QUALITATIVE SURVEY FOR USAID MIKAJY AND HAY TAO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

1. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1. PROPOSAL Each offeror must submit one technical proposal and one financial proposal. The technical proposal must not exceed thirty (30) pages. Any additional pages will not be evaluated. Proposals can be written in English or in French and must be typed on standard A4 size paper, single spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font, with one-inch margins and each page numbered consecutively. Items such as cover pages, table of contents, acronyms list, and dividers are not included in the page limitation. The technical proposal should be organized as follows: 1. Table of Contents 2. Acronyms List 3. Technical Approach 4. Work Plan 5. Key-Personnel and Staffing Plan 6. Corporate Capabilities and Experience 7. Contractor Past Performance Information More details on the technical proposal are provided through the evaluation criteria below. Apart from the thirty-page technical proposal, detailed and overall budget must be included in the financial proposal.

1.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The technical evaluation committee will assess each technical proposal according to the following adjectival ratings and their definitions:

OUTSTANDING. The proposal exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government. The offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the evaluation requirements have been analyzed, evaluated, and should result in an outstanding, effective, efficient, and economical performance under the award. An assigned rating within "outstanding" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal demonstrates an “outstanding” understanding of the factor, contains essentially no weaknesses, and exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government. VERY GOOD. The proposal meets the evaluation's requirements and has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the project. The proposal may or may not have any weaknesses. Fulfilling the definition of "very good" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal fully meets the evaluation’s requirements and has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the project.

SATISFACTORY. The proposal meets the requirements. The proposal may contain weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that are correctable but no deficiencies. An assigned rating of “satisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal demonstrates a “satisfactory” understanding of the factor. If any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses are noted, they should not seriously affect the offer’s likelihood of performance. MARGINAL. The proposal meets the requirements of the RFP, however it demonstrates a shallow understanding and approach and only marginally meets the minimum evaluation standard. The proposal contains weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses and may contain deficiencies. If deficiencies exist, they may be correctable. A rating of "marginal" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal marginally meets the standard for minimal but acceptable performance. The offeror may complete the assigned tasks; however, there is at least a moderate risk that the offeror will not be successful. UNACCEPTABLE. The proposal fails to meet a minimum requirement or contains a major deficiency or major deficiencies. The proposal is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unacceptable. The deficiency or deficiencies is/are uncorrectable without a major revision of the proposal. The assignment of a rating within the bounds of "unacceptable" indicates that in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor) the offer fails to meet performance or capability standards. The specific factor to be evaluated contains deficiencies.

1.3. EVALUATION CRITERIA (a) The technical proposal will be scored by a technical evaluation committee using the criteria shown in this Section. (b) The criteria below are presented by major category, in descending order of importance, so that offerors will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of proposals. The criteria below reflect the requirements of this particular solicitation. Offerors should note that these factors: (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which offerors should address in their proposals.

Technical Evaluation Criteria 1 Technical Merit of the proposal 2 Qualifications and Experiences of Proposed Personnel and

Staffing Plan 3 Management Capacity 4 Past Performance

Factor 1: Technical Merit of the proposal (all subfactors are of equal weight)

a. Instructions to Offeror: The Offeror must provide the following:

• A detailed methodology to answer the SOW attached herein. • A detailed plan and procedures to ensure data quality.

• An illustrative detailed Work Plan for conducting the tasks, illustrated by a GANTT diagram. The unit of time will be weeks.

b. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation under this factor will focus on the soundness, realism and of the overall technical approach presented in the technical proposal. The following considerations will be considered in the evaluation of this factor:

• Extent to which the proposed methodology answers the SOW • Extent to which the realism and completeness of the quality assessment procedures can

ensure data quality • Clarity, logic in sequence, and completeness of the work plan in implementing the tasks

Factor 2: Qualifications and Experiences of Proposed Personnel and Staffing Plan (all subfactors are of equal weight)

a. Instructions to Offeror: For the qualifications and experiences of proposed personnel and staffing plan, the Offeror must submit the following:

• Resume of the Team Leader and the Senior Environment Specialist. Each resume must include education, experience, background, accomplishments, at least three references, and other pertinent information. The resume will not exceed three (3) pages for each key personnel.

• Complete and detailed staffing plan related to the tasks in the SOW, showing the number and category of staff required for each position from the beginning to the end. The Offeror must justify the needs for each additional staff or for additional group of staff.

b. Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation under this factor will focus on the quality and completeness of the key personnel and the staffing plan. The following considerations will be considered in the evaluation for this factor:

• Extent of which the quality and the experiences of the Team Leader and the Senior Environment Specialist answer the SOW.

• Extent to which the staffing plan will allow successfully conducting the data collection and analysis.

Factor 3: Management Capacity

a. Instructions to Offeror: The Offeror will demonstrate its capacity to implement the qualitative survey; and must present the organization of its entity, the roles and responsibilities of the management office and other support staff, illustrated by an organigram chart. b. Evaluation Criteria: The extent to which the corporate ability and organization of the Offeror would result in successful award performance.

Factor 4: Past Performance

a. Instructions to Offeror: The Offeror must submit a list of similar past evaluation activities stating the main topics, total cost/price, name of the client, and contact information in the past 5 years.

b. Evaluation Criteria: The extent to which past performance indicates a successful achievement of the survey activity. The Agency policy and procedures is provided in ADS 302mbh, Policy Guide for Assessment and Use of Contractor Performance and Integrity Information.

STATEMENT OF WORK QUALITATIVE SURVEY FOR USAID MIKAJY AND HAY TAO MID-TERM

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

C.1. PURPOSE USAID/Madagascar seeks a Malagasy firm to provide staffing and technical support for a qualitative study informing the mid-term evaluation of existing USAID Conservation and Communities Project (CCP) activities: USAID Mikajy and USAID Hay Tao. The study will be conducted in Antananarivo, the Menabe region and the Masoala -Makira - Baie d’Antongil (or, MaMaBaie) eco-region. The firm will provide staff with experience in qualitative data collection, including supporting design, data collection and analysis. The study will be conducted under the supervision of USAID/Madagascar’s Sustainable Environment and Economic Development Office (SEED) and the USAID activity Measuring Impact II (MI2). The Malagasy firm’s leaders shall be able to communicate in professional English with USAID Madagascar and MI2 staff, and in French and Malagasy with the USAID implementation teams. Expected Period of Performance: December 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022 C.2. OBJECTIVES The data gathered from this qualitative study will provide key information, findings and recommendations that help USAID/Madagascar to understand to what extent the project’s objectives and results have been achieved, to identify weaknesses for adjustment with the on-going project, and to inform the follow-on activity design. USAID/Madagascar will also use the results of the mid-term study to inform strategic planning and adaptive management of its existing Conservation and Communities Project (CCP) activities (USAID Mikajy and USAID Hay Tao) as well as identify future programming needs and opportunities. Illustrative evaluation questions (to be further refined based on the CCP Theories of Change) include:

1. To what extent the capacity building supported by USAID projects have enabled the target

groups (such as protected areas managers, CSOs, local government/authorities, communities) to achieve expected results pertaining to conservation goals? (conservation goals include environmental justice and law application achieved through various advocacy interventions)

2. To what extent has USAID support improved the conservation outcomes in targeted protected areas and CBNRM zones? Are the protected areas management and CBNRM models working?

3. Are the current efforts effectively incentivizing communities, including migrants, to use natural resources differently? Why/why not?

4. What are the best approaches within livelihood investment (e.g. small-scale farming, conservation enterprises, social enterprises, etc.) that best change or support good behavior for conservation? To what extent do beneficiaries of various livelihood investments change their unsustainable practices / adopt sustainable practices?

5. To what extent USAID support to the enforcement of land and natural resource tenure rights improved management and access to natural resources such as private property land, community land and marine resources (e.g. transfert de gestion, LMMAs)?

Based on the answers to these, additional questions from the evaluation team may include:

6. What are the barriers and challenges to achieving expected results, and strategies for addressing

these barriers and challenges? 7. To what extent are beneficiaries satisfied with interventions implemented to date? 8. What, if any, differential impacts are observed between men and women, youth, or other target

populations? 9. What are the lessons learned to date? What adjustments have already been made to account for

this learning? 10. Based on lessons learned to date, what, if any, changes need to be made to initial assumptions

driving the CCP Theory of Change? What are the key findings and recommendations most relevant to follow-on design?

C.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

C.1.1. CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITIES PROJECT (CCP) The CCP is a five-year project that will support the protection of Madagascar’s natural capital, a fundamental component of the country’s sustainable development. The project will accomplish this through improved conservation of the country’s unique biodiversity, promotion of resilient livelihoods to provide alternatives to unsustainable natural resource management practices, and concrete actions to secure effective local management and ownership of natural resources. CCP will focus geographically in two areas of High Biodiversity Value in the country: MaMaBaie and Menabe landscape and seascape. The overarching objective or desired end state for CCP is the following: To conserve biodiversity and secure natural resources while promoting resilient livelihoods. The TOC indicates that in order to accomplish this objective, three intermediate results areas (IRs) must be achieved:

● IR 1: Targeted ecosystems sustainably managed through improved community-based natural resource management and better protected area management

● IR 2: Human well-being improved near selected areas of High Biodiversity Value through economic development and social support programs that help protect biodiversity

● IR 3: Decentralized natural resource governance enhanced through more effective environmental policy, tenure security, and civil society engagement

The two principal activities under this project are (1) USAID Hay Tao, a contract for a knowledge management program to provide important training and policy support related to managing biodiversity resources, building the capacity of key institutions, and securing natural resource tenure rights, and (2)

USAID Mikajy, a contract for a site-based program to improve management of targeted areas of High Biodiversity Value through support for communities located near protected areas and in areas suitable for community-based natural resource management of landscapes and seascapes. USAID Hay Tao implements most of its interventions at national level. USAID Mikajy implements site-based interventions in two priority zones:

1. MaMaBaie Landscape and Seascape: Located in the Northeast and straddling the regions of Sava, Sofia, and Analanjirofo, the MaMaBaie (MAsoala-MAkira-BAIE d’Antongil) complex includes Masoala National Park, Makira Natural Park, and the marine ecosystem of Antongil Bay.

2. Menabe Landscape and Seascape: This region, located on the central western coast, is

comprised of dry forests with unique biodiversity and high endemism including baobabs, lemurs, tortoises, and birds, as well as wetlands and coastal areas harboring mangrove forests where community-based crab farming takes place in collaboration with the private sector. It includes the emblematic Allée des Baobabs (an iconic tourism attraction) and other protected areas such as Menabe-Antimena and Kirindy-Mitea (which includes a marine protected area).

Maps of Menabe and MaMaBaie are available in Annex A and B. C.4 EXISTING INFORMATION USAID/Madagascar will provide the following documents to the Contractor, three (3) days after the effective award date:

● Mikajy and Hay Tao work plans and annual activity reports in 2020-2021 ● MEL plans (for CCP, USAID Mikajy, and USAID Hay Tao) ● Annual Pause-and-Reflect reports for Mikajy and Hay Tao ● Mikajy implementation maps and detailed localities of intervention of the CCP activities ● Contributing data sources (Mikajy baseline surveys, previous surveys and assessments that each

activity has already done on gender, youth, and other topics; previous activity reports, etc.) ● Key components of the CCP Learning Agenda

C.5. AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USE The main audience for this report will be USAID/Madagascar, its implementing partners (USAID Mikajy, USAID Hay Tao, and Measuring Impact II), selected government and NGO stakeholders, and USAID/Washington. USAID/Madagascar will use the results of this study to identify and understand successes to date, problems and challenges that need to be addressed; and to provide actionable short and medium-term recommendations for the on-going project and the follow-on activity. C.6. SCOPE OF WORK

A. TASKS

C.6.1 Activity A: Contribute to Development of Data Collection Methodology The contractor shall review a collection of studies and project documents (e.g. Mikajy and Hay Tao project description, annual reports, previous household surveys, etc.) provided by USAID/Madagascar, MI2, USAID Mikajy and USAID Hay Tao and use these as a basis for providing feedback as needed on the study design and implementation.

The contractor shall review, provide feedback on, and assist MI2 to complete the initial methodology developed by MI2. The contractor’s review should highlight any adjustment of the methodology and data collection plan to fully address the evaluation questions and enhance the quality of the survey. The contractor should provide recommendations to ensure the technical feasibility of the data collection methodology with regard to the local context and field constraints. The MI2 team will develop initial data collection methodology in English and provide the draft and data collection tools in English and French to the Contractor. This qualitative survey methodology will use in-depth key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observation. Data collection methodologies, including site selection, will be discussed with and concurred by USAID/Madagascar at the beginning of the study. The data collection methodology will use participatory methods and activities that will enhance collaboration and dialogue among counterparts, particularly partners and beneficiaries. The method for selecting the target interviewees or project beneficiaries will follow a purposive sampling process depending on the interviewees’ interactions with the project and a snowball sampling to reach a certain level of saturation of information.

Feedback on the data collection methodology from the contractor need to be validated by MI2 and USAID within five days following the review submission. Fieldwork will not start until MI2 and USAID/Madagascar approve of the methodology.

Contractor will be responsible for providing office and computer equipment for data collection management.

● Associated Costs: Office and meeting space needed for data collection discussions as

needed; office supplies (i.e., printer, paper, pens, etc.) as needed to complete tasks in this SOW; internet and cell phones for staff to communicate with MI2 and with each other during the course of the contract.

C.6.2 Activity B: Instrument Development and Testing MI2 will provide a paper English and French version of the data collection tools to the contractor to test and provide feedback. The goal is to ensure high quality data collection tools to conduct the semi-structured interviews, focus groups and field observations which will cover various evaluation topics. The contractor will be responsible for:

a. Translating the data collection tools from French to Malagasy; b. Organize the pre-test of the data collection tools in areas outside of the data collection

sites:

• The contractor should arrange (or work with USAID/Madagascar to arrange) all needed permissions and determine all costs related to pre-testing the data collection instruments at the selected non-project field site (see annex). The testing of the data collection instruments will be conducted within one day in Andasibe National Park or Anjozorobe Park. This pre-test will help to detect and correct problems with the instruments including ambiguity of words, misinterpretation of questions, inability of a respondent to answer a question, missing redundant or irrelevant data, sensitive questions, quality of group facilitation, as well as the organization of focus group discussions. The contractor is in charge of identifying the respondents in the testing sites.

c. Updating the instruments following any recommended revisions from the MI2 team d. Train the data collection team members on the use of data collection tools.

Following the pre-test, the contractor will provide recommendations of changes to the instrument questions or methodology to MI2 and USAID/Madagascar within one business day following the conclusion of the pre-test. These recommendations may be provided in French.

● Associated travel: One-day person-trips for all data collection team members to a field site, including meals, and transportation. All logistics to be arranged by contractor.

● Associated costs: Office space for training; internet connection and communication fees; office supplies.

C.6.4 Activity C: Conduct Data Collection

After the pre-test is concluded and all related recommendations are included in the revised research methodology, the contractor will conduct the full qualitative study in Antananarivo, Menabe and MaMaBaie. In advance of data collection, the contractor will also work with MI2, USAID/Madagascar, USAID Hay Tao, and USAID Mikajy to ensure that all needed permissions (e.g., courtesy calls to government and traditional authorities) are secured to visit the relevant communities in Menabe and MaMaBaie.

The fieldwork for the full study will take a total of 20 field days, including travel time, conducting courtesy calls to local authorities, and conducting logistical check-ins with Mikajy teams on the ground in each region. The contractor will follow the data collection methodology and data plan approved by USAID when conducting this study. Any issues or incidents arising during data collection must be immediately reported to the USAID/Madagascar’s SEED and MI2 point of contact.

The contractor will define the composition of each field team which should include at least two evaluators. The contractor should plan to deploy two teams operating simultaneously to cover the study areas: one team will work at Menabe, and the other team will work in MaMaBaie. The contractor will organize the interviews of key informants in Antananarivo. MI2 will work with USAID Mikajy and

USAID/Madagascar to provide a detailed map and database of intervention sites for sampling the study areas.

The contractor will be responsible for providing office and computer equipment for survey management and arranging for transportation, lodging, and equipment for fieldwork.

● Associated Travel: Travel costs to/from MaMaBaie and Menabe sites for all team

members. Travel costs to include hotel, meals, and air, boat and ground transportation. The contractor shall organize all transportation for each team (by boat, car, and/or on foot as needed). All other travel logistics to be arranged by contractor.

● Associated costs: Field supplies and equipment, focus group facilities costs (materials, room rentals, refreshment), focus group participant incentives, interview incentives and any honoraria or guide fees required for local leaders.

Focus Groups: CCP participants in each of the following areas

Geographic Area Conservation Management

(Groups/participants)

Livelihoods (Groups/participant

s)

Advocacy and Lobbying

(Groups/participants)

Totals (Groups/participant

s)

Menabe 4/15 3 /15 3 /15 10/45 MaMaBaie 4/15 3 / 15 3 / 15 10/45 Total 8/30 6 / 30 6 / 30 20/90

Interviews: Experts/key informants (NGOs providing technical assistance to beneficiaries, park managers, local government authorities, implementing partners, private sector, other donors, counter wildlife trafficking experts, etc.)

Geographic Area Experts/key informants Menabe 20

MaMaBaie 20

Antananarivo 15 Total 55

C.6.5 Activity D: Survey Reporting & Presentation The MI2 team is required to provide an initial evaluation report to USAID six weeks after the end of the fieldwork. Therefore, the contractor must provide MI2 an initial report within two weeks of the conclusion of data collection. This report may be provided in French. The report will not exceed 30 pages, and will describe 1) the research methodology, including key demographic information of participants in each data collection mode and approach to analysis of qualitative data 2) a summary of preliminary findings across data collection methods, including supporting quotations from study participants; and 3) a discussion of potential considerations, recommendations, and implications for future CCP programming; and 4) any study limitations. Final drafts of all data collection materials in all

languages should be included as appendices outside of the page limit. All analyses will be geared to answer the evaluation questions. The contractor will collate information across the data sources and analyze the information by evaluation question. Evaluation team members will triangulate, compare, validate findings during data analysis to provide a consolidated set of findings by evaluation question in the report. The team will highlight the relevant conclusions and recommendations by evaluation question, clearly supported by the findings and various information sources. The contractor will provide local context analysis to explain the socioeconomic and cultural settings which characterize the study findings. The contractor will also assist MI2 with developing presentations of results communications materials (PowerPoint slides, graphs, tables, etc.), and participating in and/or presenting (oral, in person) key sections of initial findings to USAID and/or the CCP implementers. This is expected to require approximately three days of effort from the team lead.

B. METHODOLOGY

Final methodology shall be developed by MI2 and will be provided to the contractor in advance of the pre-testing.

C.7. DELIVERABLES The Contractor is required to deliver the following deliverables and reports, detailed below:

A. Post-test recommendations for changes to data collection instruments or data collection plan (in French)

B. Initial Report (in French) Detailed description of deliverables:

A. Sets of Post-Test Recommendations for Changes to Data Collection Instruments or Data Collection Plan. Following the pre-test of the data collection instruments, the contractor shall provide recommendations to changes to the instruments and/or the data collection plan within one business day following the conclusion of the pre-test.

B. Initial Survey Report. Within two weeks following the conclusion of data collection, the

contractor shall send to MI2 an initial report showing key findings and recommendations for the evaluation report.

C.8. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

A. Key Personnel The Contractor will provide two key personnel: one Team Leader and one Senior Environment Specialist.

Team Leader: S/he should have a postgraduate degree in social sciences or an applicable science field. S/he should have at least 5 years senior level experience working in rural development programs in developing countries, including Madagascar. S/he should have extensive experience in conducting qualitative evaluations/assessments and strong familiarity with the agriculture and environment sectors. The Team Leader must have a strong understanding of qualitative data collection and analysis methodology. The Team Leader should also have experience in leading evaluation teams and preparing high quality documents. The Team Leader will be the primary point of contact between USAID and MI2, and thus, must have excellent communications skills. S/he will coordinate the data collection activities, arrange periodic meetings with SEED and MI2, consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations into a high quality document. S/he will also lead the preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations to the USAID and MI2 team and other partners. The Team Leader will ensure that the deliverables are completed in a timely manner and are responsive to the Statement of Work and comments from USAID and MI2. S/he must be proficient in English to facilitate the discussion with USAID and to ensure the quality of the study report; s/he must be proficient in French and Malagasy. Senior Environment Specialist: S/he must have at least five-year experience in conducting analyses of biodiversity programs involving community beneficiaries, formulating policies and strategies related to natural resource management, and designing, implementing, and monitoring biodiversity conservation and natural resources management projects. S/he should be knowledgeable in qualitative program assessment and evaluation methodologies in development and conservation programs. S/he must be proficient in French and Malagasy.

B. Other Personnel The Contractor shall hire two mid-level facilitators to support the study team in the data collection and analysis. All the data collection staff shall have experience in conducting semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions during qualitative data collection, be able to travel to remote rural areas and be proficient in Malagasy. In total, the Contractor shall hire four staff composed by two key personnel and two mid-level evaluators. C.9. DATA COLLECTION MANAGEMENT

A. LOGISTICS The Contractor is responsible for:

● Hiring of all required staff; ● Arranging travel to pre-test and study sites; ● Arranging vehicle rental and drivers and other local travel (e.g., boats) as needed for pre-test and

study sites; ● Arranging meetings with local leaders and Mikajy field teams as necessary;

● Procuring any needed work/office space, devices for data collection, internet access, software, printing, photocopying, and other related items.

● Manage incentives for focus group and interview participants

B. QUALITY CONTROL

USAID staff will participate as observers during the field implementation. The Contractor should outline its own quality control process in the proposal, for addition into the Inception Report, which will be developed and submitted by MI2.

C. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The research team must develop protocols to insure privacy and confidentiality prior to any data collection. Primary data collection must include a consent process that contains the purpose of the research, the risk and benefits to the respondents and community, the right to refuse to answer any question, and the right to refuse participation in the study at any time without consequences. Only adults can consent to participate in this study. Minors cannot be respondents to any interview and cannot participate in a focus group discussion. The only time minors can be observed as part of this study is as part of a large community-wide public event, when they are part of family and community in the public setting. During the process of this research, if data are abstracted from existing documents that include unique identifiers, data can only be abstracted without this identifying information. An Informed Consent statement included in all data collection interactions must contain:

• Introduction of facilitator/note-taker • Purpose of interview/discussion • Statement that all information provided is confidential and information provided will not be

connected to the individual • Right to refuse to answer questions or participate in interview/discussion • Request consent prior to initiating data collection (i.e., interview/ discussion)

D. SCHEDULING

The following is an illustrative schedule for the contractor’s contributions to the study:

● December 2, 2021: Contractor receives the project documents, the study methodology and instrument in French.

● December 2-15: Contractor reviews the survey methodology and instrument and translates the instrument to Malagasy.

● December 15, 2021: Contractor submits feedback to MI2 and USAID on the survey methodology and data collection instruments.

● December 22, 2021: Contractor receives revised version of the instruments, finalizes translation to Malagasy, conducts pre-test.

● December 27, 2021: Contractor submits tested survey instrument to MI2 and USAID ● January 3, 2022: Data collection begins.

● February 14, 2022: Data collection concludes. ● March 14, 2022: Initial report sent to MI2 within four weeks following completion of data

collection. ● March 31, 2022: Join MI2 to present initial results at validation meeting

ANNEX: A. Map of Menabe

B. Map of MaMaBaie

ACRONYM LIST CCP Conservation and Communities project

SEED Sustainable Environment and Economic Development

IR Intermediate Result

MaMaBaie Masoala -Makira - Baie d’Antongil

MI2 Measuring Impact 2

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control