MCC-17-RFQ-0073_0001_Signed.pdf

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 1

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

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 electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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. 11/2016)

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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 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.)

(Number, 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 9

07/07/2017

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700

Washington DC 20005

D. Fuller fullerdf@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-0073

06-27-2017 X

X X

N/A

Economic Analysis and Evaluation Services of MCC-Funded Transportation Projects for Award of Multiple Blanket

Purchase Agreements and Call Orders for Cabo Verde and Mongolia

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the receipt date of quotations to August 01, 2017 at Noon Eastern and to provide answers to vendor questions.

See Continuation Pages.

JACQUELINE H. NARANJO

Contracting Officer naranjoj Typewritten Text 7/7/2017

MCC-17-RFQ-0073

Amendment 0001

Questions and Answers

1. Is a foreign company eligible to provide services for these MCC funded transportation projects?

A1. Yes

2. Is a consortium of companies from two countries allowed?

A2. Yes

3. Is there a priority of which one leads the consortium?

A3. No

4. For cost estimation, which standard should we follow? Is there specific MCC rates that we need to consider?

A4. There is no MCC standard for vendors to follow for cost estimation. Proposed labor rates for the Cabo

Verde and Mongolia solicitations must be at or below the proposed BPA rates. Note that with time-and-materials

(T&M) requirements, labor rates are fully-loaded and are fixed for the duration of the specified contract period

(e.g., Base Period, Option Period 1, etc.).

5. The solicitation indicates questions are due 6/30 at noon (no distinction between BPA and Call Orders). However, the Call Order for Cape Verde indicates that questions are due 6/29 at 2pm. Are you treating these sets of questions separate? Or we should send you both sets of questions tomorrow.

A5. Both sets of questions have been responded to within this amendment.

6. For the call orders for Cabo Verde and Mongolia, in the RFQ Economic Analysis and Evaluation Services of

MCC-Funded Transportation Projects For Award of Multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements and Call Orders for

Cabo Verde and Mongolia, are these two RFQs open to all organizations or does a prospective bidder need to hold an active BPA with MCC? Is it necessary to bid on this BPA to be considered for the call order?

A6. This solicitation is for the establishment of a new multiple-award BPA. The procurement is being conducted on a full and open basis; a prospective offeror need not hold an active BPA with MCC. However, it is indeed necessary to bid on the BPA in order to be considered for the call orders, as only vendors that receive a BPA will be eligible for a call order award.

7. Clause L.10.5. requires that each client reference identified in the matrices shall submit a completed Past

Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment J.5). However, the last sentence of the same clause indicates: Past performance questionnaires are NOT required for MCC projects. Can you clarify which of the two sentences apply? Should these questionnaires be submitted in advance of the due date, and if so, how far in advance?

A7. In the matrices required by Section L.10.4, offerors shall indicate current/prior MCC contracts that they wish used for Past Performance references. However, offerors need not request that their MCC client fill out the Past

Performance Questionnaire, as MCC past performance information is readily accessible internally. Per L.10.5, MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 3

“The offeror’s references must submit their completed Past Performance Questionnaires…by the quotation due date and time.”

8. The RFQ (p. 50) states that each Offeror’s technical proposal is limited to 25 pages and must include a sample response to one of the Call orders as well as providing general information on the Offeror’s capabilities. The page limit for each call order technical proposal is 20 pages, which leaves only 5 pages for Offeror’s capabilities

(and the past performance matrices are part of this page limit). Please consider increasing the page limit for the

BPA response to 30 pages so that 10 pages can be allowed for describing the capabilities of each Offeror’s consortium.

A8. MCC increases the page limit of the BPA technical proposal to 30 pages. Section L.9.1 is updated accordingly.

9. With respect to CPARs being provided as past performance, please confirm:

(a) a past performance matrix entry is still required for any CPAR submitted and counts against the page limit, A9(a) Confirmed.

(b) but the CPAR itself can be provided in an appendix instead of a past performance questionnaire and the appendix does not count against the page limit

A9(b) Confirmed; CPAR records may be included in the appendix to Volume I and do not count against the page limit.

10. In the past, we have found highly qualified specialists with very relevant country experience but who do not have a master’s degree. Would you consider relaxing this requirement and consider years of experience instead of the master’s degree?

A10. A Master’s degree is preferable, but MCC will consider six additional years of relevant professional experience (in addition to those required for the labor category) as an acceptable equivalent for a Master’s degree. Similarly, MCC will accept four additional years of relevant professional experience (in addition to the existing requirements) as an equivalent for a Bachelor’s degree. Section C.5 of the BPA will be amended to reflect this change prior to BPA award.

11. Please consider allowing a second round of questions as we were given only three days to prepare questions based on the final RFQ.

A11. MCC will not provide for a second round of questions.

12. Would you consider extending the deadline by two weeks for all considering that we would be submitting what essentially represents at least two separate proposals in four weeks? Alternatively, the deadline could be extended by 2 weeks for just the call order.

A12. MCC is extending the quotation due date for the BPA and both call orders to August 1, 2017 at 12:00pm

ET.

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 4

13. Page 6 of the RFQ says that services will be primary for roads, “but potentially including urban transportation systems, ports, ferries, airports and any other relevant transportation-related investment”. However, in Section

C.5, the labor categories and definitions are highly skewed toward roads, and there are no positions that relate specifically to any of the other subject areas. Can MCC clarify whether additional positions would be added to the schedule for other subject matter (e.g. ferry experts, airport experts), or otherwise how positions for such call orders would be expected to align with the labor categories defined in Section C.5 (e.g. will the “Other Transport

Specialist be a catch-all for all such positions)?

A13. Other Transport Specialist is a catch-all for all such positions.

14. Page 7, Team leader qualifications, says team leader must have “an understanding of all [emphasis ours] aspects of the evaluation (this includes knowledge in road engineering, transportation economics, evaluation, and political economy, each as relevant to the Call Order evaluation)”. Given the wide variety of skill sets that will be required, it may be challenging to find a single individual with significant experience in all areas, though they might have strong experience in some but more limited experience in others. Could MCC clarify the expectation for this requirement to have experience in ALL aspects and skill areas?

A14. Demonstrated experience managing or working closely with experts in the required field(s) is an acceptable substitution.

15. Page 8, Quantitative Researcher definition: The requirements for the Qualitative Researcher include: a Master’s degree in statistics, mathematics, economics, or a related field. However, many strong qualitative researchers have backgrounds in Sociology, Anthropology, Ethnography, and other fields outside of those listed. Can MCC please consider revising the qualifications for the position?

A15. Yes, MCC will add Sociology, Anthropology, Ethnography, and related fields to the labor category description.

16. Page 8, definitions for Survey Specialist and Statistician are the same for academic qualification and years of experience. Can MCC further clarify the envisioned distinction between the role of a survey specialist and a statistician, if called for within the same Call Order?

A16. The Survey Specialist must have experience and intimate knowledge of all relevant aspects of data collection. This may include survey sampling, instrument development and testing, supervisor and interviewer selection and training, survey team organization and data quality management. The statistician must know survey sampling as well, but also requires data management and statistical analytic skills required to assess required sample sizes, determine relevant confidence intervals, and conduct simple and complex hypothesis tests.

17. Page 20, Section H.5: Can MCC clarify whether six-day workweeks are authorized for TDY?

A17. Yes

18. Page 25, Section H.13, says that “MCC retains final authority to determine whether any human subjects research study conducted or supported by MCC is exempt from review and approval by an IRB.” Can MCC clarify – if an

IRB determines that the study is not exempt and must be reviewed, does this language imply that MCC wishes to retain the ability to override the determination of an OHRP-registered IRB?

A18. An OHRP-registered IRB with Federalwide Assurance should determine whether a study is exempt from

IRB review. MCC’s IRB requirements are instituted at its discretion, and it can revise these requirements. But in practice, MCC respects IRB assessments.

19. Page 25, Section H.14, discusses contractor requirements with regard to handling PII, and says that: “In handling

Personally Identifiable Information, the Contractor shall provide media sanitization procedures for the clearing or purging of MCC media in accordance with NIST SP 800-88, Guidelines for Media Sanitization. Overwriting

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 5 media by a Government approved technology, method, or tool is acceptable. Sanitization procedures will need to be accepted by the Government.” Can MCC clarify (a) how these procedures relate to MCC’s Microdata policy and IRB requirements, and (b) what is the definition of “MCC media”?

A19. Page 25, Section H.14 para. 4 & 5 original text:

“In handling Personally Identifiable Information, the Contractor shall provide media sanitization procedures for the clearing or purging of MCC media in accordance with NIST SP 800-88, Guidelines for Media Sanitization.

Overwriting media by a Government approved technology, method, or tool is acceptable. Sanitization procedures will need to be accepted by the Government.

The Contractor shall provide written attestation of the media sanitization for any MCC data generated through this solicitation.”

Revised to:

“Any Contractor responsible for handling MCC PII data (defined here as data containing PII – as defined in

NIST 800-122 – that were gathered with funds under this contract) is also responsible for ensuring that any media containing MCC PII data are not unintentionally released through re-purposing or disposal. To prevent such unintentional release, the Contractor shall provide media sanitization procedures for the clearing or purging of all media that holds or has held MCC PII data in accordance with NIST SP 800-88, Guidelines for

Media Sanitization. Overwriting media by a Government approved technology, method, or tool is acceptable.

Sanitization procedures will need to be accepted by the Government.

The Contractor shall provide written attestation of the media sanitization for any MCC PII data generated through this solicitation.”

20. Page 48, section L.4.1. mentions that the quotation due date is July 25, 2017 at 2pm EST. However, page 1 of the

RFQ shows the offer due date to be July 26, 2017 at noon EST. Could MCC please clarify which due date is correct?

A20. See A12. Both sections are revised accordingly.

21. Page 50, section L.9.1 says “CVs, resumes, letters of commitment (if applicable) …may be included in an appendix to the Technical Quotation without a page limit” – Can MCC clarify whether CVs or resumes are expected in the BPA submission?

A21. MCC requires CVs in the BPA submission to assess the offeror’s sample response to the call order solicitation (ref: Section M.2.1). Letters of commitment are not required for the BPA-level Technical Quotation.

22. The qualifications for the Sr. Evaluation Expert positions place a strong emphasis on publication through peer reviewed literature. How strongly is the peer reviewed publication portion of the requirement weighted, particularly in comparison to other types of publications such as the gray literature?

A22. A well-written, highly relevant “gray literature” working paper may provide more compelling evidence of needed qualifications than a peer-reviewed unrelated, or poorly written journal article. But all else equal, a peer-reviewed paper provides stronger evidence.

http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-122.pdf

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 6

23. Please confirm the offer due date and time for this Solicitation. The due date and time stated in Block 8 on Page 1 of the BPA Solicitation is 7/26/2017 at noon (EST), whereas Section L.4 states that it is 7/25/2017 at 2 p.m.

(EST).

A23. See A12. Both sections are revised accordingly.

24. For the key personnel labor categories specified in the Call Order RFQs for Cabo Verde and Mongolia, can the offeror propose alternate labor categories?

A24. Provided the essential/required skills are adequately reflected with a reasonable project management structure, alternate categories are acceptable.

25. For the purposes of pricing the call orders for Cabo Verde and Mongolia, can MCC advise the offerors how many trips will be required to MCC offices in Washington, DC during the base and option periods?

A25. The Offeror should propose the number of trips they believe is necessary.

26. Can you please provide an inventory list of all economic, market, demand, cost and any other data which will be available to the contractors for these evaluations?

A26. MCC will endeavor to make all information that was available for the MCC ERR available, so offerors should budget sufficient resources to analyze the data used in the development of these models.

27. Please can MCC confirm that baseline data (as in raw datasets) is available for use in the evaluation? Please can

MCC supply us with the baseline design, including sampling to ensure we accurately (at minimum) repeat this for the performance evaluation?

A27. MCC will endeavor to make all information that was available for the MCC ERR available, so offerors should budget sufficient resources to analyze the data used in the development of these models. However, we acknowledge that in at least one case, very little baseline data is available.

28. The link in Footnote 2, Page 7 did not work. Can that document (MCC’s economic analysis method) be provided to bidders in another manner?

A28. Apologies for the website changes. For more information about MCC’s economic analysis methods, visit https://www.mcc.gov/resources/story/story-cdg-guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis.

29. Is there a required file size for the quote submission documents?

A29. MCC can receive files up to 25MB, but it really depends on how much the external server can send.

30. Both call orders state that “Negotiated labor rates shall be fixed for the duration of each contract period (i.e., Base, Option 1, etc.).” However, this would not be in accordance with the labor rate escalation by calendar year in the

BPA. Would MCC allow offerors to escalate labor rates during implementation in accordance with the BPA terms and conditions, provided the ceiling of the period in the call order is not exceeded?

A30. The negotiated labor rates for each call order contract period (i.e., Base Period, Option Period 1, etc.)

shall be fixed for the duration of each call order contract period.

https://www.mcc.gov/resources/story/story-cdg-guidelines-for-economic-and-beneficiary-analysis

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 7

31. Page 10, bottom, states that “this research question will also be informed by the data collected as part of … the expanded O-D surveys…. Separate survey-based data collection is not expected as part of this task, but data collection in the form of key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders may be warranted.” This appears ambiguous on whether or not data collection is to be conducted to address (at least) Research Question 4. Can this be clarified?

A31. Apart from data collected for other Research Areas (RAs), large scale survey efforts are not envisioned for this RA. However, when combined with small-scale key informant interviews, the data collected for other RAs may help address this fourth RA.

32. Section A & Section L.4, p48: Can MCC please confirm that the deadline for submittal is Wednesday 26th July, Noon EST.

A32. See A12. Both sections are revised accordingly.

33. Section L.9.1, p50: Can MCC please confirm that appendixed provisional workplans, example theory of change tables/frameworks are considered part of the submittal and will be evaluated.

A33. Provisional workplans, as well as theoretical-, organizational-, itinerary, or any other diagrams or frameworks must be included as part of the Technical Quotation (not the appendix) and are subject to the associated page limitations. If the pages containing these materials are within the allowed page limit, they will be evaluated.

34. Section L.10.4, p51: MCC is kindly requested to allow the PPRs not to be included in the technical page count.

A34. See A9(a) and (b).

35. General: Due to the complexity and number of responses and separate documents required for this submission.

We request MCC consider providing a 2 week extension to submittal deadline.

A35. See A12.

Mongolia Call Order:

36. Page 5 – Section B.6 – Would MCC consider providing plug figures for subcontracted data collection?

A36. For this requirement, MCC will assess the Offeror’s ability to calculate optimal data collection methodologies to minimize costs for essential information, therefore plug figures will not be provided. Please provide all information about local costs and methods you can use to optimize data collection resources.

37. Page 13, Section C.5. – Will MCC be providing GIS data pertaining to the completed works?

A37. Yes

38. Page 13, Section C.5. – Is the close-out ERR dated 3/1/2013 the most up to date economic rate of return calculation for this project? In other words, the 3/1/2013 ERR is the one that the Evaluator will use as the basis for further updating and HDM-4/RED modeling?

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 8

A38. Yes, the close-out ERR dated 3/1/2013 is the most up-to-date. However, the Offeror should propose what they believe is the best economic model for the project. This may use the existing closeout model, but only if the

Offeror believes that is the appropriate model.

39. Page 14, Section C.5. – Is the “MCC M&E lead” the same as the Project Monitor?

A39. Yes

40. Page 17, Section C.5 – In the IRB requirements, it states that, “If the local IRB is not HHS registered, the

Evaluator also needs to sub-contract an HHS registered IRB.” Can MCC confirm, if the offeror has an internal, HHS-approved IRB, that a separate, external HHS-approved IRB would not have be sub-contracted.

A40. Only one HHS/OHRP-Registered IRB is required by MCC. But if local laws require a local IRB, and the local IRB is not HHS/OHRP-Registered, then two may be required.

Cabo Verde Call Order:

41. Page 5 – Section B.6 – Would MCC consider providing plug figures for subcontracted data collection?

A41. See A36.

42. Page 13, Section C.5. – Will MCC be providing GIS data pertaining to the completed works?

A42. Yes

43. Page 13, Section C.5. – Is the ERR dated 5/9/2005 the most up to date economic rate of return calculation for this project? In other words, the 5/9/2005 ERR is the one that the Evaluator will use as the basis for further updating and HDM-4/RED modeling?

A43. Yes. We have no other full ERR model. However, additional pre-construction road use data may be available.

44. Page 18, Section C.5 – In the IRB requirements, it states that, “If the local IRB is not HHS registered, the

Evaluator also needs to sub-contract an HHS registered IRB.” Can MCC confirm, if the offeror has an internal, HHS-approved IRB, that a separate, external HHS-approved IRB would not have be sub-contracted.

A44. See A40 above.

45. Section C3, p7 onwards: Please can MCC confirm that baseline data (as in raw datasets) is available for use in the evaluation? Please can MCC supply us with the baseline design, including sampling to ensure we accurately

(at minimum) repeat this for the performance evaluation?

A45. See A27.

MCC-17-RFQ-0073 Amendment 0001 9

46. Section L8, p34: Can MCC please confirm that appendixed provisional work plans, example theory of change tables/frameworks and staffing plans are considered part of the submittal and will be evaluated.

A46. See A33.

47. Section L.9.6, p36: MCC provide a table for estimated international trips and estimated Total Days in-country.

Did MCC intend to provide indicative numbers in this table, or are bidders required to include and complete this table in their submissions.

A47. Bidders are required to include and complete this table in their submissions.

48. Section L.9.8, p39: MCC is kindly requested to allow the PPRs not to be included in the technical page count.

A48. See A9(a) and (b).

*****End of Amendment 0001*****