The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) IS THE EXCLUSIVE, CONFIDENTIAL,
PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF The Mitchell Group, Inc (TMG). IT MAY NOT BE
COPIED, TRANSMITTED, OR DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTY BY ANY MEANS
WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF TMG. BY ACCEPTING A COPY
HEREOF, RECIPIENT AGREES TO USE THE RFP (AND ANY RELATED
DOCUMENTS) SOLELY FOR RESPONDING TO THIS RFP, AND DESTROY THE RFP
(AND ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS) UPON YOUR DECISION NOT TO RESPOND
TO THIS RFP.
Request for Proposal (RFP)
RFP Title: Midline Data Collection for Impact Evaluation of the Peace Through Development II
(PDev II) Program
RFP #:
Issued on:
February 19th, 2015
Proposal Deadline:
March 19th, 2015 no later than 5:00PM (EST Washington, DC Time)
Questions to be submitted
to Chief of Party:
February 26th, 2015 no later than 5:00PM (EST Washington, DC
Time)
Submission Format:
Electronic Submission: easmidline2015@gmail.com
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
Table of Contents
I.
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 3
II.
THE MITCHELL GROUP, INC ..................................................................................................................... 3
III.
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................ 4
IV.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 4
1.
Data Collection Exercise: Survey Data Collection in Core and Non-Core Target Zones ................... 4
2.
Sample Size and Statistical Power ...................................................................................................... 5
3.
New Interviews in IRD Zones............................................................................................................. 5
4.
EAS Panel Data ................................................................................................................................... 5
5.
Improving our Estimate of Attrition Effects with New Observations in EAS Zones ......................... 6
V.
DATA COLLECTION LOGISTICS................................................................................................................. 7
VI.
TEAM COMPOSITION AND PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................... 9
1.
Quality Control Specialist ..................................................................................................................10
2.
Survey Research Organization ..........................................................................................................10
VII.
DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE ............................................................................................................10
VIII.
CONTRACT MECHANISM & TERMS OF PAYMENT .............................................................................11
IX.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................11
1.
Technical Proposal (Not to exceed 10 pages. Single-spaced. 12 point font) ....................................11
2.
Financial Proposal (not to exceed 3 pages including budget notes) .................................................12
3.
Terms/Conditions of Award ..............................................................................................................13
X.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................14
XI.
RFP RESPONSE INFORMATION .............................................................................................................16
XII.
RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................16
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE BUDGET TEMPLATE ...................................................................................................20
APPENDIX B – CERTIFICATIONS.....................................................................................................................22
Page 2 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
I. BACKGROUND
The need for external evaluations and a systematic monitoring of USAID-funded projects has
been a well-established principle of USAID in recent years. Moreover, the growing violence
and level of extremist groups in the region has expanded until it threatened the legitimacy and
viability of states in the region. To this end, The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) and its partners
continue to support the USAID/West Africa Regional Peace and Governance Office (RPGO)
through the Evaluation and Analytical Services (EAS) Project.
The Evaluation and Analytical Services (EAS) Project is conducting a midline study for an
impact assessment of the USAID funded Peace through Development II (PDev II) Program
in Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso. This midline survey uses baseline survey data already
collected in 2013 under PDev II, in combination with new data which will be collected in all
program target zones in the three countries. The EAS Team is hereby requesting to extend the
data collection solicited for the PDev II Program by conducting interviews in early 2015 in
the PDev II target zones in each country in order to collect individual-level midline data for a
rigorous impact assessment. The EAS Team requires that the data collection organization
conduct follow-up interviews with respondents in selected zones in 2014 in Chad, Niger, and
Burkina Faso. To do this, the selected data collection organization must conduct interviews
in the same target zones from the baseline data collection activity conducted in winter
2012/2013. Data collection must be conducted no later than the end of June 2015.
In order for a data collection organization to be considered, a proposal of not more than 10
pages with a budget containing detailed cost estimates must be submitted to the EAS team by
close of business on March 19, 2015. The EAS Team anticipates that the number of days for
tasks including the translation, reverse translation, and attendance of training led by the EAS
Team members will be included in the proposal. Because most of the survey under
development has been translated into the relevant languages for the countries under study
during the baseline data collection exercise, EAS Team anticipates that the proposal will
contain competitive rates per completed survey.
II. THE MITCHELL GROUP, INC
For more than 25 years, The Mitchell Group, an international consulting firm located in
Washington D.C., has provided practical solutions that meet a diverse array of client needs.
TMG has done this by forming strong local and global partnerships to complete project goals
successfully and efficiently. TMG's history of solving client challenges has given us a solid
foundation upon which we built the platform for our work in sustainable development. Our
staff is made up of expert international development practitioners from a variety of fields and
Page 3 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
backgrounds. Regions in which we have experience include Sub-Saharan Africa,
Afghanistan/Pakistan, Asia, Europe & Eurasia, Latin America and the Caribbean.
III.PURPOSE
The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to identify a regional or international-based
research firm or team of consultants to contract with to carry out the midline data collection
for the impact evaluation of the Peace Through Development II (PDEVII) Program. To
conduct this evaluation, TMG solicits proposals from data collection organizations of not
more than 10 pages with a budget containing detailed cost estimates. These proposals should
contain the number of days for tasks including the translation, reverse translation, and
attendance of training led by the EAS Team members will be included in the proposal. TMG
expects competitive rates per completed survey because most of the survey under
development has been translated into the relevant languages for the countries under study
during the baseline and radio data collection exercises.
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The EAS Team seeks survey data collection in core and non-core PDev II program target
zones to continue its comparison of program-relevant outcomes in zones receiving all PDev
II activities (core zones) and zones receiving only P-Dev II radio programming (non-core
zones). In this activity, there will be 2,950 surveys to evaluate overall PDev II program effect
in target zones (both core and non-core) for data collection.
1. Data Collection Exercise: Survey Data Collection in Core and Non-Core Target
Zones
This part of the evaluation will build explicitly on the Performance Monitoring Planoriented survey data collection that has already been conducted by TNS Cameroon for
project implementer IRD-InterMedia in 15 target zones (8 core, 7 non-core) in Chad, 20
target zones (10 core, 10 non-core) in Niger, and 13 target zones (6 core, 7 non-core) in
Burkina Faso. EAS team baseline data collection occurred in 15 target zones (7 core, 8
non-core) in Chad, 10 target zones (5 core, 5 non-core) in Niger, and 10 target zones (4
core, 6 non-core) in Burkina Faso. This brought total data collection to 83 target zones
(40 core, 43 non-core): 30 in Chad, 30 in Niger, and 23 in Burkina Faso.
For the midline, the TMG-Pitt team seeks to conduct follow-up survey data collection in
all target zones in which data was collected for the baseline (and which will also be
collected in an endline survey in 2016-2017). In the 48 zones where IRD conducted data
collection, the EAS Team seeks to collect interviews with 25 new randomly selected
Page 4 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
respondents. In each of the 35 zones where EAS data collection occurred, the EAS Team
seeks follow-up data collection with 25 of the same respondents identified during the
baseline wave, and in addition, 25 interviews with new randomly selected respondents
in those zones. In total, 2,950 interviews will occur in this “midline” wave of data
collection at the commune/target zone level.
2. Sample Size and Statistical Power
For purposes of PDev II evaluation, statistical power refers to the probability that, if the
true effect of the program in core zones is of a given size, we will find statistically
significant effects on the outcomes of interest. Statistical power is closely related to the
sample size and to the number of “treatment” and “control” units included in the study
(i.e., core/non-core zones). As the sample size and the number of target zones increases,
the higher the statistical power.
IRD and EAS collected baseline data in a total of 83 target zones in Chad, Niger, and
Burkina Faso. A total of 7,720 interviews were conducted with an average sample size of
93 interviews per zone. With this combination of sample size and number of target zones,
the baseline assessment achieves high statistical power (>0.90).
For the midline, the EAS team strongly recommends that data be collected in all of the 83
target zones from the baseline study, though sample size may be reduced substantially
while still maintaining an acceptable level of statistical power (>0.80).
3. New Interviews in IRD Zones
In order to obtain adequate statistical power, the EAS Team plans to collect data in each
of the 83 target zones. The EAS Team confirmed with IRD that it did not retain the
information to conduct panel data collection in IRD zones. In light of this, to analyze
zones where IRD collected baseline data, the EAS Team will need to collect 25
interviews with new randomly selected respondents in those zones. This will permit a
“midline” comparison to data collected in the baseline wave, as data collection replicates
the efforts of the study based on combined EAS-IRD data initiated in 2013.
4. EAS Panel Data
One important difference between the EAS surveys and those conducted by IRDInterMedia is that the EAS data collection procedure allows for longitudinal/panel
surveys, in which the same individuals can be re-interviewed at later stages in the
evaluation process. Panel data enables the EAS team to analyze a dataset with multiple
observations for the same individual in the sample at different points in time. This will
allow the team to answer important questions about the effects of the PDev II program
Page 5 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
that cannot be answered using only cross-sectional data, which refers to a dataset with
multiple observations for different samples of individuals each time.
Panel data is essential for evaluation purposes because we can observe the same person in
more than one condition, that is, at the outset of the PDev II program (baseline), midway
through the program (midline), and at the end of the program (endline). Therefore, panel
data will allow the EAS team to estimate over time how changes in PDev II exposure
affect program outcomes, independent from other factors. Panel data also allows us to
account for possible biases that may arise due to what is known as “unobserved
heterogeneity” or stable but unmeasured variables that differ across individuals and that
affect outcomes at every point in time.
In order to accommodate this requirement, the survey organization should detail
their procedures to collect a panel of 25 verified (determined to be prior interviewees)
respondents in target zones where EAS collected baseline data. The survey team can
accomplish verification by hiring the enumerators utilized during the baseline data
collection. Due to the lower number of re-interviews in the midline, respondents who are
initially approached by the interview team but who cannot be verified as having
participated in the previous wave of interview may be replaced with individuals who have
previously been interviewed and who can be verified. The EAS team recommends the
use of the same interviewers as were used in the baseline survey whenever possible so as
to increase the probability of correctly verifying that respondents participated in the
baseline survey.
Prospective survey organizations should include details in their proposals about the ways
that they propose to ensure accurate re-location and re-interviews with midline survey
respondents, and also report relevant experience with longitudinal or panel surveys that
they may have conducted in the past.
5. Improving our Estimate of Attrition Effects with New Observations in EAS
Zones
The EAS team proposes combining observations collected in the aforementioned panel
with new observations in EAS zones to guard against any biases related to panel attrition
or conditioning that may confound the analysis. Attrition refers to the possibility that
individuals who are not able to be located and who cannot respond to the follow-up
interview may be different than individuals who could be located (and verified).
Conditioning refers to the possibility that respondents will remember the answers they
provided to the earlier survey and will seek to provide consistent responses even if their
“true” opinion has changed. The EAS team believes that the chances of bias in the
Page 6 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
analyses due to either attrition or conditioning are small, given our experience with the
Exercise II PDEV-II radio impact analysis study and the fact that the follow-up interview
is being conducted some 1.5-2 years subsequent to baseline. 1 But to ensure that whatever
potential bias is eliminated (and to quantify its extent), the EAS team proposes adding
new interviews with randomly selected respondents in EAS zones, which constitute what
is known as a “refreshment sample.” A refreshment sample will enable analysis of survey
attrition and conditioning effects in the zones, permitting adjustments that may be
necessary to ensure proper inferences about the causal effects of the program on desired
outcomes (Deng et. al 2013).
Data collection logistics are detailed below.
V. DATA COLLECTION LOGISTICS
Midline data collection must be initiated by May 7, 2015. Data collection in core and noncore target zones in Burkina Faso, Chad, and Niger is expected to occur simultaneously. A
pre-test consisting of no fewer than 30 respondents per country is also required, to be
completed by May 7 so that changes in the questionnaire and procedures can be implemented
before the formal data collection period begins.
For the midline data collection, the EAS Team seeks to conduct follow-up survey data
collection in core and non-core zones in which baseline data was collected (and which will
also be collected in an endline survey in 2016-2017). Table 2 describes the proposed midline
data collection in targets zones in Chad, Niger, and Burkina Faso. The shaded communes are
the “core” zones and the non-shaded ones are “non-core” zones. The left hand side column
indicates whether IRD or EAS conducted the baseline data collection in 2013.
In the 48 target zones where IRD conducted data collection, the EAS Team seeks to collect
interviews with 25 new randomly selected respondents per zone. In the 35 zones where EAS
conducted data collection, the EAS Team seeks follow-up data collection with 25 of the same
respondents identified during the baseline wave per zone and, in addition, 25 new interviews
with randomly selected respondents in each of the same zones. In total, the EAS Team
proposes to conduct 2,950 interviews for the midline wave of data collection in all 83 target
1
Attrition is related but not identical to the problem of panel respondent verification. Verification problems occur if we
cannot be sure that respondents interviewed in wave 2 are the same as were interviewed at baseline; attrition occurs
when people who can be reinterviewed in wave 2 are different in relevant ways from those who are not reinterviewed.
The Exercise II radio impact analysis showed that verification was a far more serious issue than attrition, and we require
here that survey companies demonstrate their ability to minimize verification problems, and provide the procedures they
will use to do so.
Page 7 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
zones. Table 3 breaks down the number of new interviews, panel interviews, and core and
non-core zones per country.
Table 2. Target Zones by Country
N'Djamena
Commune 08
Mao
Bol
Moussoro
Ati
N'Djamena
Commune 10
Panel
Interviews
Interviews
New
Interviews
Panel
Interviews
New
Panel
Interviews
Burkina Faso
Agadez CU
25
0
Dori
25
0
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
Niamey Arr. 5
Diffa
Tahoua Arr. II
Maradi Arr. II
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
25
0
Mainé Soroa
25
0
Djibo
Gorom
Gourcy
Arbinda
Ouagadougou
Arr. 9
25
0
Faya Largeau
25
0
Zinder Arr. II
25
0
Markoye
25
25
Michemire
25
0
Arlit
25
0
Seytenga
25
25
25
0
Ouahigouya
25
25
EAS
IRD
0
IRD
25
25
Oum-Hadjer
25
25
Tillabéri
25
0
Ouagadougou
Arr. 4
25
25
Nokou
25
25
Niamey Arr. 4
25
25
Baraboulé
25
0
Chadra
25
25
Zinder Arr. I
25
25
Deou
25
0
Baga-Sola
25
25
Ballayara
25
25
Falagountou
25
0
Ngouri
Doum-Doum
25
25
25
25
Bosso
Tessaoua
25
25
25
25
Thiou
Tin-Akoff
25
25
0
0
N'Djamena
Commune 03
25
0
Adarbissanat
25
0
Nassoumbou
25
0
Djedda
25
0
Gam ou
25
0
Bani
25
0
Kangalam
25
0
Ingall
25
0
Boussou
25
25
Kouloudia
25
0
Dan Barto
25
0
Oursi
25
25
Koundjourou
Mandjoura
Mondo
Am Djamena
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
25
Tamaské
Doguéraroua
Torodi
Bermo
25
25
25
25
0
0
0
0
Séguénéga
Gorgadji
Tongom ayel
Tougo
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Am Doback
25
25
Goudoumaria
25
0
Amsileb
25
25
Magaria
25
0
Melea
N'Djamena
Commune 01
Ntiona
25
25
Mayahi
25
25
25
25
Tébaram
25
25
25
25
G. Roumdji
25
25
Wadjigui
Yao
25
25
25
25
Matamaye
N'guigmi
25
25
25
25
EAS
IRD
IRD
25
Tchintabarad
en
EAS
N'Djamena
Commune 07
EAS
EAS
IRD
EAS
IRD
New
Niger
Interviews
Chad
Page 8 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Midline Data Collection
Country
New Interviews
Panel Interviews
Core
Non-core
Core
Non-core
375
375
175
200
(15 zones)
(15 zones)
(7 zones)
(8 zones)
375
375
125
125
(15 zones)
(15 zones)
(5 zones)
(5 zones)
250
325
100
150
(10 zones)
(13 zones)
(4 zones)
(6 zones)
1,000
1,075
400
475
Chad
Niger
Burkina Faso
Total Interviews
2,075
875
While baseline data collection totaled 7,720 interviews with an average sample size of 93
interviews per target zone, the midline proposal considers only 25 interviews in IRD zones
and 50 interviews in EAS zones (25 new, 25 panel) due to budget constraints and to optimize
statistical power. Due to budget considerations, our midline proposal is geared toward
maximizing available resources without sacrificing the rigor of the evaluation. In the next
section, we discuss the implications for statistical power given the reduced sample size
compared to the baseline data collection.
VI. TEAM COMPOSITION AND PARTICIPATION
It is expected that the midline data collection team for the survey will be consist of a quality
control specialist (hired by TMG separately from this RFP); and one survey research
organization (selected and contracted by TMG through this RFP). The selected survey
research organization will conduct data collection exercises during a two-month period. In
addition to the EAS Team Lead Methodologist, Lead Research and Analysis Specialist,
Research and Analysis Coordinator, EAS Chief of Party and University of Pittsburgh
regional radio programming. The EAS Project will seek the following qualifications in the
prospective evaluation team members:
Page 9 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
1. Quality Control Specialist
Minimum of Master’s degree in the same field required. Assist with quality control,
including debriefing, accompaniments, back-checks, and visual inspection of
questionnaires. French and local language skills are required for meeting arrangement and
translation tasks performed as needed. Perform other duties as assigned. The EAS Team
expects to secure these services through the offices of one of the Project’s five West
African partner NGOs or through universities.
2. Survey Research Organization
Organization with regional deployment capabilities in Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso,
capable of training of enumerators, administering pre-test, and revision of surveys prior to
field implementation and conducting back-checks.
Capability of conducting a panel study with follow-up interviews and respondent location
and verification is a requirement, with particular attention paid to this matter through
close supervision of the enumerator training process and quality assurance components of
data collection.
VII.
DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE
The vendor shall submit the following deliverables in hard copy and/or electronic form to
the designated EAS Team contact person. In most cases, the vendor will need to submit a
draft of the deliverable to the EAS Team for feedback before the deliverable is accepted
and approved by TMG and USAID. The EAS Team expects the proposal to describe the
approach of the prospective survey research organization to the completion of following
deliverable items:
Deliverables
Due dates
1. Project proposal of not more than 10 pages and detailed budget
including a cost estimate for the two data collection exercises
listed here. (electronic submission)
March 19, 2015
2. Selection of firm and contract signed.
April 6, 2015
3. Implementation plan with specific dates for each task
April 13, 2015
4. Translated and reverse-translated survey questionnaires for data
collection (April 10, 2015). The questionnaires must be
translated into the same languages for Burkina Faso, Chad, and
Niger as were translated in the prior survey (French, Chadian
Page 10 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
Arabic, Hausa, Zarma, Mooré, Fulfuldé). Most of the survey has
been translated for the baseline data collection activity. Note: if
translation to other regional languages is required to complete
the data collection activity, please list them and their
corresponding zones in the proposal.
5. Conduct pre-test piloting of no fewer than 75 respondents per
country (50 in two EAS core zones, with 10 fresh and 15
verified panel respondents; and 25 in one EAS non-core zone)
by no later than April 24, 2014.
6. Report pre-test results and success of panel verification May 1,2015
procedures to the EAS team by May 1, 2015; revise
questionnaire and interview procedures accordingly in
consultation with EAS team between May 1-May 7, 2015.
7. Collect survey data in the field (May 7– May 31, 2015).
May 7– May 31,
2015
8. Provide clean data sets containing 2,950 completed interviews.
June 15, 2015
N.B: Dates are tentative and final work plan will be developed upon award of the contract.
VIII. CONTRACT MECHANISM & TERMS OF PAYMENT
TMG anticipates issuing a Firm Fixed Price subcontract to the selected vendor. TMG will
issue fixed payment(s) based on submission and TMG acceptance of deliverables or
measurable performance milestones. Once an award is issued, it will include a fixed price
payment schedule with deliverables/milestones specified in the Scope of work.
IX. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Vendors should read the following proposal instructions carefully. The bid must be submitted
in two parts: 1) “Technical Proposal” and 2) “Financial Proposal”, in separate electronic files
in .PDF format, and submitted as a single package. All interested vendors must provide the
following:
1.
Technical Proposal (Not to exceed 10 pages. Single-spaced. 12 point font)
a. Technical Approach – Approach / strategy used to perform tasks in the Scope of
Work (detailed and task specific), including a breakdown of activities, outputs, and
milestones. Since the survey has to employ a study design and means of data
collection the Technical Proposal is expected to clearly demonstrate:
· The design of the study
Page 11 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
·
·
·
·
·
Sample size determination
Data collection methods and quality assurance
Formulated data collection tools
Data analysis
Work plan with a detailed timeline for executing activities
Please indicate why you think your approaches will help successfully accomplish the
tasks required in the scope of work and include a brief description of how each of the
activities/tasks will be implemented. Include a discussion of issues related to the
proposed research design and sample approach and issues related to each of the tasks
such as qualification of interviewers and supervisors, supervision plan, recruitment of
interviewees, potential delays, data quality issues in the field and during data input
and analysis.
b. Organizational Capabilities & Staffing
i. Brief, general overview of organization including a short statement describing the
organization’s capability for best completing the assignment.
ii. Brief history of firm, and scope and scale of work undertaken.
iii. Firm’s profile, including departmental organization, number of employees, and
staffing pattern of this assignment. Identify principals and other key personnel
responsibilities on this assignment and their total level of effort, and provide upto-date CVs. Provide brief descriptions of their technical capabilities and
experience for conducting similar scopes of work as described above.
iv. Valid and appropriate business/trading license in case
c. Past Performance
i. Provide 3-5 recent past performance examples of work performed that is similar to
the work proposed in this RFP, including:
· Previous experience conducting data collection, qualitative research;
· Writing samples: previous final reports written by the person(s) who will
write the final reports
ii. References: Please include three client references and contact information (current
names, title, and contact information – phone and/or email). References should
have worked with you or the vendor within the past two years and if possible,
should be specific to the PDEV II countries and/or to the subject matter of this
RFP.
2.
Financial Proposal (not to exceed 3 pages including budget notes)
Offerors will submit fixed price proposals with sufficient detail to allow evaluation of
elements of costs proposed. Budgets should be submitted in the currency of the country
within which your organization or the teams of the consultants are located. The budget should
separately indicate VAT if the supplier is VAT registered. For the electronic submission of
Page 12 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
the proposals, please send the technical and price/cost proposal in separate emails, clearly
labeled “technical proposal” and “price/cost proposal”.
Please provide a price proposal for the total fixed amount along with a schedule of payments
linked to mobilization costs, milestones, and deliverables. The fixed price proposal should
include a detailed budget (all elements of the budget that are required to perform the
task
effectively) and budget notes (brief explanation of budget items, their purpose, and
assumption of calculation and rating). Please see Appendix B for a sample Budget Format.
3.
Terms/Conditions of Award
Any impact the proposed Terms and Conditions of award will have on offeror’s proposal
must be raised in advance in writing. Proposals will be evaluated and ranked by committee
according to the conditions described in the evaluation criteria below. Proposals will first be
evaluated from a technical standpoint. Those proposals that are considered to be technically
acceptable shall then be evaluated in terms of cost. The evaluation committee will determine
if the financial proposals are complete and without computational errors. TMG shall review
proposals and short-list the highest rated proposals. The selection committee may conduct
interviews with the qualified short-listed bidders if necessary.
Page 13 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
X. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Category 1: Technical command and understanding of the task
·
Technical approach should include a description as to how the
outlined research will be carried out, how the selected firm will
manage the site selection, training and deployment of field
researchers, quality control and other logistical approaches the bidder
will use to complete the required tasks.
·
The bidder clearly articulated its research/data collection processes
and procedures which must be in accordance with established social
science research procedures.
·
The technical approach clearly demonstrated the bidder understands
the skills, talents and capabilities as outlined in the scope of work.
Category 2: Organizational capacity & staffing
·
Capability for conducting qualitative and quantitative data collection/
research studies. Specific attention should be made to illustrating
competency in conducting social science research in accordance with
generally accepted standards and norms
·
Technical capacity of staff and key personnel to be involved in the
study should clearly demonstrate competency and professionalism in
conducting field social science research
Weight
20 pts
25 pts
Page 14 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
Category 3: Experience
·
Demonstrated ability of the bidder to provide all services up to the
scope and quality explained in this RFP
·
Experience, performance and successful completion of SOW in past
projects
·
Demonstrated expertise in data collection, data analysis and reporting
format
·
References and past performance reports clearly show competency in
social science research
Category 4: Cost effectiveness of proposal budget
·
Is the budget reasonable for the proposed tasks?
·
Are all elements of tasks in the SOW budgeted for?
·
Are all budget items clearly described and justified with supporting
documentation where necessary?
·
The bidder’s current capacity and ability to accomplish the specified
study at competitive costs and within the required timeframe
30 pts
25 pts
Total Rating*
*Please see SECTION VII RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS for more
information
100 points
Page 15 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
XI. RFP RESPONSE INFORMATION
All applications to this RFP must be received no later than March 19th, 2015; 5:00 PM,
EST Washington, DC. Proposals should be submitted in the following formats:
One (1) electronic soft copy must be submitted to EAS Chief of Party at the following e-mail
address: easmidline2015@gmail.com
Evaluation and Analytical Services (EAS) Project for the Regional Peace and Governance
Office/West Africa
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 350 0035
Fax: (202) 234 1697
The electronic copies of the proposals (technical & financial) shall be signed by the applicant
or by a person duly authorized to bind the applicant to the contract.
All inquiries and requests for information affecting this RFP must be submitted by e-mail to
susanm@the-mitchellgroup.com, Chief of Party reference TMG/RFP Midline Data
Collection no later than 5:00 PM, EST Washington DC on February 26th, 2015 Inquiries
and answers to inquiries will be shared with all offerors. Verbal or telephone inquiries will
not be accepted. All responses related to any inquiry will be sent no later than 5:00 PM EST
Washington DC on March 5 th.
TMG will not compensate offerors for preparation or submission of its response to this RFP.
XII.
RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Offerors are responsible for review of the terms and conditions described below. If relevant,
particular attention should be paid to clauses regarding USAID geographic code, marking and
branding requirements and equipment and commodity purchases.
WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS
Offerors may withdraw proposals by written notice via email received at any time before
award. Proposals may be withdrawn in person by an offeror or his/her authorized
representative, if the representative’s identity is made known and the representative signs a
receipt for the proposal before award.
Page 16 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
RIGHT TO SELECT/REJECT
TMG reserves the right to select and negotiate with those firms it determines, in its sole
discretion, to be qualified for competitive proposals and to terminate negotiations without
incurring any liability. TMG also reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received
without explanation.
RFP NOT AN OFFER
This RFP represents only a definition of requirements. It is merely an invitation for
submission of proposals and does not legally obligate TMG to accept any of the submitted
proposals in whole or in part, nor is TMG obligated to select the lowest priced proposal.
TMG has no contractual obligations with any firms based upon issuance of this RFP. It is not
an offer to contract. Only the execution of a written contract shall obligate TMG in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in such contract.
DISCUSSIONS AND AWARD
TMG reserves the right to seek clarifications, enter into discussions or negotiations, or to
make award on initial submissions without discussions or negotiations of any kind. TMG
reserves the right to exclude from further consideration any proposal at any time, including
after discussions or negotiations have been entered into.
PROPOSAL VALIDITY DATE
All information submitted in connection with this RFP will be valid for three (3) months from
the RFP due date. This includes, but is not limited to, cost, pricing, terms and conditions,
service levels, and all other information. If your firm is awarded the contract, all information
in the RFP and negotiation process is contractually binding.
OFFER VERIFICATION
TMG may contact offerors to confirm contact person, address, bid amount and to confirm
that the bid was submitted for this solicitation.
FALSE STATEMENTS IN OFFER
Offerors must provide full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation
and its attachments. At any time that TMG determines that an offeror has provided false
statements in the proposal, TMG may reject the proposal without further consideration.
CERTIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT PRICE DETERMINATION
(a) The offeror certifies that:
(1) The prices in this offer have been arrived at independently, without, for the purpose of
restricting competition, any consultation, communication, or agreement with any other
offeror, including but not limited to subsidiaries or other entities in which offeror has any
ownership or other interests, or any competitor relating to (i) those prices, (ii) the intention to
submit an offer, or (iii) the methods or factors used to calculate the prices offered;
Page 17 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
(2) The prices in this offer have not been and will not be knowingly disclosed by the
offeror, directly or indirectly, to any other offeror, including but not limited to subsidiaries or
other entities in which offeror has any ownership or other interests, or any competitor before
bid opening (in the case of a sealed bid solicitation) or contract award (in the case of a
negotiated or competitive solicitation) unless otherwise required by law; and
(3) No attempt has been made or will be made by the offeror to induce any other concern
or individual to submit or not to submit an offer for the purpose of restricting competition or
influencing the competitive environment.
(b) Each signature on the offer is considered to be a certification by the signatory that the
signatory-(1) Is the person in the offeror's organization responsible for determining the prices being
offered in this bid or proposal, and that the signatory has not participated and will not
participate in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above; or
(2)
(i) Has been authorized, in writing, to act as agent for the principals of the offeror in
certifying that those principals have not participated, and will not participate in any action
contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above;
(ii) As an authorized agent, does certify that the principals of the offeror have not
participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) above; and
(iii) As an agent, has not personally participated, and will not participate, in any
action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above.
(c) Offeror understands and agrees that -(1) violation of this certification will result in immediate disqualification from this
solicitation without recourse and may result in disqualification from future solicitations; and
(2) discovery of any violation after award to the offeror will result in the termination of the
award for default.
RESERVED RIGHTS
All RFP responses become the property of TMG and TMG reserves the right in its sole
discretion to:
o Disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation instructions;
o Waive any deviations by offerors from the requirements of this solicitation that in
TMG's opinion are considered not to be material defects requiring rejection or
disqualification; or where such a waiver will promote increased competition;
o Extend the time for submission of all RFP responses after notification to all offerors;
o Terminate or modify the RFP process at any time and re-issue the RFP to whomever
TMG deems appropriate;
o Issue an award based on the initial evaluation of offers without discussion;
o Award only part of the activities in the solicitation or issue multiple awards based on
solicitation activities.
Page 18 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
GOVERNING LAW AND LANGUAGE
This solicitation and any resulting contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of
the U.S. Government except in cases where they contradict the law from the Governments of
Niger, Chad or Burkina Faso. The English language version of this solicitation and any
resulting contract shall govern, and all notices pursuant to the provisions of this solicitation
and any resulting contract shall be in English language.
SOLICITATION SCHEDULE
v Issuance of RFP
Feb 19 th, 2015
v Final Date for Questions
Feb 26 th, 2015
v Answers to Questions Released March 5th, 2015
v Proposals Due
March 19th, 2015
XIV. RFP ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Sample Budget Template
Certifications
– END OF RFP –
Page 19 of 29
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE BUDGET TEMPLATE
A line item budget, in local currency, is to be presented (sample format following)
showing anticipated costs of the proposed project. Include as much detail as possible.
A brief narrative explanation and justification for each line item must be included in a
separate section entitled “budget notes.” Include data to support actual costs and/or
methodologies to support cost estimates. All costs must be in accordance with the
organization’s standard practices and policies.
Salaries - For each person (or category of personnel), specify the amount of time
projected to be spent working on the project and what total salary this represents for
each person. List names of individuals if indicated as key personnel whose CV is
included in the technical proposal.
Fringe Benefits - For each person, indicate the cost of fringe benefits, such as social
security, health insurance, yearly bonus, vacation allowance, etc. Identify the items
included in the fringe benefit calculation. Where benefits are calculated separately
from salary, they should be consistent with local and national laws and policies. The
rate must be consistent with fringe benefits rates used in other contracts.
Travel and Transportation - Indicate mode of travel; estimate number of trips, cost per
trip (transportation and expenses or per diem), and number of travel days per trip.
Include local travel expenses such as gasoline, taxis, etc.
Consultants - Show anticipated fees for consultants hired in-country. Indicate number
of days and cost per day.
Admin Fee – usually presented as % of total direct costs. Commercially speaking,
admin fee represents the firm’s gross profit and the admin fee rate as is its gross profit
margin. It should be within reasonable limit as compared to the industry norm.
VAT – Value Added Tax- (if applicable)
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
SAMPLE BUDGET FORMAT
in local currency
Proposed budget
Rate
/Unit
Units
Item
Amount
Salaries and Wages
Position #1 - Name
/day
xx
Position #2 - Name
/day
xx
Position #3 - Name
/day
xx
Total Salaries & Wages
xx
Fringe Benefits
/xx
xx
Consultants
Name - activity
/day
xx
Total Consultants
xx
Travel & Transportation
Activity #1
Local travel
(# kms @ ?/km * #trips)
Per Diem (#people * #days)
/activity
xx
/activity
xx
/activity
xx
Bus fare (#trips * #people)
/activity
xx
Per Diem (#people * #days)
/activity
xx
Refreshments for focus group or interview
Activity #2
Total Travel & Transportation
xx
Other Direct Costs
Communications: Phone/Fax
/month
xx
Postage/Courier
/month
xx
Photocopying/Printing
/month
xx
Supplies, expendable
/month
xx
Total Other Direct Costs
xx
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
ADMIN FEE expressed as % of Total direct Cost
xx
X.X%
TOTAL COST
xx
XXX
+ XX%
+ VAT (if applicable)
XXX
Note 1: This budget is illustrative and is not meant to suggest categories or to limit necessary
line items. Detail may be provided in a format consistent with the organization’s internal
accounting systems and practices.
Note 2: Daily rates are determined by dividing the annual salary by 260.
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
APPENDIX B – CERTIFICATIONS
CERTIFICATIONS – MUST BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY EACH BIDDER
AND RETURNED AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PACKAGE
Certifications
CERTIFICATION REGARDING TERRORIST FINANCING
By signing and submitting this application, the prospective recipient provides the certification
set out below:
1. The Recipient, to the best of its current knowledge, did not provide, within the previous
ten years, and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that it does not and will not
knowingly provide, material support or resources to any individual or entity that commits,
attempts to commit, advocates, facilitates, or participates in terrorist acts, or has
committed, attempted to commit, facilitated, or participated in terrorist acts, as that term
is defined in paragraph 3.
2. The following steps may enable the Recipient to comply with its obligations under
paragraph 1:
a. Before providing any material support or resources to an individual or entity, the
Recipient will verify that the individual or entity does not (i) appear on the master
list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, which list is
maintained by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and
is available online at OFAC’s website:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/eotffc/ofac/sdn/t11sdn.pdf, or (ii) is not included in
any supplementary information concerning prohibited individuals or entities that
may be provided by USAID to the Recipient.
b. Before providing any material support or resources to an individual or entity, the
Recipient also will verify that the individual or entity has not been designated by
the United Nations Security (UNSC) sanctions committee established under
UNSC Resolution 1267 (1999) (the “1267 Committee”) [individuals and entities
linked to the Taliban, Usama Bin Laden, or the Al Qaida Organization]. To
determine whether there has been a published designation of an individual or
entity by the 1267 Committee, the Recipient should refer to the consolidated list
available online at the Committee’s website:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm.
c. Before providing any material support or resources to an individual or entity, the
Recipient will consider all information about that individual or entity of which it
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
is aware and all public information that is reasonably available to it or of which it
should be aware.
d. The Recipient also will implement reasonable monitoring and oversight
procedures to safeguard against assistance being diverted to support terrorist
activity.
3. For purposes of this Certificationa. “Material support and resources” means currency or monetary instruments or
financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or
assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications
equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel,
transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.”
b. “Terrorist act” means(i) an act prohibited pursuant to one of the 12 United Nations Conventions
and Protocols related to terrorism (see UN terrorism conventions Internet
site: http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism.asp); or
(ii) an act of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; or
(iii) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian,
or to any other person not taking an active part in hostilities in a situation
of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context,
is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
c. “Entity” means a partnership, association, corporation, or other organization,
group or subgroup.
d. References in this Certification to the provision of material support and resources
shall not be deemed to include the furnishing of USAID funds or USAID-financed
commodities to the ultimate beneficiaries of USAID assistance, such as recipients
of food, medical care, micro-enterprise loans, shelter, etc., unless the Recipient
has reason to believe that one or more of these beneficiaries commits, attempts to
commit, advocates, facilitates, or participates in terrorist acts, or has committed,
attempted to commit, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts.
e. The Recipient’s obligations under paragraph 1 are not applicable to the
procurement of goods and/or services by the Recipient that are acquired in the
ordinary course of business through contract or purchase, e.g., utilities, rents,
office supplies, gasoline, etc., unless the Recipient has reason to believe that a
vendor or supplier of such goods and services commits, attempts to commit,
advocates, facilitates, or participates in terrorist acts, or has committed, attempted
to commit, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts.
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
This Certification is an express term and condition of any agreement issued as a result of this
application, and any violation of it shall be grounds for unilateral termination of the
agreement by TMG prior to the end of its term.
For Subcontractor:
Signature:
Typed Name:
Title:
Name of Organization:
Date:
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER
RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS -- PRIMARY COVERED TRANSACTIONS
(a) Instructions for Certification
1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing
the certification set out below.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily
result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant
shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The
certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or
agency’s determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the
prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify
such
person
from
participation
in
this
transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance
was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it
is later determined that the prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal
Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or
default.
4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the
department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective
primary participant learns that this certification was erroneous when submitted or has
become
erroneous
by
reason
of
changed
circumstances.
5. The terms “covered transaction,” “debarred,” “suspended,” “ineligible,” “lower tier
covered transaction,” “participant,” “person,” “primary covered transaction,” “principal,”
“proposal,” and “voluntarily excluded,” as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in
the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules implementing Executive Order 12549.
You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for
assistance
in
obtaining
a
copy
of
those
regulations.
6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the
proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower
tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by
the
department
or
agency
entering
into
this
transaction.
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will
include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility
and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department
or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier
covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective
participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification
is erroneous. A participant may decide the methods and frequency by which it
determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to,
check the Nonprocurement List.
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a
system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause.
The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is
normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealing.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant
in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a
person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation
in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.
(b) Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions
(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that
it and its principals:
(A) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
(B) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had
a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in
connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or
local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(C) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a
governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with commission of any of the offenses
enumerated in paragraph (1)(B) of this certification;
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
(D) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or
more public transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in
this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
Name:
Title:
Date:
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY
AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION – LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS
Code of Federal Regulations 22 CFR 208: Government-wide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants);
Appendix B: Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion – Lower Tier Covered Transactions
1. Instructions for Certification: By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective
lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance
was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the
prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in
addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency
with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including
suspension
and/or
debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the
person to whom this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier
participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become
erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered
transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and
voluntary excluded, as used in this clause, has the meanings set out in the Definitions and
Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the
person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those
regulations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the
proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower
tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by
the
department
or
agency
with
which
this
transaction
originated.
The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will
include this clause titled Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transaction, without modification, in all lower
tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions.
The Mitchell Group, Inc.
1816 11th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, USA
Tel: (202) 745-1919
Fax: (202) 234-1697
www.the-mitchellgroup.com
6. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective
participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification
is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines
the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the
Non-Procurement List.
7. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a
system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause.
The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is
normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.
8. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant
in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a
person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation
in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available
remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions:
(1)
The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal,
that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this
transaction by any Federal department or agency.
(2)
Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the
statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an
explanation to this proposal.