Evaluation Consultant

0
Ethiopian Catholic Church-Social and
Development Coordinating Office of Adigrat
(ECC-SDCOA)
And
Secours Catholique /Caritas France and Caritas
Switzerland
Terms of Reference of the Terminal Evaluation of
Integrated Water Resource Development Project –II
(IWRDPII)
Adigart,
March 28, 2011
1
Terms of reference of the terminal evaluation of the Project titled “Facilitation of
communities’ dynamics for environmental improvement in the fields of hygiene,
Water and Sanitation”.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Ethiopian Catholic Church-Social and Development Coordinating Office of Adigrat
(ECC-SDCOA) with the financial and technical support of its partners has been
implementing numerous social and development programs and projects in the diocese
of Adigrat. Most of these interventions focus on addressing the root causes of chronic
food insecurity and absolute poverty of the people reside in its operational areas.
As part and parcel of the overall development endeavors and rural development
interventions, ADCS has been involved in developing water and sanitation facilities for
the last several years to respond to growing needs of rural population in Tigray.
As witnessed by the beneficiaries and previous evaluation reports, the interventions
have been carried out successfully and benefited the intended target groups.
Based on the assessments conducted in collaboration with respective offices of the
target areas, a 3-years project proposal was developed in 2006/2007 on integrated
water resource development project which is being implemented in selected Tabias
of three weredas of Tigray Region, namely Sasie Tsaeda-emba, Kilte-Awlaelo, and
Tahtay Adyabo.
The implementation of this project started in September 2008 and is foreseen to last for
three years (until August 2011). In agreement with the funding partners Caritas
Switzerland and Seours Catholique, ECC-SDCOA has foreseen to organize a terminal
evaluation of the project during the second semester of the third year of the project
period, i.e. in 2011.
This terminal evaluation is envisaged for analyzing the degree of achievement of the
expected results of the project.
Therefore, and as stated in the agreement with partners, this document contains the
terms of reference of terminal evaluation of the project “Facilitation of communities’
dynamics for environmental improvement in the fields of hygiene, Water and
Sanitation”, which is being implemented by the Ethiopian Catholic Church-Social and
Development Coordinating Office of Adigrat (ECC-SDCOA).
1.1 Type of evaluation
This evaluation is a terminal evaluation of the project titled “Facilitation of
communities’ dynamics for environmental improvement in the fields of hygiene,
Water and Sanitation, which “envisages the critical analysis of the procedures, inputs,
outputs and results of the project in order to find out the relevance of the identified
objectives, the quality of the management system, the degree to which the expected
objectives are achieved, and finally, to validate the project, identifying any positive or
negative deviations regarding the expected results”.
Specifically, the evaluation will focus on the ‘quality’ of the result with respect the
achievement of the ultimate goal of the project. The evaluation will be facilitated by
external consultant(s).
2
1.2 Evaluation objectives
The final evaluation of this ambitious project shall help the implementer and all
stakeholders to answer the basic question: how much did the project improve the
livelihood including the health and the development autonomy of the 15 targeted tabia
populations?. Therefore, the terminal evaluation must provide the necessary
information to local partner, ECC-SDCOA and the funding partners (Caritas France and
Caritas Switzerland) and their back donors in order to be able to analyse the level of
achievement of the expected results/objectives of the project.
Moreover, this evaluation expected to show to all the stakeholders (funding partners,
the implementer, target beneficiaries, collaborating government sector offices) that the
project has developed the appropriate procedures and activities to ensure the
sustainability of the results achieved by the project.
Specific objectives
This general objective includes the following specific objectives:
· To analyse the level of achievement and the reason on non achievement of
the project results and check the internal coherence of the agreement
regarding the design of the intervention.
· To identify any possible deviations in the implementation and/or the strategy
of the agreement through the analysis of the set evaluation criteria
· To analyse the number of beneficiary population by gender segregated
(men and women) from the project.
· To analyze the sustainability strategy of the project.
· To analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of project activities.
· To analyze the efficiency of the partnership between ADCS and Secours
Catholique/Caritas Suisse.
· To analyze the impact: the improvement of the degree of autonomy, the
improvement of the livelihood, of the behavior and of the health of the
targeted communities, the appropriation of the components by the targeted
tabia and the multiplier effect.
· To verify the degree of participation of all stakeholders, mainly the
population benefited by the project.
· To identify the added value, if any, of the different activities carried out and
methodologies employed by the project.
· To identify, together with the project stakeholders, the difficulties and
lessons learned during the implementation of the project
· To put some recommendation which can help in similar future
intervention
The evaluation shall address the 15 tabias
3
2. CONTEXT
This section includes the general information of the project under consideration for the
terminal evaluation, including the context in which the project was designed; the basic
data of the project; and finally, information on the entities that are implementing the
project.
2.1 Context
The project is being implemented in Ethiopia, country placed in the heart of the horn of
Africa surrounded by Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Djibouti and Eritrea covering an area of
1.133.380 km². It is the second country most populated of Africa, after Nigeria, with
73.9 million inhabitants, of these 50.5% are males and 49.5% are females with a life
expectancy of 46 years and a high fecundity rate (5,7 children per woman).
Ethiopia is a country, which is richly endowed with huge manpower, arable land and
natural resources. However, much of its potential is not yet exploited. To start with, out
of the sixty percent of its landmass which is known to have the potential for agricultural
development, only 15 percent is said to have been developed. Although its contribution
to the national economy is very limited, the country's livestock wealth is the 2nd largest
in Africa. The Ethiopian economy remains heavily dependent on agriculture, which
accounts for about 50 percent of the GDP. An estimated 85% of the population gains
its livelihood directly or indirectly from agricultural production
The Region of Tigray
The project is located in the region of Tigray, placed in the North part of the country
bordering Eritrea in the north, Sudan in the West, and the region Afar and Amara of
Ethiopia in the west and in the South respectively.
Tigray Region has a surface of 53.623 km² and the altitude changes between 3, 900
meters in the highest mountains of the eastern zone to almost 500m below the sea
level in the area of the west. Consequently, the temperature in the region presents big
oscillations according to the area. Also, the rainfall also changes from 300mm to
1,000mm, and there are frequent and severe droughts. The region of the Tigray is
divided into 6 administrative areas that constitute 34 districts or rural woredas and 12
urban ones. The entire population of the region in the year 2007 was 4,314,456 people
(2,124,853 male and 2,189,603 female, 50.8% of the population), of whom 80.5% is
rural and 19.5% urban population.
Zone: In Tigray Region, the project is implemented in three Woredas, at the East and
Northwest Zones of Tigray.
Woredas
In the East of Tigray:
- Woreda Saesi Tsaeda emba is one of the target areas of the project, seven
Tabias are targeted by this project: Hawile, Raale, Hadish-adi, Sinkata,
Guemuso-agamot, Sendeda and Saz.
4
- Woreda of Kilte awelalo three Tabias are targeted by the project: Maikuha,
Tsegereda and Debretsion.
In the North-West of Tigray
Woreda of Tahitay adyabo five Tabias are targeted: Lemlem, Shimbilina, Ademaiti,
Mentebeteb and Maikuhli
2.2 General information of the project
Project Title: Facilitation of Communities’ Dynamics for Environmental
Improvement in the fields of Hygiene, Water and Sanitation
Duration of the
Project
3 Years (September 2008-August 2011)
Objectives of the
Project
Global objective: The health status of the population of three
Woredas of Tigray, in Ethiopia has improved.
Specific objective: Target populations have improved their life
conditions in the field of hygiene by a global approach for access to
water services and sanitation and by facilitating education for hygiene
and behavioral changes.
Expected outcomes 1. 70 communities targeted by the project have changed their
behavior in terms of personal and collective hygiene (use of
family latrines, assimilation of hand wash principles after using
toilet and before touching food.
2. 70 new water points are functioning and the surroundings
accommodated.
3. 39 water points rehabilitated and being functional
4. Water points are well managed by the populations.
5. Agricultural incomes of 48 vulnerable families have been
improved through small scale irrigation.
6. Management Information Systems of water supply established
and functioning
7. Rehabilitation of Gormodo school reservoir (Roof water
harvesting)
8. Rehabilitation of Gormodo school latrine
9. Administrative and development committees of 15 tabias are
empowered
Main Activities 1 Setting up PHAST and CHAST dynamics in 70 communities.
2 Construction of model latrines at household level,
3 Maintaining of water points surroundings,2-1- construct and
develop springs, hand dug wells, boreholes and roof
catchments for retrieval of rainfall.
4 Facilitate the creation of “water and sanitation” committees.
5 Setting up a user fee system for water schemes
6 Facilitate the creation of small perimeter of irrigated
agriculture.
7 Establishment of data base on water supply
Funding Agencies Secours Catholique/Caritas France with its back donors( French
Ministry and Mayor of Paris), and Caritas Switzerland
Project Implementer Ethiopian Catholic Church Social and Development Coordinating
Office of Adigrat (ECC-SDCOA)
Collaborating Tigray Region Bureau of Water Resource, Mines and Energy
5
Government
Bureaus/offices
Tigray Region Bureau of Health
Direct Beneficiaries Approximately 26 000 persons living in rural inhabitants of the
targeted Tabais in the three Target Weredas.
Indirect beneficiaries. 90 000 people approximately. This figure includes the impact of the
action on schools, health centers, villages close to target population
and local authorities.
Project Budget
Approved
Amount Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
IN Euro 337 500 262 500 226 500 826 500
The total budget of the evaluation mission can’t exceed 17 000 €.
3. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION AND PLAYERS INVOLVED
3.1. Available documentation
The documents and information sources that shall be used by the evaluation team
during the desktop research phase include the following:
· Signed project agreements with funding partners including project agreement
with government line departments.
· Baseline Survey Result of the Project
· Midterm evaluation report of the project
· Annual and terminal reports of the project
· The evaluation report dated May 2009 of IWRDP I project with special focus on
the identified limitations of the project and the recommendations.
· Monitoring and mission reports
· Regional Government Sector Strategies
· Relevant communications made with donors and relevant feed backs forwarded
by Caritas Suisse/Caritas France and minutes of partners visit
· The additional scope of work defined in the partner’s mail dated 22-2-2011
together with the ADCS feedback mailed on 25-2-2011
3.2. Stakeholders involved in the terminal evaluation
An evaluation is supposed to be external evaluation
Further, the evaluation should take into account the context where the project is being
implemented and must contact, in addition to the DCS and donor organization staff, all
external stakeholders somehow involved in the implementation. These may include
the following:
· Wereda Administration
· Wereda Office Water Resource, Mines and Energy
· Wereda Office of Health
· Tabia administrative
6
· Tabia Development Committees
· Water and Sanitation Committees
· Health Extension package agents
· Target Communities (beneficiary households, school children)
· Schools, clinics, health centers
· etc
4. QUESTIONS AND LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT
The different levels of evaluation include the following evaluation criteria and questions:
However, it is important that all the lists of questions included are not final but will be
closed with the evaluation team at the kick off meeting and adapted according to needs
identified during the fieldwork.
RELEVANCE: adequacy of the results and objectives of the project to the context in
which it is implemented. It is expected that the evaluation team analyses, amongst
others, the following aspects of the project: quality of identification phase in identifying
the problems and needs of the targeted beneficiaries; the existence of complementary
projects in the area; the adequacy of the planned activities; the envisaged mechanisms
for including the points of view of the beneficiaries (both men and women), etc.
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
· Does the intervention address the priorities and needs of the targeted population
(men and women?
· Are there any tools that let the project measure the beneficiaries’ satisfaction?
· Has it been appropriate the level of involvement of the local partner in developing
the project?
· Has the project taken into account the national development strategies and
programs related to the water and sanitation sector?
EFFECTIVENESS: is understood as the analysis of the degree of achievement of the
expected objectives and results. The analysis could closely refer to and compare to the
baseline survey including the remarks of the partners on the report. The effectiveness of
the follow up action on previous project could be assessed also
For the analysis of the effectiveness the evaluation team will examine the degree of
physical and financial implementation of the planned activities according to different
qualitative and quantitative indicators that will also be used for a detailed analysis of
compliance with each of the objectives of the project. The indicators to be used include:
number of actions planned / implemented in each of the project components; number
of beneficiaries planned / reached; Number of men and women beneficiaries, etc..;
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
7
· To what extent is the project achieving its intended outputs and to what extent
are these outputs used to bring about the desired impact (outcome)?
· Are all objectives and expected results of the intervention reached?
· Has the project achieved any unforeseen results?
· Has the project foreseen all the necessary activities and procedures for
achieving the expected objectives?
· Which factor did contribute to the effectiveness of the project or have proven to
be a constraint?
EFFICIENCY: striking the balance between the outputs, results and impacts produced
and the inputs consumed, i.e. the optimal mix of financial, material, technical and
human resources to maximize outcomes. This test will analyze how the different
activities have been transformed into the proposed results in terms of quantity, quality
and time to analyze whether these results could have been achieved at the same time
by other means at a lower cost.
To analyze the efficiency criterion the evaluation team will examine the budget
expenditure and specifically, the balance between number of beneficiaries and budget;
the number of workers by total beneficiaries; and the global balance between the total
budget and the quality and quantity of planned activities. Moreover, the evaluation
team will also analyse the existence of any other complementary projects and/or
services that the project may have used for minimizing the expenditures meanwhile
achieving the same results.
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
· To what extent is proportional the amount of resources used regarding the
achieved results? How does it compare to international standards?
· To what extent is proportional the amount of resources used regarding the number
of people reached?
· Have the resources been efficiently transformed into objectives and results?
· Have the schedules and times foreseen been respected?
· To what extent is the working team able of responding to delays?
· Is the capacity of local staff and management systems appropriate for the project?
· Does the budgetary and administrative procedure of the intervention fit to the local
partners? To what extent have contributed to the outcome of the intervention?
· Are there other management bodies and donor agencies operating in the same
territory (project area), sector or target? Are there mechanisms for coordination
with these entities?
Impact: the impact on the beneficiaries will be assessed and whenever possible
quantified in terms of hygiene related diseases, livelihood improvement, school
attendance as well as the impact on the tabia in terms of development
autonomy achieved in the targeted tabia, multiplier effect (up scaling by local
communities of the project activities), impacts related to the follow up action on
previous projects.
· To what extent is the project contributed towards its long –term goals
· What wider effects and changes have been caused by the intervention
· The evaluation will also assess the perception of the beneficiaries
concerning the impact of the project components.
8
VIABILITY/sustainability: this analysis should include the long term economic effect
like: steady additional income generated by marketing of garden products (vegetable
and fruit), viability of the irrigation pump repayment, management and proper use of the
repayment funds by the tabia office, micro credit scaling up opportunities. In addition a
special focus could consider the viability of the organisation and scope of the follow up
action on the actual and previous project achievements in the area. The adequacy of the
latrines design with respect to wide dissemination among the poorest HH could be
evaluated. Viability of the Woreda maintenance process of the WP after provision of a
big spare parts stock. Degree of capacity and motivation of the tabia offices to promote
new local development after the project capacity building campaign.
Furthermore, due consideration should be given to the extent to which the positive
effects of the project continue once external funding is finished. To assess the viability
the evaluation team is expected to analyze the sustainability of impacts, both the most
visible as well as the more subtle ones (changes in working culture, etc..), paying
special attention not only to the dissemination activities of the project, but to the
existence of a viability plan aiming at transferring the best practices and impacts.
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
· Is there a strategy to ensure the sustainability of actions?
· Adequacy of water user fee collection system in each water point with regard to
the sustainability of “water service”
· Assess the approaches considered with regard to accessing spare parts and
procurements organizations
· Assess the sustainable use of household latrines mainly related to emptying
process developed , cost issues, design for rebuilding and so on.
· Assess the actions concerning promotion of hygiene , harmful traditional practices,
PHAST methodology and their contribution towards behavioural changes: Are the
key messages well appropriated by community (men and women)? Should the
trainings be improved, if yes, how?
· Assess the degree of completion of the Water Supply Management Information
Systems (MIS) and its appropriation by operational weredas.
· To what extent has the project empowered the institutional capacity of
beneficiaries (men and women), water and sanitation committees, the tabia
committees, ?
· What kind of benefits of the project will survive after the end of external support?
Similarly, and together with these traditional criteria of evaluation, the evaluation team
should consider the following evaluation levels:
PARTICIPATION: The analysis of the participation criterion focuses on the
stakeholders that have been involved at the different stages of the project, assessing
their impact in decision making. The evaluation team is expected to analyse the
involvement of the relevant stakeholders in the different project phases, measuring
their impact and true implication.
The evaluation is expected to assess the extent that the level of participation of the
target community (men and women) and the Tabia development agents (Tabia
development committees in the design, implementation, monitoring, mobilization of
resources, self management, women empowerment etc.
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
9
· Has it been clearly detailed who was going to take part in the project and how?
· Which stakeholders have taken part in the project? To what extent?
· Are the communication channels appropriate?
· Have local partners (men and women) and local institutions participated in the
design of the intervention?
· Do the sector offices of the government and local institutions participate in
implementing, managing and monitoring the project?
· Does the intervention include specific activities devoted to empower target
beneficiaries and local organizations?
COVERAGE: The evaluation of the coverage focuses on the analysis of the targeted
beneficiaries and on the evaluation of the project appropriateness to them, assessing
the causes that made the project address specific groups of beneficiaries or their
difficulties in accessing the project activities.
This evaluation criterion will include for its analysis the following questions:
· To what extent have the implemented activities reached the targeted beneficiaries
(men and women)?
· Are there mechanisms to ease the access of the target group (men and women) to
the activities of the project? Have there been any barriers for the target groups to
access the project activities?
· To what extent do the processes and outputs of the project respect the cultural,
local and linguistic differences of the community?
· How are the most vulnerable groups included in the project?
5. METHODOLOGY AND PLAN OF WORK
The evaluation methodology will be divided into 4 different phases, designed to gather
the best possible information and to involve as much as possible the relevant
stakeholders during the evaluation process. Therefore, the evaluation will contain the
following phases:
Provision of all necessary documents to the evaluation team
Start of the works
Desktop research
Field work
Synthesis and final analysis, reporting
Start of the works
This phase will begin as soon as the contract is signed and it will focus on detailing the
evaluation framework, developing the evaluation questions, the indicators to be used
and the final objectives of the evaluation.
10
This phase will start with a kick off meeting with the relevant staff of ECC-SDCOA
Management, Project team representatives of the Steering Committee and the
evaluation team. The aim of this meeting is to elaborate the following aspects of the
evaluation:
Practical aspects
· The objetives of the evaluation
· The detailed work plan
· The definitive working timetable including exact dates of beginning and end, in
addition to deadlines for intermediate and final reports
· The global approach of the evaluation including the distribution of tasks
between the evaluation team and the processes of quality control of the
evaluation
· Identification of the key stakeholders that will need to be consulted
· Rules of treatment of the confidential information
Methodological aspects
· The methodological frame of the evaluation
· Selection of documents to be consulted
· The exact format of the tools for collecting the information, the evaluation
questions, the criteria of success, indicators, sources, etc.
· The hardware to be used for the compilation of information and the consultation
with key stakeholders (questionnaires, groups of work, surveys, etc.)
· The format and the presentation of the products of the evaluation (first draft
report, intermediate report, final report, list of good practices, etc.)
After this meeting the evaluation team will draft a kick off meeting documents that will
be validated by the Steering Committee of the evaluation. The report will be delivered
in English and 3 copies will be delivered in hard and soft format.
Desktop research
After the kick off meeting, the evaluators will start the desktop research phase where
they will assess all the different available documents describing the context, design and
implementation of the project. During this phase, the evaluation team will keep a close
contact with the relevant staff of the project in order to gather secondary information
related to administrative procedures, activities, budgets, human resources, etc.
Field work
This phase will be used to deepen the preliminary analysis realized during the previous
phase contrasting and triangulating the information with all the relevant stakeholders of
the project. Consequently, the evaluation proposals will have to contain a draft of:
11
· The working plan with an indicative list of stakeholders to be interviewed,
surveys to carry out, possible dates and name of the members of the team in
charge. This plan will be flexible enough to be able to adapt itself to the
difficulties of the area.
· A draft of the methodological tools to be used (surveys, assessment grids, etc.)
that will have to be validated by the Monitoring Committee before starting this
phase. The aim of this validation is to enrich these tools and to adapt them to
the reality of the area taking advantage of the knowledge of the relevant staff of
the project.
During this phase, the evaluation team will keep close contact with the project team,
assuring the suitable contact and the implication of all the different stakeholders.
Finally, and to finish this phase of the evaluation, the team of evaluation will deliver a
document summing up the field work done, the coverage and veracity of the
information obtained.
Synthesis and final analysis
The final phase of the evaluation will aim at elaborating the final report of the mid-term
evaluation. The proposals will have to contain a description of the works to be done in
this phase, the evaluation members in charge, and the approach that will be given to
the elaboration of this report.
The final products of this phase will have to include at least:
- Draft of final report
- Workshop of discussion of draft
- Final report
- Workshop of presentation of final report
6. STRUCTURE AND PRESENTATION OF REPORTS OF EVALUATION
The evaluation report will not exceed 60 pages, including an executive summary or
around 3 pages. The evaluation team is expected to deliver three hard and soft copies
of the draft report, which is prepared in English, which will be discussed in a workshop
with the relevant staff of the project.
After handing in a soft copy of the final report and its approval by the relevant members
of the Steering Committee, the evaluation team will deliver four copies in printed of the
definitive version of the Report, as well as a CD with the document in electronic format.
The evaluation report follows the following suggested table of contents:
0. Executive summary in English and in French (if the team has the ability)
1. Introduction including the aims of the evaluation, the evaluation questions and the
principal results
· Precedents and aims of the evaluation.
12
· Methodology used in the evaluation.
· Limitations.
· Working team.
2. Description of the evaluated project, including its objectives, the logical
framework, with special reference to the potential of achievement at the end of the life
of the project; brief precedents; organization and management; involved stakeholders
and economic, social, political and institutional context in which the project is being
implemented.
3. Analysis of the gathered information, answering the evaluation questions and
established evaluation criteria of evaluation, including an analysis of the different
phases of the project (design, process, results) and criteria.
4. Results of the evaluation, presenting the evidences identified to assess the
evaluation questions and the interpretation given to these evidences.
5. Conclusions of the evaluation regarding the evaluation criteria. This section will
include a list of the identified, if any, good practices of the project. The conclusion shall
provide in particular a clear global statement, if possible a quantified statement, on the
improvement of the livelihood including the health and the development autonomy of
the 15 targeted tabia population generated by this 3 years program together with the
personal appreciation of the evaluation team.
6. Recommendations focusing on improving the project, including specific
recommendation on the design, management, results and impacts. These
recommendations will include a detailed action plan that will be previously discussed
with the Monitoring Committee.
7. Annexes including the ToR, the proposed methodology, the tools for gathering the
information, the working plan, etc.
7. EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation team will be formed by at least one external Ethiopian evaluator and
one international evaluator (one of them being a woman) who have commonly decided
to introduce one proposal for this evaluation mission.
They have both experiences in evaluations of development projects. Wide-ranging
knowledge on water resources development, sanitation, and rural development will be
a strong asset. Working experience in the region and in the sector will also be
considered. The action of the evaluation team will be facilitated by dedicated ADCS
staff. The international evaluator will essentially provide to the team his worldwide
experience and knowledgeable international standards on the project topics.
Both individual consultants and consultancy firm proposals will be accepted. Proposals
must include budgetary proposal, CV’s of the evaluation team, methodology and
working plan amongst which the best quality-price one will be selected.
According to ECC-SDCOA and the funding partners, evaluation will be preferentially
carried out by international and local consultants. Therefore, proposals of consultants
from international consultant and locals from Tigray region and experienced in
evaluating the water sector will be highly valued.
13
8. PREMISES OF THE EVALUATION, RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLICATION
The basic premises of ethical and professional behaviour on behalf of the evaluation
team will be:
• Anonymity and confidentiality. The evaluation must respect the right of the people
to provide information assuring his anonymity and confidentiality.
• Responsibility. Any disagreement or difference of opinion that could arise between
members of the team or between these, and the responsibilities of the project, as
regards the conclusions and/or recommendations, must be mentioned in the report.
• Integrity. The team of evaluation will have the responsibility of revealing questions
not mentioned specially in the Terms of Reference, if it was necessary to obtain a
more finished analysis of the intervention.
• Independence. The evaluation team will have to guarantee his independence of the
evaluated intervention, without being linked by his management or by any element
that composes it.
• Validation of the information. The evaluation team has to guarantee the veracity
and quality of the information compiled for the making of the reports, and ultimately
he will be responsible for the information presented in the Report of evaluation. The
team assessor must assure the quality in all the phases, at level skills,
methodologically, work of field, analysis of information, report with interpretation
and indictment.
• Evaluation reports. The dissemination of the compiled information and of the
Report is a right of ECC-SDCOA and Funding partners.
• Delivery of the Reports. - In case of delay in the delivery of the reports or in the
assumption in which the quality of the dedicated reports is clearly lower than the
agreed, the report will be given back and the last payments will not be carried out
up to so much the deficiencies are not corrected.
9. PERIOD FOR PROPOSALS SUBMISSION AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
EVALUATION
The evaluation will take place in September 2011. The evaluation must finish, including
the handing in of the final report, in a time lapse of max 30 days after the starting date.
All the expenses related to the mission can’t exceed 17.000 €.
The proposals must be submitted to the three partners of project by June, 5th, 2011 :
Sebhatu Halibo, ECC-SDCOA : sebhatu2003@yahoo.com
Maguy Kersual, Secours Catholique : maguykersual@secours-catholique.org
Suzanne Enz Dia, Caritas Suisse : senz@caritas.ch
The decision on the selected proposal will be given on June, 24th, 2011.
14
10. PRESENTATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND SELECTION
CRITERIA
The technical offer will include at least the following:
· Detailed CV of the company (if not individual consultant)
· Detailed CV of the members of the team
· Working Methodology
· Proposal of evaluation framework
· Working Plan
· Budget estimated for the achievement of the evaluation in which there are included
all the expenses derived from the achievement of the evaluation and proposed form
of payment.
11. ANNEXES AVAILABLE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MISSION
- project contract between ECC-SDCOA and Secours Catholique
- annual reports
- mid-term evaluation report