REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: Final evaluation of the project “Advancing International Accountability for Atrocities through Evidence Analysis in Iraq” At Global Rights Compliance

Enclosed is a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Final evaluation of the project “Advancing International Accountability for Atrocities through Evidence Analysis in Iraq”. Global Rights Compliance Foundation invites qualified firms and organizations to submit a best-price proposal for the mentioned service. The issuance of a subcontract is subject to the availability of funds, successful negotiation of the subcontract budget and terms, and receiving client consent, if required. The Contract resulting from this award will be a single firm fixed-price purchase order.

General Background

Global Rights Compliance (GRC) is an international human rights law and development Foundation based in The Hague, focused on bringing accountability for atrocity crimes.

Through collaboration with Case Matrix Network (CMN), GRC is implementing the project “Advancing International Accountability for Atrocities through Evidence Analysis in Iraq”: started in 2021, the project aims to advance accountability for atrocities committed in Iraq through the provision of technical and legal assistance to the Commission for Investigation and Gathering Evidence (CIGE).

CIGE was established in 2014 by the Judicial Council of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). It is mandated to investigate human rights violations committed by ISIS against ethnic and religious groups that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, with a focus on the Nineveh plains and Sinjar regions. CIGE’s Missing Person Unit searches for and identifies missing and disappeared persons, while its Victims Support Unit also provides legal, psychosocial, and other assistance to victims of atrocities.

Project Specific Objective:

1. Improved access to justice for survivors of Iraqi ethno-religious minorities through enhanced evidence processing and analysis of at least 5,500 victim case files;
2. CIGE is able to initiate or support universal jurisdiction proceedings including through improved cooperation with international accountability mechanisms.

As a result of this project, CIGE’s evidence holdings will be deployed within a variety of mechanisms with the realistic prospect of tangible accountability for ISIS atrocities and justice for their victims. Politically, this project aims to drive the accountability agenda for ISIS atrocities in Iraq and to support CIGE by providing it with the technical, analytical, and structural capacity to actively engage with international accountability processes.

The project also aims to support the mandates of national and international law enforcement agencies by increasing access to critical evidence of atrocity victims as well as their alleged perpetrators. In addition, survivor access to reparations will be enhanced.

Purpose of the evaluation:

The evaluation will assess achievements towards the project objectives and provide information on the impact and sustainability of the project. It will assess the project design and implementation through both desk review and interviews with key stakeholders and partners. Furthermore, it will collate and analyze challenges and best practices, formulate lessons learned, and propose key recommendations for future programming.

The main objectives of the final evaluation are the following:

1. Assessment of the project’s performance: determine to what extent the project achieved its objectives as per the proposal.
2. Assessment of the project’s impact: determine how the project impacted targeted CIGE and international law enforcement agencies primarily, and the survivor communities as indirect beneficiaries.
3. Lessons learned and recommendations: generate lessons learned and recommendations for future programming based on the project’s implementation and achievements.

The evaluation should assess the performance of the project in terms of OECD-DAC criteria such as relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. It should also include an analysis of the underlying factors beyond the control of project partners that affect the achievement of the project results.

Evaluation Questions

In line with the evaluation goal and objectives, the following key evaluation questions and sub-questions are proposed for the final evaluation. However, these can be expanded and modified by the evaluation team in consultation with GRC.

Relevance:

How relevant is the project to the needs and context of legal accountability and transitional justice in the region?

1. To what extent is CIGE enabled to search, access, and archive collected information to support reparations and criminal proceedings?
2. To what extent is CIGE enabled to provide analytical and non-analytical collected information to designated national institutions to assert survivor’s eligibility or support criminal accountability processes?
3. To what extent does the project contribute to increasing the access of international law enforcement authorities to evidence of ISIS atrocities?
4. To what extent does the project contribute to strengthening accountability for human rights violations committed by ISIS against ethnic and religious groups in Iraq?
5. To what extent are CIGE personnel able to develop, publish, and adapt survivor-centered outreach content?
6. To what extent has the project enabled CIGE to use information stored in the database to [pursue] justice processes?

Sustainability:

How sustainable are the measurable impacts achieved by the project?

1. What are the key factors that will require attention in order to improve the prospects of sustainability of the project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach?
2. Are there any good practices and lessons learned that can be replicated or taken into consideration in future programming by the implementing partners?

External Factors and Challenges**:**

What external factors, beyond the control of the project implementation partners, have influenced the achievement of project results, and how?

1. How did these external factors impact the project’s progress and outcomes?
2. What strategies can be implemented to mitigate the influence of such external factors in the future?

Gender Equity, Social Inclusion, and Human Rights:

To what extent did the project implement gender equity, social inclusion, and human rights principles, and what other approaches can be utilized to efficiently mainstream gender and inclusion of marginalized groups across activities?

1. How effectively were these principles integrated into project activities?
2. What additional strategies can enhance the inclusion of marginalized groups in future project activities?

Evaluation approach and methodology

For the development of this evaluation, mixed evaluation methods, including both qualitative and quantitative analysis and a blend of primary and secondary data, are recommended.

The evaluation team is invited to provide a proposal of evaluation methods and instruments in their methodology. However, it is recommended that this will include the following data collection methods:

• Desk research, to include a literature review and document review. The literature review pertaining to relevant external sources will ensure the appropriate level of knowledge of the context of the project. The document review will include pertinent program-related materials, including but not limited to quarterly, and annual reports narrative reports, M&E reports, and content produced by the programme (limited by data protection requirements).
• Surveys and/or questionnaires collect and analyse quantitative data such as satisfaction levels, perceived impact, and effectiveness of interventions and identify trends, patterns, and areas for improvement.
• Interviews (Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews): the evaluation team is expected to hold interviews and meetings with relevant staff, partners, beneficiaries, and/or other programme’s stakeholders.

Other instruments or evaluation approaches, such as Most Significant Change, ripple effect mapping, Outcome Harvesting, Outcome mapping, etc., are welcome to be included in evaluation teams’ proposals.

Data Protection

The data collection process is the responsibility of the evaluator; however, GRC will oversee and follow up on the data collection process, and the project partners will help facilitate communication with the project stakeholders and people supported by the project.

Suggested activities

1. Design of the Evaluation Methodology
   • Submission of an inception report outlining detailed evaluation methodology design.
2. Desk Review
   • Conduct a comprehensive desk review that involves reviewing programmatic documentation produced by the project team to grasp the structure, evolution, and needs of the project.
3. Data Collection Preparation and Execution
   • Conduct data collection, which will include the preparation of data collection tools, conducting interviews, focus group discussions, and/or other data collection activities with project staff, partners, and other stakeholders.
4. Data Analysis
   • Conduct a comprehensive data analysis by bringing together the relevant data collected in the previous phases to respond to the evaluation framework and develop strategic and operational recommendations.
5. Debriefing
   • Debriefing of preliminary findings with GRC and other relevant project partners to confirm, review, or contribute to additional insights.
6. Final Evaluation Presentation
   • Presentation of final evaluation with GRC and other relevant project partners to present the evaluation findings and recommendations.

Deliverables

1. Inception Report
   • Detailed evaluation methodology design in the inception report.
2. Desk Review Report
   • Comprehensive desk review document summarizing the structure, evolution, and needs of the project.
3. Data Collection Tools and Raw Data
   • Prepared data collection tools, and collected raw data from interviews, focus group discussions, and other activities.
4. Data Analysis Report
   • Comprehensive data analysis report responding to the evaluation framework with strategic and operational recommendations.
5. Debriefing Summary
   • Summary report of the debriefing session with GRC and project partners, including confirmed, reviewed, or additional insights.
6. Final Evaluation Report
   • Final evaluation report (25-30 pages plus annexes) in English with findings and recommendations. The body of the report will provide a narrative description of results achieved, operational lessons, and recommendations. Executive summary, illustrative graphs, charts, and infographics should be included.
7. Final Presentation
   • Presentation of final evaluation findings and recommendations to GRC and other relevant project partners.

Estimated timeline and budget

The evaluation will begin on 01/09/2024 and the evaluation team is expected to submit the final reports by 31/12/2024.

Payment will be based on the submission of deliverables that are satisfactory and have been assessed and approved by GRC to be of good quality, based on the following table:

# Deliverable Payment Percentage
1 Submission of the inception report 10%
2 Debriefing of preliminary findings 30%
3 Submission and acceptance of final report 30%
4 Presentation of final evaluation 30%

Qualifications

• Demonstrated experience conducting evaluations concerning human rights of at-risk and marginalised communities, particularly for US donors.
• Relevant professional experience in the design and management of evaluation processes with multiple stakeholders, survey design and implementation, and project planning, monitoring, and management.
• Demonstrated methodological knowledge of evaluations, including quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis for end-of-cycle project evaluations.
• Strong facilitation, presentation, writing, and communication skills.
• Fluency in both written and spoken English.
• Formal education (e.g., bachelor’s degree, graduate degree, professional certification, etc.) in a related field.
• Experience and understanding in the field of international law are an advantage.
• Knowledge and experience working in Iraq and Kurdistan are an advantage.

Applications should include the following documentation:

• A 2–3-page statement of interest and technical proposal, describing how your profile meets the qualifications outlined above and highlighting how your methodological approach will address the scope planned for this evaluation.
• A short cost justification (not included in the 2–3-page limit)
• CV or resume of the evaluation team
• Evidence of evaluation work (link to at least 2 evaluation reports or PDF attachments), highlighting evaluation theories and approaches.

To be considered, Offerors should submit a complete proposal no later than the closing date and time indicated above. Offerors should ensure that the proposals are well written in English, easy to read, follow the instructions provided, and contain only requested information.

Any questions should be submitted in writing and emailed to aydineksi@globalrightscompliance.co.uk, and procurement@grcompliance.org no later than 8 days from the issue date of this RFP. The solicitation number should be stated in the subject line.

Attachments: Link

Attachment I: Instructions to Offerors

Attachment II: Evaluation Criteria

Attachment III: Cover Letter

The full package can be found here