SOL-114-12-000001.rtf

SOL-114-12-000001

Posted Date: Friday, December 16, 2011 Closing Date: Monday, January 16, 2012

SUBJECT: Request for Proposals SOL-114-12-000001 – Impact Evaluation for New Economic Opportunities (NEO) Project

Dear Sir/Madam:

The United States Government, represented by the United States Agency for International Development Regional Mission to the Caucasus (USAID/Caucasus), is seeking proposals to provide the services described in the attached Request for Proposals (RFP). This solicitation is being issued as a small business set-aside. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, and the small business size standard is $7 million.

If you decide to submit a proposal, it must be presented in accordance with the attached solicitation and received no later than 10:00 AM local Tbilisi time on the closing date indicated above and at the place shown below. Proposals should be submitted with the name, street address, telephone number, email address of a point-of-contact who is an authorized agent of the offeror and RFP number. The proposal must be addressed to:

Questions regarding this RFP shall be submitted to Irina Bakradze (ibakradze@usaid.gov), Acquisition Agent, by 4PM Tbilisi time, December 30, 2011.

This RFP in no way obligates USAID to award a contract nor does it commit USAID to pay any cost incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal. Notifications of receipt and questions concerning this RFP must be directed to the Contracting Officer via the internet email address listed above.

Sincerely,

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

RATING

PAGE OF

PAGES

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NUMBER

3. SOLICITATION NUMBER

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

5. DATE ISSUED

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

7. ISSUED BY

CODE

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

(If other than Item 7) NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "offeror".

9. Sealed offers in original and _____________________________ copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in until local time _______________________ (Hour) (Date) CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All Offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

A. NAME

B. TELEPHONE (NO COLLECT CALLS)

C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AREA CODE

NUMBER

EXT.

(X)

SEC.

DESCRIPTION

PAGE(S)

(X)

SEC.

DESCRIPTION

PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

A

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

I

CONTRACT CLAUSES

B

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH.

C

DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT

J

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

D

PACKAGING AND MARKING

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

E

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

F

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

G

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

L

INSTR., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

H

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within ________ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

10 CALENDAR DAYS (%)

20 CALENDAR DAYS (%)

30 CALENDAR DAYS (%)

CALENDAR DAYS (%)

(See Section I, Clause No. 52-232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated:

CODE

FACILITY

16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER

15A. NAME AND

ADDRESS

OF OFFEROR

(Type or print)

15B. TELEPHONE NUMBER

17. SIGNATURE

18. OFFER DATE

AREA CODE

NUMBER

EXT.

15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT FROM

ABOVE - ENTER SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED

20. AMOUNT

21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified) 10 U.S.C. 2304(a) ( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c) ( )

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7)

25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

CODE

CODE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

28. AWARD DATE

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

(REV. 9-97)

10. FOR INFORMATION CALL:

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

STANDARD FORM 33

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

SOLICITATION

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) AWARD (To be completed by Government)

SOL-114-12-000001

X

USAID/Caucasus 7060 Tbilisi Place Department of State Washington DC 20521-7060 USAID/Caucasus Regional Contracting Office

11, George Balanchine Street Tbilisi, 0131 Georgia Item 8

10:00 AM

01/16/2012 Brian K. Woody bwoody@usaid.gov

See Attached Table of Contents

$.00

John F. Lord, Regional Contracting Officer

SOL-114-12-000001

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES

B.1 PURPOSE

The proposed evaluation will run until 2015 and the purpose of this impact evaluation is to assess:

a. whether NEO’s support for community/municipal-level planning process and economic infrastructure development activities increased the voice of communities in municipal decision-making and resulted in economic impact on affected communities;

b. whether NEO’s rural economic development initiatives, including capacity building interventions and value chain assistance, improved rural incomes;

c. whether assistance to vulnerable households alleviated poverty levels by increasing productivity or creating jobs.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion type contract. For the consideration set forth below, the Contractor shall provide the results, deliverables or outputs described in Section C and F in accordance with the performance standards specified in Section F.4.

B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE, AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

(a) The estimated cost for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, if any, is TBD. The fixed fee, if any, is TBD. The estimated cost plus fixed fee, if any, is TBD.

(b) Within the estimated cost plus fixed fee (if any) specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the Contractor (and payment of fee, if any) for performance hereunder is TBD. The Contractor shall not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount.

(c) Funds obligated hereunder are anticipated to be sufficient through TBD.

B.4 PRICE SCHEDULE

a. Direct Cost

b. Indirect Cost

c. Fixed Fee

d. Total Cost + Fixed Fee

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS (DEC 1997)

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs shall be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases:

Description Rate Base Type Period

1/ 1/ 1/

1/Base of Application:

Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

B.6 CEILING ON INDIRECT COSTS

(1) Reimbursement for indirect costs shall be at the lower of the negotiated final predetermined rates or the following ceiling rates:

Description Rate Base Type Period

1/ 1/ 1/ 1/Base of Application:

Type of Rate: Predetermined Period:

(2) The Government will not be obligated to pay any additional amount should the final indirect cost rates exceed the negotiated ceiling rates. If the final indirect cost rates are less than the negotiated ceiling rates, the negotiated rates will be reduced to conform to the lower rates.

(3) This understanding shall not change any monetary ceiling, obligation, or specific cost allowance or disallowance. Any changes in classifying or allocating indirect costs require the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.

B.7 COST REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable shall be limited to reasonable, allocable and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, FAR 52.216-8, Fixed Fee, if applicable, and AIDAR 752.7003, Documentation for Payment.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

TITLE: IMPACT EVALUATION FOR NEW ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES (NEO) PROJECT

I. Summary

The NEO project is a four-year, $20.6-million activity with start and end dates of April 2011-April 2015. NEO’s purpose is to improve rural incomes, reduce poverty levels, improve food security, and address critical, small-scale household and agricultural water constraints in targeted communities. Additionally, NEO will enable targeted internally displaced persons (IDP) to sustainably maintain their households and assist communities distressed by natural or other disasters.

NEO supports USAID/Georgia’s assistance objective of improved economic competitiveness and welfare and its intermediate results: improved private sector competitiveness, improved economic security of targeted vulnerable populations and sectors, and improved economic infrastructure in strategic sectors.

The proposed evaluation will run until 2015 and will assess NEO’s impact on rural incomes, household poverty levels; and community-level planning and economic infrastructure development processes in target communities.

II. Background

The NEO contract was awarded to Chemonics International in April 2011. Chemonics is implementing NEO in collaboration with their partners, International Relief and Development (IRD) and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

The implementing partner is using a causal pathway methodology as a tool for their strategic approach, which envisions identifying impact statement and then working backward chronologically to define activities that produce the desired impact, NEO being a “development facilitator” in this process.

The impact statement as defined by the implementing partner reads as follows: “Sustainable poverty reduction, improved living standards for vulnerable populations and increased government participation in addressing local community needs.”

NEO’s activities are organized according to four components, including community-level economic development planning (LED); rural economic development; assistance to strengthen highly vulnerable households and individuals; and promoting the sustainability of IDP houses being rehabilitated with support from the USG. In addition, NEO has built-in small disaster response mechanism.

LED planning and economic strengthening activities represent the core of the program and are designed to complement each other. Within selected municipalities, NEO will apply a three-pronged approach in support of sustainable local economic development:

1. LED planning processes will serve as an entry point for NEO and help identify economic sectors, prioritize infrastructure and other investments, facilitate public-private dialogue, and leverage additional investments. NEO will accomplish this by mobilizing a network of stakeholders – local government and central government representatives, working groups and informal local leaders, donors, implementers, private sector – and establish coordination mechanisms and targeted LED events to foster dialogue and joint action.

2. NEO’s economic strengthening activities are designed to address the needs of vulnerable segments of the population. Working in the value chains identified in the economic development plans, NEO will provide targeted assistance to facilitate vertical and horizontal linkages, increase access to finance and provide market driven training. These activities will be driven by market demands, economic principles and best practices.

3. In addition, NEO will provide micro-grants and technical assistance to highly vulnerable households to strengthen their food security. These activities may fall outside those sectors or value chains identified as “high potential” but may be implemented because of their potential impact on impoverished households. Beneficiaries will be selected based on a set of criteria developed to determine their vulnerability.

IDP housing activities were designed as stand-alone activities, as they might not align geographically with selected municipalities. In cases where there is geographic overlap, beneficiaries of IDP housing activities will be fully integrated into other NEO activities as per established criteria.

NEO’s disaster response is not an on-going activity but rather a mechanism that can be triggered by USAID should the need arise.

NEO will provide assistance in 10 municipalities[footnoteRef:1] (approximately 84 communities within these municipalities out of 159 in total in select municipalities) over the life of the project selected in coordination with USAID, the U.S. Embassy, and the Government of Georgia (GoG). Work began in three municipalities during the first year and expanded to additional five municipalities since September 2011. Work has commenced in a total of 29 communities and will gradually expand further to 55 communities in all ten target municipalities by the end of FY 2012. The municipalities were chosen based upon the following weighted criteria[footnoteRef:2]: [1: Defined as group of villages. Selected municipalities include: Oni, Tsageri, Kazbegi, Lentekhi, Kareli, Dusheti, Khashuri, Gori, Tsalenjikha and Zugdidi.] [2: Neo Year I Workplan – will be shared with the evaluation team once selected]

· High population of disadvantaged (60 percent)

· Concentration of IDPs per municipality (30 percent)

· Proximity to conflict zones and/or impacted by the 2008 conflict (10 percent)

NEO plans to conduct three surveys such as baseline, mid-project and final-project household outcome and citizen satisfaction surveys to collect baseline and later measure the project’s results[footnoteRef:3]. The evaluation team will be able to use this data, however will need to collect new/additional data based on the sample to be selected by the evaluator. [3: Some Outcome level indicators to be tracked by NEO (final indicators and targets will be shared with the evaluation team):

% increase in average value of targeted household production, % of targeted vulnerable households and individuals raised to the official subsistence level % change in average household incomes in targeted communities and sectors % increase in number of adult individuals that perceive that the local government understands and is responsive to their needs

III. Purpose of the Evaluation and Its Intended Use

The purpose of this impact evaluation is to assess:

a. whether NEO’s support for community/municipal-level planning process and economic infrastructure development activities increased the voice of communities in municipal decision-making and resulted in economic impact on affected communities;

b. whether NEO’s rural economic development initiatives, including capacity building interventions and value chain assistance, improved rural incomes;

c. whether assistance to vulnerable households alleviated poverty levels by increasing productivity or creating jobs.

The evaluation team shall complete the study in three phases, the first tentatively planned for March 2012; second - for December 2013; and third - for May 2015. NEO commenced in April 2011, municipalities were selected, and selection of communities is under way. The proposed date for the first phase of the evaluation (mid-FY 2012) will fit well into the overall schedule of the project with regards to collecting baseline information, identifying sources of secondary data to be used as baseline for select municipalities, and select “treatment” and “control” communities. NEO staff, the external evaluation team, and the USAID mission will work together to coordinate data collection, monitoring and analysis as it overlaps for project monitoring and impact evaluation purposes.

Since part of the NEO funding is coming from the $1 billion pledge, evaluation results will be used for accountability purposes both to the USG and Government of Georgia. In addition, this will be a learning experience since lessons learned throughout the evaluation process will contribute to the ongoing life of project implementation of NEO. The final results of the evaluation will help the mission to define future activities and approaches for community economic development planning, poverty alleviation and increase in rural incomes. These results will be shared widely within the E&E region.

IV. Evaluation Questions and Methodology

Key evaluation questions:

1. How effective and sustainable was the community and municipality economic development planning methodology and approach developed and used by the project? To what extent did the project result in: (a) incorporating community-level economic development priorities into higher-level municipal economic development plans and (b) leveraging GOG and/or other donor funding to finance the implementation of these plans (e.g. construction of economic infrastructure)?

2. What was the economic impact or change of income status of community members in a benefiting community as a result of the small infrastructure projects and in-kind procurements (e.g. farming equipment)?

3. What was the overall impact of NEO’s rural economic development component (value chain assistance) on increasing incomes and creating jobs in targeted communities? To what degree did the component increase productivity and/or profitability of targeted farms/businesses?

4. What was the impact of providing grants vs. other types of assistance as a means of addressing project goals?

5. What was NEO’s impact on increasing access to financial services for underserved agricultural and non-agricultural rural producers/processors/service-providers?

6. What was the resulting impact of micro-grants, in-kind support, cash-for-work and capacity-building interventions provided to highly vulnerable households toward sustainably alleviating poverty (e.g., an increase in productivity / the creation of sustainable micro-entrepreneurs, or providing one-time spike in consumption)?

7. Did the project affect men and women in the communities differently? (the evaluator should incorporate into research and provide sex-disaggregated data, where possible, such as women-headed households, etc.)

Offerors shall partner with a local organization/s and shall suggest the best methods that minimize bias and provide strong evidence. While experimental designs generate the strongest evidence for impact, given the project design, municipality selection process, and timeline, quasi-experimental methods are likely to be more realistic. One possible methodology could be a difference-in-difference methodology in which a number of “treatment” communities from those targeted by the project are compared to non-affected “control” communities. The appropriate number of communities to include in the sample and the method for selecting those communities shall be proposed by the evaluation team.

Various data collection and analysis methods, both quantitative and qualitative, shall be used, including surveys (to supplement project-collected data where needed to answer impact questions) and secondary data sources (including official country statistical information), interviews, and focus groups (to get qualitative information on community member perceptions around the issues of the study). When possible, NEO-collected baseline data shall be used to avoid duplication in data collection.

The offeror shall coordinate with the NEO implementing partner with regards to data collection. However, since the evaluation team will be selecting communities for the study, the offeror shall collect their own data for their sample, which they shall do through their local partner organization to be cost-effective. The prime contractor shall take the lead in survey design and data analysis.

Responses to evaluation question #1 may be obtained partly by a review of annual financing trends for project-assisted vs. other communities.

Responses to evaluation question #7 shall be obtained using interviews and focus groups.

Data collection and analysis approaches shall be further elaborated by the offeror and proposed to USAID based on the methodology for this evaluation. Also, the confidence level, sample size including for surveys, and sampling methodology shall be proposed and justified considering number of municipalities and communities targeted by NEO.

The evaluation contractor shall conduct three (three/four-week) visits to Georgia. The team shall include local partner organization experts. Below is an illustrative plan for each visit, however, the offeror shall propose their own plan for each visit in their proposal.

Component I (the first field work (March – April 2012):

The important task of this component is to develop the detailed evaluation plan for all three visits (components), to make sample of municipalities for research and to set baseline. The evaluation plan will include detailed description of research methodology including its strengths and limitations. The plan will also include an evaluation matrix – each evaluation question with respective methodology to collect information, information source, etc. The evaluation plan and the results of the first visit, including the baseline report will be submitted as parts of the Component I report within 20 days after the completion of the component.

1. Create and submit research design and work plan;

2. Select “treatment” and “control” municipalities;

3. Set baseline for the study: plan and collect baseline information including baseline survey (coordinate with the project plans);

4. Initiate qualitative field work;

5. Gather, review and analyze secondary data;

6. Set coordination mechanisms with NEO leadership on collecting and sharing project monitoring data.

7. Produce Component I report.

The primary contractor (international organization) will provide two consultants as part of the evaluation team. The consultants will work with local consultants to develop the baseline survey plan, review secondary data as well as develop the evaluation plan for all three components of the evaluation. Part of the work will be conducted in Georgia and part in the US. Namely, finalization of the evaluation plan after baseline survey results become available as well as finalization of the Component report will be done in the US.

Local partner:

Local partner organization will collect baseline data, work with international partner on evaluation design, secondary data gathering as well as working with the NEO project implementer on sharing existing monitoring and baseline data. In between the visits the local partner will be following up as needed on data collection and serving as a resource on the ground for international partner.

1. Carry out baseline survey

2. Submit baseline report

3. Gather secondary data

4. Participate in evaluation design

5. Follow program evolution

6. Review monitoring data and follow the data collection

7. Coordinate with NEO staff on monitoring data collection between components.

Component II (visit: November-December 2013):

The purpose of the second component will be to review the research plan, make adjustment if needed, collect data and analyze it to draw the preliminary conclusions on project progress and results. After the component the contractor will submit a revised evaluation plan and a report within 20 days after the completion of the component.

1. Review existing data

2. Adapt research plan to changes in program focus and/or locations

3. Conduct follow-up data collection and qualitative field work

4. Combine results to draw preliminary conclusions

5. Submit report

Component III (Third and final visit, tentatively - March 2015):

The purpose of the third component will be to conduct the last part of the study to make conclusions on the project impact with regards to the evaluation questions listed under chapter IV of the current document.

1. Conduct final part of the impact evaluation

2. Collect final data

3. Analyze data

4. Identify impact of NEO project with regards to the key evaluation questions outlines in the SOW.

5. Submit draft evaluation report

6. Finalize the report based on stakeholder review comments.

The evaluation contractor will submit the draft report within 15 days after the completion of the third and final component, and will finalize the report based on the feedback within 5 days after providing the comments.

Close collaboration with USAID and NEO implementer is expected during all visits.

V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/INDICATORS

The services described in this contract will be delivered according to the defined performance standards below. If the contractor fails to meet performance standards indicated below, except as adjusted in individual cases by mutual consent of the parties, the contractor will be out of compliance until the discrepancy is corrected to the satisfaction of USAID.

Indicator (i): The contractor submits a high quality evaluation plan for all three components of the evaluation at the end of component I Standard: The contractor ensures that its evaluation plan details planned services that are timely and responsive to the Mission’s requirements for each of the three components of the evaluation.

Data Source: The contractor’s work reports to the COTR.

Acceptable Quality Level: The contractor’s evaluation plan provides details about selecting a sample of municipalities and setting baseline, and includes detailed description of research methodology with its strengths and limitations; and an evaluation matrix – each evaluation question with respective methodology to collect information, and information source to give the COTR acceptable assurance of meaningful results.

Surveillance Method: The COTR reviewing of evaluation (component) reports from the contractor.

The COTR organizing peer reviews of contractor reports.

Frequency: As established between the COTR and the contractor.

Indicator (ii): The contractor ensures that the approved evaluation methodology is followed during all three components the of evaluation Standard: The contractor ensures usage of the best methods that minimize bias and provide strong evidence for each finding.

Data Source: The contractor’s component reports.

Acceptable Quality Level:

The contractor’s evaluation plan outlining the methodology to be used gives the COTR acceptable assurance of meaningful results. It includes the appropriate number of communities to include in the sample and the method for selecting those communities shall be proposed by the evaluation team. Various data collection and analysis methods, both quantitative and qualitative, shall be used, including surveys and secondary data sources, interviews, and focus groups. When possible, NEO-collected baseline data shall be used to avoid duplication in data collection.

Surveillance Method: The COTR reviewing the evaluation plan from the contractor. Component I report and component II report (that might suggest changes to the evaluation plan).

Frequency: As established between the COTR and the contractor.

Indicator (iii): The contractor ensures assembling and preserving the necessary skills sets of the highly professional team of evaluators to conduct the three components of the evaluation.

Standard:

The contractor proposes the evaluation team composition to have the skill set and experience necessary for the activity.

The contractor also ensures that it is preserved throughout the evaluation contract life (unless the change is necessary due to low quality work); in case of unavailability of one or more consultants during the entire period, the contractor ensures substitution of expert/s with similar level qualifications. COTR will need to approve any changes to the team.

Surveillance Method:

The COTR reviewing component reports from the contractor and service providers.

Direct communication with the contractor Frequency: As established between the COTR and the contractor.

Indicator (iv): The contractor ensures timely baseline and follow-on data collection (through surveys, focus groups, etc.) and through their local partners when appropriate during each component.

Standard:

The contractor develops detailed strategies for data collection and survey implementation.

Data Source: The contractor’s communication with the COTR. Plan for data collection.

Acceptable Quality Level: The contractor’s suggested plan for data collection as well as reports are justified and of high quality that give the COTR acceptable assurance of meaningful results.

Surveillance Method: The COTR direct communication with the contractor. Review of Contractor plans and reports.

Site visits.

Frequency: As established between the COTR and the contractor.

Data Source: The contractor’s reports.

Acceptable Quality Level: The contractor’s 's reports comply with the report criteria set forward by USAID’s Evaluation Policy and give the COTR acceptable assurance of meaningful results.

Surveillance Method: The COTR reviewing component reports.

The COTR organized peer reviews for component reports from the contractor.

Frequency: As established between the COTR and the contractor.

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 AIDAR 752.7009 MARKING (JAN 1993)

(a) It is USAID policy that USAID-financed commodities and shipping containers, and project construction sites and other project locations be suitably marked with the USAID emblem. Shipping containers are also to be marked with the last five digits of the USAID financing document number. As a general rule, marking is not required for raw materials shipped in bulk (such as coal, grain, etc.), or for semi-finished products which are not packaged.

(b) Specific guidance on marking requirements should be obtained prior to procurement of commodities to be shipped, and as early as possible for project construction sites and other project locations. This guidance will be provided through the cognizant technical office indicated on the cover page of this contract, or by the Mission Director in the Cooperating Country to which commodities are being shipped, or in which the project site is located.

(c) Authority to waive marking requirements is vested with the Regional Assistant Administrators, and with Mission Directors.

(d) A copy of any specific marking instructions or waivers from marking requirements is to be sent to the Contracting Officer; the original should be retained by the Contractor.

D.2 BRANDING STRATEGY

Program Name: New Economic Opportunities (NEO) Project Impact Evaluation

Branding:

The branding shall incorporate the message: The assistance is “from the American People” Desired Level of Visibility: USAID identity must be prominently displayed in: commodities or equipment; printed, audio, visual or electronic public communications; studies, reports, publications, web sites, and all promotional and informational products and events.

Organizations to be Acknowledged: The branding may acknowledge other organizations deemed as partners of an event or deliverable. The Contractor’s name will not be included.

D.3 BRANDING AND MARKING POLICY

In accordance with provision D.2 above, and where applicable, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the policy directives and required procedures outlined in USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) 320.3.2 “Branding and Marking in USAID Direct Contracting” (version from May 5, 2009) at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/320.pdf; and USAID “Graphic Standards Manual” available at www.usaid.gov/branding, or any successor branding policy.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the clause at FAR "52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. See FAR 52.252-2 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a clause.

NUMBER TITLE DATE

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR Chapter 1)

52.246-3 INSPECTION OF MAY 2001

SUPPLIES--COST-REIMBURSEMENT

52.246-5 INSPECTION OF APR 1984

SERVICES--COST-REIMBURSEMENT

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

USAID inspection and acceptance of services, reports and other required deliverables or outputs shall take place at: USAID/Caucasus, Tbilisi, Georgia or at any other location where the services are performed and reports and deliverables or outputs are produced or submitted. The COTR listed in Section G has been delegated authority to inspect and accept all services, reports and required deliverables or outputs.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1 NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the clause at FAR "52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section I of this contract. See FAR 52.252-2 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a clause.

NUMBER TITLE DATE

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR Chapter 1)

52.242-15 STOP-WORK ORDER AUG 1989

ALTERNATE I (APR 1984)

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for this Contract is three and a half years from the date of award.

F.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Georgia.

F.4 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Evaluation of the Contractor's overall performance in accordance with the performance requirements set forth in Sections C, will be conducted jointly by the COTR and the Contracting Officer, and shall form the basis of the Contractor's permanent performance record with regard to this Contract.

F.5 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS

In addition to the requirements set forth for submission of reports in Sections I and J and in the AIDAR clause 752.242-70, Periodic Progress Reports, the Contractor shall submit the following reports, deliverables or outputs to the COTR specified in Section G.

All reports must be submitted in hard copy and electronic copy to USAID on the following address:

USAID/Caucasus Georgia Office of Program and Project Support 11, Georgia Balanchine Street Tbilisi 0131 Georgia

Evaluation Reports should meet the following criteria:

· Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the statement of work.

· The evaluation report should include the statement of work as an annex. Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.

· Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.

· Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).

· Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.

· Sources of information shall be properly identified and listed in an annex.

· Recommendations shall be supported by a specific set of findings.

· Recommendations shall be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.

Major sections of each report shall include:

· An executive summary: 3-5 pages in length summarizing the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable);

· Table of contents;

· An evaluation report clearly delineating finding, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned (see criteria below);

· Appendices.

The appendices to the report shall include:

· The evaluation statement of work;

· Any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team;

· All tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides;

· Sources of information, properly identified and listed;

· Disclosure of conflicts of interest forms for of all evaluation team members;

· The evaluation design.

Deliverables

Component I

· Develop baseline survey questioner

· Detailed research design and evaluation work plan

· Evaluation matrix

· Qualitative field work

· Implement baseline survey

· Produce report

· Coordinate with NEO on monitoring data collection

· Follow up between visits

· Select “treatment” and “control” municipalities

· Gather and review secondary data

· Submit report for component I

Component II

· Adapt/refine research plan if needed

· Submit report for Component II - preliminary conclusions of evaluation

· Conduct follow-up data collection and qualitative field work

· Review existing and collected data

Component III

· Final evaluation report

*The prime contractor is responsible for all deliverables while working with the local organization.

F.6 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE DOCUMENTS (JAN 2004)

(A) Via E-mail: docsubmit@usaid.gov;

(B) Via U.S. Postal Service:

USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse

M/CIO/KM

RRB M.01

U.S. Agency for International Development Washington DC 20523 Phone: (202) 712-0579;

(C) Via Fax: (202) 216-3515; or

(D) Online: http://dec.usaid.gov/index.cfm

(ii) The contractor shall submit the reports index referenced in paragraph (a)(2) of this clause and any reports referenced in paragraph (a)(1) of this clause that have not been previously submitted to DEC, within 30 days after completion of the contract to one of the address cited in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this clause.

(A) Name and version of the application software used to create the file, e.g., WordPerfect Version 9.0 or Acrobat Version 5.0.

(B) The format for any graphic and/or image file submitted, e.g., TIFF-compatible.

(C) Any other necessary information, e.g. special backup or data compression routines, software used for storing/retrieving submitted data, or program installation instructions.

F.7 KEY PERSONNEL

A. The key personnel whom the Contractor shall furnish for the performance of this contract are as follows:

B. The personnel specified above are considered to be essential to the work being performed hereunder. Prior to replacing any of the specified individuals, the Contractor shall immediately notify both the Contracting Officer and USAID Cognizant Technical Officer reasonably in advance and shall submit written justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No replacement of personnel shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.

C. Unless failure to provide the designated key personnel as specified above is beyond the control, and without the fault or negligence, of the Contractor (e.g., non-acceptance or termination of employment by the individual, illness or death of the individual), failure to provide such key personnel as specified above may be considered nonperformance by the Contractor.

D. If the Contractor, at any time, is unable to comply with these requirements, the Contractor shall simultaneously notify, in writing, the Contracting Officer and the COTR reasonably in advance of the individual's departure or non-acceptance of employment and shall submit written justification and explanation in sufficient detail (including implications for the CPFF total contract) to permit evaluation of the impact on the program.

E. No replacement of key personnel shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer; provided, that the CO may ratify in writing such replacement and such ratification shall constitute the consent of the CO required by this clause.

F. Proposed substitutions must be submitted simultaneously to the CO and the COTR not later than 30 days after the departure of, or non-acceptance of employment by, any of the approved individuals, and the proposed substitute personnel must have at least the same qualifications as the applicable key personnel specified above. Failure to do so may be considered nonperformance by the Contractor.

G. The listing of key personnel may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be amended from time to time during the course of this contract to either add, change, or delete personnel and positions, as appropriate.

H. Availability of proposed key personnel. The contract proposed by this solicitation includes a key personnel clause, and the quality of key personnel proposed will be an evaluation factor. The offeror must include as part of its proposal a statement signed by all individuals proposed as key personnel, confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position and their present availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract.

F.8 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (JULY 2007)

(a) Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.

(b) Reimbursement of the employee’s base annual salary plus overseas recruitment incentive, if any, which exceed the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold (USAID CST) stated in USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 302 USAID Direct Contracting, must be approved in writing by the Contracting Officer, as prescribed in 731.205-6(b) or 731.371(b), as applicable.

SECTION G - CONTRACT…