United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
RFP/ROMA/2014/004
18.03.2014
UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND (UNICEF)
Wishes to invite you to submit a proposal for
Financial Impact Analysis for scaling up model of community based services at national
level
SEALED PROPOSALS should be sent to:
UNICEF ROMANIA - Operations,
48A Bd-ul Primaverii, sector 1,
Bucharest 011975
Mark on the outside of the envelope: RFP/ROMA/2014/004
IMPORTANT – ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
The reference RFP/ROMA/2014/004 must be shown on the envelope containing the Proposal and on the
envelope containing the Price Proposal, as well as on the outer packaging containing both envelopes.
The bid form must be used when replying to this request for proposal.
The Proposals MUST be received at the above address by latest on March 31th 2014, at 17:00.
Proposals received after the stipulated date and time will be invalidated.
It is important that you read all of the provisions of the request for proposal, to ensure that you understand
UNICEF’s requirements and can submit a proposal in compliance with them. Note that failure to provide
compliant proposals may result in invalidation of your proposal.
THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL HAS BEEN:
PREPARED BY: Voica Pop /Child Protection Specialist
(vpop@unicef.org, to be contacted for additional information. NOT FOR SENDING OFFERS)
APPROVED BY: Eduard Petrescu /Knowledge and Policy Coordinator
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 1 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
BID FORM
THIS PAGE/BID FORM must be completed, signed and returned to UNICEF. Bid must be made in accordance
with the instructions contained in this Request for Proposal.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
Any Contract or Purchase Order resulting from this INVITATION shall contain UNICEF General Terms and
Conditions and any other Specific Terms and Conditions detailed in this INVITATION.
INFORMATION
Any request for information regarding this INVITATION must be forwarded by email to the attention of
Mrs. Voica Pop (vpop@unicef.org) with copy to bucharest@unicef.org, with specific reference to the
invitation number RFP/ROMA/2014/004.
The Undersigned, having read the Terms and Conditions of RFP/ROMA/2014/004 set out in the attached
document, hereby offers to supply the services specified in the schedule at the price or prices quoted, in
accordance with any specifications stated and subject to the Terms and Conditions set out or specified in
the document.
Signature:
_____________________________________
Date:
_____________________________________
Name & Title:
_____________________________________
Company:
_____________________________________
Postal Address:
_____________________________________
Tel. No.:
_____________________________________
E-mail:
_____________________________________
Validity of Offer:
_____________________________________
Currency of Offer:
RON
Please indicate after having read UNICEF Payment Terms which of the following Payment Terms are offered
by you:
10 Days, 3.0%______ 15 Day, 2.5%_______ 20 Days, 2.0%_________ 30 Days, Net________
Other Trade Discounts: ______________________
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 2 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
1.0
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
PROCEDURES AND RULES
1.1
ORGANISATIONAL BACKGROUND
UNICEF is the agency of the United Nations mandated to advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet
their basic needs and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential. Guided by the Convention on the
Rights of the Child UNICEF strives to establish children’s rights as international standards of behaviour towards
children. UNICEF’s role is to mobilise political will and material resources to help countries ensure a “first call for
children". UNICEF is committed to ensuring special protection for the most disadvantaged children.
UNICEF carries out its work through its headquarters in New York, 8 regional offices and 125 country offices worldwide. UNICEF relies on voluntary contributions from individuals, corporate and Governments for its work.
1.2
PURPOSE OF THE RFP
The purpose of this RFP is to invite proposals for the financial impact analysis for scaling up model of community
based services at national level, according to the Terms of Reference attached.
1.3
FORECAST SCHEDULE
The schedule of the contractual process is as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Bidders to confirm their intent to submit a proposal by: 25.03.2014
Closing date and time for submission of full proposal: 31.03.2014 by 17:00
Award Notice: 03.04.2014
Signature of contract: 04.04.2014
1.4
RFP CHANGE POLICY
All requests for formal clarification or queries on this RFP, if any, must be submitted in writing to Voica Pop via e-mail
at vpop@unicef.org, copy to bucharest@unicef.org
Only written inquiries will be entertained. Please be informed that if the question is of common interest, the answer
will be shared with all potential RFP bidders.
Erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained and the signature of the bidder shown alongside. All
changes to a proposal must be received prior to the closing time and date. It must be clearly indicated that it is a
modification and supersedes the earlier proposal, or state the changes from the original proposal. Proposals may be
withdrawn on written request received from bidders prior to the opening time and date. Bidders are expected to
examine all instructions pertaining to the work. Failure to do so will be at bidder’s own risk and disadvantage.
1.5
RFP RESPONSE FORMAT
Full proposals should be submitted in ENGLISH and must be received not later than 31.03.2014 by 17:00, duly signed
and dated. Bidders must submit a sealed proposal, with two separate sealed envelopes inside for a) the Technical
Proposal and b) the Price Proposal.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 3 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
Sealed proposals must be securely closed in suitable envelopes and dispatched to arrive at the UNICEF office indicated
no later than the closing time and date.
They must be clearly marked as follows:
 Outer envelope: Name of bidder / RFP number/ UNICEF Romania/ Address
 First inner envelope – technical proposal: Name of bidder, RFP number - TECHNICAL proposal
 Second inner envelope - price proposal: Name of bidder, RFP number - PRICE proposal
Proposals received in any other manner will be invalidated.
Sealed proposals received prior to the stated closing time and date will be kept unopened. The responsible officers
will open technical proposals when the specified time has arrived and no proposal received thereafter will be
considered. UNICEF will accept no responsibility for the premature opening of a proposal not properly addressed or
identified. Any delays encountered in the mail delivery will be at the risk of the bidder.
Offers delivered at a different address or in a different form than prescribed in this RFP, or which do not respect the
required confidentiality, or received after the designated time and date, will be rejected.
All references to descriptive materials should be included in the appropriate response paragraph, though the
material/documents themselves may be provided as annexes to the proposal/response.
The bidder must also provide sufficient information in the proposal to address each area of the Proposal Evaluation
contained in 1.10 to allow the evaluation team to make a fair assessment of the candidates and their proposal.
1.6
BIDDER RESPONSE
1.6.1 Formal submission requirements
The formal submission requirements as outlined in this Request for Proposal must be followed, e.g. regarding form
and timing of submission, marking of the envelopes, no price information in the technical proposal, etc.
1.6.2 Bid Form
The completed and signed bid form must be submitted together with the proposal.
1.6.3 Mandatory criteria
All mandatory (i.e. must/have to/shall/should/will) criteria mentioned throughout this Request for Proposal have to
be addressed and met in your proposal.
1.6.4 Technical Proposal
The technical proposal should address all aspects and criteria outlined in this Request for Proposal, especially in its
statement of work, terms of reference and paragraph 1.10 of this Request for Proposal. However, all these
requirements represent a wish list from UNICEF. The bidders are free to suggest/ propose any other solution. UNICEF
welcomes new ideas and innovative approaches.
No price information should be contained in the technical proposal.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 4 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
1.6.5 Price Proposal
The price proposal should be as per but not limited to paragraph 1.10 of this Request for Proposal.
1.6.6 Checklist for submission of proposals
 Bid form filled in and signed

Envelope for technical proposal
o
Technical proposal
o
Technical proposal does not contain prices
o
Envelope is sealed
o
Envelope is marked as follows:
Name of bidder, RFP number - technical proposal

Envelope for price proposal
o
Price proposal
o
Envelope is sealed
o
Envelope is marked as follows:
Name of bidder, RFP number - price proposal

o
o
o
1 outer envelope
Containing  bid form,  envelope for technical proposal, and  envelope for price proposal
Envelope is sealed
Envelope is marked as follows
Name of bidder
RFP number
UNICEF ROMANIA
Address
1.7
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information, which the bidder considers proprietary, should be clearly marked "proprietary", if any, next to the
relevant part of the text, and UNICEF will treat such information accordingly.
1.8
RIGHTS OF UNICEF
UNICEF reserves the right to accept any proposal, in whole or in part; or, to reject any or all proposals. UNICEF reserves
the right to invalidate any Proposal received from a Bidder who has previously failed to perform properly or complete
contracts on time, or a Proposal received from a Bidder who, in the opinion of UNICEF, is not in a position to perform
the contract. UNICEF shall not be held responsible for any cost incurred by the Bidder in preparing the response to
this Request for Proposal. The Bidder agrees to be bound by the decision of UNICEF as to whether her/his proposal
meets the requirements stated in this Request for Proposal. Specifically, UNICEF reserves the right to:
- contact any or all references supplied by the bidder(s);
- request additional supporting or supplementary data (from the bidder(s));
- arrange interviews with the bidder(s);
- reject any or all proposals submitted;
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 5 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
accept any proposals in whole or in part;
- negotiate with the service provider(s) who has/have attained the best rating/ranking, i.e. the one(s) providing the
overall best value proposal(s);
- contract any number of candidates as required to achieve the overall evaluation objectives.
-
1.9
PROPOSAL OPENING
Due to the nature of this RFP, there will be no public opening of proposals.
1.10 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
After the opening, each proposal will be assessed first on meeting of the technical requirements and subsequently
on its price. The proposal with the best overall value, composed of technical merit and price, will be recommended
for approval. UNICEF will set up an evaluation panel composed of technical UNICEF staff and their conclusions will be
forwarded to the internal UNICEF Contracts Review Committee.
The evaluation panel will first evaluate each response for compliance with the requirements of this RFP. Responses
deemed not to meet all of the mandatory requirements will be considered non-compliant and rejected at this stage
without further consideration. Failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions contained in this RFP, including
provision of all required information, may result in a response or proposal being disqualified from further
consideration.
The proposals will be evaluated against the following:
CATEGORY
1.
Technical Evaluation Criteria
POINTS
1.1
5
1.2.
-
1.3
-
Overall Response
Relevance of RFP with terms of reference
Completeness of response
Experience of team of experts (national and preferable one international)
35
One or more experts with at least 5 years of experience in the area of child rights, social protection, social
policies and systems designs and reforms;
One or more experts with at least 5 years of experience in Public Finance Management covering budget
preparation and budgetary processes, ensuring linkages between budget and policy,
One or more experts knowledgeable and experienced in costing of strategies, programmes, services,
including standard costs, etc. (please add relevant reference);
One expert with at extensive experience in data collection and research/analyses methodology design in
relevant areas (please reference at least 5 research/analyses);
Experience of work in multi-disciplinary team and effective working relationships both within and outside the
organization (exemplification is useful);
Proposed Methodology
40
Strong analytical and conceptual thinking in development of the RFP;
Appliance of scientific and evidence based standards in design of requested deliverables;
Use of relevant international references;
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 6 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
-
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
Clarity and feasibility of the detailed work plan/schedule of activities.
Total Technical
80
Only proposals which receive a minimum of 40 points will be considered further.
2.
Price Proposal
20
The total amount of points allocated for the price component is 20. The maximum number of points will be allotted
to the lowest price proposal that is opened and compared among those invited firms/institutions which obtain the
threshold points in the evaluation of the technical component.
All other price proposals will receive points in inverse proportion to the lowest price:
Max. Score for price proposal * Price of lowest priced proposal
Score for price proposal X = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Price of proposal X
Example: Price of lowest priced proposal= 800 // Price of proposal X= 1000
Max. Score for price proposal (20) * Price of lowest priced proposal (800)
Score for price proposal X = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 16
Price of proposal X (1000)
Total Technical and Price
100 Pts
UNICEF will award the contract to the vendor whose response is of high quality, clear and meets the projects goals.
The price/cost of each of the technically compliant proposals shall be considered only upon evaluation of the above technical
criteria.
The bidders should ensure that all pricing information is provided in accordance with the following:
The currency of the proposal shall be in RON. Invoicing will be in the currency of the proposal.
The bidder will suggest a payment schedule for the Contract, linked to unambiguous Contract milestones.
Total aggregated amount of the contract should be spelled out separately, subsequently broken down on A. consultancy fee; B.
Travel costs, including ALL expenses that will incur in relation to the consultancy. For travel costs, please provide breakdown for
transportation (economy class tickets as the case may be) and daily allowance/ per-diem (accommodation, meals, incidentals.)
1.10
PROPERTY OF UNICEF
This RFP, along with any responses there to, shall be considered the property of UNICEF and the proposals will not be returned
to their originators. In submitting this proposal the bidder will accept the decision of UNICEF as to whether the proposal meets
the requirements stated in this RFP.
1.11
VALIDITY
Proposal must be valid for a minimum of ninety (90) days from the date of opening of this RFP and must be signed by all candidates
included in the submission. For proposals from institutions, the proposal must also be signed by an authorised representative of
the institution. Bidders are requested to indicate the validity period of their proposal in the Proposal Form. UNICEF may also
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 7 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
request for an extension of the validity of the proposal.
1.12
CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The UNICEF Special and General Terms and Conditions are attached and will form part of any contract resulting from this RFP.
1.13
FULL RIGHT TO USE AND SELL
The bidder warrants that it has not and shall not enter into any agreement or arrangement that restrains or restricts UNICEF or
the recipient Governments rights to use, sell, dispose of or, otherwise, deal with any item that may be acquired under any
resulting Contract.
1.14
PAYMENT TERMS
Payment will be made only upon UNICEF’s acceptance of the work performed in accordance with the contractual milestones.
The terms of payment are Net 30 days, after receipt of invoice and acceptance of work. Payment will be effected by bank transfer
in the currency of billing. Financial proposals should include proposed stage payments
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 8 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
TERM OF REFERENCES
Summary
Purpose
Duration
Start date
Reporting to
Financial impact analysis for scaling up model of community based
services la national level
4 months
April, 2014
Child Protection Specialist
Socio-economic context1
In the context of the economic crisis, across the European Union, fiscal consolidation measures have had
a strong impact on social service accessibility and quality, especially for vulnerable groups.2 Romania is
one of the countries where consolidation measures have had a negative effect on social benefits, in
particular on those addressed to families and children. At the same time, the Romanian state has
implemented measures meant to render the social protection system more efficient. In 2009, the
Romanian Government entered a stand-by agreement with the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank and the European Commission stipulating the reduction of the budget deficit from 7.4% to 3%
between 2009 and 2012. Based on this agreement, expenditure on social assistance is projected to drop
from 2.86% of GDP in 2010 to 2.14% in 2012 and to 2.08% in 2013.
Romania’s social protection efforts are among the weakest in the European Union. In Romania, Bulgaria
and Latvia, per capita expenditure on social protection (expressed as PPP) is the smallest in the EU; in
2010, it was 3.6 times lower than the EU-27 average. At the same time, social spending in Romania was
equivalent to 17.6% of GDP, whereas the EU-27 mean was 29.4%. Excluding pensions, which represent
more than half of total social spending, we see that in Romania expenditure on social protection is just
less 50% of the EU average.
Though targeted at a relatively high number of beneficiaries, social benefits have a small share in total
expenditure on social protection which explains their limited impact on poverty reduction and protection
of vulnerable groups. Moreover, among social protection expenses, those aimed at social inclusion and
social housing are underrepresented (in total expenditure on social protection and as percentage of GDP),
indicating that the basic needs of many vulnerable groups are not addressed adequately.
According to the theory of change on which relevant policies and measures are grounded, the main
objective of poverty reduction and social inclusion promotion can be reached only with actions that
provide (enhance) access to affordable, sustainable and quality services (such as housing, education,
1
Based on A Socio-Economic Analysis for the 2014-2020 Structural Funds Programming Period, Thematic Advisory
Committee EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL INCLUSION AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and
Elderly Persons
2
EC (2011) The social impact of the economic crisis and ongoing fiscal consolidation. Third report of the Social Protection
Committee.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 9 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
employment, health care, social assistance, information society services, etc.) for populations at
disproportionate risk of social exclusion like low-income persons, the long-term unemployed, children,
young people under 25, people aged 55 or over, people with disabilities, migrants, the Roma, the
homeless or people leaving prison. There is a legacy of chronic under-funding of the social sectors in
Romania, even taking into account the limited capacity of the Romanian economy.
Community-based services modelling project background3
In Romania, there are nearly 3.8 million children under 18, living in 3.2 million households. 4 After 2009,
in the context of the global economic crisis, Romania has seen a rise in poverty rates and vulnerability.
Children and youth have constantly had the highest poverty risk of all age groups, irrespective of the
poverty estimation method, and in their case the depth of poverty has also been bigger. Post-2009 trends
indicate that the economic recession has strongly affected children and young people and the negative
tendency is likely to continue; almost 320,000 children (0-17 years) were living in absolute poverty in
2010. The crisis hit rural and Roma children the hardest.5
Recently, three independent research teams 6 showed that: (a) with regards to children, income poverty
(or monetary poverty) is higher in Romania than in any other European country (33% versus 20% the EU27 average); the depth of income poverty is greater in Romanian children than in any other European
country; (b) Nearly 72-78% of Romanian children suffer from severe material deprivation, which is
significantly greater than in all the other European states, for almost all goods. 7 In addition, large
numbers of children continue to be separated from their natural families or subjected to various forms
of violence or social exclusion.
As a response, Romania has greatly developed the system of social services, which nevertheless is still
lagging behind many European Union Member States (in terms of employment in the sector: 4% versus
9.6% in the EU).8 The application of current legislation concerning the development of primary social
services is hindered by lack of flexible forms of employment (for example, part-time), a very reduced
3
Based on the Helping Invisible Children, Second Evaluation Report, Stanculescu (coord.) (2013)
Most children come from complete nuclear families (58% of households with children) or multigenerational households
including grandparents and/or other relatives, with or without parents (36%). The other children live in single-parent
families, accounting for nearly 6% of all households with children. (NIS data as of 1 January 2012)
5
If in urban areas the absolute poverty rate was only 3.5%, in rural area it reached 12.4%. For Roma children, the absolute
poverty rate is extremely high. Thus, in urban areas, 2% in Romanian children compared with 27.3% in Roma children, and
10.6% versus 41.1% in rural communities, respectively. Preda (coord.) (2011) Situation Analysis of Children in Romania.
UNICEF Report. HBS data, NIS.
6
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012) Measuring child poverty; EC (2012) Measuring material deprivation in the EU
indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators; Frazer and Marlier (2012).
7
Children lack (due to insufficient money): to a particularly great extent, indoor games, outdoor equipment and
participation in school trips and events that cost money; to a very great extent, children’s books and family car; to a great
extent, fresh fruit and vegetables as well as a meat- or fish-based meal every day, celebrations, the possibility of inviting
friends over from time to time, regular leisure activities (sports, organizations for children and young people, etc.), new
clothes and two good pairs of shoes, computer and Internet, as well as a desk/adequate space for homework.
8
Romania has to submit twice a year to the European Commission administrative and statistical information alongside
monitoring reports on social service developments based on the European Commission Recommendation on the active
inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (2008).
4
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 10 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
share of social service expenditure in the GDP (Romania ranks bottom in the EU for this indicator), the
headcount9 and training of human resources. The study10 on the State of Social Service Development in
2011 in Romania, conducted in all counties of the country, concludes that the social protection system
is still faced with many lacks and inconsistencies, being unevenly developed especially in rural areas.
Local public authorities occasionally engage in system organisation, being active only in cities and towns
and solely where there is a strong non-governmental presence.
Local prevention services continue to be preponderantly centred on social benefits (the guaranteed
minimum income, winter fuel allowance, child allowance and family benefits), to the detriment of
developing and implementing prevention and counselling social services, of life skill development, jobfinding assistance, etc. Of all Public Services for Social Assistance’ beneficiaries (children) in 2010, only
24% benefited from services while the others received only benefits, although 21% of the beneficiaries
of cash benefits were children at risk of being abandoned by their parents.11
Taking into account the underdevelopment of the social assistance services at community level, UNICEF
in partnership with the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons, developed a
modelling project12 focusing on the development of the preventive approach in the social protection
system, particularly in rural areas13. The modelling project theory has considered that children’s welfare
in Romania will improve only if and when the children, especially the worst-off (‘invisible’) children, will
have enhanced access to social services (education, health, and social assistance services). For this
purpose, in rural areas (particularly in the poorest communities), social workers need to be hired and
trained to carry out mainly outreach activities including needs-assessment, monitoring, informing and
counselling, and to provide appropriate social assistance services to the worst-off children and their
families. In 2012, the project has aimed to pilot in 64 communes from the North-Est and South-Est
regions (the poorest in the country and Europe) a model of community preventive services with the
purpose to reach the ‘invisible’ children and families. UNICEF contribution to the modelling project
consisted of: i) the total budget of modelling project for the year 2012, for piloting the minimum package
of services, was lei 1,152 thousand (almost US$ 345 thousand);14 and ii) technical assistance for the
design of the model, minimum package of services and instruments, capacity building activities at local
and county level, and monitoring and evaluation activities.
9
In Romania, in 2010, one social worker corresponded to 4,300 inhabitants compared with 1/300 in Sweden, 1/600 in
United Kingdom or 1/1,600 in Italy. Campanini et al. (2010) in Preda (coord., 2011).
10
IRECSON (2011), Strategic Operational Program on Human Resource Development, project implemented by MMFPS.
11
FONPC (2012).
12
Pilot projects are activities designed to test the feasibility and/or effectiveness of an intervention. They are “a specific
type of ‘demonstration project’ with explicit attention to documenting and measuring progress and results. PPPeM, UNICEF
13
Brief description of modelling project is available in the Annex.
14
This budget contains: (1) monthly wages of about US$ 255 for 8 county supervisors; (2) a monthly budget of US$ 90 per
county for transportation of supervisors to visit the communities included in the project; (3) about US$ 1,200 per county
per year for covering the maintenance costs of a resource centre (within General Direction for Social Assistance and Child
Protection, DGASPC) for communities included in the project; (4) monthly wages of about US$ 300 for 64 social workers
employed with the project; (5) 24 micro-grants of US$ 3,000 per year per community for covering the costs of a community
centre for children and parents; (6) a budget of US$ 600 per year for experience exchange.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 11 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
Scaling up modelling15
In Romania current context, where UNICEF resources are limited compared to national budgets, piloting
is one of the key ways that UNICEF cooperates with the Government and seeks to influence national
policies and programmes. Results are demonstrated on a small scale with a view to leveraging state
budget and local funding and advocating for scaling-up 16 . A similar strategy was designed for the
modelling of the development of community-based services which aims for progressive implementation
to reach national scale, addressing thus key bottlenecks for an equitable child friendly social protection
system.
Scaling up can happen in terms of an up-stream influence when modelling interventions can be scaledup by using the evidence from small-scale interventions to advocate for policy and institutional/level
reforms. From the design phase, the modelling project was aligned to the Government’s National
Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights (2008-2013), which highlights the need
for development of prevention mechanisms instead of interventions in specialized services, 17 as
promoting actions that keep children in the family rather than in the protection system is more effective,
more in line with the child rights approach and it is cheaper. Moreover, the project is in line with the
Government's priorities in the field of Family, Child Protection and Equality of Chances: ‘increasing the
quality of life for the vulnerable children and fulfilment of minimum quality standards in the services for
the children in difficulty’. 18 Even though national priorities and strategies anticipate the shift from
protection to prevention and therefore the development of community based services, until present the
main response was limited mainly to the creation of some day care centres. The evidence collected
during the 2 external evaluations show that the modelling project contributes to more effective and
efficient, easy to implement and sustain, community-based solutions, complementing thus the
prevention action model at grassroots level19.
On the other hand, scaling up can happen also in terms of a multiplier effect, expanding the geographic
scope of an intervention either within a region, bringing in increasing numbers of communities, counties
and regions, until an initiative is rolled out to the national level. As recommended by the external
evaluation of the modelling, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly Persons and
Ministry of Health expressed commitment to continue the intervention and contribute to advocacy
efforts so that the model of community preventive service to be undertaken by all key stakeholders and
scaled up at national level. In this case, advocacy for influencing appropriate allocation of resources to
finance scale up and replication is a prerequisite. The budget needs to set out the actual costs of piloting
the initiative and the projected costs of scaling up. It should show contributions from public funding –
15
Based on Guideline on Piloting and Scaling up of Innovations and Good Practices, UNICEF ICO, 2013
Scaling up is replicating and expanding pilot approaches, while at the same time transferring longer-term ownership to
Government counterparts, to ultimately bring positive results for a greater number of children and women, PPPeM, UNICEF
17
National Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Children’s Rights, p.2, www.copii.ro
18
Government’s Priorities for 2012, http://www.gov.ro/prioritatile-anului-2012-br-capitolul-9-familia-protectia-copilului-siegalitatea-de-sanse__l1a116016.html and Strategy for reforming the social assistance, 2011.
19
Helping invisible children, Evaluation report, Stanculescu and Marin (2012) and Second evaluation report, Stanculescu
(coord.) (2013)
16
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 12 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
central, county and local, and other sources of funding, and illustrate how costs will shift over time during
the transition to national leadership.
Scope and focus of financial impact analysis of scaling up modelling20
In the scaling up planning process, it is important to budget realistically so that public authorities are
fully aware of the cost of running the pilot. The second evaluation report (2013) of the modelling project
tried to answer as well some questions related to efficiency including: Does the programme use
resources in the most economical manner to achieve expected equity-focused results? Are any other
economical alternatives feasible? How cost-effective is the project for reaching worst-off groups? How
do costs for reaching worst-off groups compare with public services costs? Besides qualitative data
gathered from various stakeholders, some financial data related to modelling project costs were
analysed. However, cost analysis included only some simplistic calculations and did not address cost
implications of scaling up; for replicating in a different context (i.e. programming European Union
Structural Funds 2014-2020); and/or for transition and long-term sustainability.
In this context, the scope and focus of the financial impact analysis of scaling up the modelling project
consists of in-depth examination and considerations of costs for progressive implementation of the
model of community based services at national level. This implies considering costs of scaling up in
various settings, with special focus on provision of access to services in most deprived rural areas. This
is guided by the equity of national policies and strategies, but compared to urban settings, focus on rural
communities may lead as well to higher costs per capita due to lower population densities.
The scope of the analysis needs to be linked as well to other planned or existing Government initiatives,
especially ones included in the Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 21 and/or funded by EEA Norway
Grants and Swiss Cooperation Programme and take advantage of opportunities to cut costs.
Moreover, the modelling project emphasises equity and therefore may not necessarily be the most
resource-efficient model. Addressing barriers to services for all, including the most marginalised and
disadvantaged groups (e.g. living in remote areas), can push up implementation costs. It is important to
acknowledge this fact and to be able to argue effectively for equity over efficiency when needed.
In this context, the scope and focus of the financial impact analysis of scaling up the modelling project
need to include:
 A comprehensive overview for the economic and social environment in Romania.
 An analysis of evolution of social assistance and protection expenditure and forecast possible
scenario/national trends for 2014-2020 including assessment of macroeconomic variables, such as
the deficit, national debt, interest rates, employment, etc., government’s forecasts and the potential
impact on the social sectors, other sources of funding.
20
Guideline on Piloting and Scaling up of Innovations and Good Practices, UNICEF ICO, 2013
http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd-62/2014-2020/acord-parteneriat/AP-10.02.2014.RO.pdf
English version is available upon request.
21
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 13 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania



Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
An analysis of the current (and if the case, foreseen) budgeting processes, timeframes and identify
entry points for initiating scaling-up. It may be a complex picture, including national, subnational and
local processes linked to various sources of funding. Additionally, the financial impact analysis may
include especially if financing option is requiring, the development of recommendations for more
efficient financing flows including possible proposed institutional structure within the system,
specifying new roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and financial flows, etc.
A realistic picture of the costs to date for the modelling, and the projected costs for scaling up and
sustaining the intervention, including the anticipated human resource considerations. Additional, an
estimation of transition cost may be very useful. In theory, the scale up of community based services
is very likely to be expenditure reducing on a long run. However, the increased availability of
community-based services will reveal unmet needs, increasing demand for those services. It is better
to develop the reform plan in line with available financing.
Development of possible scenarios for scale up including financing options: 1) within current
available envelope by redirecting public expenditure, possibly progressively, over a set period of time
during which savings may be generated by the outcomes of the gradual transition from institutions
to community based care, services and prevention; 2) by identifying fiscal space for increase of
budget allocation for social assistance with focus on most vulnerable. The political, administrative
and fiscal feasibility and relevance of different financing options may vary and needs to be assessed
in current country’s context; 3) mixt options, combining different scenarios. All of them should take
into account various budgetary sources: the bulk of scaling up costs will likely be covered by state
budget, National Programmes, other budgets22, including those managed at county and local level.
Even community level resources (and donations) can be used to cover smaller pilot components. Not
only does this help to diversify funding channels, which is good practice in terms of sustaining the
initiative over time, but it also spreads ownership for the intervention from the highest levels right
down to the community itself.
It is expected that together with the good evidence base for the benefits of the intervention, this is all
that should be needed to convince decision-makers to move ahead. If there is a strong desire to conduct
a cost-efficiency or rather a cost-benefit analysis, or any other more complex cost analysis, this an option
which will require further consideration and attentive selection of further course of action.
22
European Union Structural Funds (EUSF) 2014-2020, EEA Norway Grants, Swiss Cooperation Programme and others.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 14 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
Specific tasks, deliverables and timetable
Specific tasks
Deliverables
Develop through desk review a comprehensive overview
for the economic and social environment in Romania
Perform an analysis of evolution of social assistance and
protection expenditure and forecast possible
scenario/national trends for 2014-2020 including:
 Assessment of macroeconomic variables/assumptions
underlying the budget and project the effect of the
budget on variables, government’s forecasts and the
potential impact on the social sectors.
 And comprising other sources of funding, i.e. EUSF,
World Bank, EEA Grants, Swiss Programme, etc.
Analysis of the current situation, which maps out what the
economic roles are in the current system, the costs and
who pays those costs; current (and if the case, foreseen)
budgeting processes (including central and local level and
various sources of budget), timeframes and identify entry
points for initiating scaling-up.
Develop a realistic picture of the costs to date for the
modelling, based on budget and expenditures 2011-2013,
and the projected costs for scaling up and sustaining the
intervention
Development of possible scenarios for scale up including
financing options
Report including
1) Comprehensive
overview of economic
and social
environment;
2) Analysis of expenditure
and forecast on budget
for social assistance
and protection;
3) Analysis of budgeting
process and roles of
various stakeholders;
4) Recommendation for
entry point for scalingup modelling for child
sensitive social
protection.
Report including:
1) Picture of costs of
modelling and
projected costs for
scale-up and transition.
2) Scenarios for scale-up,
including financing
options and advocacy
recommendations.
Suggested
timetable
By end of
May 2014
By end of
July 2014
Required experience and credentials
Considering the specificity of work, a team of experts/organization, preferable including at least one
international expert, will be contracted for this assignment. The profile of the experts should include the
following credentials and competencies:
 At least 5 years of experience in the area of child rights, social protection, social policies and systems
designs and reforms;
 At least 5 years of experience in Public Finance Management covering budget preparation and
budgetary processes, ensuring linkages between budget and policy;
 Knowledgeable and experienced in costing of strategies, programmes, services, including standard
costs, etc. (please add relevant reference);
 Extensive experience in data collection and research/analyses methodology design in relevant areas;
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 15 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro


Strong analytical and conceptual thinking;
Experience of work in multi-disciplinary team and effective working relationships both within and
outside the organization;
 Good speaking and writing skills in English.
To strengthen their capacity for performing the task, bidders may establish cross-sector forms of
association, such as between experts in various fields of practice.
Logistics and resources requirements
UNICEF Romania country office will:
 Share relevant documentation and information,
 Prepare and organize meetings, field trips if needed,
 If necessary, cover all additional costs related to trips, transportation and accommodation.
General conditions
Reporting. The contractors will report to UNICEF Child Protection Specialist and will work closely as well
with UNICEF Knowledge and Policy Coordinator.
Payment calendar. Taking into account the tasks and timeframe mentioned above, fees for the
consultant will be paid in two instalments after submission of deliverables and upon approval by
supervisor.
Ownership. UNICEF will have sole ownership of all final deliverables; no parts of the methodology will
be reproduced without the permission of UNICEF.
Annexes:
Annex I - UNICEF General Terms and Conditions
ANNEX - Unicef
General T&C.pdf
Annex II – UNICEF Special Terms and Conditions
ANNEX - Unicef
Special T&C.pdf
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 16 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
Annex III: Brief description of the modelling project
The project Helping the ‘invisible’ Children (HIC), prepared in April-June 2011 and implemented during June 2011September 2014, focuses on the development of the preventive approach in the social protection system, particularly
in rural areas.
The HIC project has targeted the 'invisible' children defined as the children who face one or more types of
vulnerabilities and have been reached by social workers through fieldwork activities. Within HIC, the ‘invisible’
children refer also to children acknowledged as being in a vulnerable situation, but with ‘invisible’ vulnerabilities (also
identified through fieldwork activities).
The purpose of the project Helping the ‘invisible’ children is to increase the impact of social protection policies for
poor and socially excluded (‘invisible’) children and families. Taking into account the underdevelopment of the social
assistance services at community level, the HIC programme theory has considered that children’s welfare in Romania
will improve only if and when the children, especially the worst-off (‘invisible’ ) children, will have enhanced access
to social services (education, health, and social assistance services). For this purpose, in 2011, social workers were
employed in 96 communes from eight counties (Bacău, Botoşani, Buzău, Iaşi, Neamţ, Suceava, Vaslui and Vrancea)23.
After a short training, these social workers identified the ‘invisible’ children within community and mobilized the
Community Consultative Structures (CCS), under the supervision of the County General Directorate of Social
Assistance and Child Protection (DGASPC).
In 2012, the project coverage was limited to 64 communes. A basic package of community preventive social assistance
services was piloted: the social workers have carried out outreach activities including needs-assessment, monitoring,
informing and counselling, and have provided appropriate social assistance services to the worst-off children and
families. This model is supposed to be implementable at the national level (with a total of 2,858 communes in the
country) and to impact progressively the main gaps of the social protection system at four layers: i) legislative
provisions, ii) institutional building, iii) resources allocation, and iv) social control mechanisms, including monitoring
and evaluation.
The modelling projects was subjective to two formative24 evaluations, in 2011 and 2012, focusing on the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the HIC project. The project has produced overwhelming proofs that the
issue of 'invisible' children is highly relevant for the rural communities from Romania and it represents a serious
problem that needs an urgent and determined policy response. In the same time, the project has demonstrated that:
23
In the preparation phase, 136 communes were selected out of all 656 communes in the covered regions, based on a
secondary data analysis of the official statistics (National Statistical Office) as well as of data collected by previous research.
Selection was refined by using data regarding children's vulnerabilities, at the commune level, for 2010-2011 (March), which
were collected in each county from three institutions: County Inspectorate for Education, Directorate of Public Health and the
General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection. In the third step, the quantitative data were triangulated with
qualitative information obtained through interviews with the key county stakeholders (General Directorate for Social Assistance
and Child Protection - DGASPC and Prefecture). In the fourth step, UNICEF in cooperation with the relevant local stakeholders
(DGASPC, Prefectures and agreements of mayoralties) selected the 96 communes that entered the project (11 or 13
communities per county).
24
A method for judging the worth of a program while the program activities are in progress. The focus is on the process, which
permits the stakeholders to identify project strengths and weaknesses, and to target deficiencies that need revise and
adjustments.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 17 of 18
United Nations Children’s Fund
48A, Primaverii Blvd.
011975, Bucharest 1, Romania
Telephone 021 201 78 72
Facsimile 021 317 52 55
bucharest@unicef.org
www.unicef.ro
(i) the development of preventive community services is possible in spite of the limited human resources at local level
and of the insufficient local budgets; (ii) outreach activities are possible and essential for ensuring the right to social
security for children (and other vulnerable groups). Moreover, it presents clear evidences that the preventive
community services are more effective and much cheaper in real life and not only in theory.
Flow of activities of the modelling project included:
Project
preparation Selection of communities in the North-East and South-East regions. A number of 96
(April-June 2011)
communes were included in the project, after Mayor’s commitment was obtained.
Phase I
In all 96 rural communities, a social worker was selected by local authorities; he or she was
(June-December 2011) employed with the project and participated in a 2-day training session. The project social
workers carried out outreaching activities and mobilized the Community Consultative
Structures (CCS). More precisely, they completed a community census for identifying the
‘invisible’ children and families.
In November 2011, a first formative evaluation of the project was conducted by CERME.
Phase II
In 64 rural communities, a model of minimum package of community preventive social
(February-December
assistance services was piloted with the purpose to reach the worst-off children and families
2012)
(the identified ‘invisible’ children), by the project social workers with the help of SPAS and
Community Consultative Structures, under the coordination of county supervisors
(DGASPC).
All 64 communities were invited to participate to a call for proposals for a micro-grant up to
10,000 lei (about US$ 3,000) and 25 of them (3-4 communes per county) were selected.
In the 32 communities that left the project in 2012, supposedly the local SPAS took over the
identified cases of ‘invisible’ children. This activity was not organized under the project, but
was left to the decision of local authorities and DGASPC.
In December 2012-February 2013 a second formative evaluation was conducted by CERME,
which is presented in this report.
Phase III
Revise the model of minimum package of community preventive services in rural areas in
(June
2013-October accordance with the results of the second evaluation. Complete the minimum package with:
2014)
(1) health services carried out by community health nurses and Roma health mediators and
(2) micro-grants for all included communities. Pilot this extended model of integrated
community preventive (socio-medical) services in 32 rural communities.
A summative evaluation is planned to be carried out for preparing the model of basic
community services to be scaled up by the state.
Phase IV
The state takes over the minimum package model and pilots it.
(November 2014-2015) An impact evaluation will be carried out by the end of 2015, including the use of the
counterfactual and baselines built in 2011 and 2012.
RFP-ROMA-2014-004 / page 18 of 18