Request for Proposals
Household Food Consumption Indicators Study Data Analysis Consultancy
Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA)
RFP Date of Issuance:
Due date for Application:
Availability:
Place of Performance:
August 9, 2013
26 August, 2013 by 5:00pm GMT
September 9, 2013 – February 28, 2014 (up to 78 days)
Remote work
Interested parties should send the following documents via email to Laura M. Glaeser, the Technical
Manager for this consultancy, at lglaeser@fhi360.org




1.
Curriculum Vitae
FHI 360 Biodata Form
Proposed daily rate
A letter of interest identifying how the consultant plans to reach the deliverables of this Request
as well as what experience/education/skills they bring to the consultancy.
Objective
The objective of this consultancy is to assist FANTA in an exploratory analysis of the relationships among
select household food consumption indicators (based on available secondary data) and between these
indicators and a common scale established to classify the severity of acute food insecurity.
It is anticipated that the study findings will be published for public reference and will inform stakeholder
discussions to improve the accuracy of acute food insecurity severity classifications.
Under the general direction of the Technical Manager identified above, the selected Household Food
Consumption Indicators Study Data Analysis Consultant will be responsible for:
 Conducting a desk review of pertinent secondary information
 Developing a data analysis protocol and analyzing previously collected data, as well as any other
available data that may be of use
 Writing up findings, results, and recommended next steps for key stakeholders based on this
analysis
 Participating in a consultation regarding the applicability of non-HEA study findings to HEA
outcome analysis findings and the broader IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for
Household Classification
2.
Background
FANTA and the USAID-funded Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), in technical
consultation with the Food Insecurity Phase Classification’s (IPC’s) Global Support Unit (GSU) and the
United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), are undertaking a collaborative research initiative to
study the relationships between several of the household food consumption indicators the IPC’s Acute
Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification employs, and how these indicators’
ranges relate to one another and to the table’s five levels of food insecurity severity.
The IPC is a set of protocols that aims to provide food security technicians and decision-makers with
timely, reliable, comparable, and accessible information on food security conditions and outcomes at
the household and/or area (e.g., livelihood zone, administrative unit) level. The protocols consist of
several resources, including an analytical framework for classifying the severity of acute food insecurity
and tools for integrating and classifying existing food security information at national and sub-national
levels according to a standard scale.
One such tool is the Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification. This
table provides a general description, reference outcomes, and priority response objectives for five
phases (Phase 1 – No Acute Food Insecurity, Phase 2 – Stressed, Phase 3 – Crisis, Phase 4 – Emergency,
Phase 5 – Catastrophe) of acute food insecurity at the household level1. This table facilitates
classification of acute food insecurity severity for a given geographic area or livelihood zone into one of
the aforementioned phases using information on household outcomes (e.g., food consumption and
livelihood change) and contributing factors (e.g., food availability, access, utilization, stability; and
hazards and vulnerability).
This research initiative focuses specifically on the household outcomes portion of this table and, within
that, several of the indicators used to classify household food consumption2 including: the household
hunger scale3 (HHS) – measured directly or derived from Household Food Insecurity Access Scale4
(HFIAS) data, the household dietary diversity score5 (HDDS), the coping strategies index6,7 (CSI), the food
consumption score8 (FCS), and outcome analysis from the household economy approach9,10 (HEA). In
particular, this study seeks to examine how the ranges of food insecurity severity each indicator
measures relate to one another and to the phases of severity set out in the IPC. The findings of this
study will improve our understanding of the relationships among household food consumption
indicators and will contribute to stakeholder discussions to improve the accuracy of classification of
acute food insecurity severity.
1
The Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification is available at:
http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC-Manual-2-Interactive.pdf, page 33.
2
Quantity is another among the household food consumption indicators the IPC employs, but is not an indicator of focus for this research
initiative given challenges finding related reliable data.
3
The indicator guide for this indicator is available at: http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/HHS_Indicator_Guide_Aug2011.pdf.
4
The indicator guide for this indicator is available at: http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/HFIAS_v3_Aug07.pdf.
5
The indicator guide for this indicator is available at: http://www.fantaproject.org/downloads/pdfs/HDDS_v2_Sep06.pdf.
6
The IPC employs the full CSI, adapted to country context.
7
Methods information for the collection of this indicator are available at:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp211058.pdf.
8
Methods information for collection of this indicator is available at:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp196629.pdf and
http://home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/manual_guide_proced/wfp203246.pdf.
9
Methods information for the collection of these indicators is available at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/onlinelibrary/
practitioners%E2%80%99-guide-household-economy-approach.
10 HEA outcome analysis indicators will be analyzed in a separate part of this study. Direct analysis of HEA outcome analysis indicators is not
included in the scope of this consultancy.
2
To explore these questions, FANTA designed this consultancy, which includes: a desk review of literature
relevant to this study topic; a review of current available secondary data, which includes at least two of
the aforementioned indicators; the design of an analysis protocol for the data and analysis of applicable
data; a write up of findings, results, and recommended next steps based on the analysis; and
participation in a consultation to discuss how analysis findings relate to the broader IPC Acute Food
Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification.
To date, various research collaborators have shared several cross-sectional data sets for use in this
study. To be included, the collected data sets had to meet the following minimum criteria:
1. Include at least two of the aforementioned food consumption indicators
2. Include data sufficient to be representative of a given population
3. Include clearly articulated supporting information on data collection methods and protocols,
and data collection instruments for reference
4. Include high quality, clean data (including removal of any personal identifiers), and notes
regarding any sampling weights and design variables (e.g., cluster variables) necessary for
analysis
5. Include a sample size of at least 200 for each indicator to be analyzed (see Attachments for the
full data solicitation).
Data sets currently available for analysis under this consultancy include:
 Ethiopia 2012 (HDDS, CSI, FCS, HHS)
 Kenya 2010, 2012 (FCS, CSI)
 Mongolia 2008 (HDDS, HFIAS)
 Pakistan 2008, 2012 (HDDS, CSI and FCS, CSI)
 Somalia 2010, 2011, 2012 (HDDS, CSI)
 South Sudan 2012 (HDDS, HHS, CSI)
 Uganda 2011, 2012 (HDDS, CSI)
 Zimbabwe 2010, 2011, 2012 (FCS, CSI)
These data sets will be shared with the consultant selected to carry out this analysis.
3.
Specific Activities
FANTA anticipates that the selected Household Food Consumption Indicators Study Data Analysis
Consultant will complete the majority of activities associated with this consultancy by the end of 2013,
and all associated activities by the end of February 2014. Additional information follows on the specific
activities that compose this consultancy, including anticipated deliverables and associated levels of
effort.
I.
Desk review and synthesis write up
While this study explores relationships among select household food consumption indicators
within the context of the IPC, other stakeholders have engaged in similar analyses of
relationships among these and related indicators which may provide useful context for and/or
inform or otherwise complement this study. Therefore, the first activity of this consultancy is to
conduct a desk review of available published and gray literature on similar analyses. FANTA and
FEWS NET have compiled a working bibliography of such documents, all of which the consultant
will review and to which the consultant will be expected to add. From this review, the
3
consultant will draft a synthesis of key findings. This synthesis will serve as part of the
‘background’ section of the eventual full write up of this study. It is anticipated that this desk
review will inform and/or otherwise assist the selected consultant in conceptualizing a data
analysis protocol for the data to be analyzed later in this consultancy. Once drafted, the selected
consultant will submit the draft desk review synthesis to the Technical Manager (Laura Glaeser),
who will constitute a committee to review the document. The Technical Manager will provide
review committee feedback to the selected consultant, and the consultant will finalize the
document, submitting the final version of the synthesis to the Technical Manager for approval.
Deliverable(s): Draft synthesis of desk review findings document (to be included in the
‘Background’ section of the full technical write up for this consultancy); estimated maximum
page length: 10 pages
Estimated level of effort (LOE): 15 business days, inclusive of the review and drafting
(approximately 12 business days), as well as finalization (approximately 3 business days) of the
desk review synthesis
II. Confirmation of usability of collected data and identification of additional secondary data to be
included in the analysis
Before analysis of the data collected for this study can begin, it is necessary to confirm that the
currently available data includes the information needed to carry out the proposed analysis.
The Technical Manager will therefore provide the selected consultant with the data sets
collected to date for this study so that s/he can review them and gather additional information
from the technical collaborators who provided them, as needed.
The desired result of this study, to the extent possible given the data available, is an analysis
that addresses all four non-HEA indicators11, using as many of the above-listed and/or
subsequently collected data sets as possible. As such, in addition to analyzing the previously
collected data sets, the selected consultant will be asked to identify any other data sets
potentially useful to this study that s/he comes across (e.g., during the desk review in Activity I)
and inform the Technical Manager of these data sets. The Technical Manager will then follow
up with the data holders about the possibility of also using the identified data for this study.
Deliverable(s): Additional data sets, as available
Estimated LOE: 5 business days, inclusive of confirmation of existing data and identification of
additional data
III. Data analysis protocol development
Assuming usability of a sufficient sub-set of the collected data sets, the selected consultant will
develop a draft analysis protocol for how the data will be analyzed in this study. The draft
analysis protocol should include: a description of analytic methods the selected consultant will
apply to analyze available data given geographic, temporal, and indicator variety (e.g., type of
correlation analysis and statistical tests proposed; discussion of whether receiver operator curve
and/or specificity/sensitivity analyses can be applied; explanation of the methods that will be
used to combine findings across the analysis of individual data sets to generate overall
11
HHS (measured directly or derived from HFIAS), HDDS, CSI, and FCS.
4
conclusions regarding how the indicators relate to one another). ‘Dummy’ tables should be
included in the draft analysis protocol to complement the proposed analysis description. Once
drafted, the selected consultant will submit the proposed analysis protocol to the Technical
Manager, who will constitute a committee to review the document. The Technical Manager will
provide review committee feedback to the selected consultant, and the consultant will finalize
the document, submitting the final version of the analysis protocol to the Technical Manager for
approval before beginning data analysis.
Deliverable(s): Draft data analysis protocol; estimated maximum page length: 10 pages
Estimated LOE: 15 business days, inclusive of drafting (approximately 10 business days) and
finalization (approximately 5 business days) of the data analysis protocol
IV. Data analysis and findings write up
The current acute food insecurity phase classification for household groups applies cut-off
values for some indicators (e.g., HDDS), uses prevalence classified in a particular category in
other indicators (e.g., HHS), and measures change from a reference baseline in still other
indicators (e.g., FCS, CSI, HEA). FANTA is interested in explorations of all of these elements to
better understand the relationships among the indicators employed and between the indicators
and the current acute food insecurity phase classification for household groups.12 In particular,
FANTA would like the selected consultant to examine:
 How the range of indicator values for continuous indicators and the defined cut-off
values for categorical indicators relate to one another.
 How these relationships change if alternative indicator thresholds are used.
 From this, an exploration as to how the indicator values and defined indicator cut-off
values (both current and potential) relate to the current phase cut-offs in the IPC Acute
Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group Classification.
As with the other written deliverables in this consultancy, the selected consultant will submit
the draft data analysis report to the Technical Manager, who will constitute a committee to
review the document. The Technical Manager will provide review committee feedback to the
selected consultant, and the consultant will finalize the document, submitting the final version
of the data analysis process and findings to the Technical Manager for approval before
beginning the full technical write up.
Deliverable(s): A draft report of the analytic process (e.g., methods) and findings, including all
materials associated with data analysis (e.g., data tables, graphs, charts); estimated maximum
page length: 30 pages
Estimated LOE: 25 business days, inclusive of data analysis and drafting (approximately 20
business days) and finalization (approximately 5 business days) of the write up
V.
Full technical report write up
12
Additional information on these indicators and the methods used in the IPC reference tables is available at:
http://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/IPC-Manual-2-Interactive.pdf, pages 96-98.
5
The end result of this analysis will be a technical report, prepared by the selected consultant,
which includes: an executive summary; a background section, including a description of the
existing literature on the relationships among these indicators and between these indicators and
other measures of food security (a draft of which will have been completed in Activity I); the
contributions of the findings of this analysis to the literature; the methodologies/protocols
applied to undertake this analysis (a draft of which will have been completed in Activities III and
IV); the results of this analysis (a draft of which will have been completed in Activity IV),
including the limitations of these results given the heterogeneity of the data available for the
study; the broad implications of this analysis for this study initiative (e.g., how the indicator
values and defined indicator cut-off values relate to the current IPC phase cut-offs), related
recommendations, and suggested next steps for additional data collection and analysis and/or
revision of the current Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Group
Classification. Once the selected consultant has drafted the full write up, s/he will submit it to
the Technical Manager, who will constitute a final review committee. The Technical Manager
will provide review committee feedback to the consultant, who will then finalize the write up.
Deliverable(s): Draft and final full technical write up documents; estimated maximum page
length: 60 pages
Estimated LOE: 15 business days – inclusive of drafting (approximately 10 business days) and
finalization (approximately 5 business days) of the write up
VI. Participation in consultation regarding the relationship of non-HEA and HEA study findings to
the phases of food insecurity severity set out in the IPC
Another important aspect of this study is to better understand the relationship between the
household outcomes as measured by non-HEA indicators, those measured by HEA analysis, and
the phases of severity of food insecurity set out in the IPC (e.g., how do the non-HEA indicator
values and defined indicator cut-off values and the HEA outcome analysis, to be conducted
separately, relate to the broader IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household
Group Classification). To complete this activity, FANTA and FEWS NET will facilitate a
consultation among FANTA, FEWS NET, the IPC GSU, WFP, and the HEA indicator analyst(s), the
output of which will be a series of recommendations to the IPC Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
as to suggested revisions to the current Table giving relevant findings from these analyses. It is
anticipated that the selected consultant will participate in this consultation, as well as in the
finalization of recommendations from the consultation, which FANTA and FEWS NET will then
present to the TAG.
Deliverable(s): Participation in a consultation among FEWS NET, FANTA, the IPC GSU, WFP, and
the HEA indicator analyst(s); participation in finalization of consultation recommendations
Estimated LOE: 3 days, inclusive of participation in and finalization of recommendations from
the consultation
Activity
Desk review and synthesis write up
Confirmation of usability of collected data and identification of
additional secondary data to be included in the analysis
Estimated LOE (business days)
15
5
6
Data analysis protocol development
Data analysis and findings write up
Full technical report write up
15
25
15
Participation in consultations regarding the relationship of non-HEA
and HEA study findings to the food insecurity severity phases set out
in the IPC
Total
4.
3
78
Deliverables and Timeline
The consultant shall submit the deliverables listed below to the Technical Manager according to the
following schedule:
Deliverable
Submission of DRAFT desk review synthesis
Submission of FINAL desk review synthesis
Confirmation of currently available secondary
data and identification of additional secondary
data
Submission of DRAFT data analysis protocol
Scheduled Deadline
Within 12 business days of signing consulting contract
Within 3 business days of receipt of reviewer feedback
on DRAFT desk review
Within 5 business days of submission of FINAL desk
review
Within 10 business days of confirmation of available
secondary data OR within 10 business days of receipt
of complete and applicable additional secondary data
Submission of FINAL data analysis protocol
Within 5 business days of receipt of reviewer feedback
on DRAFT data analysis protocol
Submission of DRAFT data analysis process and Within 20 business days of receipt of approval of
findings
submitted FINAL data analysis protocol
Submission of FINAL data analysis process and Within 5 business days of receipt of reviewer feedback
findings
on the DRAFT data analysis
Submission of DRAFT full technical report
Within 10 business days of receipt of approval of
submitted FINAL data analysis process and findings
Submission of FINAL full technical report
Within 5 business days of receipt of reviewer feedback
on the DRAFT full technical report
Participation
in
consultation
and Participation in consultation as scheduled,
recommendations finalization
participation in finalization of recommendations
within 3 business days of receipt of draft
recommendations
5.
Skills and Qualifications (characteristics noted are required, unless otherwise specified)

A Master’s Degree or higher (PhD preferred) in nutrition, food security, public health, or a
statistics-related field
7






Demonstrated expertise in statistics and quantitative data analysis methods. Experience
carrying out receiver operator characteristic curve analysis and sensitivity/specificity analysis is
preferred.
Experience designing and implementing analysis protocols for quantitative data from multiple
data sets and a variety of sources; experience designing and implementing quantitative data
analysis protocols for food security indicators preferred
Fluency in quantitative data storage and analysis software, including STATA, SPSS, and SAS
Familiarity with common indicators for and current research on household food consumption
indicators preferred
Ability to translate technical analysis findings into easily-absorbable report documents,
PowerPoint presentations, etc.
Strong written and oral communication skills
Evaluation matrix:
Criteria
Education
Expertise
in
statistics
and
quantitative data analysis methods
Point value
No masters – 0; Masters – 1; Above Masters – 2
No experience – 0; Demonstrated experience in statistics and
quantitative data analysis methods – 1; Expertise carrying out
receiver operator characteristic curve analysis and
sensitivity/specificity analysis – 2
Experience
designing
and No experience – 0; Experience designing/implementing
implementing quantitative data quantitative data analysis protocols – 1; Experience
analysis protocols
designing/implementing quantitative data analysis protocols for
food security indicators – 2
Experience with quantitative data
No experience – 0; Experience – 1; One additional point for each
storage and analysis software
software type
Familiarity with household food
No familiarity – 0; Familiarity - 1
consumption indicators
Experience translating technical
No experience – 0; Experience - 1
analysis into more easily understood
forms (e.g., reports, presentations)
Well-presented CV (proxy for
Clear, well-presented CV – 1
written communication skills)
6.
Compensation and Payment Schedule


7.
Compensation will be at a daily rate (LOE)
Payment will be made on receipt and acceptance of the deliverables outlined in Section 4 of this
document.
Disclaimers


FHI 360 may cancel this solicitation and not award.
FHI 360 may reject any or all responses received.
8







Issuance of solicitation does not constitute award commitment by FHI 360.
FHI 360 reserves the right to disqualify any offer based on offeror failure to follow solicitation
instructions.
FHI 360 will not compensate offerors for response to solicitation.
FHI 360 reserves the right to issue award based on initial evaluation of offers without further
discussion.
FHI 360 may choose to award only part of the activities in the solicitation, or issue multiple
awards based on the solicitation activities.
FHI 360 reserves the right to waive minor proposal deficiencies that can be corrected prior to
award determination to promote competition.
FHI 360 will contact all offerors to confirm contact person, address and that bid was submitted
for this solicitation.
Certification of Independent Price Determination
(a) By submitting an offer, the offeror certifies that-(1) The prices in this offer have been arrived at independently, without, for the purpose of restricting
competition, any consultation, communication, or agreement with any other offeror, including but not
limited to subsidiaries or other entities in which offeror has any ownership or other interests, or any
competitor relating to (i) those prices, (ii) the intention to submit an offer, or (iii) the methods or factors
used to calculate the prices offered;
(2) The prices in this offer have not been and will not be knowingly disclosed by the offeror, directly or
indirectly, to any other offeror, including but not limited to subsidiaries or other entities in which offeror
has any ownership or other interests, or any competitor before bid opening (in the case of a sealed bid
solicitation) or contract award (in the case of a negotiated or competitive solicitation) unless otherwise
required by law; and
(3) No attempt has been made or will be made by the offeror to induce any other concern or individual
to submit or not to submit an offer for the purpose of restricting competition or influencing the
competitive environment.
(b) Each signature on the offer is considered to be a certification by the signatory that the signatory-(1) Is the person in the offeror's organization responsible for determining the prices being offered in this
bid or proposal, and that the signatory has not participated and will not participate in any action
contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above; or
(2) (i) Has been authorized, in writing, to act as agent for the principals of the offeror in certifying that
those principals have not participated, and will not participate in any action contrary to subparagraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(3) above; (ii) As an authorized agent, does certify that the principals of the offeror
have not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) above; and (iii) As an agent, has not personally participated, and will not participate, in any action
contrary to subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) above.
(c) Offeror understands and agrees that --
9
(1) Violation of this certification will result in immediate disqualification from this solicitation without
recourse and may result in disqualification from future solicitations; and
(2) Discovery of any violation after award to the offeror will result in the termination of the award for
default.
10