End of Project Evaluation-Emergency Food Security Program in Somalia

End of Project Evaluation-Emergency Food Security Program in Somalia End of Project Evaluation Terms of Reference Emergency Food Security Program in Somalia Award No: 72DFFP18GR00026 March 2019 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Glossary. 3 Evaluation Summary. 4 Introduction. 4 Background & Program description. 4 Evaluation Purpose and Objectives 6 Evaluation questions 7 Evaluation Methodology. 8 5.1. Qualitative Study. 9 5.2. Quantitative Survey. 9 Audience and Stakeholders 10 7. Deliverables & reporting requirements 10 Roles & responsibilities 11 Illustrative timeline. 12 Consultant/Team Expertise. 13 Submission Guidelines 14 Glossary ARD African Relief and Development AWD Acute Watery Diarrhoea CBFV Cash-Based Food Voucher CeRID Centre for Research & Integrated Development CBTD Community Based Targeting and Distribution CSI Coping Strategy Index CWG Cash Working Group DMT Disaster Management Team EFSP Emergency Food Security Program EOPS End of Project Status FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCS Food Consumption Score FE Final Evaluation FEWS NET Famine Early Warning System Network FFP Food for Peace FGD Focus Group Discussion FSNAU Food Security & Nutrition Analysis Unit FY Fiscal Year HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score HH Household HHS Household Hunger Scale IDP Internally Displaced Person IPC Integrated (Food security) Phase Classification Kcal Kilocalories LMMS Last Mile Mobile Solution M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEB Minimum Expenditure Basket NGO Non-Governmental Organization OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Alliance OTP Outpatient Therapeutic Program PDM Post Distribution Monitoring PDQA Program Development and Quality Assurance SPSS Statistical Package of Social Science USAID United States Agency for International Development VFW Voucher for Work WFP World Food Program WV World Vision WVUS World Vision United States Office Evaluation Summary Programme/Project: Emergency Food Security Program in Somalia (EFSP) Programme Phase: May 1, 2018 – May 31, 2019 Evaluation Type: End of Program/Project External Review Evaluation Purpose: To analyse the level of achievement of the EFSP project goal, objectives and results and how these have been achieved. Specifically, the final evaluation will serve the following purposes: · Evaluate the achievements of the activity in relation to the goal, objectives, results and targets. · Evaluate the activity’s effects on local markets, and how it affected certain groups of interest (women and men; the youth population; boys and girls, etc.) · Evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the modality, transfers, and complementary interventions to achieve activity outcomes. · Identify best practices, lessons learned, strengths, and challenges in the activity design, including the Log frame, and implementation for achieving project achievements. Target Audience WV Somalia office management, EFSP, PDQA and Food assistance teams, WVUS, partner organizations (ARD & CeRID), WVUS, USAID/FFP, Beneficiary communities, WVI Food Assistance Team (DMT) etc. Primary Methodologies: The Final Evaluation will be in the form of an external review conducted by an independent third-party consultant. The Evaluation will apply a consultative approach and employ mixed methods approach to collect quantitative and qualitative date. These include but are not limited to Document/desk review, HH Surveys, FGDs with project participants and community representatives, KIIs, and observation, etc. Evaluation Start and End Dates: April 22, 2019 – May 24, 2019 Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date: May 28, 2019 1. Introduction The purpose of this Terms of Reference is to provide a framework for planning and conducting the Final Evaluation (FE) for the Emergency Food Security Program in Somalia (EFSP). The Final Evaluation will be in the form of an external review and will be conducted by an independent third-party consultant. The methodology of the evaluation will be based on the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This document describes the objectives and goals of this evaluation. It also explains the logistical details to be considered during the data collection process and steps, technical procedures and tools to be used. 2. Background & Program description The collapse of the state of Somalia in 1991 has had an enormous impact on the country’s human development. While Somalia has made modest development gains, high levels of humanitarian needs persist due to cyclical climatic impacts, armed conflict, clan violence, widespread human rights violations, political instability and insecurity. Food security challenges in many parts of Somalia has been compounded by a combination of factors that include recurrent droughts, flooding and insecurity. To prevent further deterioration of productive assets and mitigate the need for households to engage in negative coping strategies to meet basic food needs, WV implemented the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) in Somalia. The EFSP is a USAID-funded emergency food assistance project implemented by World Vision, Inc. in Berbera, Burco, Odweyne and Gabiley districts of Somaliland and Wajid, Hudur, Luuq and Qansaxdheere districts in the South of Somalia. The EFSP commenced in May 1, 2018 with plans to support 5,300 vulnerable households (approximately 31,800 individuals) access food through the local market over a seven-month period (May 1, 2018 – November 30, 2018) but was later modified in September 2018 to extend the implementation period to May 2019 and cover additional 5,700 households. The Program is implemented directly by World Vision in Berbera, Burco, Odweyne and Gabiley districts and in partnership with African Relief and Development (ARD) as the sub-recipient in Wajid and Hudur districts in Bakool region and Centre for Research and International Development (CeRID) in Luuq and Qansaxdheere districts. The overall goal of the Emergency Food Security Program is to improve food security by addressing the immediate, life-saving food needs of 11,000-targeted households affected by natural disasters such as drought, floods and cyclones[1] in addition to setting the foundation for early recovery through rehabilitation and creation of community assets. This has been accomplished through provision of conditional and unconditional cash based food vouchers to enhance access to diverse and quality foods that meet the nutritional requirements of vulnerable households through the local market, developing the capacities of local vendors to progressively meet food needs and promotion of household nutrition and hygiene. Furthermore, early recovery and resilience building for target communities has been facilitated by creating and rehabilitating community assets and restoration of infrastructure promoting access to markets, farmland, pasture and other services. To achieve greater impact, the EFSP has been complemented by the OFDA funded project in Wajid, Hudur, Qansaxdheere and Luuq district. Target households have been linked to other services provided by the OFDA project such as Health and Nutrition, WASH and Livelihood support. In other locations, the EFSP was deliberate in ensuring that integration and layering with other existing and upcoming projects took place to maximise impact. Target households under the EFSP were determined using the Somalia Food Security Cluster’s Community Based Targeting Guidelines adapted from best practices in consultation with the communities; the selected households were registered using WV’s LMMS system[2]. Following the modification, overall, the EFSP supported 11,000 households in eight districts in two separate cohorts for different durations as summarized in table 1 below: Table 1: EFSP Target locations, households and timeframe Region District Cohort 1 (Supported from May – Nov. 2018) Cohort 2 (Supported from Sept. 2018 – March, 2019) Total Caseload (Cohort 1 + Cohort 2) Bakool Hudur 900 HHs 600 HHs 1,500 HHs Wajid 900 HHs 600 HHs 1,500 HHs Bay Qansaxdheere 700 HHs 500 HHs 1,200 HHs Gedo Luuq 0 HHs 750 HHs 750 HHs Toghdeer Burco 1,050 HHs 850 HHs 1,950 HHs Odweyne 650 HHs 500 HHs 1,150 HHs Woqooyi Galbeed/Saxil Berbera 1,050 HHs 800 HHs 1,850 HHs Gabiley 0 HHs 1,100 HHs 1,100 HHs 5 regions 8 districts 5,300 HHs 5,700 HHs 11,000 HHs Table 2 below provides a summary of the Emergency Food Security Program objectives and performance measurement indicators: Table 2: Emergency Food Security Program Summary Program Locations: 8 Districts: Burco, Odweyne, Berbera, Gabiley, Wajid, Hudur, Luuq and Qansaxdheere districts Primary Sector/s: Food Assistance, Nutrition & Hygiene, Livelihoods Target Population: 11,000 HHs supported Program Duration: Thirteen months (May 1, 2018 – May 31, 2019) Program Goal: Improved food security for vulnerable households and restoration of community assets for early recovery in Burco, Odweyne, Berbera, Hudur, Qansadheere, Wajid, Gabiley and Luuq districts in Somalia. Purpose 1: Increased access to diverse and quality foods that meet the nutritional requirements of vulnerable households through the local market. Indicators · Prevalence of households with Little to no hunger (Household Hunger Scale – HHS) · Household Food Consumption Score (FCS) Intermediate Outcome 1.1: Essential and diverse food items availed to targeted households in sufficient amounts. Indicators · Percentage of food utilization by type (household consumption, sale, bartering, livestock feed) · Percentage of households where adults and children consume two or more meals per day · Percentage of targeted households that report consumption of at least six out of the twelve possible food groups by end of project. Intermediate Outcome 1.2: Capacities of local food vendors developed to progressively meet the food needs in the targeted communities Indicators · Percentage of vendors with improved storage capacity. · Proportion of vendors who apply business principles (record keeping & stock management). Purpose 2: Early recovery and resilience-building for target communities facilitated Indicator · Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI). · Percentage of households with a reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) below the sample mean. Intermediate Outcome 2.1: Identified Community assets improved and promoting early recovery for target communities. Indicators · Percentage of target households utilizing and/or benefitting from the community assets created/rehabilitated by type of asset. Intermediate Outcome 2.2: Infrastructure promoting access to markets, farmland, pasture and other services restored. Indicator · Percentage of households reporting reduced distance to markets/ farms/ pasture /services by project end. 3. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives The EFSP has planned for a Final Evaluation to be undertaken as part of a culture of learning and accountability. A team of independent, external consultants will be contracted to assess the performance and results of the EFSP against the mandate that was set in the project’s strategic frameworks, and to determine the reasons for success or lack thereof, draw lessons and recommendations for improved performance in future food security responses. The overall purpose of this final evaluation is to analyze the level of achievement of the EFSP project goal, objectives and results and how these have been achieved. Specifically, the final evaluation will serve the following purposes: • Evaluate the achievements of the activity in relation to the goal, objectives, results and targets. • Evaluate the activity’s effects on local markets, and how it affected certain groups of interest (women and men; the youth population; boys and girls, etc.) • Evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the modality, transfers, and complementary interventions to achieve activity outcomes. • Identify best practices, lessons learned, strengths, and challenges in the activity design, including the Log frame, and implementation for achieving project achievements. 4. Evaluation questions The final evaluation will raise and analyze the key learnings and challenges as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, the project and its’ implementation have passed through and how well the project has managed them. It will investigate potential effects or impacts of the project on participants and their community knowledge, attitudes and practices. Illustrative evaluation questions include: a. Project Relevance – Did the project address priority problems faced by the target areas and communities and was the project consistent with recipient governments or agencies · What are the stakeholders’ opinions about the nature and quality of project implementation? · Under what circumstances and/or in what contexts would the program be replicable or could it be scaled-up? · Were the appropriate Government Department officials involved? · Was the project implementation strategy adjusted to accommodate field realities? If yes, in what way? · What lessons were learnt? · Recommendations for future project design. b. Project Efficiency – Were inputs (staff, time, money, equipment) used in the best possible way to achieve outputs; could implementation been improved/was there a better way of doing things · Did the project have adequate and the appropriate resources (human, financial and capital) for implementation? · If there were any lack/problem in resources/capacity, how was this addressed? · Assess the communication structure in place and its effectiveness in supporting the implementation of the program. · Were the quality control and accountability measures in place and consistently applied during the review, approval, fund disbursement, monitoring and reporting phases? · What lessons were learnt? · Recommendations for future project design. c. Project Effectiveness – Whether activities, outputs and outcomes have been achieved · How successful was the project in accomplishing each of its objectives? · Did the Monitoring and Evaluation system provide quality information that was appropriate and reliable in measuring the intended indicators? · To what extent was the project model effective in terms of its design, appropriateness, management and accountability? · What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? · How effective was the project in terms of program delivery (coordination, cooperation, efficiency, standardization)? · How appropriate were the strategies used to accomplish the planned activities? · Were humanitarian standards met and humanitarian principles followed? (Sphere, HAP, Codes of conduct)? · What lessons were learnt? · Recommendations for future project design. d. Project Impact – what changes are observed in the lives of the target group as a result of the implementation of the project? · What are the unintended positive and negative impacts of the implementation of the project? · Did the response reduce future vulnerabilities? · Which measures were taken to identify and reduce the negative effects of the project? · To what extent are the interventions improving the condition of affected communities? · How satisfied are the communities with the response? · Did the program demand more time from women? · To what extent was the project model effective in terms of its design, appropriateness, management and accountability? · What do the men and other household members (in-laws etc.) think about women’s participation in the program? · What gender specific issues have been addressed? · What lessons were learnt? · Recommendations for future project design e. Linkages, Layering, and Exit Strategies · To what extent did the project take advantage of other USG and on-USG investments in the same space to facilitate linkages with complementary services, layering with earlier investments, and implementing exit strategies to minimize the dependency on external support. · To what extend did the project align and integrate with host government social protection strategy/policy/service delivery? f. Sustainability - Continuation, maintenance and replication of the project outcomes by communities, local authorities and central government after funding assistance has ceased. · To what extent will the benefits of the program or project continue after donor funding ceases? Are the positive effects sustainable? · What were the major factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the program or project? · What sustainability drivers are evident? (Local Ownership, Partnering, Transformed Relationships, Local and National Advocacy, Household and Family Resilience)? · To what extent does the intervention reflect on and take into account factors that, by experience, have a major influence on sustainability like economic, ecological, social and cultural aspects? · Did the conditional nature/aspect of the project address any aspects of sustainability within the targeted communities? 5. Evaluation Methodology The methodology of the evaluation will be based on the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data and information in the intervention area. Results will be analysed against the baseline study findings. The purpose of the quantitative review will be to collect and analyse relevant data that will facilitate comparison of key indicators of success to determine the impact against objectives. The qualitative review will focus on gathering appropriate data that will facilitate a deeper understanding of processes and approaches, perceptions and behaviours and other factors that have contributed to the achievement and/or non-achievement of targets. Key indicators to be measured are provided in table 2 above. Participation of a wide cross-section of key stakeholders will be an essential part of the Final Evaluation including the following: § Emergency Food Security Program participants (including traders). § Local government entities (community elders, relevant ministries, local leadership). § EFSP project team, WV Somalia management team, Food Assistance team and PDQA team and implementing partners (ARD & CERID). § WVUS Program team. § Other WV sectors and agencies working in the same geographical area. 5.1. Qualitative Study Qualitative data will be collected through mixed-methods, including: semi-structured in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and observation. The evaluators must utilize a qualitative methodology, complemented by the review of secondary data related to the program. In the qualitative part of the evaluation, evaluators will utilize a purposeful sampling method, in alignment with USAID’s guidance that will include participants targeted by the project. Evaluators will develop a fuller description of the proposed implementation for the qualitative survey that utilizes the following tools/techniques: · Primary Tools/Techniques (Required): · Key informant interviews · Focus groups discussions · Direct observation · Review of secondary sources of information The evaluators will be expected to interview a broad number of individuals and groups. This will include, but not be limited to, program participants, program staff, government staff, and community leaders, elected district officials, and other external collaborators and stakeholders. In addition to interviews, the team is required to use direct observation, particularly of key activities such the rehabilitated or created assets. 5.2. Quantitative Survey Quantitative data will be collected with structured questionnaires. WV will try to the greatest extent possible to ensure that Endline data collection takes place at the same point in time/season as the baseline data was collected. Data collected will allow the validity and comparison of key indicators to be calculated; baseline values will be compared to final evaluation values using a statistical package (i.e. SPSS, STATA, SAS, CSPro, etc.). A test of difference for all key indicators will also be conducted to detect change. 5.2.1. Sampling Strategy The sampling framework will be developed based on the participant register to appropriately reflect the target population. A Multi-Stage Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) Cluster Sampling will be applied to determine the sample size. This will ensure that households in the different clusters have the same probability of selection. The sampling frame will include the following key elements collected at registration: • Unique household identification number • Household contact information (including name, physical location, phone number). • Household characteristics (gender composition, size, primary and secondary livelihood activities) • Intervention(s) received • Participant target criteria met The actual households to be interviewed will be selected from the participant register/database using systematic random sampling. This will help to ensure the sample size is statistically representative of program participants in the implementation areas. Feed The Future Sampling Guide for Beneficiary-based Surveys[3] provides a more detailed guide for sampling and calculating sample size aimed at improving the rigor of sampling. Sample sizes for FCS and HHS will be calculated separately and the largest sample size adopted. 6. Audience and Stakeholders There is a broad group of stakeholders who are interested in the achievements of this EFSP. The primary stakeholders will be considered direct participants of the program, including staff, and USAID. The following main audiences will utilize findings from this evaluation: · WV and implementing partners - To assess program achievement, draw lessons, generate knowledge, advocacy information and make decisions regarding the assistance/emergency response sector functioning and general programming; · Program participants (beneficiaries) - Use findings as an advocacy tool to the government and other development practitioners; · The donor (s) - to assess program worth and inform future funding decisions in the Project Locations and elsewhere; · The Government and district Local Authorities, where the Project was implemented and other related stakeholders: Inform policy, and future related interventions. 7. Deliverables & reporting requirements Inception Report: The consultant will prepare and submit an inception report describing detailed evaluation work plan, methodology, data collection tools and a detailed timeline. Draft questionnaires and other data collection tools will be submitted to WV for review and approval before data collection starts. As part of the inception report, the consultant must provide a data analysis plan showing the questions and analysis for each of the project indicators to be investigated. Preliminary Report: The consultant will submit a draft evaluation report to the Emergency Food Security Program team through supply chain. The draft report will be reviewed and comments provided on the report within a week of submission. Meeting/presentation to disseminate key (draft) findings to the EFSP team. Reactions to the preliminary report/presentation will be accommodated in the final report. Final Report: The consultant will submit detailed final report outlining the evaluation methodology, findings, lessons learned and recommendations. The report shall incorporate specific simple and achievable recommendations, including the most appropriate strategies that can be undertaken and/or incorporated by WVS and partners to attempt to address the issues identified. The final report should address the issues and questions raised in this ToR and correspond to the evaluation objectives set out above. The final report in both hard and electronic copies shall be made available to WV Somalia not later than May 28, 2019. The report should contain (but not limited to) the following: Executive Summary presenting the major findings and recommendations. A short description of the methodology used. A short description of the assessment context and process including its constraints and challenges. Detailed findings based on the study, including annexes of all the assessments from all communities, pictures, case studies and any quotations. Analysis of the findings (following the key questions outlined in the ToR). Program Accountability. Lessons learnt; conclusions and recommendations for the EFSP. The annexes of the report should contain (but not be limited to): The evaluation Terms of Reference. List of reference documents. Copies of tools used. List of people interviewed, with affiliation and contact details. Criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report[4] ü The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why. ü The evaluation report shall address all questions included in the scope of work. ü The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer? ü Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report. ü Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on men, women and youth. ü Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ü Evaluation findings should be presented as analysed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ü Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. ü Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. ü Recommendations should be action oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. ü The report shall be written in English and professionally edited. Other deliverables to accompany the final report include: Cleaned quantitative and qualitative data sets with the memo of the data cleaning process. Code book and Data dictionary. 8. Roles & responsibilities The consultant will report to the EFSP project team and be in day-to-day contact with the Accountability, Monitoring & Evaluation Officer and DM&E Managers/Officers in the field. WV Somalia will assist in logistical arrangements as much as possible and where necessary. WV Responsibilities during the evaluation · Conduct a review of and provide timely feedback and approval of all draft deliverables listed above under contractor responsibilities. · Provide an illustrative list of secondary data, made available to the evaluators at least one month before the start of the qualitative data collection activity. · Logistical and Administrative Guidance and Support: o Advise about local protocols and permissions to gain entry to operational areas o Arrange and fund all international flights and Somalia travel/ logistics, including visas. o Arrange accommodation and meals if necessary. o Source, hire and pay for enumerators if necessary. o Provide security briefing to consultants. o Arrange key information interviews and focus-group discussions as per the evaluation plan. o Review all plans/ tools before use. o Review all reports and provide feedback. o Liaise with local implementing partners on behalf of the consultant to plan data collection. Consultant/Team leader responsibilities during evaluation Ensure a thorough review and analysis of project and secondary data Lead the sample selection and outputs for primary data collection · Work with field staff to coordinate the evaluation schedule. · Training of the data collection teams and supervisors · Supervision of data collection and management · Verification of collected data. · Data entry, analysis and interpretation. · Ensure adequate triangulation and validation of evidence collected · Ensure that 1) final report presentation is logical, well-written, and presented in a way that clearly separated the evidence collected, conclusions, and recommendations in different sections of the report, and 2) all evidence, conclusions and recommendations are based on the evidence presented in the report; 9. Illustrative timeline The evaluation is expected to take 60 working days for all activities from the initial planning phase, extensive travel to collect qualitative and quantitative data from all the 8 field locations, report writing and presentation. Below is an illustrative timeline of the activities to be completed. The final report is expected no later than May 28, 2019. The schedule is summarized below: Activity/Task Deliverables Proposed Dates No. of Days 1. Advertise and recruit consultant(s) Qualified consultant/team selected March 11 – 31, 2019 21 days 2. Preliminary meeting with selected consultant to discuss expectations about key deliverables and other associated responsibilities. Common understanding & agreement on the way forward and expected deliverables. Signing of contract April 3, 2019 1 day 3. Literature review Development of the inception report including methodology, data collection tools, analysis plan and work plan for review, feedback and approval. Relevant documents reviewed and Inception Report developed April 4 – 10, 2019 5 days Submission and presentation of Inception Report Evaluation design with WV and partners Inception Report presented and approved. Agreement on work plan and related logistics April 11, 2019 1 day 5. Fieldwork • Community mobilization • Enumerator training • Pre-testing data collection tools. • Field data collection. Quantitative and Qualitative data collected in all project locations April 15 – May 10, 2019 20 days 6. Data management, analysis and draft report writing Complete and clean datasets Draft report May 13 – 22, 2019 8 days 7. Draft report submission and presentation Draft report submitted and presented to EFSP team May 23, 2019 1 days 8. Review/Refining of Draft Evaluation report based on feedback provided. Final report May 24 – 27, 2019 2 days 9. Submission of Final consolidated report. Final report submitted May 28, 2019 1 day Total Estimated Length of Evaluation 60 days 10. Consultant/Team Expertise Survey Team Composition, Qualification and Roles Team leader qualifications: Must possess a post-graduate degree in Humanitarian Studies, Disaster Management, Development Studies, Anthropology, applied research and/or relevant Social Sciences discipline. Must possess extensive evaluation experience using mixed methods in developing countries Must possess prior experience/knowledge in both quantitative and qualitative approach and survey design · At least 7 years of proven working experience in the context of Somalia, knowledge of the regional context and languages will be an advantage. · Must be experienced in evaluation of food security programs, with strong preference toward USAID FFP programs. · Proven experience with natural resource management planning processes, policy development or reform, multi-stakeholder platforms or expert networking in environment -related context, in relation to sustainable development / poverty issues in developing economy context. · Experience in the use of participatory methodologies and developing equality and gender sensitive evaluation methodologies. · Familiarity with international quality and accountability standards applied in emergencies. · Strong analytical and conceptual skills. · Excellent facilitation skills, co-ordination, negotiation skills and oral and written communication skills in English (particularly report writing). · Excellent written and spoken communications skills in English. · Experience in assessing organizational capacity and gaps and ability to recommend the corrective measures. [1] Particular reference to Tropical Cyclone Sagar that stormed across the Gulf of Aden and made landfall in Somaliland in May 2018 [2] Last Mile Mobile Solutions – WV beneficiary and program data management system [3] https://ift.tt/2HAdwYL... [4] Adopted as is from the USAID Evaluation policy, January 2011’s Appendix 1 How to apply: Each application should include at minimum: List of person(s) to be involved in the consultancy with a detailed CV for each. Description of the methodology to be used while conducting the evaluation, including sampling strategy, sample size, data collection methods, proposed types of data collection tools, and data analysis plan Financial Proposal in US Dollars (US$): The financial proposal should provide cost estimates for services to be rendered. At least three (3) references of individuals or organizations that EFSP project team can contact to get more information on the quality and experience of the consultant(s) Proof of previous work done. This should be in the form of at least two reports produced for previous work done. WV will ensure the confidentiality of these reports. Applications should be submitted electronically to somo_supplychain@wvi.org on or before March 30th, 2019

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More