Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
URAIA TRUST
CALL FOR PROPOSAL
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION- ROOTING
DEMOCRACY IN KENYA THROUGH AN
INFORMED CITIZENRY – PHASE 1:
CLOSING DATE AND TIME
27TH OF JULY 2015 BY 4 PM
………………………………………………………………………
1
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
Table of Contents
SECTION I
- LETTER OF INVITATION ....................................................... 3
SECTION II – INFORMATION TO CONSULTANTS (ITC) ...................................... 4
Appendix to Information to Consultants ...................................................... 8
SECTION III: - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ............................................................ 9
SECTION IV: - FINANCIAL PROPOSAL ........................................................... 17
SECTION V: - TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CARRYING OUT END OF PROJECT
EVALUATION-ROOTING DEMOCRACY IN KENYA THROUGH AN INFORMED
CITIZENRY –PHASE 1 .................................................................................. 19
2
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SECTION I -
LETTER OF INVITATION
Date: 16th of July 2015
RE:
1.1
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION-ROOTING DEMOCRACY IN
KENYA THROUGH AN INFORMED CITIZENRY-PHASE 1
Uraia Trust invites your firm to submit a Technical Proposal and a Financial Proposal
for carrying out an end of project evaluation. The overall objective of this evaluation is
to determine whether the project achieved its intended results.
1.2
The Request For Proposals (RFP) includes the following documents:
Section I
Letter of invitation
Section II
Information to consultants
Appendix to Consultants information
Section III
Technical Proposal
Section IV
Financial Proposal
Section V
Terms of Reference
1.3
Upon receipt, please inform us
(a)
that you have received the letter of invitation
(b)
whether or not you will submit a proposal for the assignment
Yours sincerely
Nancy Wamwea
HEAD OF PROGRAMMES
URAIA TRUST
3
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SECTION II – INFORMATION TO CONSULTANTS (ITC)
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1 Uraia Trust invites your organization to submit a Technical Proposal and a Financial
Proposal, for carrying out an end of project evaluation.
2.1.2 Please note that the costs of preparing the proposal and of negotiating the contract,
including any visit to Uraia Trust are not reimbursable as a direct cost of the assignment.
2.1.3 Uraia Trust’s employees, board members, or any organizations associated with them are
not eligible to participate.
2.1.4 The tender document will be given at no cost.
2.2
Clarification and Amendment of RFP Documents
2.2.1 Your organization may request a clarification of any of the request for proposal
documents only up to 3 days before the proposal submission date. Any request for
clarification must be sent in writing by email using the address indicated in the
Appendix “Information to Consultants”. Uraia Trust will respond in writing to such
requests.
2.3
Preparation of Technical Proposal
2.3.1 Your proposal shall be written in English language.
2.3.2 In preparing the Technical Proposal, you are expected to examine the documents
constituting this request for proposal in detail.
2.3.3 The Technical Proposal shall provide the following information using the attached
Standard Forms;
(i)
A brief description of your organization and an outline of three (3) recent
experiences on assignments of a similar nature. The outline should indicate inter
alia, the profiles of the staff proposed, duration of the assignment, contract
amount and firm’s involvement.
(ii)
Any comments or suggestions on the Terms of Reference, a list of services and
facilities to be provided by Uraia Trust.
(iii)
A description of the methodology and work plan for performing the assignment.
4
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
2.3.4.
(iv)
The list of the proposed staff team by specialty, the tasks that would be assigned
to each staff team member and their timing.
(v)
CVs for the proposed professional staff recently signed and certified by the
representative submitting the proposal. Key information should include number
of years working for the firm/entity and degree of responsibility held in various
assignments during the last three (3) years.
(vi)
In addition to the above information provided through the standard documents.
The consultant is expected to provide 3 end of project evaluation reports (attach
only the cover page, table of content and executive summary.) This reports
should be for the assignments indicated in the standard document on page 10
(vii)
Please attach three (3) recommendation letters from clients whose reports you
have attached.
The Technical Proposal shall not include any financial information.
2.4.
Preparation of Financial Proposal
2.4.1
In preparing the Financial Proposal, your organization is expected to take into account
the requirements and conditions outlined in the request for proposal documents.
2.4.2 Financial Proposal should follow Standard Forms (page 18). The Consultant must
indicate all costs associated with this assignment i.e. the professional fee and any
other cost that will be incurred by the consultant as he/she carries out the
assignment.
2.4.3 The Financial Proposal should clearly identify as a separate amount, the local taxes,
duties or other charges imposed under the law.
2.4.4 Your organization shall quote the price for the assignment in Kenya Shillings.
2.4.5 The Proposal must remain valid for 90 days after the submission date. During this
period, your organization is expected to keep available, at your own cost, the
professional staff proposed for the assignment. Uraia Trust will make its best effort to
complete negotiations within this period. If Uraia Trust wishes to extend the validity
period of the proposals, your organization shall be consulted to agree to the extension.
2.5
Submission, Receipt, and Opening of Proposals
2.5.1 The original proposal (Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal) shall be prepared in
indelible ink. It shall contain no alterations or overwriting, except as necessary to
correct errors made by your firm itself. Any such corrections must be initialed by the
persons or person authorized to sign the proposals.
2.5.2 The Technical Proposal shall be placed in a sealed envelope clearly marked
“TECHNICAL PROPOSAL,” and the Financial Proposal in a sealed envelope clearly
5
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
marked “FINANCIAL PROPOSAL”. Both envelopes shall be placed into an outer
envelope and sealed. This outer envelope shall be labeled TENDER FOR END OF
PROJECT EVALUATION-ROOTING DEMOCRACY IN KENYA FOR
INFORMED CITIZENRY-PHASE 1 and shall bear the submission address and other
information indicated in the Appendix “Information to Consultants”.
2.5.3 The completed Technical and Financial Proposals must be delivered at the submission
address on or before the time and date stated in the Appendix “Information to
Consultants”. Any proposal received after the closing time for submission of proposals
shall be returned to the respective consultant unopened.
2.5.4 Evaluators of Technical Proposals shall have no access to the Financial Proposals until
the technical evaluation is concluded.
2.6. Evaluation of Technical Proposal
2.6.1
The evaluation committee appointed by the Uraia Trust shall evaluate the proposals on
the basis of their responsiveness to the Terms of Reference, applying the evaluation
criteria as follows
1
2
3
4
Specific experience of the consultant/firm in
undertaking similar assignments
Clarity and adequacy of the proposed work plan
and
methodology in responding to the terms
of reference
Qualifications and competence of
the key staff for the assignment (minimum 3)
Clarity and adequacy of Financial Proposal
Points
20
30
20
30
2.6.2
Each proposal will be evaluated and given a technical score based on the criteria
specified in 2.6.1. The financial proposals will not be opened until all technical
proposals have been evaluated and awarded the technical score.
2.7.
Evaluation of Financial Proposal
2.7.1 The financial proposal will not be opened until all technical proposals have been
evaluated and awarded technical scores.
2.7.2. The evaluation of the financial proposal shall be of the price including all costs as well
as duties and taxes payable on all the materials to be used in carrying out of the
assignment. The total score for the financial proposal is 30 points
6
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
2.8
Negotiations
2.8.1 Negotiations will be held with the winning firm at the same address as “address to send
information to the Client” indicated in the Appendix “Information to Consultants”. The
aim is to reach agreement on all points and sign a contract.
2.8.2 Negotiations will include a discussion of the Technical Proposal, the proposed
methodology (work plan), staffing and any suggestions made by your organization to
improve the Terms of Reference. Uraia Trust and your organization will then work out
final Terms of Reference, indicating activities, and reporting. The agreed work plan
and final Terms of Reference will then be incorporated in the “Description of Services”
and form part of the Contract. Special attention will be paid to getting the most your
organization can offer within the available budget and to clearly defining the inputs
required from Uraia Trust to ensure satisfactory implementation of the assignment.
2.8.3 The negotiations will conclude with a review of the draft contract. Upon completion of
negotiations Uraia Trust and the selected firm will initial the agreed Contract. If
negotiations fail, Uraia Trust will invite the firm whose proposal received the second
highest score to negotiate a contract.
2.9
2.9.1
Award of Contract
The Contract will be awarded following negotiations. After negotiations are completed,
Uraia Trust will promptly notify other organizations on the shortlist that they were
unsuccessful.
2.10
Confidentiality
2.10.1
Information relating to evaluation of proposals and recommendations concerning
awards shall not be disclosed to any organization that submitted the proposals or to other
persons not officially concerned with the process, until the winning firm has been
notified that it has been awarded the Contract.
2.11
Corrupt or fraudulent practices
2.11.1.
The procuring entity requires that the consultants observe the highest standards of ethics
during the selection and award of the consultancy contract and also during the
performance of the assignment.
2.11.2.
The procuring entity will reject a proposal for award if it determines that the consultant
recommended for award has engaged in any corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing
for the contract in question.
7
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
Appendix to Information to Consultants
This section shall complement or amend the provisions of the information to consultants,
wherever there is a conflict between the provisions of the information to consultants and
the provisions of the appendix, the provisions of the appendix herein shall prevail over
those of the information to consultants.
Clause Reference
2.1.1 The name of the Client is: Uraia Trust
2.1.1 Technical and Financial Proposals are expected to be submitted for End of Project
Evaluation-Rooting Democracy in Kenya for informed citizenry-Phase 1. The overall
objective of this evaluation is to determine whether the project achieved its intended
results.
2.2.
The email address to send information to the Uraia Trust is: info@uraia.or.ke.
2.5.1 The Technical and financial Proposals must be sealed in separate envelope clearly
marked “TECHNICAL PROPOSAL,” and “FINANCIAL PROPOSAL”. Both
envelopes shall be sealed in an outer envelope labeled TENDER FOR END OF
PROJECT EVALUATION-ROOTING DEMOCRACY IN KENYA FOR
INFORMED CITIZENRY-PHASE 1
2.5.3
The proposal submission address is:
Head of Programmes
Uraia Trust
P. O. Box 28151-00100
Nairobi
Physical address:
Uraia House,
Jacaranda Avenue,
off Gitanga Road
Lavington, Nairobi.
2.5.3
Proposals must be submitted no later than 27th of July 2015 by 4pm
8
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SECTION III: - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM
[_______________ Date]
To: Uraia Trust
Ladies/Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, offer to assist in carrying out End of Project Evaluation in accordance
with your Request for Proposal dated ______________________ [Date] and our Proposal. We
are hereby submitting our Proposal, which includes this Technical Proposal, [and a Financial
Proposal sealed under a separate envelop.
We remain,
Yours sincerely,
_____________________________________________ [Authorized Signature]:
_____________________________________________ [Name and Title of Signatory]
_________________________________ ____________ [Name of Firm]
_________________________________ _____________ [Address:]
_______________________________________________[Telephone]
_______________________________________________[Email]
9
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
FIRM’S REFERENCES
1. Using the table below please indicate assignments of similar nature carried out
for 3 clients in the last five years that best illustrate your qualifications.
2. Attach a report for each of the three assignment (attach only the cover page,
table of content and executive summary)
3. Attach a recommendation letter from the three clients as per the listed
assignment and attached reports
PLEASE NOTE: LIST AND ATTACH ONLY THREE
ASSIGNMENTS/REPORTS/RECOMMENDATION LETTERS
.
Assignment Name:
Country
Location within Country:
Professional Staff provided by Your
Name of Client:
Firm/Entity(profiles):
Clients contact person for the assignment.
Address:
Start Date (Month/Year):
Completion Date
(Month/Year):
No of Staff-Months; Duration of
Assignment:
Approx. Value of Services (Kshs)
Name of Associated Consultants. If any:
No of Months of Professional
Staff provided by Associated Consultants:
Name of Senior Staff (Project Director/Coordinator, Team Leader) Involved and Functions Performed:
Narrative Description of project:
Description of Actual Services Provided by Your Staff:
10
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF YOUR FIRM ON THE TERMS
OF REFERENCE AND ON DATA, SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO BE
PROVIDED BY THE URAIA TRUST.
On the Terms of Reference:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
On the data, services and facilities to be provided by the Client:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
11
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY AND WORK PLAN FOR
PERFORMING THE ASSIGNMENT
12
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
TEAM COMPOSITION AND TASK ASSIGNMENTS
1. Technical/Managerial Staff
Name
Position
Task
13
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
FORMAT OF CURRICULUM VITAE (CV) FOR PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL
STAFF
Name of Firm:
_________________________________________________________________
Name of Staff:
__________________________________________________________________
Profession:
_____________________________________________________________________
Date of Birth:
__________________________________________________________________
Years with Firm: __________________________Nationality: ______________________
Membership in Professional Societies: __________________________________________
Detailed Tasks Assigned:
_______________________________________________________
14
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
Key Qualifications:
[Give an outline of staff member’s experience and training most pertinent to tasks on
assignment. Describe degree of responsibility held by staff member on relevant previous
assignments and give dates and locations].
Education:
[Summarize college/university and other specialized education of staff member, giving
names of schools, dates attended and degree[s] obtained.]
Employment Record:
[Starting with present position, list in reverse order every employment held. List all
positions held by staff member since graduation, giving dates, names of employing
organizations, titles of positions held, and locations of assignments.]
Certification:
15
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
I, the undersigned, certify that these data correctly describe me, my qualifications, and
my experience.
_________________________________________________________ Date:
________________
[Signature of staff member]
___________________________________________________________________ Date;
______________
[Signature of authorized representative of the firm]
Full name of staff member:
_____________________________________________________
Full name of authorized representative:
_________________________________________
16
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SECTION IV: - FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM
________________[ Date]
To:
Uraia Trust
P. O. Box 28151-00100
Nairobi
Ladies/Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, offer to assist in carrying out End of Project Evaluation in accordance
with your Request for Proposal dated (__________________) [Date] and our Proposal. Our
attached Financial Proposal is for the sum of
(_________________________________________________________________) [Amount
in words and figures] inclusive of the taxes.
We remain,
Yours sincerely,
17
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Costs
Currency(ies)
Amount(s)
Subtotal
Taxes
Total Amount of Financial Proposal
__________________
______________________________________________[Authorized Signature]
________________________________________________ [Name and Title of Signatory]:
_______________________________________________ [Name of Firm]
_______________________________________________ [Address]
18
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
SECTION V: - TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR CARRYING OUT END
OF PROJECT EVALUATION-ROOTING DEMOCRACY IN KENYA
THROUGH AN INFORMED CITIZENRY –PHASE 1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 About Uraia Trust.
The Uraia Trust is a national organization that seeks to promote democratic transformation in
Kenya, through facilitating citizens’ engagement with governance processes while improving
their civic competence on rights and responsibilities. It is a successor of the Kenya National
Civic Education Programme – (NCEP I) that started in 2000, against a backdrop of increased
demand for democracy and good governance in Kenya and its second phase - NCEP II that
was concluded in June 2011. It has played a significant role in democratic transformation
through its facilitative role in the provision of civic education while at the same time influencing
state actors in Kenya to be responsive to citizens. The organization has facilitated a number of
civil society organisations (CSOs) to advocate for reform across a range of key issues from the
constitutional review process, to electoral reform and information uptake by citizenry, including
engagements with the statutory bodies. In addition, Uraia has played a critical role in providing
practical mechanisms for citizens to engage with democratic governance processes, a process
that is instrumental in realizing positive transformation in society that leads to the realization
of social and economic justice for citizens.
Uraia Trust’s interventions are guided by a 5 year Strategic Plan; 2011 – 2015 that is anchored
on the implementation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The Plan is based on the premise of
realizing fundamental democratic change by actualizing the promise of the 2010 Constitution.
To achieve this, Uraia is committed to making a major contribution to developing an informed
and educated citizenry in Kenya that addresses its contextual realities and which then leads on
to that citizenry being engaged in various reform activities at various levels.
The Three Pillars through which the strategic Plan is implemented include:
1. Civic Education
2. Civic Engagement
3. Institutional Transformation
19
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
1.1 About the Rooting Democracy through an Informed Citizenry Programme
Uraia has been implementing a two year programme dubbed ‘Rooting Democracy in Kenya
through an Informed Citizenry’ from 2014. The goal of this programme is to contribute
towards promoting, securing and defending constitutionalism in Kenya for improved
democracy and realization of a just and equitable society. While the Rooting Democracy
Programme is being implemented through partners in 30 counties, this first phase was being
implemented in 12 counties under the direct support of DAP/DANIDA/ DFID. The specific
objectives and expected outputs under this support were as follows:
1.1.1 Specific objectives:
1. To increase the knowledge and awareness levels of citizens on the Constitution and
national legislation in relation to devolution, citizen participation, bill of rights, and
judiciary by the end of 2015.
2. To facilitate citizens and civil society organisations with practical mechanisms to
participate in governance processes, monitor performance of national and county
governments and demand accountability by 2015.
3. To strengthen implementing partners capacity to engage with media.
4. To strengthen the institutional capacity of Uraia to lead and support democratic
transformation processes in Kenya.
1.1.2 Expected outputs:
1. Three hundred thousand Kenyans indirectly acquire basic knowledge on the
Constitution and its implications.
2. Strengthened capacity of Uraia and civil society organisations to support democratic
reforms in the country for example increased citizen participation.
3. Civil society organisations engaging in policy and legislative reforms relating to key
local issues for example the extractive industry.
4. Increased capacity of implementing partners to develop and implement communication
strategies.
5. Strengthened capacity of Uraia to facilitate implementation of the entire programme.
The above phase of the project was being implemented from June 2014 to July 2015 through a
combination of national, regional, and county based partners.
2.0 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
2.1 Evaluation Objectives
The main objective of the final evaluation is to determine whether the project achieved its
intended results and delivered the best possible value for money from the viewpoint of 1)
20
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
Economy; 2) Efficiency; 3) Effectiveness; and 4) Equity. The evaluation will also assess
project relevance, impact, sustainability, replicability and whether the project identified new
ways of working that could be shared with other projects and/or organizations.
Specifically, the final evaluation should, as systematically and objectively as possible:
i)
Assess whether implemented activities resulted into intended project outputs;
ii)
Appraise project outcomes – both intended and un-intended, and their contribution
towards project goal;
iii)
Assess the efficacy of project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
processes;
iv)
Analyze challenges and critical risk factors that may have, and how they impacted
on the project;
v)
Identify key lessons and best practices to inform learning and critical reflection;
vi)
Suggest key recommendations to improve similar future projects.
2.2
Evaluation questions
This final evaluation exercise should, at the minimum, provide answers to the following
evaluative questions:
Scope
Indicative Questions
Impact: Examine the broader  What was the project’s overall impact and how does this
economic, social, and political
compare with what was expected?
consequences of the project and  Did the project address the intended target group and what
how it contributed to the overall
was the actual coverage?
objectives of DANIDA and DFID  Who were the direct and indirect/wider beneficiaries of the
Kenya grant
project?
 What difference has been made to the lives of those reached
by the project?
 Project contribution to the sector (e.g.; citizen participation
in governance processes, good governance at county level,
human rights, service delivery etc)
Economy: Examine whether  Could the same inputs have been purchased for less money?
economy been achieved in the  Were expenditures appropriate to the context?
implementation
of
project
activities
Efficiency: Examine whether  Are there obvious links between significant expenditures
funding, personnel, regulatory,
and key project outputs?
administrative,
time,
other  How well did the partnership and management arrangements
resources
and
procedures
work and how did they develop over time?
contributed to or hindered the  How well did the financial systems work?
achievement of outputs.
 How were local partners involved in project management
and how effective was this and what have been the benefits
of or difficulties with this involvement?
21
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
Effectiveness: Assess how far the
intended outcomes were achieved
in relation to targets set in the
original logical framework.




Equity:
Review
social
differentiation (e.g. by gender,
ethnicity, socio- economic group,
disability, etc) and the extent to
which the project had a positive
impact on the more disadvantaged
groups.


Relevance: Outline the project’s
significance with respect to
increasing
citizen’s
voice,
government accountability and
responsiveness,
and
service
delivery within the national and
local context.
Sustainability: Potential for the
continuation of the impact
achieved and of the delivery
mechanisms
following
the
withdrawal of donor support
Replicability: Assess whether the
process that introduced the
changes/impact are replicable.
Innovation
and
learning:
Identify innovations and lessons
generated by the project.











Were the risks properly identified and well managed?
Have
interventions
achieved
objectives?
(both
planned/unplanned)
How effective and appropriate was the project approach?
With hindsight, how could it have been improved?
How did the project actively promote gender equality?
What was the impact of the project, women, youth and
Persons with Disability (PWDs).
What was the impact of the project on minority
communities?
How were the needs of marginalized groups; women, youth
and Persons with Disability (PWDs) addressed within the
project?
How well did the project relate to overall Uraia goal.
How well did the project relate to the goals and objectives
of the larger Rooting Democracy Programme of Uraia.
How well did the project relate to DAP result areas?
What are the prospects for the benefits of the project being
sustained after the funding stops? Did this match the
intentions?
How could collaboration, networking and influencing of
opinion support sustainability?
What aspects of the project are replicable elsewhere?
Under what circumstances and/or in what contexts would
the project be replicable?
Has the project identified a new way of working that could
be shared with others?
If so, describe how the project is innovative and/or what are
the main lessons learned.
2.3 Evaluation Scope
The investigation will focus on Uraia’s programmatic work mainly in 12 Counties in Kenya
that were directly supported by the DANIDA /DFID grant through DAP. These counties are:
Machakos, Makueni, Tharaka Nithi, Kitui, Kisumu, Migori, Siaya, Homa Bay, Isiolo, Samburu
East, Turkana, and Marsabit North. It will focus on civic education, civic engagement and
institutional capacity strengthening interventions by Uraia through its partners who include:

Transform Empowerment For Action Initiative ( TEAM) – Kisumu, Migori, Siaya,
Homa Bay
22
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015






Centre for Human Rights and Civic Education ( CHRCE)– Machakos, Makueni,
Tharaka Nithi, Kitui
Pastoralist Women for Health and Education (PWHE) - Isiolo, Samburu East
Merti Integrated Development Program (MID-P) - Isiolo, Marsabit (Laisamis)
Friends of Lake Turkana - Turkana, Marsabit (North Horr)
Institute of Economic Affairs ( IEA) – National
INFORKOMM – National
The evaluation will also assess Uraia’s support operations
arrangements, systems etc)
(administration
and
finance
It will also seek to capture information from all levels of stakeholders including:
 Citizen

National and County Government Officials

Civic educators

County Based Implementing Partners and Strategic/National Partners

Members of Uraia’s Board of Trustees and Advisory Council

Uraia Staff

Development partners

Local Media Houses

Other Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

Other Relevant State Actors.

Faith based organizations
2.4 Evaluation Methodology and Approaches
The methodology should combine a wide range of methods (e.g. quantitative,
qualitative, and participatory), tools and information sources to allow triangulation of
information and ensure impartiality. In particular, there should be an extensive review of
all relevant documents; a representative sample of key stakeholders should be consulted,
their opinions and feedback considered in order to determine the scope and quality of
the outputs and ensure a comprehensive understanding of diverse perspectives on issues,
performance and results. The evaluation will be informed by the project, logical framework
and performance Indicators. Finally, the analysis must be informed by gender disaggregated
data.
The methodology should be presented in the proposal and inception report. It will include an
evaluation matrix aligned to the key evaluation questions and data collection tools to
guide the desk review and field work; outline the evaluation team’s overall work plan
including site visits schedules and division of responsibilities between evaluation
team members. The methodology will ensure that all the counties are considered in
the assessment. To allow aggregation of findings across the countries, the team will use
the same data tools in each county visit.
23
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
3.0 EVALUATION PHASES
3.1 Inception phase
This phase is expected to take one week and is meant to ensure that the evaluation team
is fully prepared before undertaking the site visits. It includes:
a
Drafting of inception report including evaluation matrix, methodology and data
collection tools.
b
Inception briefing at Uraia’s offices.
c
Desk Review of existing documents including: relevant policies and strategies,
proposals, assessments, monitoring/ data, progress or donor reports, etc.
d
Review and sign off of inception report including revised
TOR, plan,
methodology, tools by the Uraia team.
e
Finalization of logistics for field visits.
3.2 Data Collection Phase
This phase will employ multiple methods and tools to capture data and information relevant to
the evaluation exercise. The phase will take one week.
3.3 Process Reporting phase (Preparation, Submission and Approval for Dissemination)
This will involve:i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
General debriefing sessions.
Weekly update reports.
Submission of first draft evaluation report
Review of draft report for content, accuracy and quality.
(v) Incorporation of comments and revision of the draft report
v.
Submission of draft report to the Uraia management.
3.4 Validation workshop: This will be for purposes of validating the report and will involve
all the stakeholders.
3.5 Submission of Final Report. After the validation workshop, the final report incorporating
the inputs from stakeholder to be submitted to Uraia.
3.6 Evaluation Deliverables
24
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
The team leader is responsible for the timely submission of the following deliverables
to Uraia’s Head of Programmes.
(i)
Inception report will expand on the key issues including evaluation scope,
questions, key informant/ stakeholder list. It will also present the evaluation matrix,
the methodology; including proposed data collection tools.
(ii)
First Draft Evaluation report will build on the findings of the desk review
and county visits. Findings should be evidence based and relevant to the
evaluation objectives and questions. There should be a logical flow from findings
to conclusions and from conclusions to recommendations. The first draft will be
submitted within one week of the end of the data collection exercise.
(iii)
Final Evaluation report which will include the feedback from the Stakeholders,
including Board of Trustees, Advisory Council and Uraia’s staff. The submission
will include all data sets, annexes and presentations. The consultant will present three
bound copies of the final report, and a CD Rom copy of the report.
The final evaluation report will be a maximum of 20 pages including an Executive
Summary. The executive summary of the evaluation report will be presented to
Uraia’s Board of Trustees, Advisory Council and development partners as the
summary evaluation report.
4.0
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION AND SELECTION CRITERIA
To ensure the independence of the evaluation and the credibility of the findings,
a team of external consultants, identified through a transparent selection process, will
conduct the evaluation. The team will comprise professionals with an appropriate
balance of technical expertise and practical experience in evaluation methodologies,
the governance sector and reporting.
The team leader will report to Uraia’s Head of Programmes. He/she should have
strong evaluation experience in governance and democracy programmes, as well as
excellent analytical, team management and communication skills (verbal and written).
He/she should be able to conceptualize complex evaluations and design the subsequent
evaluation approach and methodology. He/she should be fluent in English.
Team members will report to the Evaluation Team Leader and are responsible for
delivering inputs as agreed.
5.0 EVALUATION PERIOD
The evaluation will be conducted over a one calendar month period (August 1th to August
29th 2015).
25
Uraia Trust
Call for Proposal
End of project evaluation
July 2015
6.0 CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS
The following qualifications/competencies with proven experience in conducting such or
similar exercises are required.
 A Masters degree in a relevant field such as Social Research Methods; Social Sciences;
Development Studies; Economics, Education, MBA, Law.
 Demonstrated skills and experience in Project planning, implementation, impact
monitoring and evaluation
 Good knowledge democracy and governance issues in Kenya.
 Good knowledge of civil society operations
7.0 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY:
Uraia and DAP shall hold intellectual property rights over any publications arising from this
assignment.
26