenges and priorities were identified and ranked and a participatory natural resource mapping exercise undertaken. This format gave the consultants an opportunity to compare the relative perceptions of men and woman in the community in relation to their livelihoods activities and to explore issues related to youth and minority groups such as unmarried mothers and disabled people.

d. Aside from the data described above, which were collected and analyzed by contractors providing environmental and social performance support, data from the electric utility are available and have not been analyzed yet.

e. See above.

13 Q – Regarding the $3M subcontractor data collection – is this ceiling a fixed price set for the bid or can the contractor propose additional costs in the quote?

A – As stated in the RFQ, MCC has designated $3,000,000 as a “data collection plug number” for three rounds of data collection that will be managed by the Evaluator. That amount may be adjusted to accommodate actual data collection plans that are

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 7 of 11

a. Is this a fixed price ceiling or can this be amended in the future?

i. Without further data, it will be difficult to determine whether or not $3M is sufficient for the required task for the duration of the phases of this contract.

proposed and justified based on the approved evaluation design. However, per Note (1) underneath the price tables at Section B.6, “if you believe this plug number is inadequate, please advise during the Question and Answer period of the solicitation.”

14 Q – Is ground security provided for in Liberia for data collectors and office support staff?

A – No, ground security will not be provided for in Liberia for data collectors and office support staff.

15 Q – Will office space and equipment be provided in Liberia, or will the successful bidder need to secure office space and equipment during in–country visits to Liberia.

A – No, office space and equipment will not be provided in Liberia.

Q – Is any in country support provided by

MCC?

A – No. However, offerors may propose to hire an individual based in Liberia to provide local support to their team.

Q – Section F.1 – Figure: please clarify the base period of the contract (May 2017 to January 2017).

A – The Base Period of the Contract is corrected to state in Section F.1 May 2017 to January 2018.

Q – Does MCC have a pool of “vetted” vendors for “local” Liberian support?

A – No.

Q – There 4 activities listed in Section C.3, but the evaluation criteria in Section C.4 do not match (see C.4.3, C.4.5, C.4.6, C.4.7). All activities are not covered in the evaluation.

A – The requirement is as stated: See Sections C.4.1 through C.4.8. Note that two activities are covered under Evaluation 1.

Q – Section L.8.8 of the RFQ requests CVs and Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel. Should quotations include Letters of Commitment and CVs for Non-Key Personnel as well?

A – See the answer to Question 3.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 8 of 11

Q – Can the proposed Work Plan be included as an Annex, and can it be included on 11x17 paper?

A – Yes.

Q – Can the Past Performance Matrix be included as an Annex, or must it be included in the main body of the quotation?

A – The Past Performance Matrix is part of the main body of the quotation. If additional references are included (i.e., beyond the required three), those may be submitted as an annex to Volume I – Technical Quotation.

Q – Is there a weight to each of the evaluation factors listed in M.1 and M.2.1?

A – Per Section M.1(a), “Technical capability and past performance, when combined, are more important than price.” Also per Section M.5.

“However, if non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Quoters, price may become a determinative factor.”

Q – The last two paragraphs under C.3.1 in page 7, the RFQ states that- (i) ‘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’. And, (ii) ‘These Activities are all in varying stages of design and will likely begin implementation at different times’.

Could MCC please clarify if this means that the implementation will be done in phases? If so, could MCC please clarify when the first phase of implementation is scheduled to start?

Since the evaluation design will depend largely on the schedule of implementation strategy, could MCC please provide bidders with implementation schedule?

A – The implementation plan for the Compact is currently under development. As a result, the dates below are subject to change. Design work and preparation of TORs is ongoing for all of the activities listed below.

Activity 1: The Mt. Coffee Rehabilitation Activity Turbine 2: March 8, 2017 Turbine 3: May 15, 2017 Turbine 4: August 10, 2017

Activity 2: Capacity Building and Sector Reform Activity

Establishment of an Independent Regulator Sub-Activity: early 2018

Institutional Strengthening for the EPA Sub- Activity: April 2018

Management Support to LEC Sub-Activity:

Management services contractor is expected to begin in July 2017

Activity 3: Mt. Coffee Support Activity The provision of small-scale community infrastructure and livelihood restoration:

January 2018

Additional human resources support to LEC:

April 2018

A watershed management plan: January

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 9 of 11

Rehabilitation of the raw water transmission line from MCHPP to the White Plains Water Treatment Works: TBD

Activity 4: The LEC Training Center Activity:

April 2018

Gender and Social Inclusion:

Strengthen Social inclusive & Gender

Responsive Planning: April 2017 Skill & Capacity Enhancement of women & youth owned SMEs: August 2017

25 Q – The sub activity under project 1, Activity 2 (pp 8) states that ‘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.’ In order to understand the minimum detectable effect size, could MCC please clarify:

o What does MCC target as the expected level of electricity demand to increase?

o Is there any other target that MCC intends to achieve in terms of main outcome variables such as tariff rate?

A – Other donors are focused on distribution so the Connection Assessment Analysis is no longer being planned. However, here are some of the targets from the economic analysis:

Total electricity supply: increase of 200,000 MWh/year from a baseline of 48,975 MWh in 2015

Total electricity sold: increase of 138,000 MWh from a baseline of 36,956 MWh in 2015

Increased electricity consumption by customer type:

Industrial customers (T-3): increase of

234,600 kWh from a baseline of 79,383 kWh per customer/year

Commercial customers (T-2): increase of 2829 kWh from a baseline of 7,149 kWh per customer/year

Residential (T-1): increase of 237 kWh from a baseline of 1,342 kWh per customer/year

Residential (D-1): increase of 79 kWh from a baseline of 478 kWh per customer/year

Annual operating and maintenance cost per kW at Mt. Coffee of $25

Incremental cost of producing a kWh at Mt. Coffee of $0.001

Q – The program logic chart on page 10, draws a line in intermediate outcomes saying ‘economic analysis ends here.’

Could MCC please further clarify what this line of separation means?

A – The separation distinguishes between results that are modeled in the economic analysis and results that are not modeled in the economic analysis.

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 10 of 11

Q – Page 11 of the RFQ states that “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.” Could MCC please provide further clarification on the geographical scope of the evaluation? Additionally, could you please clarify if MCC is interested in evaluating the improvement/reliability of electricity supply only in the areas mentioned above or for those users who are connected to LEC throughout the country as well?

A – Grid electricity is currently only available to customers in and around Monrovia.

Some of the areas where connections are planned include:

Virginia / Bomi / Kle Corridor; Paynesville, Kakata Corridor; Congotown-Sinkor-Central Monrovia;

Northwest Monrovia; Bomi County; Paynesville to Roberts International Airport; and the World Bank is planning connections in 18 additional communities in Montserrado County.

The evaluation will cover areas benefiting from grid electricity. In other words, it will cover Monrovia and the areas listed above that will benefit from grid extension.

28.

Q ‐

a. Is there scope for putting in a proposal for evaluating one or two components of the overall project? I'm not sure how MCC usually contracts on these evaluations, which is why I'm asking.

b. Are there existing baseline data (household/firm level data, data from the utility) for Liberia, and if so, for what year? Did MCC collect these data?

c. Are there existing spatial data on the location of the grid (all transmission + LV distribution lines)? Do you have these data?

Do you have data on the quality of the distribution network? If not, do you think these data exist and are "gettable"?

d. If one was thinking about setting up an RCT to estimate e.g.

elasticity of demand on extensive and intensive margins, could there be provision in the budget for e.g. subsidizing

A ‐

a. MCC’s requirement is as stated for an Independent Evaluation of the Liberia Energy Project. Quotations for less than the full independent evaluation would not meet the requirements of the RFQ.

b. The only existing data are utility data. The management services contract for the utility that ended in December 2016 required regular reporting on a detailed set of key performance indicators. MCC began tracking this information in 2015 and can share this data with the selected evaluator.

However, it may be possible to obtain earlier data. MCC is not aware of any existing household or firm-level data. However, there is scope to collect such data under the evaluation contract.

c. The utility has single line drawings with the location of its assets. MCC has this and can share it with the selected evaluator. It is unclear what is meant by the “quality of the distribution network.”

d. MCC is open to a study that aims to understand demand as part of an Independent

MCC-17-RFQ-0010 – AMENDMENT 0001 Page 11 of 11 connections/wiring at HHs and firms? subsidizing marginal cost of power in a block tariff type of way?

Evaluation proposal. However, coordinating with the utility and the range of donors involved in distribution to subsidize connections could be quite challenging.

Also, a willingness to pay for study is planned under the Energy Project with one objective to enable the utility to repeat it in the future. We would want to understand clearly how these efforts could support each other.

(End of Block 14)