Solicitation_MCC-17-RFQ-0133_El_Salvador_and_Guatemala.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 85

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 07-21-2017

Ayla-Rebeka Brooks (202) 772-6458 08-18-2017 @ 10:00am

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700, Attn: Ayla-Rebeka Brooks 202-772-6458

Washington DC 20005

X

N/A

CGM

1099 Fourteenth Street NW, Suite 700

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700

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 in support of the El Salvador Investment Climate

Project and the Guatemala PPP Activity.

See enclosed solicitation and all attachments for pertinent details.

See CONTINUATION Page

X X

Jacqueline H. Naranjo

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 2

Table of Contents

SECTION A

A.1 SF 1449 SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. Price/Cost Schedule

B.2. FAR 52.216-1 -- Type of Contract (APR 1984)

B.3. Accounting and Appropriation Data

B.4. Funding Type

B.5. Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts

B.6. Labor Rates & Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. Introduction and Background for the Projects under the El Salvador II Compact and Guatemala Threshold

Program

C.2. Scope

C.3. Evaluation Questions and Guidance on Methodology

C.4. Roles and Responsibilities

C.5. Tasks

SECTION D – PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1. Disclaimer for Deliverables

SECTION E – INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1. Inspection of Reports

E.2. Quality Control Plan

SECTION F – DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1. Period of Performance

F.2. Place of Performance

F.3. Deliverables

F.4. Reporting Deliverables

F.5. Deliverable Format

F.6. Acceptance Criteria

SECTION G – CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1. MCC 52.201-70 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or Project Monitor (PM) (JULY 2012) .. 39

G.2. MCC 52.232-70 Invoice Instructions (Custom)

SECTION H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1. MCC 52.203-70 Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (MAY 2017)

H.2. MCC 52.204-70 Security Requirements for Contractor Personnel (MAY 2013)

H.3. MCC 52.209-70 Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Implementation Contract (JULY 2012)

H.4. MCC 52.232-72 Limitation of Funds – Incrementally Funded Contracts (NOV 2006)

H.5. MCC 52.232-73 Travel Reimbursement (MAY 2017)

H.6. MCC 52.232-74 ODC Reimbursement (JAN 2007)

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 3

H.7. MCC 52.242-70 Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Registration (AUG 2011) .. 50

H.8. MCC 52.243-70 Increase in Services (OCT 2006)

H.9. MCC 52.245-70 Contractor Acquired MCC Government Property Overseas (JULY 2012)

H.10. Provision on Peer Review and Posting of Reports

H.11. Provision on Insurance Maintenance

H.12. Provision on Stakeholder Input for Evaluation Products

H.13. Provision on Human Subjects Protection

H.14. Personally Identifiable Information and Confidentiality

H.15. Provision on Delivered Work Product Free from 3rd Party Rights

H.16. Key Personnel

H.17. Team & Key Personnel Qualifications

PART II – CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1. FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions — Commercial Items/Alternate I (JAN 2017)

I.2. FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders –

Commercial Items (JAN 2017)

I.3. FAR 52.214-34 Submission of Offers in the English Language (APR 1991)

I.4. FAR 52.214-35 Submission of Offers in U.S. Currency (APR 1991)

I.5. FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (MAR 2000)

I.6. FAR 52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998)

PART III – LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION K – REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1. Inquiries/Questions Concerning the Solicitation

L.2. Exclusion of Quotes and Pre-Award Communications with Offerors

L.3. Quotation Due Date

L.4. Quotation Response

L.5. Quotation Volumes

L.6. Quotation Format

L.7. Blocked and Unacceptable Electronic File Types

L.8. Page Limits

L.9. Preparation of Volume I – Technical Quotation

L.10. Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (OCT 2014)

M.2. Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Capability

M.3. Evaluation Factor 2 – Past Performance

M.4. Evaluation Factor 3 – Price

M.5. Basis for Award

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 4

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

B.1. Price/Cost Schedule

CLIN Description of Supplies/Services Qty U/I Unit

Price Amount

0001 BASE PERIOD

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

0002 BASE PERIOD

OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs)

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

1001 OPTION PERIOD I

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

1002 OPTION PERIOD I

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

2001 OPTION PERIOD II

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

2002 OPTION PERIOD II

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

1 LO ______________ ______________

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 5

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

3001 OPTION PERIOD III

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

3002 OPTION PERIOD III

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

4001 OPTION PERIOD IV

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

4002 OPTION PERIOD IV

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

5001 OPTION PERIOD V

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

5002 OPTION PERIOD V

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

1 LO ______________ ______________

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 6

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

6001 OPTION PERIOD VI

DIRECT LABOR

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

6002 OPTION PERIOD VI

OTHER DIRECT COSTS

Period of Performance: TBD

Estimated 12 months

PoP Start: TBD

PoP End: TBD

1 LO ______________ ______________

TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE:* _______________

*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.

B.2. 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)

B.3. Accounting and Appropriation Data

[RESERVED]

B.4. 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.

B.5. 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]. If the contractor considers the funds obligated under this contract to be insufficient to cover the work to be performed until the date specified herein, or another date agreed to by the parties, the contractor shall notify the contracting officer in writing and indicate the date on which it expects expended funds to approximate 75 percent of the total amount obligated. The notice shall state the estimated amount of additional funds required to continue performance through the date for which incremental funds are provided.

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 7

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.

B.6. 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.

Hours by labor category and pricing under ODCs are estimates only and may be increased/decreased as necessary for successful completion of the contract requirements and as approved by the COR/PM. However, the contractor’s expenditures at any given point shall not exceed the total obligated amount or the total ceiling price for this contract as specified below.

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.

PRICING SUMMARY PER CONTRACT PERIOD

Base Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 TOTAL

Total Labor Hours

Total Labor Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total ODCs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Est. Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Base Period – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

Item # Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

0001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

ODC Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Base Period)

Option Period I – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

1001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 8

Total Estimated Value (Option Period I)

Option Period II – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

2001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period II)

Option Period III – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

3001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

ODCs(1)

3002 Subcontract(s) Data Collection Plug El Salvador $155,000.00

Subcontract(s) Data Collection Plug Guatemala $155,000.00

Total Estimated Value (Option Period III)

Option Period IV – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

4001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 9

Total Estimated Value (Option Period IV)

Option Period V – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

5001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

5002 Subcontract(s) Data Collection Plug El Salvador $103,500.00

Total Estimated Value (Option Period V)

Option Period IV – Period of Performance TBD (est. 12 months)

LABOR

6001 hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

Total Estimated Value (Option Period VI)

TOTAL COST SUMMARY

Description(2) U/I Qty Rate Total

LABOR

hr.

hr.

hr.

hr.

Total Labor Hours - -

Labor Sub-Total

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 10

Total Estimated Cost

NOTE (1): MCC anticipates approximately $310,000 ($155,000 for Guatemala and $155,000 for

El Salvador) in Option Period 3 and $103,500 for El Salvador in Option Period 5 for 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 and any associated indirect costs (e.g., subcontract handling fees). 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.

(End of SECTION B)

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 11

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1. Introduction and Background for the Projects under the El Salvador II Compact and Guatemala Threshold Program

MCC requires an independent evaluator for the Investment Climate Project under the El Salvador II Compact and the

Public Private Partnership Activity under the Guatemala Threshold Program. A description of the activities under both programs is as follows.

El Salvador Investment Climate Project

The El Salvador II Investment Climate Project is designed to contribute to an increase in productivity and private investment in the tradeables sector by improving El Salvador’s regulatory regime and enabling the Government of El

Salvador (GoES) to better provide key public services in partnership with the private sector. An improved regulatory regime as well as increase private investment will remove two obstacles to a more productive and competitive tradeables sector.

The Project consists of the two Activities described below.

Regulatory Improvement Activity (RIA)

The Regulatory Improvement Activity will prioritize and promote investment climate reforms as well as help ensure that new regulations’ benefits outweigh their costs resulting in more efficient and profitable business operations for firms doing business in El Salvador. The Compact project will support the design and initial institutionalization of the

Organismo de Mejora Regulatoria (OMR), in the context of a System for Regulatory Improvement (SMR).

Overall Objectives of the Project:

Establish the institutional architecture necessary for regular review and transparent justification of new regulatory and administrative rules promulgated by the GoES to ensure that they adhere to good regulatory principles.

Produce a body of reforms that, in the short term, materially reduce the administrative and regulatory costs of compliance with GoES requirements to firms operating in tradeable sectors.

Increase transparency, reduce discrepancy, and ensure that GoES administrative and regulatory requirements

(particularly procedures or trámites) have a legal basis.

Increase private sector participation in the rule-making process regarding rules that concern or affect their business operations.

Expected beneficiaries for the Regulatory Improvement Activity are the 25,139 firms currently registered as operating in

El Salvador as well as potential new businesses, who will experience cost or time-cost savings as a result of the reforms prioritized by the regulatory improvement commission. These savings may stem from a number of sources, depending on the specific nature of the reforms enacted - reduced red tape requirements, improved information transparency and/or e-access, and higher standards.

The regulatory improvement commission will focus on reforms that affect exporting firms (current number of exporting firms is 2,483), whom we may think of as “target” beneficiaries. However, non-exporting firms will also be beneficiaries of this activity to the extent that they will also realize cost or time-cost savings. If these non-exporting firms are suppliers of intermediate goods to exporting firms, some of the savings to non-exporting firms may be passed along to exporting firms. Furthermore, as this activity will promote regulatory reform at all level through the guillotine process, MCC considers all firms currently registered in El Salvador as the beneficiaries of this activity.

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 12

Partnership Development Activity

The Partnership Development Activity is designed to improve the capacity of GoES to partner with private enterprise in innovative ways to provide key public goods and services needed to support private investment in the tradeables sector.

These partnerships include (i) PPPs to outsource the provision of public services to the private sector, and (ii) the El

Salvador Investment Challenge (ESIC) or Apuesta de Inversiones (API) in Spanish to more efficiently allocate limited government resources to public goods needed to support private investment in the tradeables sector and create a signal that the GOES’s is supportive of increasing private investment through more strategic public investment. As outlined below, the Partnership Development Activity seeks to support GoES’ capacity to develop these two types of partnerships and the specific public services that these partnerships will finance.

Sub-Activity: El Salvador Investment Challenge (ESIC)

The ESIC Sub-Activity seeks to help the GoES identify important private investment potential and efficiently allocate limited government resources to public goods and services needed to support this investment. Specifically, funding from the GoES and the Compact will support the development and financing of ESIC as a joint MCC-GoES investment facility to provide a transparent, open, fair, and competitive process to identify private investments in internationally-traded goods and services and fund key public goods and services needed to catalyze such private investments. The administration of

ESIC will be governed by operations and procedures manuals, in form and substance satisfactory to MCC, setting forth, among others, eligibility criteria, requirements for economic rates of return, mechanisms for coordinating with relevant line ministries to more effectively identify and provide key public services needed to support private investment, generation of employment opportunities for women and local communities, and transparency as to the selection of projects and use of ESIC funding (See Section J: ESIC Grants Manual).

Sub-Activity: Public-Private Partnerships in El Salvador (PPPs)

The PPP Sub-Activity seeks to better enable the GoES to use PPPs as a powerful financing and risk-sharing tool to provide key public goods and services. Specifically, the Compact will support the identification, development, and implementation of at least two PPPs. This support includes (i) providing a consultant to work with a particular line ministry (e.g., Ministry of Public Works or MOP) to properly identify their infrastructure gaps, the costs and benefits of such infrastructure, and which projects might successfully be financed via a PPP, (ii) providing a resident advisor to help

PROESA and Treasury (Hacienda) to develop specific PPPs that were identified as potentially strong PPP projects under

(i) above, (iii) providing outside transaction advisors to help the Export and Investment Promotion Agency of EL

Salvador (PROESA) and Treasury (Hacienda) to conduct required feasibility studies and to structure and tender such projects, and (iv) if possible, providing resident advisors to help the line ministry and Hacienda to manage signed PPP contracts.

MCC will coordinate this assistance with efforts by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and others to provide general, on-going PPP capacity-building assistance to governmental agencies in Guatemala, El Salvador, and

Honduras in order to improve capacity and consistency of PPP practices across the region and increase the impact and sustainability of MCC’s investments.

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 13

Guatemala Public Private Partnership Activity

The Constraints Analysis found low and unequal levels of human capital and weak rule of law as the two binding constraints to economic growth in Guatemala. The inadequate government resources available and the inability to increase revenues contributes to both of these constraints. Given the underlying issue of government resources, the Guatemala

Threshold Program includes a Resource Mobilization Project that consists of two activities: Improving Tax and Customs

Administration and Strengthening the Capacity to form Private Public Partnerships. The Evaluator will be responsible for establishing an evaluation methodology solely for the PPP Activity under this Project. The PPP Activity under the

Guatemala Resource Mobilization Project will support Government efforts, principally those of Agencia Nacional de

Alianzas para el Desarrollo de Infraestructura Económica (“ANADIE”), to build capacity to implement PPPs, promote transparency in PPPs, assess direct and contingent liabilities of PPPs, and bring one or two PPP projects to market by funding feasibility studies that inform the technical, financial, and legal structuring, value-for-money analysis, and other requirements for projects to be tendered, as well as funding for transaction advisory services.

This Activity seeks to improve the GoG capacity to effectively develop and manage PPPs in order to improve their ability to access private capital to address the country’s infrastructure financing gap, where appropriate, and preserve public funding for other social services. To date, MCC has agreed to fund a feasibility study for the three potential projects that could have additional beneficiaries, outside of the overall logic behind the inclusion on this Activity into the Program.

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 14

Guatemala PPP Activity Logic:

Existing Data Sources (Both El Salvador and Guatemala):

1) World Bank Enterprise Survey

MCC funded the expanded implementation of the World Bank Enterprise Survey in 2016 in El Salvador.

MCC worked with the World Bank Enterprise Survey team to add questions to certain modules, as well as expand the sample for firms working in the tradables sector. The expanded modules were also implemented in

Guatemala and Honduras, but the sample remained unchanged.

For further information about the survey and the public use data please see the Enterprise Survey website:

http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploreeconomies/2016/el-salvador.

2) Data Quality Review

El Salvador: FOMILENIO II has contracted the firm AENOR to conduct a Data Quality Review for all three projects under the El Salvador II Compact, including the Investment Climate Project. The results of this work will be ready by December 2017. FOMILENIO II will share these results with the Independent Evaluator once the contract is awarded.

http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploreeconomies/2016/el-salvador

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 15

Guatemala: The National Competitiveness Program in Guatemala (PRONACOM) will be contracting a firm to conduct a Data Quality Review of the Guatemala Project. Timeline to be decided.

C.2. Scope

Provide Independent Evaluation Services in support of the El Salvador II Investment Climate Project and the Public

Private Partnerships Activity under the Guatemala Threshold Program.

C.3. Evaluation Questions and Guidance on Methodology

The evaluator should propose a methodology that assesses the broad logic for the ES II Investment Climate Project and the underlying logical framework of the GTM PPP Activity.

For the ES II Investment Climate Project, the methodology should identify the obstacles that hinder investments and productivity even if the regulatory reform and partnerships activities are successfully designed and implemented. Given the timing of implementation for the two activities, the Evaluator may propose to submit two different evaluation designs and final reports for the El Salvador II Regulatory Improvement Activity and the Partnership Development Activity.

For both the GTM PPP Activity and the ES II PPP Sub-Activity, the Evaluator should also consider the cross country comparisons. These comparisons represent an important advantage to including these components of the Guatemala

Threshold Program and the ES II Compact under the same evaluation contract. The PPP training for both countries are managed under the same contract and the coaches for each country are procured using the same Terms of Reference.

For all components, the Evaluator should identify exogenous factors (outside of the project), both positive and negative that could influence the potential findings of the MCC investment. It is important to include both aspects, as both could bias the findings.

The Evaluator should address in the proposal concerns or risks to ensuring the quality – that is, the validity and reliability

– of the research, and propose mitigating actions that could help ensure that the research adheres to commonly accepted standards for reliability and validity, given the methods and methodologies proposed.

The evaluation questions and specific methodology guidance for each project/activity in El Salvador and Guatemala are listed below.

El Salvador Regulatory Improvement Activity

Evaluations Questions:

The Compact project will support the design and initial institutionalization of the Organismo de Mejora Regulatoria

(OMR), in the context of a System for Regulatory Improvement (SMR). The overall objectives of the project and related evaluation questions are as follows:

Objective Key Evaluation Questions

To generate a body of regulatory and administrative reforms and simplifications that materially reduce the bureaucracy and red tape that firms operating in tradeable sectors encounter in the course of their business. These reforms should materially reduce the administrative and operational burden of regulations and trámites on firms.

Did the OMR, over the course of the Compact, produce a body of proposed reforms and simplifications that could have reasonably contributed to non-trivial reductions in administrative and regulatory compliance costs for firms operating in tradeable sectors? If yes, what conditions made it possible for the OMR to have success? If no, why was the OMR unable to fulfill this objective?

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 16

Objective Key Evaluation Questions

To what extent were those proposals adopted and meaningfully implemented by the relevant GoES entities?

What were major barriers to getting these entities to adopt and implement the OMR’s proposal(s), and how and why did these change over time?

How and why did OMR respond to these challenges? How successful were OMR’s efforts in supporting the GoES entities’ adoption of regulatory improvement principles and methodologies? Did the GoES entities develop the required capabilities to design and implement their own proposals for regulatory reform and simplification

To the extent that they were implemented, did these reforms or changes materially reduce the administrative and regulatory compliance costs to firms operating in the tradeable sectors, as well as response times to issue permits or licenses? Were there unforeseen costs or negative impacts from the implementation of the changes to other businesses, government efficiency or processes, social groups of interest, environment, or other?

To establish the National Registry of Procedures and Regulations (Registro Nacional de Trámites

(RNT)), a body tasked with cataloging and publicizing administrative requirements of firms with respect to their operations. The RNT is intended to increase transparency of GoES rules and administrative requirements, reduce discretion in the application of regulatory and administrative requirements, and provide legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) for regulations that are inscribed in the RNT.

Was the RNT successfully set up? That is, was set up with the appropriate organizational and institutional structure technological support, accessibility to users, operational procedures and required information to achieve the objectives of transparency and legal certainty?

Describe the key political, institutional, and organizational challenges in establishing the RNT. To what extent were they successfully handled? To what extent and how did these challenges affect the design, scope, scale or end effectiveness of the RNT?

To establish the organizational and institutional architecture (taken as a whole, the Sistema de

Mejora Regulatoria, or SMR) necessary for a continual process of regulatory and administrative improvement within the GoES, with the objective of ensuring that new GoES rules, regulations, and procedures conform to good regulatory principles.

Does the SMR have the necessary structure, governance, incentives, technical capabilities, controls, checks and balances, and resources that are necessary to sustain itself in the long-term Is the structure of the SMR set up such that it is likely to lead to an increase in the quality of regulations and business procedures in El Salvador by ensuring that GoES rules increasingly comply with good regulatory principles? Are there permanent mechanisms to control the quality of new regulations?

Does the OMR have an appropriate structure, position and resources necessary to act as a strong coordinator and facilitator of the SMR?

How was the design of the SMR conceived, developed, and implemented?

What challenges were there advancing the design and implementation of the SMR within the GoES? What challenges were encountered? Why and how important decisions were made relating to the design or implementation of the SMR?

To what extent is a culture of regulatory improvement taking root within the GoES as a result of efforts to communicate and implement the SMR?

What are major challenges to inculcating this culture – operationally, politically, and culturally? How were they addressed by actors connected to the effort?

Methodology:

For El Salvador RIA, MCC seeks an evaluation that includes a broadly inclusive analytic case study framework to assess the relationships between stakeholders, and the decisions made throughout the life of the activity. MCC is interested in an

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 17 in-depth and intensive case study that answers questions related to the political, institutional, and organizational evolution of the OMR and SMR. Ideally, the firm would suggest a consultant(s) with knowledge of the organizational, political, or institutional dynamics, qualitative research methods that could conduct a long-term observational study, or be embedded in the organization for the next several years. This researcher would collaborate closely with FOMILENIO II and the

OMR to document the conceptual model for the activity and implementation progress. The evaluator will also be responsible for assessing RIA’s impact on the target sectors, including Net Savings due to more efficient regulations. The evaluator may propose more than one person to fulfill this role if the costs are justified.

The purpose of the evaluation would be to provide an in-depth understanding of the context and conditions for the OMR’s work toward regulatory improvement in El Salvador. The Evaluator should propose rigorous qualitative methods and methodologies (including sampling methodologies if and where appropriate), with accompanying rationales to justify the use of those methodologies, to be used to conduct the proposed analytic approaches. The methodology should build on recent academic and analytic work on relevant fields, including the political economy of regulatory improvement and or institution-building in Latin America.

The following points will be covered by the methodology to be further elaborated by the implementer:

The end product of the evaluation should include and analysis of how structural variables have influenced the distribution of powers within and in relation to the OMR as well as their functionality. Structural variables include, but are not limited to, geopolitical landscape, historical context in El Salvador, economic and political base stakeholders, and development challenges.

Institutional variables include the OMR’s formal mandate, formal and informal organizational structure including strength and weaknesses, formal and informal links to other government and private sector actors. The analysis should include how institutional variables influence the distribution of power between the OMR and other actors, as well as its functionality. At the level of the GOES and OMR management and key staff, the analysis will point to the “real” incentive structures and obstacles for regulatory reform in this context.

Actors at national and local levels. Which are the key actors (at different levels of the government) and what are the interests that drive them regarding the regulatory improvement? What are the reasons for the positions taken?

Who are the formal and de facto power holders? How do they generate and exercise power? Is it possible to discern who the “champions of regulatory reform” are and who are the “opponents”?

Organizational Variables. The study should examine the degree to which the OMR’s predetermined goals are achieved, the OMR and other stakeholders sense of accountability for results, staff commitment, and communication effectiveness.

El Salvador Investment Challenge Sub-Activity:

Evaluation Questions:

Key Assumptions Key Evaluation Questions (Results Related)

ESIC will incentivize private firms to invest where they would not have before. ESIC will increase private investment in general.

How has the investment challenge spurred more private investment in El Salvador? Were private sector cost sharing amounts calculated appropriately? If subsidizing is taking place, how could this be avoided in future fund designs?

As a result of the ESIC grants, a significant investment of public and private funds will be made in the agriculture, textile export, and plastics sectors.

What kind of impact did the total investment (public and private) have on the agriculture, textile export, and plastics sectors in terms of employment and size of these export sectors as a proportion of the GDP?

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 18

Key Evaluation Questions (Process Related)

Is the fund being managed well and is it efficient?

- Provide an assessment of the grant manual, including the selection process, and guidance regarding management of the individual projects.

- Is the grant manual being followed?

- Did the approval process utilize clear selection criteria? Was the criteria appropriate to achieve the stated objectives?

- Are the guidelines and processes outlined in the grant manual appropriate to achieve GoES objectives under the constraint of MCC policy? Can they be improved?

Are they appropriate to minimize gender discrimination (direct and indirect), enhance gender equality and minimize negative social and environmental impacts?

To what extent has the process for recruiting, reviewing, and selecting proposals from private investors been appropriate, efficient, and effective?

To what extent potential investors see in ESIC a key and appropriate tool to leverage investments?

Was there qualified demand for public goods (i.e. did enough applications meet the basic requirements)?

What types of proposed investments is the fund attracting? To what extent do these investments meet GoES needs?

Are the private organizations existing investors in El Salvador or new ones?

To what extent are the selected investments expected to generate positive environmental and social

(employment opportunities for men and women, productive activities at the local level, human capital development, etc.) impacts? Are these expected impacts significant? Are they likely to happen?

To what extent are the investment projects promoting gender equality? How?

To what extent are the investment projects promoting positive environmental and social impacts? How?

What kind of public investment is needed for private investment (especially foreign) to be established in the tradable sector?

Was the fund an effective mechanism for allocating public money towards higher return projects? Did it improve

GoES decision-making or would GoES have invested in the public good anyway?

Evaluation Methodology

This evaluation is expected to be a performance evaluation, without an expectation that the evaluator might be able to construct a rigorous counterfactual to the El Salvador Investment Challenge. The evaluation is expected to apply one or a combination of methodologies in order to assess the effectiveness of ESIC in producing change, as well as how it achieve those outcomes and/or impacts. The Evaluator is expected to propose qualitative evaluation methodologies, perhaps complemented by quantitative analysis, through which they expect to assess the overall program logic and its implementation, including answering the stated evaluation questions in the most rigorous manner feasible. Methods to be considered include, but are not limited to:

Review of key documents and background literature, including relevant Salvadoran regulations and policy agenda

MCC, FOMILENIO II, grantee, and other stakeholder semi-structured/key informant interviews

Focus groups with grant proponents that were or were not awarded grants

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 19

Quantitative analysis of administrative data (both grant-making process documents and data and grantee-reported

M&E data)

Quantitative analysis of the economic impacts on the major sectors, in terms of employment

Guatemala PPP Activity and El Salvador II PPP Sub-Activity

Evaluation Questions:

Key Assumptions Key Evaluation Questions

The PPP training and coaching funded under the

Compact will result in a higher capacity to manage PPPs within GoES and GoG

To what extent does the project facilitate greater capacity and coordination for PPPs within GoES and GoG? How have institutional interactions normalized or been codified to support PPPs?

What are the differences between the outcomes of the trainings and coaching in El Salvador and Guatemala?

What can be said about the different political and institutional contexts for implementing PPPs in the two different countries?

Did the GoG/GoES follow the PPP law in developing and managing PPP projects? Did the GoG/GoES follow best international practice in developing and managing PPP projects (perhaps use the CP3P or another international standard from PPIAF?

PPPs allow project to go forward that otherwise would have been discarded due to financial constraints.

How well was the ex-ante Cost Benefit Analysis done for each PPP? How good was the PPP’s financial model / business case, including the demand study and the ability of users & the government to pay? What was the quality of the GoG/GoES assessment of the PPP’s costs & benefits from a technical, financial, economic, environmental, social, legal, and political perspective?

The intervention will free up fiscal space to allocate funds to other public services, specifically education.

What cost savings accrue to GoES and GoG through the PPPs?

How good was the MoF’s assessment and management of its direct payment and contingent liability obligations arising from the PPP? How effective were the “concedente” (line ministry that signed the concession) and the regulator in managing and regulating the concession after it was signed?

PPPs create an incentive mechanisms aligning private and public interests.

To what extent has the PPP activity resulted (or likely to result) in greater private investment in key infrastructure projects?

Methodology:

For the ES II PPP Sub-Activity and GTM PPP Activity, the Evaluation should propose a methodology for assessing the program logic and its implementation, including but not necessarily limited to the success of the PPP capacity-building including a before-after comparison of outcomes and/or a cross-country comparison. For the two specific PPPs supported

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 20 by MCC, key performance indicators for each of the projects could be analyzed to assess whether or not initial projections were met. Methods to be considered include, but are not limited to:

Review of key documents and background literature, including relevant Salvadoran and Guatemalan regulations and policy agenda

MCC, FOMILENIO II, PRONACOM, grantee, and other stakeholder semi-structured/key informant interviews

Focus groups with grant proponents that were or were not awarded grants

Quantitative analysis of administrative data

C.4. Roles and Responsibilities

A. Independence

MCC’s Policy on Independent Evaluations. Based on the 1991 DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development

Assistance, MCC’s Evaluation Policy requires independent evaluations of each MCC project. MCC’s implementation of this independence policy adheres to these principles, especially the following:

“Impartiality and independence will best be achieved by separating the evaluation function from the line management responsible for planning and managing development assistance.” (P.6.)

Organizational Conflicts of Interest. MCC-M&E is responsible for adhering to our policy-driven requirements for independence. These requirements are distinct from Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) proscribed in the Federal

Acquisition Regulations. Interpretations and enforcement of the OCI statutes are the remit of our Office of General

Counsel.

Independence of Evaluation Team. Evaluation team members must be impartial and therefore should not have contributed to the design or implementation of the project being evaluated. In cases where individuals or firms that have worked on the project are proposed to be part of the evaluation team, a justification and independence risk mitigation plan must be provided to MCC for consideration.

The Independent Evaluator’s Role

To remain consistent with the principles of independent evaluations during project planning and implementation, the independent evaluator’s feedback is restricted to reporting evidence and findings. Recommendations shall not be made before completing a final evaluation as they can influence project planning or implementation, thereby jeopardizing the independence an evaluation. Prescriptions and recommendations may be included in final evaluations.

Real-time feedback to project implementation. MCC supports monitoring and evaluation activities intended to provide feedback on how to improve program planning and implementation. But this support shall be separate from the independent evaluator. Any contribution of the Independent Evaluator to this feedback shall be limited to reporting evidence and findings. Any exceptions to this rule must be approved in advance by the EMC.

B. MCC & MCA Responsibilities

MCC, FOMILENIO II, and PRONACOM, along with the Independent Evaluator, play critical roles in designing, implementing, and disseminating the independent evaluations. The MCC, FOMILENIO II, and PRONACOM roles are as follows (For further detail see Section J: Evaluation Management and Review Process):

http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/45438179.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/45438179.pdf

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 21

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:

a. Assess when a program is ready for evaluation planning through evaluability assessment;

b. Determine what program components (Project(s), Activities, Sub-Activities) will be covered by the evaluation;

c. Set the evaluation questions to achieve accountability and learning objectives;

d. Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation;

e. Contract and Supervise the Independent Evaluator;

f. Conduct quality reviews of all evaluation products (reports, questionnaires, etc);

g. Facilitate public dissemination efforts to inform decision-makers on learning generated by the evaluation;

h. Oversee preparation of public-use data that ensures appropriate balance of enabling verification of analysis and broad use of the data with adherence to promises of confidentiality to survey respondents;

and

i. Determine the evaluation budgets.

2. FOMILENIO II (The Millennium Challenge Account for El Salvador), PRONACOM (the Accountable

Entity for the Guatemala Threshold Program), and country partners: FOMILENIO II, PRONACOM, and other country partners are responsible for building local ownership and commitment to the evaluation, oversight of the data collection firm, and quality control of evaluation activities, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Assess when a program is ready for evaluation planning through evaluability assessment;

b. Set the evaluation questions to achieve accountability and learning objectives;

c. Build buy-in and ownership of the evaluation;

d. Manage the data collection firms;

e. Conduct quality reviews of all evaluation products (reports, questionnaires, etc); and

f. Facilitate public dissemination efforts.

C.5. Tasks

Independent Evaluator: The Independent Evaluator is responsible for the overall design, implementation, and dissemination of the evaluation, including the following specific responsibilities:

a. Develop the most rigorous evaluation design feasible given rules of program implementation (Tasks 1-2)

b. Support MCC, FOMILENIO II, and PRONACOM to build buy-in and ownership of evaluation. (Task 2 and

Task 7)

c. Develop evaluation materials that are held to international standards (Task 3 and Task 8)

d. Ensure Institutional Review Board clearance of survey and interview protocols, when applicable(Task 4 and

Task 9)

e. Manage the researchers in the field as well as any necessary data collection (Post-Compact) (Task 4 and Task 9)

f. Ensure data quality during collection and entry through supervision and management (Task 4 and Task 9)

g. Lead data cleaning, coding of qualitative transcripts, document review, analysis, and interpretation of results

(Task 5 and Task 10)

h. Produce high quality, credible, transparent evaluation reports (Task 5 and Task 10)

MCC-17-RFQ-0133 (El Salvador Investment Climate and Guatemala PPPs) Page 22

i. Lead preparation of public-use data1, when applicable, that ensures appropriate balance of enabling verification of analysis and broad use of the data with adherence to promises of confidentiality to survey respondents (Task 15)

j. Lead public dissemination efforts (Task 11)

Task 1: Assess Evaluation Plan

The Evaluator is responsible for conducting an Evaluability Assessment on all existing documentation related to the program and proposed evaluation plan provided by MCC, FOMILENIO II, and PRONACOM using the MCC

Evaluability Assessment Tool (See Section J) as…