0

Terms of Reference (ToR) for Final Project Evaluation

November 2015

Final Evaluation of Libo-kemkem, Ebinat, Gaint and Simada

(LEGAS) WASH Promotion Project

Region Amhara National Regional State, South Gondar Zone

Beneficiary Country Ethiopia

Sector (as defined in

CSP/NIP)

Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

Project number EuropeAid/129509/C/ACT/Multi

1

Terms of Reference for Final Project Evaluation

Terms of reference for final evaluation of Libo-Kemkem, Ebinat, Gaynt and

Simada (LEGAS) WASH Promotion Project (2011-2015) EuropeAid/129509/C/ACT/Multi

1. BACKGROUND

The Libo-Kemkem, Ebinat, Gaynt and Simada (LEGAS) WASH Promotion Project, which is

funded by European Commission via CARE International UK, is working on integrated water

supply, hygiene, sanitation and environmental protection, . The preliminary work for the project,

including needs assessment and project design were done in 2010. Actual project implementation

started from August 2011 and will end in December, 2015.

The total project budget is Euro 3.3 million of which 25% was co-financed with match funding

from the Amhara Regional Government of Ethiopia. The project has been implemented jointly

by the Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA) and CARE-

Ethiopia in close collaboration with local governments and communities.

The project is implemented in 83 rural kebeles of five woredas (districts) of South Gondar Zone

of the Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia, namely, Ebinat, Lay-Gant, Tach-Gant, Libo-

Kemkem and Simada. The target woredas are extended from northwest to northeast direction of

Debretabor, the zonal capital, where CARE Ethiopia’s South Gondar office is located.

Deberetabor is located about 670 km away from Addis Ababa. Ebinat, the nearest intervention

woreda is about 45 km from Deberetabor while Simada, the farthest, is about 110 km.

The overall aim of the project is to improve health status and gender equity among

vulnerable communities in South Gondar Zone of Amhara National Regional State

through increased access to safe water and sanitation. Ultimately, this is expected to

contribute to an improvement in morbidity and mortality rates and the status of women and girls

who are the most engaged with water collection and management.

As of March 2015, the project had constructed and rehabilitated more than 1,270 water schemes

with various technology types and provided more than 271,336 people with access to adequate

and safe water supply. The number of water schemes and beneficiaries will be increased by the

end of the project since there are water supply schemes still under construction which will be

completed in the coming quarters. The project has also constructed a total of 88 Ventilated

Improved Pit Latrines (VIPLs) at schools and health institutes and 53,928 people have gained

access to these sanitation facilities. In addition the project has worked to raise the awareness of

the target communities on hygiene and sanitation issues through participatory approaches.

The project has conducted many types of related trainings for different stakeholder groups of the

community and government staff to intensify and promote sustainable impacts. The project has

also held events and made targeted efforts to enhance women’s participation, especially for those

who are disadvantaged in the protection, management and use of water resources.

The Project is now in its completion period. In line with the provisions of the project agreement

between CARE International UK and the European Development Fund, the implementing

2

agency, CARE, agreed to undertake a final evaluation at the end of the project period. The

output of the evaluation is expected determine the level of achievement against the project

targets and indicators and gather evidence on the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,

partnership and coordination, sustainability, impact of the project interventions.

This term of reference (ToR) provides a detailed outline of expectations required of applicants in

order to fulfill the objectives and criteria of the final project evaluation to the required standard

and quality. .

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

CARE International is seeking qualified consultant(s) to conduct the final evaluation of Libo-

kemkem, Ebinat, Gaint and Simada (LEGAS) WASH Promotion Project for the following

purpose:

To assess the performance and achievements of the project against the planned project

objectives, expected results, targets and key indicators as per the logical framework. To this end

the final evaluation should focus on the following:

1) To assess the performance of the planned project activities as per the action plan

and expected targets to assess the quality of the project outputs. To this end, a focus on

the quality of project outputs is equally important as the completion of these outputs

and should be given priority attention in the evaluation methodology and report.

2) To assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, partnership and coordination,

sustainability and impact of the overall intervention. This should give due emphasis on

community and government participation and contribution as well as value for money

and technology suitability.

3) To assess the major strengths and limitations (SLOT) of the program and draw

lessons for future WASH programme improvement and sharing with stakeholders.

4) To asses the direct and indirect and intended and unintended impacts of the specific

interventions in regards to capacity building and networking activities, with particular

emphasis on the impact of women and on gender equality norms.

5) To assess the process and outcomes in regards to coordination, networking and joint

advocacy work with other actors (local partners, communities and government);

6) To assess the partnership modalities and approaches the project took with

communities/beneficiaries, the local partner (ORDA) and relevant government offices at

regional, zone, woreda and kebele levels:

7) To assess the validity of the risks and assumptions indicated in the original project

document in relation of the emerging issues (global, national and local) and how the

project responded with necessary mitigation measures:

3

8) To assess the quality and rigour of the monitoring and evaluation, learning and

knowledge managements systems in terms of intersecting key monitoring information

with key evidence from the large-scale study required for this evaluation to be

representative.

3. MAJOR ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED DURING THE EVALUATION

3.1 Key evaluation criteria and lines of inquiry

The consultant(s) is envisaged to undertake the evaluation with in the framework of the OECD-

DAC evaluation criteria that respond to relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, partnership and

coordination, sustainability and impact and to the EC- specific evaluation criteria (EC added

value and coherence) in general and taking in to account the following key questions.

3.1.1 In assessing project relevance - questions to be assessed are as follows:

What are the bases for and how was the program designed? Are there any indication

for water supply and sanitation coverage improving attributed to project intervention?

Is the health status of the community improving as the result of the project

intervention? Is the number of children who attend school increasing as the result of

the project intervention (verify if girls enrolment is increased in comparison to that of

boys)? Does the travelling distance to collect water decrease as the result of the

project intervention? Does this assist women to participate in community

development programs? Does this contribute for involvement of other community

members (men, boys) in water fetching activities (gender role shift)? Does this have

any indication on reduction of gender based violence associated with fetching water?

Does the natural resource management activity improve the degrading situation as the

result of the project intervention? Do capacity building activities address the capacity

gaps of communities? Were the trainings relevant to the community? Were the

sanitation and hygiene promotion education and advocacy properly given to the

community? Do the communities bring behaviour change and uses the constructed

Traditional Pit latrine and waste Disposal Pit? Do the projects reflect the basic felt

needs of the community in the project areas? Do the projects correctly identify and

target the direct and indirect beneficiaries? Are the project sites based on the felt

needs of the beneficiaries’ location and distance? Is the intervention inline with the

government’s policy and the countries need? Were the community participation

encouraging? Assess the contribution of the project towards the achievement of national and

regional objectives, asses the contribution of the partnership to wards the achievement of the

project objectives, assess community contribution and participation

3.1.2 In assessing the effectiveness of the program – questions to be assessed are as

follows:

What were the planned activities and the results achieved under the three expected

result areas (outputs, outcomes and impacts)? Do the project implementation

4

according to project proposal? Do the indicators formulated reflect the actual seen

during implementation? Did the assumptions and risks envisaged were realized? What

were the roles of the community particularly women, local authorities and other

stakeholders during the specific projects and capacity building activities planning,

implementation and monitoring? What were the mechanisms designed to ensure the

active participation of the partners, community particularly women through out the

program cycle? Were the community mobilization efforts adequate at the project

level? Did women participate actively and have a say in decision making in

determination of the location of water points and water sources. Assess the adequacy

of the mechanisms that are in place to ensure construction works are done properly to

agreed designs? Assess the adequacy of so far started capacity building intervention

in pursuant of hoped outcomes under the project document? Assess the existence of

any indication/readiness from the side of government line offices to takeover / support

big water supply system after the end of the project period (idea of exit strategy)?

Assess the performance of the project so far with particular reference to qualitative

and quantitative achievements of outputs and targets as defined in the project

documents and work-plans and with reference to the project baseline and midterm

evaluation reports. Assess the effectiveness of the cost sharing arrangements between

the project, beneficiary communities and the Government. The consultant also

expected to show level of project implementation quality in terms of outputs,

partnership, community involvement and monitoring system.

3.1.3 Examining the program efficiency – questions to be assessed are as follows:

Is the use of financial, human and material resources efficient? Was there different

cost saving mechanisms considered? Was there other cost effective way to undertake

the program as a missed opportunity? Is there collaboration and coordination with

relevant bodies to use resources efficiently? Does the implementation of the specific

projects adhere to the agreement reached with the European Union and Implementing

NGO and was it proactive and flexible? Asses the efficiency of capacity

building/training methodology, tools and impacts, Assess the timeline and quality of

the reporting followed by the project, Identify factors and constraints which have

affected project implementation including technical, managerial, organizational,

institutional and socio-economic policy issues in addition to other external factors

unforeseen during the project design, Analyse the performance of the Monitoring and

Evaluation mechanism of the project and the use of various M&E tools to validate

risks and assumptions in the logframe and how the M&E informed delivery in terms of

inputs and programme management during implementation.

3.1.4 Examining the program partnership and coordination - questions to be assessed

are as follows:

What steps did the project actors take, individually or jointly, to improve coherence,

complementarity, and/or coordination with different stakeholders (national and local

NGOs, other civil society, national and local government, etc.)? How did the project

consult and collaborate with these stakeholders and the beneficiary communities on

5

the action? How was information about the action disseminated? Was information

provided in an inclusive and accessible manner? What were the critical success or

failure points in terms of coordination and partnership and how did the action manage

them? What is the added value of the partnership and coordination modalities of the

action? What is the key learning from this?

3.1.5 Examining the program achievement of wider effects (Impact):

The term impact denotes the relationship between the project’s specific and overall

objectives. At Impact level the final evaluation should make an analysis of the

following aspects: Extent to which the objectives of the project have been achieved as

intended in particular the project planned overall objective.

It should also assess whether the effects of the project have been facilitated/constrained

by external factors, have produced any unintended or unexpected impacts, and if so

how have these affected the overall impact, have been facilitated/constrained by

project/programme management, by co-ordination arrangements, by the participation

of relevant stakeholders, have contributed to economic and social development, have

contributed to poverty reduction, have made a difference in terms of cross-cutting

issues like gender equality, environment, good governance, conflict prevention etc,

were spread between economic growth, salaries and wages, foreign exchange, and

budget.

The evaluator should include as well community attitudes of any changes in their

water and sanitation needs in communities and schools and assess any indicators on

behavioral change such as reduction in hygiene and sanitation related diseases; in

women’s roles in terms of water and sanitation; in latrine use and coverage; in water

coverage; etc

3.1.5 Examining the sustainability - questions to be assessed are as follows:

-Do the program outcomes and impacts seem sustainable? – Is there sense of

ownership of the project by major stakeholders and communities? Did the

implementation process give adequate room for genuine participation of stakeholders

particularly women? To what extent are the stakeholders institutionally connected to

influence policy and managerial challenges? Are their enabling policy and

development strategies that ensure sustainable access? Was there clearly defined role

and responsibility of beneficiaries and regional authorities? Is the institutional

capacity of the implementing, supervisory body and the community sufficient to

sustain the results? Is the technical aspect of the project that ensures the sustainability

and quality of the project fulfilled? Are constructed water schemes having adequate

water that ensures sustainable utilization and management? Is there any mechanism

established to ensure the achievement of the financial sustainability of the projects? Is

the environmental impact assessed and treated properly? Is there any bylaws internal

regulation in place to mange water points? Assess the adequacy of the started fee

system to manage minor repair after the end of the project and explore possible ideas.

Assess the relevance of the technology used by the project (availability of spare part,

skill and knowledge for repair and management) beyond the project period and

6

explore possible idea. Assess the adequacy of using central nursery sites for seedlings

raising in terms of cost effectiveness, continuity of the activities beyond the project

life and transferring knowledge and skill to community (idea of ownership). Assess

preliminary indications of the degree to which the project results are likely to be

sustainable beyond the project’s lifetime (both at the community and government

level), and provide recommendations for strengthening sustainability, Assess the

sustainability of the project interventions in terms of their effect on environment,

Analyse the emerging impact on the communities for both men and women in terms

of income and asset enhancement. Availability of spare parts for boreholes and hand

pumps at the local market -- are they affordable, Life span of latrines, and effects of

deterioration

3.2 Additional lines of inquiry for inclusion

3.2.1 Examining the SLOT: What were the strength, limitations /challenges,

opportunities and treats of the program? What other interventions were there that

contributed to the success of aims and objectives of the program? If any either from other

NGOs or / and government projects? Are there unintended positive and negative results

from the program? What are the best lessons that would make implementing NGOs'

implementation strategic in the future? Validate the risk and assumptions indicated in the

proposal are still relevant or need revision and amendment.

3.2.2 Lessons and recommendations: In the assessment of the criteria above, the

evaluation methodology and report should place emphasis on lessons learned and

recommendations for future programming. For instance:

What lessons can be drawn from the interventions?

What are the major recommendations of the assessment?

How can the CARE be more strategic and efficient in implementing the project

and ensuring the sustainability?

3.2.3 Mutual reinforcement (coherence)

Examine the extent to which activities undertaken allow the European Commission to

achieve its development policy objectives without internal contradiction or without

contradiction with other Community policies. Examine the extent to which they

complement partner country's policies and other donors' interventions.

Considering other related activities undertaken by Government or other donors, at the

same level or at a higher level: likeliness that results and impacts will mutually reinforce

one another, likeliness that results and impacts will duplicate or conflict with one another

3.2.4 Connection to higher level policies (coherence)

Extent to which the project/programme (its objectives, targeted beneficiaries, timing,

etc.): is likely to contribute to / contradict other EC policies, is in line with evolving

strategies of the EC and its partners

7

3.2.5 EC value added

Connection to the interventions of Member States, Extent to which the

project/programme (its objectives, targeted beneficiaries, timing, etc.), is

complementary to the intervention of EU Member States in the region/country/area, is

co-ordinated with the intervention of EU Member States in the region/country/area, is

creating actual synergy (or duplication) with the intervention of EU Member States,

involves concerted efforts by EU Member States and the EC to optimise synergies

and avoid duplication.

3.2.6 Visibility

The consultants will make an assessment of the project’s strategy and activities in the field

of visibility, information and communication, the results obtained and the impact achieved

with these actions in both the beneficiary country of Ethiopia and the European Union

countries.

4. METHODOLOGY

The consultant is expected to propose and design with precision, the details of the methodology for

conducting the evaluation. However, the use of appropriate participatory approaches is essential to

properly triangulate information. Both primary and secondary sources must be used to generate

data and information that are relevant to validate each key assumption behind the project’s Theory

of Change. A balanced mix of qualitative and quantitative methods such as survey, focus group

discussions, in-depth interviews with key informants, case studies and success stories of

beneficiaries and observation of the system will be used to collect primary data.

For the survey, the consultant will select a statistically representative sample of the different

stakeholders and beneficiary groups to be interviewed, ensuring that:

o All the five districts will be equally represented in terms of the number of kebeles and

villages covered. This will ensure that the entire project districts will be represented in

the sampling frame. As well, the sample size will need some degree of stratification to

assure women’s representativeness in the selected group of respondents.

o Sixteen (16) of the eighty-three (83) project target kebeles that constitute at least 20% of

the project target kebeles will be covered. This is in conformity with the general rule

concerning the determination of the minimal sample size in most research and evaluation

activities, i.e. “a sample size of at least 10%”. At least 5% of the targeted beneficiary

households in a village will be interviewed for the survey.

The consultant is expected to conduct the evaluation through phases: an inception desk based

phase, a field phase and a synthesis and reporting phase which will be followed by a discussion

seminar for a de-briefing and validation of the evaluation process, quality and findings before the

final revised report is submitted.

8

I) Inception desk phase – This includes the collection and review of all relevant

documentation concerning the project intervention (e.g.: financing decision, project

proposals, activity reports, monitoring reports etc.). On the basis of the information

collected the evaluation team should comment on the logical framework, and the issues/

evaluation questions suggested (see annex 2, section 3) or when relevant, propose an

alternative or complementary set of evaluation questions justifying their relevance.

Develop the evaluation into sub questions identify provisional indicators and their

verification means, and describe the analysis strategy; Propose the work plan for the

finalisation of the first phase; Confirm the final time schedule. During the inception stage

an inception report shall be prepared and submitted to Implementing NGO for review,

comment and approval.

II) Field phase - after the approval of inception desk-based phase the evaluation team

should submit its detailed work plan with an indicative list of people to be interviewed,

surveys to be undertaken, dates of visit, itinerary, and name of team members in charge.

This plan has to be applied in a way that is flexible enough to accommodate for any last-

minute difficulties in the field. If any significant deviation from the agreed work plan or

schedule is perceived as creating a risk for the quality of the evaluation, these should be

immediately discussed with the evaluation manager. Hold an independent briefing

meeting with the appropriate staffs at ORDA, CARE and the EC. The consultant(s)

should ensure adequate contact and consultation with, and involvement of, the different

stakeholders; working closely with the relevant government authorities and agencies

during their entire assignment. Use the most reliable and appropriate sources of

information and will harmonise data from different sources to allow ready interpretation.

Summarise the findings of the field work, discuss the reliability and coverage of data

collection and present it in a meeting with partner organization, stakeholders (sector

offices involved in the project) and CARE.

III) Synthesis and reporting phase: This phase is mainly devoted to the analysis of data

and preparation of the draft final report. The consultants will make sure that: Their

assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable, and

recommendations realistic. A balance between descriptive, inferential and qualitative

analysis is essential and no element should be discounted in the triangulation process.

When drafting the report, they will acknowledge clearly where changes in the desired

direction are known to be already taking place, in order to avoid misleading readers and

causing unnecessary irritation or offence. If CARE considers the draft report of sufficient

quality, they will circulate it for comments to EC and other stakeholders, and convene a

meeting in the presence of the evaluation team. On the basis of comments expressed by

the reference group members, and collected by the evaluation manager, the evaluation

team has to amend and revise the draft report. Comments requesting methodological

quality improvements should be taken into account, except where there is a demonstrated

impossibility due to uncontrollable/unforeseeable factors, in which case full justification

should be provided by the evaluation team. Comments on the substance of the report may

be either accepted or rejected. In the latter instance, the evaluation team is to motivate

and explain the reasons in writing.

9

IV) Discussion seminar (de-briefing and validation): The evaluation team should

present the revised draft final report at a seminar in Addis Ababa. The purpose of the

seminar is to present the draft final report to the main stakeholders, to check the factual

basis of the evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions and

recommendations. On the basis of comments made by participants, and collected by the

focal person at CARE, the evaluation team has to write the final version of the report, in

which the rules applying to the integration of comments are those stated in the previous

section.

5. SPECIFIC TASKS, OUTPUTS, LEVEL OF EFFORT AND MILESTONES

Tasks Outputs Estimated

Level of effort

Milestones

Inception desk phase: collection and

review of all relevant

documentation concerning the

project and provision of inception

report with detailed methodology

and work plan. The full set of data

collection tools should also be

provided for review and approval.

Gain project

background and the

plan of actions

developed and shared

5 days Inception

report

Work plan

Field Phase

o Independent briefing meeting

with the appropriate staffs at

ORDA, CARE and EC

o Conduct all field work as per

the agreed schedule

All field

data/information

gathered

15-25 days

(depending on #

of evaluation

team and work

plan to cover

sample)

All field work

conducted as

per agreed

methodology

and sample

size

Synthesis phase: This phase is

mainly devoted to the analysis of

collected data and preparation of the

draft final report and key findings.

Draft report produced

10 days

Analysis of all

data. Draft

report

submitted to

CARE

Discussion seminar (De-briefing

and validation): The evaluation

team has to present the revised draft

final report at a seminar in Addis

Ababa for discussion and validation.

1 days Key

stakeholders

attend and

input at

seminar

Final report writing and is to

include an executive summary.

Final report produced

5 days

Final report

document

Submission of hard and soft copies

of the final report,

N/A All copies

received by

CARE

10

6. DELIVERABLES

1. Inception report of maximum 12 pages to be produced after 10 days from the start of the

consultant services. In the report the consultant shall describe the first findings of the

study, any challenges expected in collecting data, other encountered and/or unforeseen

difficulties in addition to his programme of work and staff mobilization. A technical

discussion with the contracting unit will follow to establish the concrete parameters for

the final report, outlining any areas that need to be included.

2. Data collection tools: These should be submitted to the designated CARE project and

evaluation management staff prior to data collection phase. This should be a

comprehensive set of qualitative and quantitative tools to collect all key information

necessary to meet the evaluation objectives and criteria.

3. Draft final report of maximum 50 pages (Structure attached in Annex 2). In addition

meeting the evaluation objective and addressing the evaluation questions, the draft final

report should also synthesise the findings and conclusions into an overall assessment of

the project and recommendations for future interventions. Upon receipt of the draft final

report CARE will arrange a one day validation workshop where the consultant expected

to present the draft finding and collect comments. Based on the validation workshop and

other comments received from different relevant staff, CARE will produce one set of

consolidated comments to be addressed in the final version of the report. The report

should be finalised within 5 days from the receipt of the consolidated comments.

4. Final report with the same specifications as mentioned under 2 above, incorporating

any comments received from the concerned parties on the draft report, to be presented

within 5 days of the receipt of these comments. The contracting Unit in CARE must

confirm that all of the comments submitted at the time of the draft report have been

addressed prior to any final acceptance of the report.

The consultant is expected to submit all three reports two copies in paper and one copy in

electronic version for each.

7. EVALUATION TIMEFRAME

The project evaluation shall be conducted in maximum of 45 days starting from date of signing

contractual agreement for the task, as per the agreed work plan provided with the inception

report.

8. BID EVALUATION

The CARE Ethiopia and CARE International UK selection panel will score bids based on

financial proposal and technical proposal based on a rating grid for all consultant(s) applications

that meet the application criteria. The final bid selection made by the selection panel is final and

not open to justification.

In the event of errors in the calculations of the lump sum costs or total prices in the financial

proposal submitted by the bidder, the unit prices shall prevail and the lump sum costs and total

11

price shall be recalculated accordingly before assessment of the bid takes place. The selection

panel reserves the right to question and negotiate the unit prices in the financial proposal should

they be considerably higher than current market prices. It is assumed that the CONSULTANT

will give fair unit prices and that the quoted percentages for administration and transportation are

in line with current practice.

9. PAYMENT MODALITIES

First instalment amounting to 20% of the total cost will be released upon signing of contract

agreement, prior to the field work. The remaining 80% will be released after completion of the

assignment and delivery and acceptance of the final report by the project management.

10. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CONSULTANT

The consultant(s) should demonstrate clear competencies in one or more professional

backgrounds in the areas of hydrology, water supply and sanitation, sociology, gender or related

fields with good experience of conducting programme/project appraisals and evaluation. More

specifically, the consultant is expected to have:

Masters’ degree in above-mentioned or related fields of expertise

Sufficient knowledge and understanding of the functioning of WASH programmes

more generally in Ethiopia and, preferably, the region

Experience in participatory appraisal activities

Experience in establishing water user committees and/or associations

Knowledgeable in project monitoring and evaluation/review activities and processes

Experienced in statistical analysis packages such as SPSS or other similar software

Strong interpersonal skills and capacity to work with people at all levels

Experience in use of GPS and GIS (added advantage)

Committed to work and meet the deadline as agreed by project management

Excellent English communication and writing skills (mother tongue or fluency level

expected and applicants will be rated accordingly). Proven experience in producing

written research / operational reports (sample work should be provided).

Composition and qualification of the evaluation team: the composition of the evaluation

team in terms of educational qualification and work experience should be clearly defined to

support an efficient bid process. The consultant(s) should also provide in detail the

company profile (if applicable). If the evaluation team is not from Ethiopia, they should be

willing to work with at least one national evaluation team member who can be proposed as

part of the application bid or assigned by CARE.

11. COMPLIANCE

12

Each party hereby certifies that it has not provided support of any kind in violation of

applicable law to a person or entity that it knows or has reason to know advocates

terrorism or engages in terrorist activity.

12. LOGISTICS AND SERVICES

CARE Ethiopia will arrange the necessary logistics and transportation for all field works.

The project office will facilitate and arrange the meetings with different stakeholders.

Moreover, CARE Ethiopia and ORDA will avail relevant documents related to the

program in advance to complete the inception desk phase. CARE will facilitate

recruitment of enumerators and translators, and the consultant(s) will pay and manage

them directly.

13. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Bidders should submit the following documents as a part of their bid:

Detailed Technical and Financial Proposal (including all expenses separated

by cost category)

The Past Performance Record on Similar Works (two samples included)

Curriculum Vitae of professional staff to be engaged in the Work

Detail work schedule

Sealing and marking of tenders: A Tenderer shall submit separate Technical and Financial

proposals by either email or post. For each bid (technical and financial), the Tenderer shall seal

the original and 1 copy of the bid each in an inner envelope duly marking the envelopes as

“ORIGINAL” and “COPY” as appropriate, all enclosed in an outer envelope labelled; Tender to

FINAL evaluation of LEGAS – “Technical” or “Financial” as appropriate. If submitted by

email, the tenderer should clearly title files separately as “Technical” and “Financial” as

appropriate.

Deadline for submission of Tenders: All tenders must be received at the CARE International

UK by post or email before midnight, Sunday 13th

December 2015.

Email applications should be emailed to jobs@careinternational.org quoting the job reference

number in the subject line.

Postal applications are also accepted and should be sent to the address below:

The HR Dept.

CARE International UK

9th Floor, 89 Albert Embankment

London SE1 7TP

13

Proof of posting will not be accepted as proof of delivery, and any Tender delivered after

the above-stipulated time, from whatever causes arising, will not be considered.

The CARE International reserves the right to extend the deadline for submission and to

contact bidders for additional information before selection takes place.

CARE International reserves the right to reject the whole or part of the bid.

CARE INTERNATIONAL UK RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, REDUCE OR

INCREASE THE SCOPE OF WORK

Annex-I: Structure of the Inception Report (subject to change at discretion of

CARE)

1. The background/context of the project (political, economic, social, etc).

2. The intervention logic of the project.

3. The validated evaluation questions and criteria for judgment.

4. A proposal containing suitable working methods to collect data and information in the offices of

NGOs

5. The data collection tools to be used, the target groups to be contacted for data collection

6. A first outline of the strategy and the methods used to analyze the collected data and information

indicating any limitations.

7. A detailed work plan and schedule for the next stages and requirements for logistical and/or

translation support.

The final composition of the evaluation team with clear roles and responsibilities

Annex II: Layout, structure of the Final Report the main sections of the

evaluation report are as follows (subject to change at discretion of CARE):

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. INTRODUCTION

Background of the project

Relevance of the evaluation/the problem statement

Objective of the evaluation

14

Methodology of the evaluation

Scope and limitation of the methodology

3. ANSWERED QUESTIONS/ FINDINGS

3.1. Problems and needs (Relevance)

3.2. Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness) including emphasis on gender and

quality

3.3. Sound management and value for money (Efficiency)

3.4 Evidence of joint working modalities and strong coordination, networking and

advocacy (partnership and coordination)

3.4. Achievement of wider effects (Impact)

3.5. Likely continuation of achieved results (Sustainability)

3.6. Mutual reinforcement (Coherence)

3.7. EC value added

4. VISIBILITY

5. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

6. LESSONS LEARNED

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

7.2 Recommendations

8. ANNEXES TO THE REPORT

The report should include the following annexes:

The Terms of Reference of the evaluation

The names of the evaluators and their companies (CVs should be shown, but

summarised and limited to one page per person)

Detailed evaluation method including: options taken, difficulties encountered and

limitations. Detail of tools and analyses.

Logical Framework matrices (original and improved/updated)

Map of project area, if relevant

15

List of persons/organisations consulted

Literature and documentation consulted

Other technical annexes (e.g. statistical analyses, tables of contents and figures,

raw data)

At least two-three case studies each explain different areas of interest (women

empowerment, school sanitation, sustainability, level of satisfaction, artisan role

etc.).

The consultant will include as an Annex the DAC Format for Evaluation Report Summaries

For methodological guidance, structure of the report the consultant should refer to the

EuropeAid’s Evaluation methodology website

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/euoropeaid/evaluation/intr_page/methods.htm