Terms of Reference (ToR) for Final Project Evaluation

Final Evaluation of Libo-kemkem, Ebinat, Gaint and (LEGAS) WASH Promotion Project

Region Amhara National Regional State, South Zone Beneficiary Country Sector (as defined in Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) CSP/NIP) Project number EuropeAid/129509/C/ACT/Multi

November 2015

0

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 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 1 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:

2

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 3

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 4

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

5

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 6

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. 7

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.

8

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 Milestones Level of effort Inception desk phase: collection and Gain project 5 days Inception review of all relevant background and the report documentation concerning the plan of actions Work plan project and provision of inception developed and shared report with detailed methodology and work plan. The full set of data collection tools should also be provided for review and approval. Field Phase All field 15-25 days All field work o Independent briefing meeting data/information (depending on # conducted as with the appropriate staffs at gathered of evaluation per agreed ORDA, CARE and EC team and work methodology o Conduct all field work as per plan to cover and sample the agreed schedule sample) size

Synthesis phase: This phase is Analysis of all mainly devoted to the analysis of 10 days data. Draft collected data and preparation of the Draft report produced report draft final report and key findings. submitted to CARE Discussion seminar (De-briefing 1 days Key and validation): The evaluation stakeholders team has to present the revised draft attend and final report at a seminar in Addis input at Ababa for discussion and validation. seminar Final report writing and is to Final report produced Final report include an executive summary. 5 days document Submission of hard and soft copies N/A All copies of the final report, received by CARE

9

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 10 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

11

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 [email protected] 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

12

 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 13

 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

14

 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

15