document tender document

Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. of 25

Document Tender Document This document serves as an invitation-for-tender to firms for providing

consultancy services for the assignment outlined in this document. This

document consists of the following contents:

Part 1. Tender specification

Part 2. Terms of Reference

Part 3. Annexes

1 Specifications for preparing the technical proposal

2 Specifications for preparing the tender

3 Guidelines for reports and field-work

4 Standard Contract (Draft). In separate file.

Our

references

Reference number:

Doffin (Database for public procurements) dated

TED (Tenders Electronic Daily)

Assignment A study of: “Development Aid as viewed by the local population”

Client Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Ruseløkkveien.

26, P.O.B. 8034 Dep, N-0030 Oslo, Norway

Contact

point

Evaluation Department

Email: [email protected]

Tel : +47 23 98 00 30 / direct 02 15

Attn: Name: Eirik G. Jansen

Title: Senior Adviser

mailto:[email protected]


Part 1. Tender Specification

1. Short description of the assignment

One way to improve and strengthen aid, according to a number of international aid agencies,

is to urge recipient governments to „take ownership‟ of aid activities. In arguing for a stronger

ownership to the development and aid process, the focus has primarily been on recipient

governments and non-government institutions rather than the local populations in villages,

towns and cities in developing countries that are the ultimate target group and end users of

most development aid.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to our understanding of the perceptions the local

population have about the aid interventions that are targeted at them. The health sector in

Malawi, where Norwegian aid has played an important role, will be used as a case study to

investigate this question.

This study will contribute to the wider learning by developing a general evaluation

framework/methodology and an approach that can be used when studying the relationship

between the local population and the aid interventions in various sectors and in different

countries.

For more detailed information, see the Terms of Reference in Part 2 of the tender document.

2. Administrative Conditions

Procurement procedure

The procurement shall be effected in accordance with the Norwegian Act relating to public

procurements of 16 June 1999, as modified by subsequent acts, the last one being Act No. 41

of 30 June 2006. The procurement shall be carried out through an open procedure involving

published tender competition.

Deadlines and time schedule

The time schedule for the assignment outlined in this tender is as follows. Dates after opening

of tender are tentative.

Activity Deadlines

Announcement of the tender 06.06.2012

Deadline for clarifications related to the tender documents 12.07.2012

Deadline for submission of tenders - 13:00 hrs. (local time Oslo) 07.08.2012

Validity of the tender 07.11.2012

Opening of the tender- 13:00 hrs. (local time Oslo) 07.08.2012

Notification of the award decision 21.08.2012

Contract signature 04.09.2012

Inception report 16.10.2012

Draft final report 12.02.2013

Final report 16.03.2013


Publication, distribution April 2013

Clarifications of the tender document

All enquiries regarding this tender document shall be addressed in writing to Norad attn: the

Evaluation Department, by email: [email protected]. Enquiries should refer to: Tender:

“Development Aid as viewed by the local population”.

Replies to enquiries will be answered and published on Doffin. Furthermore, any corrections,

supplements or changes to the tender document will be published on Doffin. It is the

responsibility of the tenderer to keep up to date on the information published on Doffin.

Tender submission

The tender shall be in the physical possession of the client by the deadline mentioned in the

time-schedule. The tender can be submitted by post or delivered by courier to:

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)

Attn: Evaluation Department

Postal address:

P.O. Box 8034 Dep, N-0030 Oslo, Norway

Delivery address:

Norad‟s reception desk (6th

floor),

Ruseløkkveien 26, 0251 Oslo, Norway

Norad does not accept tenders by e-mail or fax.

The tender shall be produced in English and structured according to the format given in Part

3, Annex 2 Specifications for preparing the tender of this document. Missing information in

the tender or material non-conformity with the specified structure may result in rejection of

the tender.

The tender shall be submitted in duplicate. Original tender and the copy shall be bound in

separate ring binders. Individual sheets inside the binders shall not be stapled. Each binder

shall be marked with the tenderer‟s name and binder number. The binders shall be packed in

suitable wrapping marked : Tender: “Development Aid as viewed by the local

population”. Not to be opened before on August 7, 2012, at 1300 hrs, Oslo local time.

Public access to information

Following the selection of the successful tenderer, the tenders and the tender logbook will,

upon request, be made accessible to the public, ref. Freedom of Information Act of 19 May

2006 No 16. If the tenderer wishes that business information of a sensitive nature be exempt

from public disclosure, the tenderer shall submit an additional copy of the tender in which

such information is blacked out for public disclosure. The client reserves the right to take the

final decision concerning public disclosure of the tender.

Opening of the tender Tenders will be opened in Norad‟s offices by at least two representatives of the client. The

Evaluation Department reserves the right to reject tenders that are overdue or deficient.

Tenders not selected will not be returned by the client.


Possibility for several legal entities to submit a joint tender Firms may associate to enhance their qualifications. In such cases, there shall be one main

contractor for the assignment. The main contractor may make use of sub-contractors for

completion of a part of the assignment. The main contractor, however, will remain liable to

Norad with reference to the whole contract. The main contractor shall submit a letter of

association signed by the sub-contractor, confirming the commitment of the sub-contractor to

the assignment.

Commercial terms

The conditions specified in this document including the annexes shall apply for this

assignment. The participation costs incurred by tenderers in connection with the preparation

and delivery of the tender will not be reimbursed by Norad.

Conflict of interest

Neither the tenderer, nor any of the members of the evaluation team, shall have any existing

or potential conflict of interest during the course of undertaking the tendered assignment. By

conflict of interest is meant, in particular, that neither the tenderer nor any individual member

of the evaluation team has been involved in the planning or implementation of any parts of the

object under evaluation, nor has, or has had any financial or similar interest in the object of

the evaluation which can affect the outcome of the evaluation.

Any conflict of interest which may potentially harm the independence of the evaluation shall

be explicitly disclosed by the tenderer, providing detailed information on the character and

scope of association with either object of evaluation, or persons involved in the

intervention. In such cases the tenderer must also elaborate on how this conflict of

interest would be handled by the tenderer.

Based on the information provided by the tenderer, the Evaluation Department will make the

final decision regarding the tenderer's conflict of interest.

3. Qualification requirements

Tenderers shall submit the following documents along with their tenders:

Technical competence

i. CVs each not exceeding 5 pages for the team leader and members of the evaluation

team.

ii. A list of the most important evaluations/relevant services performed/deliveries made

by the tenderer, during the last three years, specifying dates/duration, value, and the

clients.

iii. Contact details for three references from clients with previous contracting experience

with the tenderer or the team leader. Contracts should have been allocated through a

competitive process for the relevant assignments.

Quality assurance system – CVs each not exceeding 5 pages for the quality control

personnel

Legal documentation

i. A company registration certificate. (From “Brønnøysundregisteret” for Norwegian firms)


ii. A self-declaration stating that the tenderer meets the statutory requirements in the field

of health, safety and the environment (HSE declaration).

Tax documentation

Tax certificate/certificates in accordance with the legislation of the country in which the

tenderer has its head office. The documents should show, that the tenderer is

i. Registered for declaration and payment of value added tax or a similar sales tax.

ii. Free from debts regarding taxes and social security contributions.

Norwegian tenderers shall enclose two tax certificates (form RF-1244 from the Directorate of

Taxes); one issued by the local tax collection office (kemnerkontoret) and the other issued by

the collector of taxes in the county (fylkets skattefogdkontor) in which the tenderer has its

head office.

Financial documentation

i. A declaration stating the tenderer‟s total turnover in the last three financial years.

ii. Solvency assessment supporting creditworthiness of the tenderer, or credit rating by a

registered financial institution. Acceptance of the documentation is at the discretion of

Norad.

In case several legal entities submit a joint tender, legal, tax and financial documentation shall

be submitted for the main contractor for the assignment.

4. Award criteria

The contract will be awarded to the economically most favourable tender assessed on the

basis of following criteria applied to information provided in the technical proposal:

Criteria Points

1 Competence

Assessment shall be based on the requirements specified in Part 2 Terms of

Reference, 4. Composition of team, organisation and budget.

The tendering firms experience with undertaking multi-disciplinary evaluations

or relevant research in the subject area of the evaluation.

35

2 Approach and methodology

Assessments shall be based on the tenderer‟s:

Understanding of the purpose, role and subject matter of the assignment

Proposed design for the study, methodological choices, strategy with respect to

concretisation of the issues, and as far as possible indicators and data sources to

be used to answer the main questions posed in this assignment.

Proposals shall be credited for well founded comments and alternative

suggestions where relevant to methodological specifications, issues and questions

outlined in the ToR.

40

3 Price

Tenderer‟s Score = (lowest offer/tenderer‟s offer) x (max. points for price

20


criterion)

4 Quality assurance (QA)

Tender‟s QA system

Competence and experience of the proposed QA personnel

5

For further specifications of the above award criteria please see Part 3, Annex 1 Specifications

for preparing technical proposal.

5. Technical Proposal

The Terms of Reference in Part 2 of this document specify the details of this assignment. The

tenderer is expected to elaborate a technical proposal on the basis of the information in the

TOR. Technical proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the format given in Part 3,

Annex 1 Specifications for preparing technical proposal.


Part 2. Terms of Reference

„Development aid as viewed by the local population‟

1. Background

1.1 One way to improve and strengthen aid, according to a number of international aid

agencies, is to urge recipient governments to „take ownership‟ of aid activities, to

establish their own systems of managing and coordinating donors, and only accept aid

that comes on their terms and accords with their policies. This emerging consensus was

first codified in the “2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness” (OECD, 2005)

adopting ownership as a key pillar of a new aid paradigm. Norway and other

„likeminded‟ donors have been among the strongest advocates for an increased

emphasis on recipient ownership to the development process and poverty reduction

(Norwegian MFA, 2002; 2009).1 In arguing for a stronger ownership to the

development and aid process, the focus has primarily been on recipient governments

and non-government institutions rather than the local populations in villages, towns and

cities in developing countries that are the ultimate target group and end users of most

development aid. The recipient governments and civil society institutions should,

ideally, represent local populations and forward their concerns. Research and evaluation

literature shows that this is often not the case (Easterly, 2006).

1.2 The principles of effective aid that ensued from the Paris declaration around ownership,

alignment with countries‟ strategies, harmonization of donor‟s actions, managing for

results, and mutual accountability are all means towards an end, however, which is to

improve aid effectiveness, in other words people‟s lives. They are hence assumptions

that must be tested on the extent to which they contribute towards this end.

1.3 A main objective of this study is to obtain a better understanding of how the aid

sponsored interventions are seen by the beneficiary local population, and compare this

perception with more „objective‟ measures of success and of outcomes. Furthermore,

the role local participation plays in the perception of ownership and eventual outcomes

will be explored.

1.4 There are several factors that call for such a study but which also make it challenging:

1) The amount of learning and insights that can be gained by studying the local

population in one delimited area of one country and in relation to one program or

sector is limited due to limited external validity.

2) Evaluations of policies, programs and projects show that they affect different

populations groups in different ways. In line with this, there will also be a large

variety of perceptions of the relevance and utility of a given intervention.

3) Local voices will typically be represented by local representatives of line ministries,

local government representatives, NGO or other civil society representatives and

(albeit less often) representatives for traditional authorities. While these may be in

the best position for a broad overview over popular sentiments related to a

1 Having said this, there has been confusion around whether „ownership‟ should be taken to mean ownership as

commitment (i.e. to policies however they are arrived at) or as control (i.e. over the process and outcome of

choosing policies) (Whitfield and Fraser 2009).


development intervention, they will only rarely be able to (or interested in) giving the

full picture of local inequalities and possible conflicts of interest.

4) For many programs and projects reliable outcome measures are not available,

something which will prevent the comparison between local perceptions and

outcome measures.

1.5 The proposed study will deal with these challenges. First of all, the framework developed

by the study team will allow for the implementation of similar case-studies in different

contexts and sectors, and thereby increase the validity and generalizability of the lessons

and insights derived. Furthermore, the selected study will propose a way in which it will

gain access to outcome and/or impact measures, either by selecting the intervention areas

according to where data exist or by proposing a way of collecting these data that is

independent of local population perceptions. Finally, as for the heterogeneity issues

mentioned in 2 and 3, the selected proposal is expected to explain the methods to be used

to capture this.

1.6 This study will contribute to the wider learning by developing a general evaluation

framework/methodology and an approach that that can be used when studying the

relationship between the local population and the aid interventions in various sectors and

in different countries. Other donors (e.g. DFID and Danida) have already indicated their

interest in this possibility. In addition, the study will pilot the methodology in one country

and sector, and findings from the pilot are expected to provide insights relevant to aid

work in that country and sector.

1.7 In addition, the study is expected to contribute to the debate about whose ownership and

participation donors should be seeking to include when framing the aid interventions.

Central issues in this regard will be how the aid interventions, and the institutions and

people who deliver aid, interplay with local power structures and perceived local

development opportunities, and to explore to what extent higher levels of local

ownership lead to better aid effectiveness. Also what do the aid interventions do with

the local population‟s own perspectives on the relations with, and legitimacy of the

state? Finally, to what extent is the local populations‟ understanding of their role, rights

and obligations as recipients and/or local implementers of a development project

important for achieving desired outcomes? What is the relation between the perception

of the quality and usefulness of a program and measured outcomes?

2. Purpose

2.1 The overall purpose of this research is to contribute to our understanding of the

importance of local ownership and participation for perceived and measured aid

effectiveness.

2.2 In order to do so, a three-phased approach will be used. First, a draft evaluation

framework will be developed that can be used for replication of the study in other

contexts, countries and sectors. Second, the draft framework will be applied as a pilot to

the health sector in Malawi, where Norwegian aid has played an important role. (The

insights gained from how the local population relate to programmes or projects in the


health sector should be points of reference for building an informal model rather than

the programmes being objects of an evaluation.) Finally, the framework will be updated

based on any lessons learned from the Malawi pilot.

2.3 The methodological framework should be such that it allows us to assess (i) the

programs as designed versus the programs as implemented versus the programs as

understood from the local population; (ii) participation as designed versus participation

as perceived; (iii) the relationship between ownership and participation; (iv) the

measured outcomes versus perceived outcomes; (v) measured outcomes versus local

satisfaction with perceived program effects.

2.4 The programme phases:

Phase 1_Framework development: The framework should describe the theory of

change underlying the assumption that local participation and ownership leads to

more effective aid. It should then describe the methodology that will be used to test

the theory of change, including literature review, quantitative and qualitative

methods, and methods triangulation. The framework development should consist of a

more generic version that can be applied to different sectors, and a detailed version to

be applied in the Malawi health sector case study. The framework should be

designed to address the issues raised under paragraph 2.3.

Phase 2_Malawi health sector pilot: The draft framework will be piloted on the

health sector in Malawi. Here the study will: (i) identify relevant programmes and

projects in the health sector, and retrieve the relevant documentation about these; (ii)

identify and assess the health and health service situation in the target areas for the

selected health interventions, based on available health surveys, program monitoring

data, existing impact evaluations, as well as health and health service perceptions

among the population; (iii) assess how the local population has been participating in

the development and implementation of the health programmes, and how this relates

to ownership at different levels in Malawi. The pilot should respond to address the

issues raised under paragraphs 2.3 and more particularly 3.3.

Phase 3_Framework update and consultation: The general framework, which is

meant to be used for replication purposes in other countries and/or sectors, will be

updated based on lessons learned through phases 1 and 2, as well as on consultations

with potential future users in relevant international agencies.

2.5 The users of this study will be government institutions and NGOs in Malawi, the aid

administrators, decision-makers and planners in the Norwegian MFA, Norwegian

embassies, Norad, and NGOs. It is also hoped that the wider international development

community will benefit from this study.

3. Scope and delimitations

3.1 The health sector in Malawi has been chosen to exemplify how a selected set of aid

programmes and projects are perceived and related to by the local population that they are

meant to affect. Norway has been one of the main contributors to this sector in Malawi

over a number of years and several of the supported programmes/projects have been in

effect for sufficient amount of time to be able to demonstrate effects. The health


programmes also easily lend themselves to be assessed in light of how the targeted

populations relate to the various aid interventions in this field.

3.2 The study will comprise extensive fieldwork in Malawi. The consultants will need to

spend some time in the communities under study.

3.3 Questions to be addressed in the study. In order to be able to compare people‟s

perceptions of the aid architecture, with reference to the aid programmes in the health

sector in Malawi, a general set of evaluation questions will be used as guide. However,

the questions below should not preclude the option of pursuing questions raised by the

target population itself – which is the very essence of participatory applied research.

The Evaluation Department of Norad also expects the bidding firm to propose

additional questions for the study.

A: Identify relevant programmes and projects:

What are the main interventions international development organizations, including

Norway, have supported in the health sector in Malawi? On the basis of this overview,

a limited number of health programmes and projects should be selected for this study.

In order to cover the variety of actors involved in this field, the study will select

different types of partners supplying health services (government institutions, NGOs,

faith based organizations) in different parts of Malawi.

B: Identify and assess relevant aspects of the health situation in the target areas for the

selected health interventions

What is the health situation and what are the health trends in the target population?

This analysis will be based on available health surveys, program monitoring data, and

existing impact evaluations

What do program and official data reveal about trends in the quality of public

services?

How does the population themselves understand the reasons for poor health

conditions, its origins and the most important strategies for improvement of health?

What role do traditional beliefs in the health sector play for the various groups of the

local population?

Has the local population experienced an increase in the quality of public health

services or a decrease over the latest years? (specify health sub-sector) Or are there

different views among various groups in the local community? Can the local people

relate increases or reductions in quality of health services to specific sources, factors?

What does the local population look for in quality services and how does this compare

with official quality indicators?

What role does the local health workers (from local government, NGO and faith based

organization) play in the health interventions? How does this role vary among the

different types of health workers?

What perceptions exist among the various health workers about the health

interventions they are involved in

What are the local health workers perception about the local population‟s participation

and involvement in the health interventions?

How do the various groups of health workers relate to the local population?


C: Assess how the local population has been participating in the development and

implementation of the health programmes

What are the local population‟s main channels/options for interactions with the

relevant development programme and project? Have the local people been informed

about the various selected development interventions in the health sector? Have the

local populations been consulted or participated in the design of the development

interventions in the health sector? If so, which groups of the local population have

been informed or participated in the planning of the development interventions? How

does participation relate to a sense of ownership of the programs?

To what extent do the various selected programmes involve and affect the target group

of the programmes („the poor‟, „women‟, the disabled etc.) in the community in

question?

What are the main reasons for the possible non-inclusion of parts of the target

population (political, economic, socio-cultural)?

What are the expectations the various suppliers of the health services have concerning

the participation of the local population in the programmes?

How is money allocated to the various health programmes at the local level and who

are the decision-makers in this regard. What knowledge and perceptions do the local

people have about the allocation of resources in the health sector.

D: Identify local perceptions to the selected health programs

To what extent are local perceptions and concerns, as the evaluators understand them,

reflected in the relevant programmes or projects?

How do local actors perceive and relate to a) the government, b) donors and c) civil

society respectively as providers of development aid in the health sector?

Are there incentive structures connected to the selected health programmes? If so, how

do they work and what is the perception of the local people on this matter?

Does the local population perceive there to exist conditions, expectations,

incentives/disincentives, favouritism etc in the program implementation, and to what extent is

this embedded in the program design

E: Views of the study team

What are, in the study team‟s view, the implications of local perceptions and concerns

for the outcome and likely impact of the programmes or projects?

How should, in the study team‟s view, the relevant programmes best understand and

relate to local needs and grassroots consultation?

What are views of the study team on the role the government officials and other health

workers have been playing in the development interventions and how they relate to the

local population?

And in conclusion: What is the utility/non-utility of taking local perceptions into

consideration in the planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes and projects?


4. Evaluation Methods

Methodologically, the study should be based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative

approaches and data in order to capture:

i) Quantitative expressions of aid interventions and their outcomes in terms of service

provision, health outcomes, poverty indicators or other relevant criteria;

ii) Quantitative and qualitative expressions of social relations of inclusion and exclusion

and perceptions of aid and programme conditions and outcomes among the target

population.

The quantitative information will include available health and socio-economic data on the

target population (from general surveys, programme monitoring data and baseline surveys,

existing impact evaluations etc).

Qualitative data should be collected on the basis of stakeholder interviews (with local

authorities, programme- or project staff, representatives of civil society institutions,

community groups etc.) and a set of target group interviews using participatory methods. The

groups should be carefully composed to reflect different socio-economic categories. The most

relevant methods for capturing the relevance of aid among the target population seem to be

(see Mikkelsen 2005 and Tvedten et al. 2006 for more details):

1) „Immersion‟, or opportunities for development professionals to spend some limited time

(a few weeks) living with and learning from a poor family (IIED 2007). Institutions like

DfID, SDC and SIDA actively use the approach.2

2) So-called “Reality Checks”, as a new way of gaining a genuine understanding of poor

people‟s situation (Sida 2009). Researchers go out and live for short periods with local

families and gather information about the way they live. In the longer term, the aim is for

the information gathered to be used in dialogue with recipient governments to improve

their public services.

These field work methods could involve the following activities:

i) Community Mapping – where the objective is to map the people and institutions

considered most important for well-being and poverty and explain the choices and

priorities made.

ii) Force-field Analysis – where the objective is to capture perceptions of what conditions

(political, economic, social) that may inhibit or accelerate change and development in

the community.

iii) Wealth Ranking – where the objective is to capture the community‟s own perception

of poverty and well-being, identify different levels and types of poverty and well-

being, and to identify local perceptions of options for social mobility among each

group.

2 The perhaps most famous case of „immersion‟ is that of the well known and influential economist Ravi Kanbur,

who attributes his interest in combining quantitative economic data and analysis with qualitative studies on the

ground to his immersion in the village of Muhadi in India when he was leading the preparation of the World

Development Report 2000 on development and poverty.


iv) Venn-Diagrams – which are in-depth interviews about life-stories, social networks and

the role of aid done with households selected from the different categories identified

through the wealth-ranking process.

When applying some of the qualitative methods mentioned above, the focus of the

investigations should be to obtain information about the issues and questions we have posed

under Section 3.

The study involves original field-work on a topic about which there is limited prior

experience and knowledge in Norway. Within Malawi, we suggest that fieldwork should be

carried out in different geographical areas in order to cover some of the variation under which

health services are supplied. This will make it possible to assess the implications of different

socio-cultural configurations in terms of levels of participation in democratic institutions, the

„visibility‟ of the health aid interventions, and possible differences in the way and extent to

which people relate to and confront development interventions in the health sector.

5. Main products

A. Inception report, including the generic evaluation framework, as well as the detailed

evaluation plan for the Malawi pilot study. The inception report shall also attach the

necessary ethical and governmental approvals to carry out the study.

B. Malawi case-study report, including the detailed analyses, results, discussions and

recommendations. The Malawi case study report will be a separate annex to the final

report.

C. Final report, including the updated generic evaluation framework and a discussion around

changes made based on lessons from the pilot and inputs from the wider consultation, and

the Malawi case-study report.

6. Guiding principles for the study:

The proposals shall follow the DAC evaluation guidelines

We would like to draw special attention to the following evaluation standards and norms that

the study team should adhere to:

6.1 Triangulation

The consultant shall triangulate and validate information, and assess and describe data quality

in a transparent manner (assess strengths, weaknesses, and sources of information). Data gaps

should be highlighted.

6.2 Transparency

The study report shall moreover describe and explain the method and process and discuss

validity and reliability. It shall acknowledge any constraints encountered and their impact on

the evaluation, including their impact on the independence of the evaluation. It shall detail the

methods and techniques used for data and information collection and processing. The choices

shall be justified and limitations and shortcomings shall be explained.


6.3 Ethics

The study process should show sensitivity and respect to all stakeholders. The study shall be

undertaken with integrity and honesty and ensure inclusiveness of views. The rights, dignity

and welfare of participants in the study should be protected. Anonymity and confidentiality of

individual informants should be protected.

6.4 Impartiality

The study shall be conducted in an impartial manner, and the study team must be perceived as

impartial. Impartiality is the absence of bias in due process, methodological rigor, data

collection, consideration and presentation of achievements and challenges.

6.5 Completeness

The analysis shall be structured with a logical flow. Data and information shall be presented,

analyzed and interpreted. Findings and conclusions shall be clearly identified and flow

logically from the analysis of the data and information. Underlying assumptions shall be made

explicit and taken into account. The report must distinguish clearly between findings,

conclusions and lessons learned. The evaluation shall present findings, conclusions and

lessons learned separately and with a clear logical distinction between them. Conclusions

shall be substantiated by findings and analysis.

The evaluation report shall contain an executive summary. The summary shall highlight the

main findings and conclusions, and lessons learned.

7. Organisation and Requirements

The study will be managed by the Evaluation Department, Norad (EVAL). An independent

team of researchers or consultants will be assigned the study according to prevailing

regulations on public procurement in Norway. The team leader shall report to EVAL on the

team‟s progress, including any problems that may jeopardize the assignment.

Stakeholders, including in the MFA, Norad and the Norwegian Embassy in Lilongwe, as well

as international evaluation experts will be involved in reviewing the following products of the

study, such as the inception report (including methodological framework), draft report and

final report. However, all decisions concerning changes to the ToR, the inception report, draft

report and final report are subject to approval by EVAL.

The team should consult widely with stakeholders pertinent to the assignment.

The study team shall take note of comments received from stakeholders. Where there are

significantly diverging views between the evaluation team and stakeholders, this should be

reflected in the report.

Budget

The evaluation is budgeted with a tentative maximum of 3,3 million kroner. The team leader

is expected to participate in the following three meetings in Oslo: a contract-signing meeting,

a meeting to present the work in progress, and a meeting to present the final report.


The team is supposed to undertake field studies in various places in Malawi.

The budget shall be specified as explained in Annex 1, Price.

The consultants may be requested to make additional presentations, in which case the cost

will be covered by Norad outside the tender budget

8. Composition of the team

The evaluation team shall cover the following competencies:

Competence Team Leader At least one member

Academic Higher relevant

degree.

PhD or equivalent

Disciplines (must be covered by

the team as a whole)

Social sciences,

One team member from Malawi

should have a professional

background from the health sector.

Evaluation/applied research Leading

evaluations or

applied research

projects

Experience with evaluation

methods, principles and standards.

Reports and academic publications

in relevant fields

Community based appraisals Yes Yes

Participatory methods Yes Yes

Research Qualitative method, establishing

narratives and chronologies,

document analysis of primary

sources and other evidence (oral

sources).

Quantitative methods in order to

conduct surveys on selected issues

Research Applied social science methods

Gender expertise Yes

Knowledge of international

policies regarding health, and

knowledge of the aid

architecture

Yes Yes

Familiarity with Norwegian and

international aid

Yes

Thorough knowledge of

Malawi, including field work

experience from the rural areas

of Malawi

Yes

The team as a whole shall meet the minimum requirements in terms of language:

English: spoken, written and read


Scandinavian: spoken and read

Local language: Malawi

The team should consist of two researchers/consultants knowing Norwegian and international

development aid well, and two researchers/consultants from Malawi to secure familiarity with

national aid systems and local conditions. Additional assistance may be needed to carry out

fieldwork in the chosen rural and urban location respectively.

9. Budget and Deliverables

Tendering firm

The tendering firm is expected to have experience with delivering research oriented studies in

the fields identified above.

Budget and deliverables

The Deliverables in the consultancy consist of following outputs:

Work-in-progress reporting workshop (maximum 1) in Oslo, arranged by the EVAL on

need basis. Workshop should also be organized in Malawi

Inception Report not exceeding 20 pages shall be prepared in accordance with EVAL‟s

guidelines given in Annex A-3 Guidelines for Reports of this document.

Draft Final Report for feedback from relevant stakeholders and EVAL. The feedback

will include comments on structure, facts, content, and conclusions.

Final Evaluation Report prepared in accordance with EVAL‟s guidelines given in Annex

A-3 Guidelines for Report of this document. The report produced shall be no more than 80

pages excluding annexes.

Seminars for dissemination of the final report in Oslo and in Malawi, to be arranged by

EVAL. Direct travel-cost related to dissemination in the case countries will be covered

separately by EVAL on need basis, and are not to be included in the budget.

All presentations and reports are to be submitted in electronic form in accordance with the

deadlines set in the time-schedule specified under Section 2 Administrative Conditions in

Part 1 Tender specification of this document. EVAL retains the sole rights with respect to all

distribution, dissemination and publication of the deliverables.

10. Some relevant literature for the study

Addison, Tony, David Hulme, et al. (eds.) (2009). Poverty Dynamics. Interdisciplinary

Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arndt, Channing; , Sam Jones, et al. (2009). Aid and Growth. Have We Come Full Circle?

Discussion Paper No. 2009/05. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.

Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corta, Lucia da and Laurance Price (2009). Poverty and Growth in Remote Villages in

Tanzania (2004-2008): Insights from Villages Voices Film Research. O. Working Paper No.

153. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.


Easterly, William Russel (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's efforts to aid the

rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin Press.

Edelman, Marc and A. Haugerud (eds.) (2005). The Anthropology of Development and

Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Malden

MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Eyben, Rosalynd (2008). Power, Mutual Accountability and Responsibility in the Practise of

International Aid. IDS Working Paper 305. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies, IDS.

Foucault, M. (1991). "Governmentality". In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.) The

Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Gibson, Clark C. , Krister Andersson, et al. (2005). The Samaritan's Dilemma. The Political

Economy of Development Aid Oxford: Oxford University Press.Green, Maia (2006).

“Representing Poverty and Attacking Representations: Perspectives on Poverty from Social

Anthropology.” In: Journal of Development Studies Vol. 42(7) pp.1108-1129.

Hagberg, Sten and Charlotta Widmark (eds.) (2009). Ethnographic Practise and Public Aid.

Methods and Meanings in Development Cooperation. Uppsala Studies in Cultural

Anthropology No. 45. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsalienses.

Hydén, Göran (2010). Bistånd och utveckling. Afrika: Givarnas store utmaning. Malmö:

Liber.

IFAD (2010). Evaluation Manual: Methodology and Processes. Rome: International Fund for

Agricultural Development.

IIED (2007). “Immersions: Learning about Poverty Face to Face”. Participatory Learning

and Action No 57 December 2007. London: International Institute for Environment and

Development.

Jerve, Alf Morten, Arild Angelsen, et al. (2003). Breaking the Circle: Which Ways Out of

Poverty. Oslo: Research Council of Norway.

Lewis, David and David Mosse (2006). "Theoretical Approaches to Brokerage and

Translation in Development". In: D. Lewis and D. Mosse (eds.) Development Brokers and

Translators. the Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloofield, USA: Kumarian Press.

Menocal, Alina Rocha and Andrew Rogerson (2006). Which Way the Future of Aid? Southern

Civil Society Perspectives on Current Aid Debates on Reform to the International Aid System.

W. P. 259. London: Overseas Development Institute, ODI.

Mindry, Deborah (2001). “Nongovernmental Organisations, 'Grassroots' and the Politics of

Virtue.” In: Signs Vol. 26(4) pp.1187-1211.

MIT (2010). Field Manual for Learning History. (http://ccs.mit.edu/lh/intro.html). Boston:

Massechuset Institute of Technology.

Mosse, David (2005). Cultivating Development. An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practise

London: Pluto Press.

Moyo, Dambisa (2009). Dead aid : why aid is not working and how there is another way for

Africa London: Allan Lane.

MPD (2010). Poverty and Well-Being in Mozambique. Third National Poverty Assessment.

Maputo: Ministry of Planning and Development (National Directorate of Studies and Policy

Analysis).

Norad (2005). Development Cooperation Manuel. Oslo: Norwegian Organisation for

Development Cooperation.

Norad (2007). Resultatrapport 2007. Bistanden virker - men ikke godt nok. Oslo: Norwegian

Agency for Development Cooperation

Norad (2008). Resultatrapport 2008. Veivalg i bistanden. Ingen snarveier til resultater. Oslo:

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

Norad (2009). Resultatrapport 2009. Bistand og økonomisk utvikling: Ringer i vannet eller

dråper i havet? Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.


OECD (2005). The Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development.

Ostrom, Elinor and C. Gibson (2001). Aid, Incentives and Sustainability. An Institutional

Analysis of Development Cooperation. Sida Studies in Evaluation 02/01:1. Stockholm

Swedish International Development Authority, SIDA.

Ravallion, M. (2006). "Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs". In: R. E. Evenson and T. P.

Schultz (eds.) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Riddell, Roger C. (2007). Does Foreign Aid Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roll-Hansen, Dag, Marjan Nadim, et al. (2007). Holdninger til norsk bistand. Oslo: Statistisk

Sentralbyrå.

Sachs, Jeffery (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York:

Penguin Books.

SIDA (2004). Looking Back, Moving Forward. SIDA Evaluation Manual. Stockholm:

Swedish International Development Authority.

SIDA (2009). Reality Check Bangladesh 2009. Listening to poor people's Realities about

Primary Health Care and Primary Education. Stockholm: Swedish International

Development Authority.

Tarp, Finn (ed.) (2000). Foreign Aid and Development: Lessons Learnt and Directions For

The Future. London: Routledge.

Tvedt, Terje (2005). Utviklingshjelp, utenrikspolitikk og makt : den norske modellen Oslo:

Gyldendal Akademisk.

Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2006). 'Opitanha'. Social Relations of Rural Poverty in

Northern Mozambique. CMI Report 2006:16. Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2007) “Xiculungo”. Social relations of Urban Poverty

in Maputo, Mozambique. CMI Report R 2007:13. Bergen. Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2008). Mucupuki’. Social Relations of Rural-Urban

Poverty in Central Mozambique. CMI Report R: 2008:15. Bergen. Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Tvedten, Inge, Margraida Paulo, et al. (2009). Monitoring and Evaluating Mozambique's

Poverty Reduction Strategy PARPA 2006-2008. A Synopsis of Three Qualitative Studies on

Rural and Urban Poverty. CMI Report 2009:5. Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute.

Part 3. Annexes

Annex 1. Specifications for Preparing Technical Proposal

Technical proposal not exceeding 15 pages should provide the following information:

Competence - Qualifications and Technical Competence

The technical proposal should provide:

Information about the experience and technical competence of the tenderer firm, its sub-

contractors (where relevant), and the evaluation team to demonstrate that they satisfy the

qualification and competence requirements specified in the ToR for this evaluation.

A summary of the competencies of the team members shall be provided in a tabular form

as follows:

Evaluation/study team


Leader Member Member Member Member

Name

Affiliation (Main employer)

Country of residence

Formal competence

Academic level

Discipline(s)

Knowledge and experience

Evaluation principles, methods

and standards

Evaluation assignments

Leading evaluation

Research, general

Research, subject matter

Development cooperation

Field countries

Language skills

English

Norwegian

Other (Field country

languages)

Detailed CVs not exceeding 5 pages should be attached in the annex to the tender.

Approach and Methodology

The tenderer‟s understanding of the purpose, role and subject matter of the assignment

The proposed design for the study, methodological choices, strategy with respect to

concretisation of the issues, and as far as possible indicators and data sources to be used to

answer the main questions posed in this assignment.

Tenderers are invited to make well founded comments or alternative suggestions where

relevant to methodological specifications, issues and questions outlined in the ToR. Inputs

and suggestions considered by the selection panel to significantly improve the ToR or

subsequent analysis will be rewarded with a higher score on methodology.

Quality Assurance System

A description of the tenderer‟s quality assurance system to ensure that the assignment will

be performed in accordance with the technical proposal and plans outlined in the tender.

The description should outline the tenderer‟s policy concerning control of scientific

quality of the deliverables, together with routines with respect to document control, ,

auditing of inputs, reporting of deviations from agreed plans and corrections thereof and

communication with the client.

Price

The tenderer shall quote a total price for the assignment. All fees and costs must be quoted in

NOK, exclusive of VAT, and the budget showing the total price will specify:


The hourly fee and hours for each member of the staff proposed for the

assignment.

Specified travel costs (including field visits and other travel)

Other costs if any

Work-Plan and Availability

The technical proposal should include a tentative work-plan that also gives a specification of

the time set out for each member of the team for the fulfilment of the assignment. The

division of work between the team members should be in line with the competencies of the

individual team members. The tentative work-plan should reflect timely completion of the

deliverables in the assignment.

The time-schedule for the project is fixed as given in Part I, Section 2 Administrative

Conditions of this document. Tenderers may however, propose a revised time-schedule for

project deliverables. Maximum acceptable delay in project completion is 2 months.


Annex 2. Specifications for preparing the tender

Tenders shall be structured as follows:

Part A. Covering Letter and Declarations

A covering letter for the tender (with the signature of an authorised person on the front page)

declaring that:

the tenderer accepts all the conditions specified in this tender document. Reservations

if any to any of the conditions must be explicitly stated in the declaration, specifying

the relevant condition and the terms of the reservation

that neither the tenderer, nor any of the members of the evaluation/study team have

any existing, or potential conflict of interest in undertaking the tendered assignment.

Part B. Technical Proposal Prepared according to the specification in Part 3, Annex 1 of this document.

Annexes

All the documentation specified in Part I Tender specification, Section 3 Qualification

requirements of this document must be enclosed.


Annex 3. Guidelines for Reports, Field Work and Quality Assurance

3.1 Guidelines for Inception Report and Field Work

The inception report will give a detailed description of the research strategy and methodology,

data collection and sources, the analytical approach and indicator framework, preferably with

a prototype of the analysis to be performed in the study. The report will also give a summary

of the information collected to date. Information gaps will be identified and strategy to fill the

gaps, including (if relevant), the plans for the field-work will be outlined. The inception report

will specify the list of informants to be contacted in the case countries, the methods to be used

to collect required information, preliminary draft of the questions to be asked of the

informants, and itinerary for the field visit.

A detailed work plan, specifying the roles and responsibilities for each evaluation/study team

member, and a preliminary outline of the final report format will be included as an appendix

in the inception report.

The inception report should not exceed 7000 words, excluding annexes.

It is the obligation of the selected firm and the team-leader to ensure that ethical standards are

maintained in conduct of the field-work, and data collection is conducted under free and

informed consent of the key informants.

3.2 Guidelines for Final Report

The final report shall not exceed 30 000 words, excluding the annexes. The final report shall

be developed in two phases: a draft version, and the final version. The draft version shall

contain all the main elements and major arguments, findings, conclusions and

recommendations that are to appear in the final report. The final report shall be prepared

subsequent to the approval of the draft version by the Evaluation Department.

The report shall convey insights in an informative, clear and concise manner. Use of

abbreviations and acronyms, footnotes and professional terminology shall be limited to the

minimum, and explanations shall be given for all such terms used in the report. The structure

of the reports shall be as follows:

The Consultant is responsible for editing and quality control of language. The final report

shall be presented in a way that directly enables publication.

Front page/title page

The front page shall contain the title of the evaluation/study.

Preface

A blank page to be written by the Director, Evaluation Department, Norad.

Acknowledgements

This page shall provide the following information

o Name of the firm(s) responsible for the report

o Name of the team leader and the team members

o Division of work between the team members


o Reference group (stakeholders) members where relevant

o Acknowledgement of individuals outside of the core team who have contributed

substantially to the quality of the report, including task manager in Norad‟s

Evaluation Department when relevant

o A declaration stating:

“This report is the product of its authors, and responsibility for the accuracy of data

included in this report rests with the authors. The findings, interpretations, and

conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of EVAL”.

Table of Contents

Acronyms and abbreviations

Executive Summary

The executive summary shall be a maximum of one tenth of the length of the main report

excluding its annexes. The overall objective shall be to convey the main points to a non-

technical reader. The summary shall function as an independent excerpt free of references to

other parts of the report. Use of acronyms, abbreviations, and technical terms shall be

minimised in the summary. The executive summary shall consist of four sections; namely

introduction, findings, conclusions and recommendations. A separate paragraph shall be used

to present each main finding, conclusion and recommendation. The paragraph shall start with

a simple declarative sentence in bold font that presents the subject matter in the paragraph.

Supporting or explanatory sentences shall be included where necessary. The main findings,

conclusions and recommendations shall be presented in the same order as they appear in the

report. Limitations of the analysis shall be clearly identified wherever relevant.

Chapter 1. Introduction or Background

The main purpose of this chapter is to provide information which is important for the reader

to understand the report. The introduction shall state the purpose, objectives, main questions,

scope, and main users of the evaluation/study. This shall be followed by a presentation of the

object of evaluation/study. Included herein is the background information related to

chronology, stakeholders, organisation, budgets, and policy documents. The chapter shall

conclude with a brief literature review of the relevant project and programme cycle

documents related to the object of evaluation/study.

Chapter 2. Methodology and analytical framework

This chapter should provide a detailed description of the research strategy, method and

indicator framework used in the evaluation/study. All data and survey instruments shall be

provided in annex 1 of the report. EVAL is committed to making its evaluation/studies

publicly available and it is important that the details provided in this chapter and annex 1, are

sufficient to enable the replication and extension of results by other researchers.

Chapters presenting findings

Findings: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each finding. The finding shall be

presented as a clear topic sentence. This shall be followed by presentation of the relevant data,

quotations, references, and analysis that shows how and why the evidence presented supports

the position taken in the topic sentence. Included herein is also the presentation of the

comparisons with other studies, significant trends if any, uncertainties, and limitations

relevant for the analysis presented.


Chapter presenting conclusions and recommendations

The chapter shall consist of two sections:

Conclusions: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each conclusion. The conclusion shall

be presented as a clear and direct topic sentence. This shall be followed by supporting

sentences that clearly show how the conclusion has been deduced, and which findings are

relevant in deriving the conclusion.

Recommendations: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each recommendation. The

recommendation shall clearly outline the directions and actions that should be taken keeping

in view the findings and the conclusions. It is essential that the actions suggested follow from

the findings and conclusions presented in the report. As far as possible the recommendations

should reflect on the implementation issues related to the concerned recommendation.

Annexes

o Annex 1: Definitions, data and survey instruments

o Annex 2 : Other information on need basis

o Annex 3: Details of the field work elaborating the itinerary and the list of

informants consulted

o Annex 4: Terms of Reference (TOR)

References

The references shall preferably follow Oxford‟s Manual of Style: In the text, the last name of

the author, followed by the year of publishing, shall be presented in parenthesis. At the very

end of the report, the references shall be presented in alphabetical order, according to the

author‟s name and year of publishing as referred to in the text.

3.3 Guidelines for quality assurance of the report

The final report shall normally not exceed 60 pages, excluding the annexes. The text shall

preferably be written in Microsoft Word. The font of the body matter shall be Arial 11 points

or equal. The margins shall be 2.5 cm. The report shall be delivered edited, language vetted,

and proofread and ready for publication. The reports shall be submitted to the Evaluation

Department electronically.

It is the obligation of the selected firm and the quality assurance personnel proposed for the

assignment to ensure:

Table of contents is complete

All acronyms are explained

Executive summary is accessible to the non technical reader

Method

o Clear statement of the analytical framework

o All assumptions and limitations clearly stated

Data

o Clear documentation of the data collection procedures

o All relevant data presented and summarised


o All calculations clearly documented and checked

o All data sources clearly referenced

o All biographical references complete

Analysis

o All conclusions supported by well documented data and evidence

o Clear and complete statement of the limitations

o Sensitivity of the conclusion to the assumptions is clarified

The Report

o Responds to TOR

o Responds to comments to inception report and draft version

o Response to stakeholder comments as per DAC quality evaluation

standards

o Acceptable grammar, style and organisation

o Quality assurance is complete and explains deviations if any

document tender document

Documents