RFP: Final Evaluation: ASRD Project At Near East Foundation

Terms of Reference – ASRD Final Evaluation

Background: The project Advancing self-reliance among displacement-affected communities (ASRD) aims to strengthen the capacity of community groups based in South Sudan and Sudan to provide holistic and targeted livelihood support and integrated basic and protection services while addressing disaster and climate-related human mobility issues for some of the world’s most vulnerable displacement-affected people. ASRD is implemented with funding from the EU’s Lives in Dignity Grant Facility operated by UNOPS, in partnership with the Near East Foundation (NEF) in Sudan and South Sudan, Global Aid Hand (GAH) in Sudan and Center for Emergency and Development Support (CEDS) in South Sudan.

The project is implemented between August 2022 – September 2024 in the following locations: Sudan (Khartoum, Al Jazira, White Nile, South Kordofan); South Sudan (Northern Bahr El-Ghazal, Warrap, Ruweng Administrative Area, Abyei).

1. Purpose, Objectives and Scope

Purpose: To provide an objective and independent assessment of project implementation and impact, including achievement of project and lessons learned to guide or inform future interventions. Specifically, the evaluation will assess the extent to which the planned project outcomes and outputs have been achieved, as well as assessing the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the project as defined in the guidelines for Final Evaluations.

Objectives: – To assess the extent to which project outputs and implementation arrangements have been effective; the role and effectiveness of partnership in achieving the project outcome/s; review and assess the project partnership in terms of contract partners, as well as with the government bodies, civil society and private sector and international organizations (as applicable), and how these have contributed to the achievement of the outcome/s. Verify the results achieved and make conclusions and recommendations relating to the design and performance of the project, with consideration of contextual challenges. Generating evidence-based strategic recommendations relating to the design and implementation process of this project (specifically what learning should the project take forward in future programming and project design.

Scope: The final evaluation should consider the full cycle implementation from design to the closure of the project. The time period covered by the evaluation needs to be determined in advance. The evaluation should focus not only on quantifiable results but also analyze processes and dynamics generated by the project, their scope (in terms of people and other actors involved) and their sustainability. The evaluation is encouraged to include involvement of representatives from the population groups which are directly affected by the program to identify feedback, generate learning and provide a structured analysis of intended and unintended outcomes for the project stakeholders.

2. Methodology

The evaluator should develop a proposed methodology which aligns with their capabilities and resources while also addressing the core needs articulated within these terms of reference. However, the section below provides minimum requirements for processes that should be undertaken to ensure adequate methodological rigor:

Extended desk review: The evaluator will collect and review all relevant documentation, including The Grant Agreement; Project proposal; Logical Framework; Implementation Plan; Financial overview of projects (excel sheet); Project evaluations (if any) and project quarterly and annual reports; Relevant government publications, if applicable or relevant; Any other relevant documents.

Data collection: Remote activities, in case travel is not possible (including for data collection, i.e. remote interviews, pre-interview surveys, evaluation questionnaires, etc.) with stakeholders who have worked with the project in the relevant area, support to displacement affected people. The evaluator is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with (A)project staff (senior management, country office level, project level); (B) government counterparts, donors, etc.; (C) UN agencies working to contribute to the same outcome, and other key stakeholders; and (D) beneficiary groups. All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals. Below are types of data collection but not limited to:

• Key Informant
• Semi-structured interviews
• Surveys
• Observations
• Other (context specific)

3. Specific Evaluation Questions

The evaluation questions to be addressed through the project final evaluation are aligned with the OECD DAC evaluation criteria: (1) relevance; (2) coherence; (3) effectiveness; (4) efficiency; (5) impact; and (6) sustainability. Based on these six criteria, the following questions will be explicitly addressed through the final evaluation:

Relevance:

• To what extent is project design relevant and consistent with country needs, national priorities, and regional and global commitments in addressing the identified priority of displacement affected people?
• To what extent project outcome-level results are relevant to and consistent with the national, regional, global (as is relevant) priorities?
• Are project approaches, resources, models, and logical framework relevant to achieve the planned outcomes?
• Is the current set of indicators, both outcome and output indicators, effective in informing the progress made towards the outcomes? If not, what indicators should be used?
• To what extent were the project outcome indicators relevant to the project?
• How relevant was the project multi-theme approach for the project?

Coherence:

• The extent to which the project complemented, harmonized and/or coordinated with others, and the extent to which the intervention is adding value while avoiding duplication of effort (within a particular system (organization, sector, thematic area, country)?

Effectiveness:

• To what extent has the project achieved its intended results, and how effective were the various components?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the outcome/intermediate outcome(s)/expected results/outputs?
• How adaptable has the program been to external and contextual challenges (including the economic and political situation), and to learning and feedback generated during implementation. How could this have been improved?
• How effectively were the themes of the project integrated to the overall objectives of the project?

Efficiency:

• To what degree was value for money prioritized during project implementation? How was it prioritized?

Impact:

• What were the intended/unintended outcomes and impacts of the project? Specifically, what were the outcomes for target groups, stakeholders and other participants? At a minimum, this analysis should include both quantitative and qualitative changes, and identify differential outcomes based on status, sex, age and vulnerability categories.
• Are changes “scalable” or “replicable” that could be leveraged in future project designs?

Sustainability:

• To what degree will the identified outcomes be sustained following closure? The extent to which the benefits from an intervention have continued, or are likely to continue, after it has been completed.
• What specific recommendations to the LiD Facility and implementing partners relating to future programming would improve or ensure the institutional sustainability of the initiatives? (It is expected that the evaluation team will present concrete recommendations which are addressed to the specific stakeholders, including UNOPS, the European Union, National Government, City Authorities and Community Based Organisations and others).

4. Deliverables

The selected consultant will submit the following deliverables over the course of the contracted period:

• Inception Report (including a detailed methodology of the evaluation design, data collection methodology and tools and management processes).
• Final Data Collection Methodology and Tools (for quantitative, qualitative and participatory methodologies), and sampling strategies – responding to comments and feedback from the project.
• All primary data collected in agreed formats and transcripts.
• Feedback /Validation Workshop(s) with stakeholders and communities and presentation and discussion of the Key Findings to project staff.
• First Draft Evaluation Report – adhering to the requirements detailed below.
• Second Draft Evaluation Report – responding to comments and feedback from the project.
• Presentation of the Evaluation Findings, Learning and Recommendations to project partners.
• Final Evaluation Report – responding to comments and feedback from project partners.
• Standalone Executive Summary report with high resolution photographs, results, learning and recommendations.

5. Timeframe

The task is anticipated to last between 4-6 weeks with submission of final deliverables. The consultant will be expected to start working in August and complete all responsibilities outlined in the Scope of Work and deliverables on or before 30 September 2024.

6. Qualification and Experience

• Postgraduate or other advanced university degree in Public Policy, International Development, Development, Economics/Planning, Economic, Public Administration, and Management and in any other related university degree.
• Extensive expertise, knowledge, and experience in the field of evaluation of development programs (5-10 years), with noted experience in gender and conflict sensitive approaches
• Experience applying participatory monitoring approaches;
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Familiarity with local context, dynamics and structures is an advantage;
• Proven analytical skills and familiarity with quantitative, qualitative and remote data collection methodologies;
• Fluency in relevant local language(s) is an advantage.

7. Submission Guidance

NEF will consider offers from national consultants or from consultants applying from outside of Sudan and South Sudan. Applicants should submit proposals clearly indicating one of following options for their geographical scope: A) South Sudan B) Sudan or C) Sudan and South Sudan.

All submissions should be submitted via the Near East Foundation careers page on or before Wednesday, 24 July 2024.

Submission Link: https://neareast.bamboohr.com/careers/387

8. Terms and conditions:

• Logistics: The contracted consultancy firm / independent consultant(s) is responsible to use own transportation to travel to the project locations. In addition to computers, accommodation for the consultant(s) and his / her associates (team) involved in this mission including their per diem too.
• The consultant will be required to abide by NEF security guidelines.
• You are restricted to quote in USD only.
• You are requested to hold your bid valid for 30 days from the deadline for submission. NEF will make its best effort to select Individual/firm/institution within this period The contract agreement will be signed between the consultancy firm / consultant(s) and NEF immediately after the completion of the selection process and starting time is effective from the date the agreement is signed.
• Any requests for clarification should be referred to procurementsudan@neareast.org with the subject line “RFQ NO: ASRD-2024- External Evaluation ” in writing and before Wednesday, 17 July 2024.

9. Required Documents:

Potential consultant(s) are required to submit the following documents:

• Updated CV(s) and the company’s profile
• Technical Proposal: A brief overview of the assignment as understood by the bidder; proposed methodology and approach including work plan (i.e. research techniques to be used, sampling, field operation plan, quality assurance and time frame)
• Financial Proposal: Detailed itemized budget and price justification by unit cost per activity being proposed under the financial proposal.
• Samples of similar previous work and references from other assignments that prove the capacity of the consultant/company to carry out a final evaluation.