REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Date: June 23rd, 2021 Subject: Request for Application for final project assessment
RFP Number: PRGPA-HQ-21-002 Questions Deadline: July 1st, 2021 Questions Submission: [email protected] Offer Deadline: July 8th, 2021 5pm Washington, DC time Submission: [email protected]
Counterpart International (hereinafter Counterpart) is soliciting proposals for the supply of assessment services as described in this Request for Proposals (RFP). These services are required under the PRG-PA project (hereinafter “the Award”) by the issuing United States Agency for International Development (hereinafter USAID).
Firms invited by Counterpart (hereinafter “bidders or Offerors”) to submit offers (hereinafter “bids” or “offers”) for the services described in the attached supply schedules are under no obligation to do so. The Bidder shall bear all costs associated with the preparation and submission of the Proposal, Counterpart will in no case be responsible or liable for those costs, regardless of the conduct or outcome of the solicitation.
This Request for Proposal includes the following sections:
I. Instructions to Bidders II. Technical Specifications
All correspondence and/or inquiries regarding this RFP should be requested in accordance with the enclosed Instructions to Bidders (Section I, Clause 10, Clarifications).
The Instructions to Bidders (henceforth ITB) shall not form part of the bid or of the consultancy. They are intended to aid bidders in the preparation of bids. For the purposes of interpretation of these ITB, unless otherwise stated, the number of days stated herein shall be consecutive calendar days.
Submission of bids should be completed in accordance with the enclosed instructions to Bidders (Section I, clause 11, Submission of Bids).
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ...... 1 SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS ...... 3 SECTION II TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS...... 7
Page 2 of 22
SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
1. Introduction
1.1 Request for Proposal (RFP) No. PRGPA-HQ-21-002, dated June 23rd, 2021: Counterpart, acting on behalf of the PRG-PA project, is hereby soliciting bids for the supply of comprehensive end of program assessment as described in Section II of the ITB.
2. Eligible Source Countries for Goods and Services
2.1 All goods and services to be supplied under the consultancy shall have their origin in countries listed under the USAID Geographical Code 937 and shall include the following:
937 – “Any area or country including the U.S., cooperating country, and developing countries, excluding advanced developing country.” List of Advanced Developing Countries: https://2012-2017.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1876/310mab.pdf
2.2 A bidder will be considered ineligible if it has been suspended, debarred, or ineligible, as Indicated on (1) the “List of Parties Excluded from Federal Nonprocurement Programs” and/or (2) the “Consolidated Lists of Designated Nationals”.
3. Preparation of Bids
3.1 Bidders are expected to examine the specifications and all instructions contained in this RFP. Failure to do so shall be at the Bidder's risk.
3.2 The Bid prepared by the Bidder and all correspondence related to the Bid and exchanged by the Bidder and Counterpart shall be in English.
4. Contents of Bid
4.1 Submitted bids are required to consist of the following documents:
Technical Proposal The applicants shall submit a full technical proposal to Counterpart via an electronic submission with the following documents:
1. Organizational background – statement of qualifications (limited to 5 pages) showing evidence of prior performance in evaluation of governance programs, USAID funded programs preferred; 2. CVs of proposed professional staff – qualifications required outlined in Section II, #6 Staff Structure. 3. Detailed timeline of activities – in days is required outlining an implementation timetable for each activity/tasks in the scope of work (see Section II, Instructions to Bidders, Clause #5). 4. References - The applicant is required to submit three references with email and telephone contact information related to past experiences of evaluation research. 5. Technical Approach - the extent to which the proposed approach is methodologically sound and can realistically be achieved within the proposed time frame.
Page 3 of 22
Price Quote 1. Price Quote – in Microsoft Excel, unlocked, and with formulas intact.
5. Format and Signing of Bid
5.1 The Bidder shall prepare one bid in two parts (technical and price quote) with all the required sections of the proposal typed or written in legible ink and shall be signed by a person duly authorized to bind the Bidder.
6. Price Quote
6.1 Bidders shall prepare a price quote in a workable Microsoft Excel document (unlocked with intact formulas) specifying the detailed cost breakdown and the total price of the services been offered in response to this RFP. The Bid shall clearly indicate that the prices shall be for the services whose technical specifications are described in Section II – Technical Specifications.
6.2 The Bidder shall indicate the unit price in USD for each service, the description, the quantity, and the total cost in USD of the Bid, which will comprise the total price of the Bid. If there is any discrepancy between the unit price and the total amount, the unit price shall be considered as correct and the total amount adjusted accordingly. It shall be assumed that the Bidder is not bidding on any item for which a unit price or total amount is not indicated.
7. Statement of Qualifications
7.1 The Bidder shall include in its bid evidence in support of its technical qualifications and ability to perform the evaluation if its bid is accepted. This shall consist of: references to successful prior projects of a similar nature are of key importance. These references should include contact names, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of persons who can be contacted regarding the Bidder's prior performance.
8. Bid Validity Period
8.1 Bids shall remain valid until August 5th, 2021 which is thirty (30) days after the offer deadline. A bid valid for a shorter period shall be rejected as non-responsive.
9. Deadline and Late Bids
9.1 It is the Bidder’s sole responsibility to ensure that bids are received by Counterpart on or before the Offer Deadline of July 8th, 2021 5pm Washington, DC time Electronic submissions are strongly encouraged. Faxed bids will not be accepted.
9.2 A Bid received after the deadline for submission of bids shall be rejected. Bidders will be held responsible for ensuring that their bids are received in accordance with the instructions stated herein and a late bid will not be considered even though it became late as a result of circumstances beyond the Bidder's control. A late bid will be considered only if the sole cause of its becoming a late bid was attributable to Counterpart, its employees or agents.
10. Clarification of Bidding Documents
Page 4 of 22
10.1 Clarifications may be requested in writing not later than five (5) business days prior to the Offer Deadline. The contact for requesting clarifications is:
11. Submission of Bids
11.1 Submissions will be submitted by email: [email protected] with the subject "Final Evaluation PRG-PA Phase II". All bids with technical and price schedule must be received by July 5th, 5pm Washington DC time.
11.2 Ensuring successful transmission and receipt of the bids is the responsibility of the Bidder. It is recommended that no e-mail exceed the size of 10 MB, inclusive of attachments.
12. Amendment of Bidding Documents
12.1 Counterpart may at its discretion, for any reason, whether at its own initiative or in response to a clarification by a Bidder, modify bidding documents by amendment. All prospective Bidders that have received bidding documents will be notified of the amendment by e-mail and such amendments will be binding on them.
13. Modification of Bids
13.1 Any Bidder has the right to withdraw, modify, or correct its bid after it has been delivered to Counterpart, provided the request for such a withdrawal, modification, or correction together with full details of such modification or correction is received by Counterpart at the submission contact point given above before the time set for opening bids. Counterpart may ask any Bidder for a clarification of its bid; nevertheless, no Bidder will be permitted to alter its Bid Price or make any other material modification after the deadline unless the RFP has been amended or the deadline extended. Clarifications which do not change the Bid Price or other material aspects of the bid may be accepted.
14. Criteria for Award and Evaluation
14.1 Subject to Clause 15, Counterpart will award the evaluation services to that Bidder whose proposal is deemed acceptable and which offers the best value based upon the evaluation criteria in Section II – Technical Specifications – Evaluation Criteria. In order for a bid to be deemed acceptable, it must comply with all the terms and conditions of the RFP without material modification. A material modification is one which affects the price, quantity, quality, delivery or installation date of the equipment or materials or which limits in any way any responsibilities, duties, or liabilities of the bidders or any rights of Counterpart. In addition, the successful bidder must be determined to be responsible. A responsible bidder is one who has the technical expertise, management capability, workload capacity, and financial resources to perform the work. Counterpart may, at its option, reject all bids.
15. Counterpart’s Right to Accept Any Bid and to Reject Any or All Bids
15.1 Counterpart will reject any bid that is nonresponsive. Further, Counterpart reserves the right to waive any minor informalities in the bids received if it appears in Counterpart’s best interests to do so, to reject the bid of any bidder if, in Counterpart’s judgment, the bidder is not fully qualified to provide the services as specified in the agreement, or to reject all bids. Page 5 of 22
16. Notification of Award
16.1 Before the expiration of the period of bid validity, Counterpart will notify the successful Bidder in writing that its bid has been accepted.
16.2 Upon the successful Bidder acknowledging receipt of the Notification of Award, Counterpart will promptly notify each unsuccessful Bidder, the name of the successful Bidder and that their bids were rejected. If after notification of award, a Bidder wishes to ascertain the grounds on which its bid was not selected, it should address its request to Counterpart in writing.
17. Acceptance of Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
By Submitting quotation/proposal to Counterpart International, The company or the individual consents to Counterpart’s privacy policy terms and conditions (https://www.counterpart.org/terms-and-conditions/ ), and provides Counterpart International permission to process the company’s or individual’s personal data specifically for the performance of, and purposes identified in, this solicitation document and in compliance with Counterpart’s legal obligations under applicable United States and European Union laws, data protection and regulations and any other applicable legal requirements. The company/Individual may withdraw their consent at any time by contacting [email protected]. If consent is withdrawn, Counterpart reserve’s the right to accept or reject the offer.
Page 6 of 22
SECTION II – TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. General Background
The Participatory, Responsive Governance Principal Activity (PRG-PA) program is a five-year project (2016-2021) implemented by Counterpart International (CPI) and founded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The project works with citizens and the Government of Niger (GoN) to promote good governance through citizen participation and government responsiveness in the Diffa, Agadez, Zinder, and Niamey regions. PRG-PA focuses on service delivery of priority sectors in Niger: health, education, and security governance. PRG-PA also implements activities that contribute to the U.S. Government (USG) Security Governance Initiative (SGI), as well as a component focused on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS). The overall program objective is to improve collective (government and citizen) responsiveness to priority public needs. PRG-PA seeks to increase the capacity of stakeholders to be able to identify the local dynamics that block or promote reforms and apply this learning to mobilize around collective action. PRG-PA activities help Nigerien CSOs, thought leaders, government stakeholders, and the media promote what Nigeriens call a prise de conscience, or a conscience awakening, that will encourage individual leaders and citizens to act more for the common good, particularly regarding the use of public resources for more equitable service delivery. PRG-PA’s program design foresaw three types of external evaluation to be commissioned by CPI: the baseline situation, the mid-term evaluation, and the final evaluation. It should be noted that the baseline situation was carried out in 2016 by the firms ADI Net Work and REM Africa for PRG-PA phase 1, the mid-term evaluation / baseline situation for PRG-PA Phase 2, and the WPS component has been conducted by the STAT DES firm in 2019.
Abbreviations CBO: Community Based Organization CSO: Civil Social Organization COP: Chief of Party CPI: Counterpart International CPI-N : Counterpart International – Niger CSO: Civil Social Organization PRG-PA: Participatory, Responsive Governance Priority Activity USAID: United States Agency for International Development WPS: Women, Peace and Security
2. Objective of the Assignment The purpose of this final evaluation is to measure the impact indicators in terms of the achievement of results and to assess the program in terms of relevance, consistency, performance and sustainability.
3. Scope of Work
Building upon the Phase 1 and Phase 2 survey results, the final evaluation and should accommodate and address the following elements:
1. This will be an in-depth analysis, beyond merely looking at the extent to which the project’s objectives and goals have been achieved, but taking a higher level assessment-focused approach Page 7 of 22
and gauging the extent to which the project activities undertaken to date have been effective and are likely to contribute to long-term sustainability and bring about positive institutional change for the beneficiaries, i.e. local civil society organizations and the municipalities/municipal unions with whom PRG-PA works. 2. Assess the extent to which USAID’s expectations are likely to be met or not and why; especially when compared against the USAID Journey to Sustainability Framework.. In particular, the evaluator should assess and identify the short, medium, and long term impact of PRG-PA on civil society’s and local media’s ability to effectively engage government stakeholders to advocate for issues of local service delivery and the Government of Niger (GoN)’s capacity to register and respond to citizen requests. Moreover, explore and identify what potential corrective measures, if any, might be undertaken in the remaining time period to meet USAID’s overall expectations, and the concrete results Counterpart foresees the project to leave behind as expressed in the project results framework. It is expected that Counterpart, USAID, GoN, as well as the community be engaged as much as possible in this process to ensure that perceptions of all major stakeholders are taken into account. 3. Capture lessons learned and provide suggestions on the effectiveness of PRG-PA’s various programming approaches and measure their impact, sustainability, and advantages and disadvantages. 4. Assess the impact that the operating environment/local context in Niger that may have had on the project’s success/shortcomings, if any. 5. In addition to traditional and overarching criteria for a final evaluation to be addressed, including relevance, coherence, intervention logic, effectiveness, effects and changes, sustainability, learning and knowledge management and innovation;
Table 1: PRG-PA intervention areas
Regions Number Intervention areas
Agadez Arlit Dannet Agadez 7 Dirkou Ingall Tabelot Timia
Chétimari Foulatari Diffa 6 Kablewa Mainé Soroa N’gourti N’guigmi Niamey 2 Niamey 1 Page 8 of 22
Niamey 2 Alakoss (Garazou) Dakoussa Dungass Kangna Wamé Zinder 9 Gouré Takeita (Garagoumsa) Tanout Tarka Zinder Total 24 24
Table 2: WPS intervention areas
Regions Number Intervention areas
Diffa Chétimari Foulatari Diffa 5 Mainé Soroa
N’guigmi Abala Sanam Tondikandia Oualam Tillaberi 8 Tillaberi Tamou Kokorou Tera Total 13 13
The final evaluation must feature a citizen and local leader survey, using a methodology that allows comparison with the baseline and midline assessments. It must also include a strengthened qualitative methodology section that can inform a robust analysis for the successes and limitations of PRG-PA and WPS activities.
The main purpose of the assessment is to measure citizen perception of government responsiveness and CSO and media effectiveness in promoting more responsive governance and inform project Page 9 of 22
impact indicators (see table 1 and 2 below). The survey population base includes all citizens in PRG- PA communes, including “ordinary citizens” and government, CSOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), and private sector representatives; and all traditional and religious leaders who are present at the time of the assessment. To the extent possible and when appropriate, all questions will be disaggregated by age group, sex, ethnicity and/or race, socio-economic status, religion, geographic location, persons with disabilities, education/literacy. (confers table 1 and 2)
Table 1: Indicators for final evaluation phase I
N° Indicators 1.2 % of citizens who think councilors/mayors listen to and consult them 1.3 % of citizens who report participation in civic engagement % of citizens who report that CSO/citizen advocacy on targeted citizen priorities 1.4 is effective % of citizens who report awareness of the public goods provision process at the 2.2 national level. % increase in citizens' reported expectations of the value of contacting GoN 2.4 officials about citizen priority public goods Percentage of citizens who report that CSO/citizen advocacy on targeted citizen 5 priorities is effective? SGI Percentage of citizens reporting that they are satisfied by government 1.6 information’s related to security and defense issues. % of citizens and public officials who report that investigative journalism in 3.4 Niger is fair
Table 2: Indicators for final evaluation phase II
N° Indicators Percentage of respondents who report having increased opportunities to 3 participate in local decision-making processes Percentage of respondents reporting increased agreement with the concept WPS/G1.2: that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political resources and opportunities WPS 2.3 Percentage of respondents with increased awareness of women and girls rights Percentage of respondents who agree that violence is an acceptable means to WPS/G1.3 resolve local grievances. Percentage of respondents who feel security measures have had a negative WPS/G1.5 impact on their daily life (e.g. access to education, ability to earn income, access services). Percentage of respondents with improved perceptions that a region is WPS/G1.6 stabilizing. Percentage of respondents indicating improved perception of the security WPS/G1.4 sector (confidence in the state’s ability to maintain security and trust in the police and military, etc.)
The next table looks at the PRG-PA and WPS learning questions in relation to existing AMELP indicators. The indicators are included if they provide information that can be useful in answering the learning questions. It’s important to understand that the indicators were NOT designed to provide answers the learning questions so the relation between indicator and learning question is most often indirect. In the last column we provide suggestion as to how the end line could help provide more information to answer the learning questions.
Page 10 of 22
Page 11 of 22
Learning Questions and Indicators
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks PRG-PA learning questions Question 1: To what extent do 1.2 : % of citizens who CC3: (F Indicator) # of civil The end line could contribute to civic engagement mechanisms think councilors/mayors society organizations (CSOs) this learning questions as follows: and civil society advocacy actions listen to and consult them receiving USG assistance • Survey: by having a follow influence public policy engaged in advocacy up/complementary question development? 1.3: % of citizens who interventions (Outcomes 1, 2, to inform 1.3 focusing on types of mechanisms used • What specific mechanisms report participation in civic 3) engagement for participation and or civil advocacy actions are assessment of their
most effective? effectiveness 2.4: % increase in citizens' CC4: (F Indicator) # of reported expectations of consensus building forums • Qualitative research: Asking the value of contacting (multi-party, civil/security participants their opinions GoN officials about citizen sector, and/or civil/political) of their influence over priority public goods held with USG assistance public policy and effectiveness of specific (Outcomes 1, 2) mechanisms.
CC7: Number of public policies introduced, adopted, repealed, PRG/PA should document what changed or implemented processes/mechanisms were consistent with citizen input used that moved indicator CC7. (Outcomes 1, 2) PRG-PA should also have a clear nomenclature for the different SGI 1.1 : Number of multi- mechanisms used by the project stakeholder public forums held to ensure clarity. to discuss security- and defense-sector issues Outcome harvesting/Most significant outcomes can be used SGI 1.5 : Number of to assess the outcomes of various functioning and effective mechanisms. communication mechanisms Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks established/reinforced for citizens’ engagement with the GON on security policy
2.1 # of regional and communal development and investment plans adopted or revised through participatory processes with PRG-PA support.
4.1: # of evidence-based policy briefs developed or revised with PRG-PA support that have informed policy dialogues or advocacy actions
Question 2: To what extent does 2.4: % increase in citizens' 3.1: # of civil society initiatives The end line could contribute to addressing both supply and reported expectations of supported by PRG-PA to assess this learning questions as follows: demand dimensions in PRG-PA the value of contacting service delivery performance • Survey: adding a project interventions lead to GoN officials about citizen and hold government complementary question to improved access to, and quality priority public goods accountable for effective and inform 2.4 that would help of, local services? transparent service delivery refine understanding of • How does the quality of barriers to women and youth influence. (asking the collaboration 3.2: # mechanism developed women and men if gender between CVCs and public and implemented by makes a difference, looking officials result in a better government with PRG-PA at difference in perceived response to citizens' support to monitor service influence by men and requests for services? delivery performance. women according to • How does the inclusion of different sectors…) Page 13 of 22
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks women, youth and other 2.1 # of regional and communal • Qualitative: asking traditionally under- development and investment questions specific to women represented categories plans adopted or revised and youth engagement. lead to more inclusive through participatory processes PRG-PA learning activities should service delivery? with PRG-PA support focus on the different CVC models and their success in SGI 1.5 : Number of influencing service delivery (the functioning and effective baseline won’t be able to do that) communication mechanisms as well as on the impact of established/reinforced for wpomen and youth engagement. citizens’ engagement with the GON on security policy
Question 3: Does citizen 1.3: % of citizens who 2.3 # of communes that have The end line could contribute to engagement in local dialogue and report participation in civic increased their financial this learning questions as follows: development processes build engagement resources to implement their • Survey: Add a follow up confidence and trust in investment plans or support question to inform 1.3 government, for example: 2.2: % of citizens who service improvements with asking if participation had a positive, negative or neutral • Does participation result in report awareness of the PRG-PA support. public goods provision impact on their trust in greater tax compliance / government. It could be a process at the national increased resources? separate question on trust level. • How does civil society adopt that is then triangulated
a less confrontational with question on approach? 2.4: % increase in citizens' participation. reported expectations of • • To what extent and how the value of contacting Qualitative: There should be a similar question for FGD does citizen engagement GoN officials about citizen reduce the appeal of and KIIs priority public goods violence to resolve PRG-PA: question should be an grievances? important focus of learning Page 14 of 22
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks • What changes in civic activities, especially FGDs. behavior can we observe, if any?
Question 4: What are the It’s purely a qualitative question characteristics of CVCs that most that is better suited for FGDs, affect their ability to participate KIIs. effectively and sustainably in decision-making processes? These features can cover: • Their internal governance modalities • The formalization or not of their relations with the commune • Composition of CVCs: diversity, inclusion, and participation of local elected officials • The relations developed with other actors in civil society • Their levels of general or specific competence in municipal management
WPS Learning Questions Question 1: What are the best WPS1.1 # of women and girls This question is related to PRG- methods and practices to who participated in WPS PA Learning Question 1 and increasing women’s and girls’ activities who report indicators 1.2; 1.3 and 2.4.. Page 15 of 22
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks agency and influence over participating in decision-making Recommendation is for the community-level decision processes and or taking survey to provide a gendered making? leadership initiatives. analysis of the survey questions.
Sub-questions: WPS 1.2: Number of women Otherwise the question is very 1.1 What are the most meaningful actively participating in local granular and better suited to or significant actions (e.g. governance structures (CVCs, FGD/KIIs, after action reviews, facilitating meetings, voting on peace committees, health implemented as part of PRG- key decisions, leading action committees, etc.) PA/WPS learning exercises. strategy initiatives, etc.) that demonstrate women’s WPS 1.3: F indicator/GNDR-8: PRG/PA should document which participation in decision-making process? Number of persons trained WPS activities/methods have led with USG assistance to advance to program results. 1.2 Which leadership capacity outcomes consistent with development skills (e.g. gender equality or female advocacy skills, civic empowerment through their engagement, communication, etc.) are most relevant for roles in public or private sector increasing women’s agency? institutions or organizations 1.3 Which community mobilization and communications methods are most conducive for supporting women’s active participation alongside other diverse stakeholders?
Question 2: Does an increase in WPS/G1.2: Percentage of WPS 2.1: Number of local The end line could contribute to women’s and girls’ agency lead respondents reporting decisions and/or policies this learning questions as follows: to greater government increased agreement with (planning, budgeting, service • Survey: will help determine responsiveness to respond to the concept that males delivery) that have if there is a change in perception of the role of Page 16 of 22
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks their demands, in particular and females should have incorporated women and girls women. We could possibly regarding improved service equal access to social, recommendations/priorities add a question to assess delivery? economic, and political sense of agency of resources and WPS2.2: Percentage increase in respondents (difficult and Sub-questions: opportunities female and youth participants probably not meaningful) 2.1 Which civic engagement tools in local decision-making • Qualitative: question on engender greater accountability, WPS 2.3: Percentage of processes and dialogues agency and influence can be and improved government’s respondents with supported through program added. responsive services? increased awareness of interventions 2.2 Which planning processes women and girls rights Generally, this question will be enable participatory and better suited to be document vis inclusive and gender sensitive WPS/G1.5: Percentage of PRG-PA learning activities community-level planning? respondents who feel including FGDs/KII, most 2.3 Are some sectors and services security measures have significant outcomes and after more responsive to priorities had a negative impact on action review. and recommendations voiced by their daily life (e.g. access women and girls? to education, ability to earn income, access services) Question 3: How does increased WPS/G1.3: Percentage of WPS3.1: Number of multi- The end line could contribute to involvement of women and girls respondents who agree stakeholder public forums held this learning questions as follows: in community development and that violence is an to discuss security- and • Survey: will help determine if peacebuilding fora help reduce acceptable means to defense-sector issues there is a change in attitude local grievances and overall resolve local grievances. toward violence and the community vulnerability to WPS 3.2: Number of extent to which there is violent extremism, if at all? WPS/G1.5: Percentage of functioning and effective greater women participation. respondents who feel communication mechanisms It will however not make a Sub-questions: security measures have established/ reinforced for link between the two nor be 3.1 How do community- had a negative impact on citizens engagement with the able to answer the “how” engagement mechanisms (e.g. their daily life (e.g. access GON on security policy • Qualitative: question can be Page 17 of 22
Learning questions Related Baseline indicator Other related indicators Remarks Peace Councils, CVCs, etc.) serve to education, ability to added during final evaluation as conducive platforms for earn income, access WPS 3.3: F Indicator/GNDR-9: but difficult to establish a government, CSO and women services) Number of training and baseline. networks to collaborate and capacity building activities Generally, this question will be share information about priority conducted with USG assistance needs and community better suited to be document vis designed to promote the grievances, if at all? PRG-PA learning activities participation of women or the including FGDs/KII, most 3.2 What are the best methods integration of gender significant outcomes and after for women and girls to share perspectives in security sector action review. information amongst their institutions or activities networks on security concerns and emerging threats to their communities?
3.3 What are the effects of women’s and girls participation in security focused discussions?
Page 18 of 22
1. Methodology Due to the fluid context in Niger, Counterpart is looking for innovative suggestions regarding the methodology design of this evaluation. Generally, this evaluation should utilize qualitative methods and tools appropriate to the evaluation’s research questions, with particular attention paid to engaging all stakeholders. It is highly recommended to have qualitative data available to support the final evaluation report. Additionally, even if/when secondary data are available for the evaluator to build on, attempts should be made to obtain primary data with reliable methods to ensure data integrity.
2. Assignment Duration, Place of Performance, and Other Conditions. It is anticipated that the entire scope of activities will be spread over a period of approximately 8 weeks. The work will be completed in Niger. An outline of the work plan indicating sequence of key activities and major milestones is illustrated in the Gantt chart below to estimate the time and effort required for each activity.
Process & Milestones Date Week of study
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Discussions with Counterpart 15 July Secondary data review 15 July Finalize methodology and sampling plan 20 July Develop survey tool 22 July Submit inception report, work plan and draft 27 July tools Advisory input and review 28 July au 3 Aug Translate tool 4th to 5th Aug Mobilize data collection team 6th to 7th Aug Train/Brief enumerators 10th June to 12th Aug Pilot test questionnaire 13th Aug Debrief & review 14th Aug Preparation for data collection 15th Aug Data collection 17th to 24th Aug Submit progress report 15th Aug st Data coding and data entry 25th to 1 Sept th Analysis and report write-up 2nd to 10 Sept Submit data file to CPI-N 10th Sept Submit draft report 10th Sept Advisory input 11th to 12th Sept Review draft report 12th to 15th Sept Submit final report to CPI-N 15th Sept Total Duration 8 Weeks
3. Staff Structure.
The evaluation team will comprise of at least one international program evaluator (Team Leader), and one local consultant and more team members may be proposed. To the extent possible, the evaluation team will be gender balanced. Qualifications for team members:
Minimum Qualifications for proposed team members: i. A higher education degree (Masters preferred) in one of the following areas: Business Management, Development Studies, Business Development, Economics, History, Social Sciences or equivalent. ii. Minimum of seven years' experience in the use of research methodologies, quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis using focus group discussions and interviews with key informants. iii. Minimum of five years of work experience in the areas of monitoring and evaluation, including experience with programs focusing on improved governance and gender mainstreaming. iv. Strong analytical and written skills. v. Experience working for international organizations would be an added advantage. vi. Experience in community design, monitoring and evaluation and support of development projects/programs would be an added advantage. vii. Mastery of software needed to produce the report and analyze data required (WORD, EXCEL, CSPRO, SPSS, SPHINX). At least one of the proposed team will have demonstrated experience with statistical analysis software. viii. Written and oral fluency in French is required; Fluency in English is preferred.
4. Monitoring and Reporting.
The successful bidder will report to the Counterpart HQ unit overseeing the PRG-PA program, a final point of contact will be determined upon award.
5. Expected Results, Deliverables.
The successful applicants will be responsible for proposing a rigorous assessment design, including survey questions, sampling techniques and size and statistical calculations methods. The survey shall be administered to a representative sample of the target population and ensure acceptable representation of the groups that compose this population. The successful applicants will use as a starting point, and improve upon, the survey methodology and survey questions developed for the phase 2 midline/baseline assessment. The survey methodology as well as all other deliverables under this scope of work, shall be reviewed by CPI and approved by PRG-PA Chief of Party (Elizabeth Cote). In order to produce high quality work, CPI has opted for the final evaluation to be conducted by the team leader a survey specialist. CPI will select first the team leader, who will recruit in collaboration with PRG-PA support, the national consultant.
The below tasks are expected of each. Counterpart considers these tasks necessary for the success of the final evaluation and production of reliable and quality data. The consultants may propose a different order of events or even slightly different tasks, but Counterpart reserves the right to approve or reject all proposed changes.
1) Tasks of the team leader: • Task 1: Design a final evaluation work plan, methodology for data collection and analysis, sampling method, budget, team composition, plan of dispatch, and timeline • Task 2: Design the survey questionnaire • Task 3: Train enumerators • Task 4: Field test enumerators as well as survey questionnaire • Task 5: Data collection, entry, and cleanup
Page 20 of 22
• Task 6: Data Analysis • Task 7: Report Write up • Task 7: CPI debriefing • Task 8: Prepare and handover to CPI data file 2) Tasks of the survey specialist: • Task 1: Contribute to the design and translate of the survey questionnaire into appropriate languages • Task 3: Recruit and train enumerators • Task 4: Field test enumerators as well as survey questionnaire • Task 5: Data collection, entry, and cleanup • Task 6: Data Analysis Throughout the final evaluation, there must be open communication between the consultants and Counterpart through phone calls, emails, text messages, or face-to-face meetings to ensure proper coordination between both parties are and that issues that arise are resolved in a timely fashion. Counterpart may conduct unannounced visits while data collection is going on but cannot interfere with the study. Any changes to the plan, approved by Counterpart, during the evaluation, must be documented between both parties. Evaluation work plan The consultants will update the data collection questionnaire used in the midline/baseline study. They will also finalize the assignment timeline, clarify team members’ roles and responsibilities, and develop data collection methods, instruments, tools, and guidelines. The final evaluation work plan document must be submitted for approval to Mr. Michael Barluk ([email protected]) within the first week of signature of the contract. Counterpart will support the contractor’s efforts in obtaining information about the logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. The final evaluation work plan shall provide details of the strategy and methodology that will be used, geographic and participant sampling structure, and evaluative procedures. In addition to the sampling methodology and data collection instruments, the design document will include a data analysis plan; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from the survey to reach recommendations and conclusions. Each data collection, analysis, and/or presentation tool, including the specific instruments, needs to be approved by Counterpart prior to the start of the evaluation team’s field work. Final evaluation Report The main deliverable of this assessment is the final report which is expected to be submitted by, September 15th, 2021. The final report must be both in French and English. The final evaluation report must not be more than thirty five (35) pages long, excluding the table of content, Acronyms, annexes, list of tables and figures. It will need to present findings in a clear and concise way that would allow easy understanding. Findings must answer all 15 questions included in the scope of work and to provide data for other learning questions. Section Description Executive Executive Summary that provides a brief overview of the study overview and Summary scope, final evaluation purpose, findings, and conclusions. Support recommendations with specific findings. Recommendation Provide recommendations that are action-oriented, practical, and specific ➢ Introduction: project overview Report Body ➢ Methodology: Contains final evaluation methodology in detail including Page 21 of 22
Section Description data collection and analysis methods ➢ Results: Show results including table, figures, charts, and they come about and discloses study limitations, especially those associated with the methodology. Show data quality control method and procedure ➢ Conclusion: show highlights and what is considered the most central findings. Include at minimum the following annexes 1. Statement of Work
Annexes 2. All final evaluation tools (questionnaires, checklists, discussion guides… etc.). 3. A list of sources of information (key informants, documents reviewed, photos, other data sources).
6. Evaluation Criteria.
Proposals for this baseline evaluation will be evaluated based on the following criteria: Evaluation Criteria Score Past performance: demonstrated experience in successfully implementing 20 points comparable assignment and delivering quality reports within a tight time frame. Previous experience in Niger or similar context. Technical Approach: the extent to which the proposed approach is 50 points methodologically sound and can realistically be achieved within the proposed time frame. A demonstrated understanding of the challenges of implementing surveys in the target regions and the feasibility of the proposed solutions to overcoming these challenges. Cost realism: the extent to which the proposed budget is realistic and 20 points reasonable and offers the best value for money for Counterpart Team: experience of team working on similar projects and ability to 10 points communicate effectively in the field, as well as designing strong a evaluation that is well written
7. Method of payment.
Payment will be based on the following milestones:
Deliverables Due Date Evaluation workplan Within one week of agreement signed Survey questionnaire Three weeks after agreement signed Progress report August 15th Final Evaluation report September 14th
Page 22 of 22