Evaluation Team - Requests for Proposals

PartnersGlobal
  • Location
    Washington, D.C.
  • Sector
    Non Profit
  • Experience
    Advanced
  • Apply by
    Oct-25-2019
  • Posted
    Sep 24

Position description

PartnersGlobal seeks an evaluation team to carry out a final project evaluation of its 5-year project entitled Partners for Security in Guinea: Reforming the Police to Better Inform Citizens (“Guinea for Security” hereafter). Funded by the US Department of State’s Bureau for International Law Enforcement and Narcotics (INL), the project is focused on citizen security and seeks to strengthen community policing in Guinea through training, awareness raising, engagement of women and youth, the strengthening of community-based structures and community-led initiatives designed to bring police and communities together to improve security.

This Request for Proposals (“RFP”) defines the work that must be carried out by the evaluation team. It provides a brief background of the project; specifies the scope of the evaluation and outlines the evaluation method.

 

Project Background

 

In 2010, Guinea entered a period of relative stability, with its first democratic presidential election. Prior to the election, police and military were regularly used to suppress citizen dissent. This heavy-handed approach, coupled with ineffective policing, led to a lack of citizen trust of security forces.  In 2010, the government prioritized security sector reform that focused on removing military from the role of policing. A key priority for the government was implementing its police de proximité (community policing) policy. In implementing this policy, the government sought to increase qualified police personnel, provide adequate training, and address the lack of trust and degraded state of civilian police relations. 

 

The Guinea in Security project supported the Government of Guinea to address all three of these issues. Funded by INL, the 5-year project began in March 2015 and will conclude in March 2020. At project start up, implementation was only in Conakry. The project was extended in 2017 adding Kindia and Kankan regions. A final extension was granted by INL in 2018 adding Mamou, Siguri, and Labe regions. The project operates at an institutional, community and neighborhood level through the implementation of institutionalized trainings and re-organization of the police, training for community security structures, civil society, and community-based initiatives designed to forge more productive relationships between police and communities. The project set out to achieve the following objectives:

 

Objective 1: Increase awareness among the police and community of the role and responsibilities of a police officer.

 

  • Sub-objective 1.1: Design, plan and deliver training support to strengthen the National Police Training School’s curriculum and capacities for conducting basic police training.

 

  • Sub-objective 1.2: Improve communication between police and community.

 

Objective 2: Improve police and neighborhood leadership’s appreciation for and capacity to implement inclusive, problem-solving processes for safety and security issues.

 

  • Sub-objective 2.1: Support the introduction of Community Safety and Crime Prevention Councils in each target municipality.

 

  • Sub-objective 2.2: Strengthen chefs de quartier to engage in inclusive problem-solving processes on safety and security issues.

 

Objective 3: Increase women’s capacity to participate in problem solving with the police.

 

  • Sub-objective 3.1: Support initiatives that contribute to restoring trust between police and women.

 

  • Sub-objective 3.2: Engage with women and women’s organizations to increase participation in community safety and crime prevention initiatives.

 

Objective 4: Increase youth leaders’ participation in problem-solving with the police.

 

  • Sub-objective 4.1: Support initiatives that both increase trust in police officers and improve crime prevention amongst target youth groups.

 

  • Sub-objective 4.2: Build capacities of youth leaders to engage in community safety initiatives.

 

PartnersGlobal’s primary role in the project has been to interface at the institutional level with the Ministry of Security and Civil Protection, where Partners’ Police Technical Advisor (PTA) is embedded. The PTA also interfaced with the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralization, the Directorate of Police and National Police School. The PTA provided high-level strategic guidance that assisted the government to implement community policing. The PTA also developed a police organogram to support implementation of community policing. Further, the PTA provided training and coaching to police in community policing and established a police trainer of trainers program for community policing.

 

As for COGINTA, they collaborated with Partners to train the membership of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Councils (CSCPS) in Partners cooperative planning methodology, which was used to support each CSCPS to implement inclusive problem solving on issues pertaining to security. As noted above, COGINTA undertook community security profiles/citizen perception surveys, which provided the project valuable information about the security context in which it operated. This guided/informed the design of interventions at the community level which included the establishment of a community security fund or small grant program, which COGINTA and CECIDE managed. Small grants were used to empower citizens to design and implement solutions to address crime and other security issues at the community/neighborhood level. Some of these community initiatives involved collaboration between citizens and police. The surveys were also utilized to develop community security action plans. Additionally, COGINTA developed guidelines to operationalize the CPCPS whose membership included mayors, district chiefs, and civil society. To prepare CPCSPS to liaise with police and play a role in addressing crime and insecurity, COGINTA trained CSCPS membership on youth engagement, gender sensitivity, sexually based gender violence SGBV, and oriented them to security sector reform initiatives being undertaken in Guinea.

 

Partners West Africa (PWA) provided women and youth training on leadership, stakeholder engagement, and knowledge building on security sector reform. PWA worked with police and representatives from the Office for Women and Children Protection (OPROGEM) in Guinea’s police stations, to improve their handling of cases involving women and children. PWA also organized women visitation days to police stations, women-police dialogues and youth-police dialogues. PWA’s involvement in the project concluded in 2017. Partners sub-granted to CECIDE who undertook citizen education programs (television and radio programs) to educate citizens about community policing and organized women-police

and youth-police dialogues as well as police visitation days for women. CECIDE also partnered with COGINTA to establish Community Safety and Crime Prevention Councils (CSCPS) in Kindia and Kankan in 2017. Both COGINTA and CECIDE led the police in school initiative which was implemented in 22 schools in Dixinn, Kaloum, Kindia, Kankan, Siguiri Mamou, and Labé.   

 

Evaluation Objective and Criteria

The objective of the evaluation is to examine the extent to which the project achieved stated objectives and produced tangible and/or anecdotal results. The evaluation will also analyze PartnersGlobal’s performance and capture lessons learned and best practices that could be integrated into future projects. The evaluation also will identify ways the project’s interventions could be expanded and used to inform future programming.

 

The primary audience of this evaluation includes PartnersGlobal’s staff and the staff of the project’s other implementing partners PWAS, COGINTA and CECIDE. The staff’s interest in the evaluation is reflection and obtaining lessons learned and best practices, as well as recommendations for future project design. INL, the project’s funder, is a key audience of the evaluation with an interest in assessing progress made towards the project’s stated objectives.

 

PartnersGlobal’s approach to evaluation is grounded in the guiding principles of our work which include: participatory, culturally sensitive, committed to building capacity, affirmative and positive while honest, as well as productively critical and valuing knowledge and approaches from within the local context. The evaluation will be undertaken using the Organization Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria which includes: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Because this is not an experimental (or even quasi-experimental) evaluation, the evaluation team is not expected to evaluate impact, but will focus on outcomes and results.

 

Specifically, the evaluation will analyze:

  • The relevance of the project approach for addressing the original and current security challenges;[1]
  • The effectiveness of the project in generating results and in adapting to new opportunities, risks and changes in the operating environment;
  • Project efficiency in delivering planned activities in a timely manner; and
  • The potential sustainability of results the project produced.

 

Evaluation methodology

A mixed methods methodology will be used to undertake the evaluation. The evaluation will be qualitative primarily and will include key informant interviews, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions. The quantitative approach will review the data and the performance management plan (PMP) to analyze progress made towards targets/benchmarks, output level indicators. Outcome level indicators were set at the beginning of the project, however very limited data has been collected on them. The evaluation team will identify unexpected results not identified as part of the program’s original or amended PMP. A review of the theory of change, critical assumptions, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system will also be undertaken. Baseline data will be derived from citizen perception surveys conducted in 2015 (Conakry) and 2017 (Kindia and Kankan).  

 

Stakeholders to be interviewed during the evaluation include: ministry officials from the above noted ministries, representatives from OPROGEM, representatives from the National Police School and Directorate for National Police, representatives from Guinea’s police services, membership of Community Safety and Crime Prevention Councils (CSCPCs), district chiefs/chefs du quartier, youth and women led or focused CBOs and CSOs, small grantee recipients, women and youth that participated in police visitation days, dialogues with police, and CSCPs, police referent who implemented the community in schools initiatives, PartnersGlobal, COGINTA, CECIDE, and PWAS staff. Partners anticipates 3 respondents per each stakeholder group, with up to 6 focus groups gathering women and youth in Conakry, Kankan and Kindia. The focus groups will be homogenous to encourage candor.

 

Limitations of the Evaluation

Due to budget constraints, the evaluation will be limited to Conakry, Kindia, and Kankan as these are the three locations the project operated from 2015 to 2019. Labe, Siguri, and Mamou were included in the project in 2018. Additionally, as noted above, limited outcome level data was collected.

 

Illustrative Evaluation Questions

The questions below are organized by project objectives to glean specific data on project interventions.

 

Objective 1: Increase awareness among the police and community of the role and responsibilities of a police officer.

 

Relevance

  • How well did the project approach address to the original and current security challenges in Guinea?
  • To what extent did the re-organization of the police support the implementation of community policing?
  • Was citizen education on community policing approach and methods appropriate for the Guinean context?

 

Effectiveness

  • What are the clearest examples of the project’s achievements resulting from the implementation of community policing in Guinea and citizen education activities undertaken?
  • To what extent did the project adapt to new opportunities, risks and changes in the environment?
  • Was the community policing training program sufficiently tailored to the needs of police? If yes, how? If not, what gaps existed and how can they be addressed to improve future programming?
  • To what extent did the PTA’s engagement approach facilitate effective communication, timely decision making and collaboration at the ministerial level? What about the approached worked well and what did not? What, if anything should have been changed?
  • Did citizen understanding of the role and responsibilities of police, community policing and citizen rights increase?

 

Efficiency

 

  • How appropriate was the timing and sequencing of police training, coaching and mentoring sessions as well as citizen awareness activities?
  • How could implementation delays be better managed in future similar projects?

 

Sustainability and Results

  • How well did the project plan for sustainability?
  • How well did the project transfer skills to local partners and beneficiaries?
  • What is the biggest threat to project sustainability?
  • What are the clearest examples of the project’s the long-term results?

 

Objective 2: Improve police and neighborhood leadership’s appreciation for and capacity to implement inclusive problem-solving processes for safety and security issues.

 

Relevance

  • How well did the project approach address the original and current security challenges in Guinea?
  • What, if any, changes to the approach would you recommend for potential future programs?

 

Effectiveness

  • What are the clearest examples of the project’s achievements related to the CSPCS and the small grant/community security fund program?
  • Has your perception of and trust in police changed as a result of the project?
  • To what extent was project decision making informed by community security profiles/citizen perception surveys?
  • To what extent did the trainings CSPCS receive in cooperative planning shape the group’s membership thinking on inclusive problem-solving approaches?
  • Were the trainings provided to CSPCS members and chefs de quartier adequately tailored to their needs and capacities?  If yes, how? If not, what gaps existed and how could they be addressed in potential future programming?

 

Efficiency

  • How appropriate were the timing and sequencing of preparatory and follow-on activities such as trainings, mentorship, and coaching for the CSPCS?
  • How could implementation delays be better managed in future similar projects?
  • How could PartnersGlobal’s administration of the small grant project be improved?

 

Sustainability and Results

  • How well did the project plan for sustainability?
  • How well did the project transfer skills to local partners and beneficiaries?
  • What is the biggest threat to project sustainability?
  • What are the clearest examples of the project’s long-term results specifically resulting from the establishment of the CSPCS and implementation of the small grant?

 

Objective 3: Increase women’s capacity to participate in problem solving with the police

Relevance

 

  • How well did the project approach address the original and current security challenges in Guinea?
  • To what extent did women participate in decision making on security issues increase?
  • What, if any, changes to the approach would you recommend for potential future programs?

 

Effectiveness

  • What are the clearest examples of program achievements that involve women?
  • Has perception of and trust in police changed as a result of the project?
  • How well did the trainings, mentorship, and coaching women received prepare them to participate in community-based security structures and decision making on security issues?
  • Were the trainings/mentoring/coaching women received adequately tailored to meet the needs of targeted women? If yes, how? If not, what gaps existed and how could they be addressed in the future?
  • In what ways could the project have been adapted to take advantage of missed opportunities, account for risks and changes resulting for the election delays?

 

Efficiency

  • How appropriate were the timing and sequencing of preparatory such as trainings and follow-on activities such coaching of women and women focused CSOs/CBOs?
  • How could implementation delays be better managed in future similar projects?

 

Sustainability and results

  • How well did the project plan for sustainability?
  • How well did the project transfer skills to local partners and beneficiaries?
  • What is the biggest threat to project sustainability?
  • What long-term result emerged from women’s participation in decision making in the area of citizen security?

 

Objective 4: Increase youth leaders’ participation in problem solving with the police

Relevance

  • How well did the project approach address the original and current security challenges in Guinea?
  • What, if any, changes to the approach would you recommend for potential future programs?

 

Effectiveness

  • What are the clearest examples of program achievements that involve youth participation in citizen security decision making processes?
  • Has perception of and trust in police changed as a result of the project?
  • How well did the trainings, mentorship, and coaching youth received prepare them to participate in community-based security structures and decision making on security issues?
  • Were the trainings/mentoring/coaching youth received adequately tailored to meet t targeted youth? If yes, how? If not, what gaps existed and how could they be addressed in the future?
  • In what ways could the project have been adapted to take advantage of missed opportunities, account for risks and changes resulting for the election delays?

 

Efficiency

  • How appropriate were the timing and sequencing of preparatory activities such as training, mentoring and coaching sessions?
  • How could implementation delays be better managed in future similar projects?

 

Sustainability and outcome

  • How well did the project plan for sustainability?
  • How well did the project transfer skills to local partners/beneficiaries?
  • What is the biggest threat to project sustainability?
  • What long-term result emerged from women’s participation in decision making in the area of citizen security?

 

Review of M&E system

Type/Nature of M&E system

  • Is the M&E system activity based or results based or both?

Information flows

  • Does the system define who should collect data, what data should be collected, and frequency of data collection?
  • Does the system define who should report to whom?
  • Does the information get to the right person in a timely manner?
  • Does the system include a feedback loop (process for reflection, analysis, and decision making)?
  • Are appropriate templates for reporting being used?

 

Monitoring of inputs and activities

  • What sources of data are being used to monitor inputs and activities?
  • Are appropriate templates for reporting being used?

 

Monitoring of outputs and outcomes

  • Are the outputs and outcomes associated with the indicators attainable?
  • Are indicators Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant and Timely (SMART)?
  • How often is output level data collected?
  • How is it collected?
  • How is it verified?
  • Are there processes in place for tracking outcome indicator data?
    • What was PartnersGlobal’s role and the local partner’s role?
    • What worked well?
    • What areas could be strengthened and how?
  • How was outcome level data used to inform project decision making?

Monitoring of risks and assumptions

  • Were risks and critical assumptions identified at the inception of the project routinely revisited in subsequent extensions of the project?
    • If so, what was the frequency?
    • How did such reviews inform the project team’s decision making?

 

[1] Please note the project was designed by the project funder the Bureau for International Law Enforcement and Narcotics (INL) based on its knowledge and analysis of Guinea’s politics, socio-economic development and security challenges. Partners responded to a notification of funding opportunity (NOFO) based on the analysis and guiding parameters.

Qualifications

Scope of Work

This evaluation will provide findings that are useful and relevant to support evidence-based program management and broader strategic decision making for future similar projects. The overall evaluation methodology will be operationalized through evaluation questions to capture data and analyze progress towards the project’s stated objectives and project results at the various levels the project operated (institutional, community, and neighborhood). The evaluation will also asses PartnersGlobal’s M&E system and make recommendations for improvements. The following tasks will be undertaken by the evaluation team (a lead evaluator supported by an assistant).

 

Evaluation inception phase (October 21 to November 4, 2019 no more than total of 10 days): Timeframe listed here is illustrative and will be negotiated once the evaluation team has been identified.

  • An introductory call with PartnersGlobal staff to reaffirm a common understanding of the scope of work, timelines, and deliverables (week of October 21). The Lead evaluator will submit to Partners a final work-plan and timeline for the evaluation.
  • Between October 21 and October 30, the lead evaluator and assistant will undertake a desk review of relevant programmatic documents including but not limited to the following. The desk review will be undertaken using a methodology that cross references evaluation questions to ensure data collection in the field focuses on information/data that is not reported in program documents. The following are a list of the documents that will be reviewed. During the noted timeframe the lead evaluator and assistant will consult with Partners to discuss questions and obtain clarity on the documents listed below. This list of documents may be amended by Partners during the design consultations noted above.
    • Project technical proposal
    • Cost extension proposals (2) 
    • Annual project workplans (total of 2)
    • Quarterly donor reports (total of 20 reports)
    • Citizen security perception surveys (total of 3 Conakry 2015, Kindia and Kankan 2017)
    • Original Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
    • Amended Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
    • Audio visual products including project film (2017)
    • COGINTA and CECIDE data collection tools including performance indicator tracking tables (PITTs)
    • Reports produced by the police technical advisor on trainings provided to police and other technical interventions undertaken by the PTA)
  • Lead evaluator with support from the assistant will hold preliminary consultations (October 31 and November 1) with the PartnersGlobal program team to confirm understanding, refine and finalize illustrative evaluation questions listed above. Lead evaluator with support from assistant, in consultation with Partners, will finalize evaluation methodology). These consultations will include PartnersGlobal’s police technical advisor (PTA), who will be a member of the evaluation team as a content expert. In this role the advisor will provide technical inputs to ensure the methodology considers technical issues around community policing.
  • During the above noted consultations, the following will be discussed, confirmed and decided on: focus of qualitative and quantitative evaluation i.e., number of focus group discussions, composition of focus groups discussions, objective of focus group discussions, objective and number of key informant interviews/semi-structured interviews, focus and objective of M&E system review. These consultations will include Partners PTA who as noted will provide technical inputs to ensure the methodology considers technical issues around community policing. Additionally, the PTA will ensure the design of the evaluation is appropriate for the context. The PTA will not participate in data collection due to a concern around bias. The PTA will not participate in report writing but will serve as part of Partners evaluation review team.
  • Lead evaluator and assistant will draft evaluation instruments and data collection protocols. The first draft will be due to Partners on November 8. The final draft will be due to Partners no later than November 18 and can be submitted earlier.  The review of the evaluation instruments will also include Partners’ Police PTA.
  • Between October 25 and November 6, an independent local logistical support assistant hired by Partners will organize and schedule semi-structured/key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The consultant will finalize the schedule and provide it to the evaluation team (lead evaluator and assistant) by November 6 for review and feedback. The schedule no later than November 8. Partners recognizes that evaluation teams typically establish their own meeting schedule. Because the evaluation team will not be in country before-hand, an independent logistical support assistant will be hired for this purpose.
  • Immediately after the evaluation team is hired, PartnersGlobal will ensure all contact information is transferred to the evaluation team and to local logistical support consultant.
  • Deliverables:
    • Summary of desk review findings (5-page max);
    • Final evaluation work-plan and timeline;
    • Finalized Evaluation methodology;
    • Data collection tools including: questionnaire guides/instruments, data collection protocols, and focus group discussion guides; and
    • Feedback on in country data collection schedule.

 

Data collection phase (November21 to December 21 no more than 24 days) Timeframes below are illustrative and will be negotiated once evaluation team has been identified.

 

  • Evaluation interviews will begin November 21 beginning with relevant PartnersGlobal staff based in Washington DC, identified as evaluation participants. Similar interviews will be held with the US Department of State’s Bureau for International Law Enforcement and Narcotics (INL) office in Washington DC. These interviews may be conducted in person or over the phone/via skype/video conferencing.  
  • The evaluation team will arrive Guinea on November 23 and will be met by a local logistical consultant. The logistical consultant will provide support to the evaluation team including but not limited to note taking, translation, and troubleshooting logistics. Field data collection will begin November 25 in Conakry beginning with an in-briefing with INL.
  • On November 24, the evaluation team including local logistical consultant will review the evaluation schedule. On November 24, the lead evaluator will establish and discuss an enumeration process and establish daily team de-briefing meetings among the evaluation team member to review data collected during the day and ensure notes are comprehensive as data is collected.  During this meeting, the lead evaluator will provide guidance on data collection protocols.
  • Using evaluation instruments, the evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews/semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions as part of the data collection for the evaluation. In country data collection will begin November 25 and conclude December 21. Data collection will be undertaken in Conakry, Kindia and Kankan, the three locations that the project operated the longest over its 5-year duration. Data collection will begin with an in-brief with INL’s office in Conakry. The evaluation team may be joined by a third-party contractor who works with INL for a portion of the interviews and/or focus group discussions.  He/she will be subject to the same confidentiality norms as the evaluation team and will affirm there is no conflict of interest.
  • On December 18, the evaluation team lead and the assistant will conduct an out-briefing with the PartnersGlobal staff.  During the out-briefing, the team will discuss with basic evaluation outputs, such as number of KIIs and FGDs completed, challenges encountered, basic preliminary findings, and next steps.
  • Deliverables:
    • Summary of desk review findings (5-page max);
    • Collected data; and
    • Out-briefing.

 

Data analysis Phase (December 23, 2019 to January 15, 2020 no more than 18 days): Timeframes below are illustrative and will be negotiated once the evaluation team has been identified.

 

  • The lead evaluator with support from an assistant will analyze data obtained through semi-structured/key informant interviews and focus group discussions. This will include:
    • Distilling raw textual data into summaries;
    • Linking findings to evaluation questions in a manner that is transparent and follows how data was collected and interpreted;
    • Creating a framework for findings that identifies themes and/or categories;
    • Coding data based on said themes and/or categories; and
    • Interpreting findings through summaries based on themes/categories and sub-themes/categories to include findings that differ across interview and focus group participants.
  • Deliverables:
    • Evaluation Data Collection/Methods Matrix.

 

Report writing (January 16 to February 24, 2020 no more than 18 days): Timeframes below are illustrative and will be negotiated once the evaluation team has been identified.

 

  • The lead evaluator with support from an assistant will draft the first draft of the evaluation report and provide it to Partners by January 28.
  • The following is a proposed table of contents for the Evaluation Report:
  • Background;
  • Scope and Purpose of the Evaluation;
  • Methodology;
  • Key Findings;
    • Findings from key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
    • Findings from M&E system review.
    • Findings from review of theory or change.
  • Recommendations and Conclusion; and
  • Appendices.
  • List of Key Informants
  • List of Focus Group Discussions
  • Meeting Itinerary
  • Interview guides
  • Focus group discussion guides
  • Data coding and analysis framework
  • Detailed evaluation timeline
  • Partners and INL will provide feedback no later than February 4.
  • The second draft of the evaluation report will be submitted to Partners and INL by February 12.
  • The lead evaluator with support from an assistant will present the evaluation findings and recommendations in PowerPoint format to PartnersGlobal on February 14.
  • The final report will be submitted to Partners on February 24. It will be structured as follows:
  • Deliverables:
    • Draft evaluation report;
    • Second draft of evaluation report; and
    • Final evaluation report.

 

Evaluator competencies

  • The evaluation team must have demonstrated experience conducting evaluations focused on community policing, law enforcement broadly, security sector reform, and/or citizen security;
  • 5 to 10 years of experience leading evaluations including evaluations in West Africa specifically, in Francophone countries, the Sahel Region, and/or in Guinea;
  • Familiarity with the political, socio-economic, and security context in Guinea;
  • Experience with mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative evaluation;
  • Knowledge about the barriers to meaningful participation of women and youth in decision-making related to citizen security; and
  • Fluency in English and French.

 

Required documents for proposal submission

Interested applicants should submit a proposal of no more than 20 pages in PDF or MS Word format that using the following guidelines:

  1. Cover page (not included in page count) with relevant contact information of applicant and references;
  2. Statement of qualifications including the following: number of years evaluation experience, the types of projects evaluated, experience evaluating US Government (USG) funded projects and list of previous USG funded projects evaluated over the last 3 years;
  3. A draft methodological approach;
  4. All pages numbered;
  5. Formatted to 8 ½ x 11 paper size;
  6. Single-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, with 1-inch margins. Captions, footnotes, and tables/graphics may be 10-point Times New Roman font;
  7. Annexed CV of all members of the evaluation team; and
  8. Annexed proposed workplan or timeline for the evaluation based on the deliverable dates outlined below (no more than 2 pages). The timeline is subject to modification by PartnersGlobal after contract awarding.

 

Budget

The budget should include standard costs associated with conducting a final evaluation including all travel expenses. The ceiling for personnel/contractual labor costs is $40,500. PartnersGlobal will directly cover costs associated with travel, including but not limited to: airfare, local transport, visas and inoculations, as well as per diems (at the appropriate USG rates) and lodging up to the appropriate USG rate. These travel-related expenses are outside the $40,500 cap, however please include them in the proposed budget.

 

 

Deliverables

 

The evaluation must occur between October 2019 and February 2020. The timeline provided in the scope of work is illustrative and the deadlines provided therein are subject to negotiation once the evaluation team is hired.

 

  • Deliverables:
    • Final evaluation work-plan and timeline;
    • Finalized Evaluation methodology;
    • Data collection tools including: questionnaire guides/instruments, data collection protocols, and focus group discussion guides;
    • Feedback on in country data collection schedule;
    • Summary of desk review findings;
    • Data collection;
    • Summary of M&E system review;
    • Evaluation Data Collection/ Methods Matrix;
    • Draft evaluation report;
    • Second draft of evaluation report; and
    • Final evaluation report.

 

 

Logistical support

PartnersGlobal will provide preparatory and logistical assistance to the evaluator(s), to include:

 

  • Desk review materials: project proposal, workplans, performance monitoring plans (PMP), other project reports, baseline assessment reports including citizen security perception surveys, etc.
  • Organizing a meeting/interview schedule with project stakeholders and beneficiaries including all contact information.
  • Organizing and facilitating payment for venue rentals for focus group discussions.
  • PartnersGlobal will provide logistical support in selecting airfares and accommodations as well as hiring a local logistical support consultant to assist the evaluation team in country.

 

Monitoring and Reporting

In relation to the deliverable schedule outlined above, the evaluation team is expected to provide PartnersGlobal with a progress status update via email or telephone on at least a biweekly basis for the duration of the performance period, which will be determined upon contract signing.


 

Application instructions

Miscellaneous Information

  • PartnersGlobal reserves the right to accept or reject, either in whole or in part, any and all submittals in response to this request, to waive irregularities, or action deemed necessary to protect PartnersGlobal’s best interest.
  • All material submitted for this RFP becomes property of PartnersGlobal.
  • PartnersGlobal is not responsible for any costs incurred by the evaluation team prior to conveying this agreement or its rights, title or interest therein, or its power to execute such agreement to any other person, company or corporation with the prior written consent of the PartnersGlobal.
  • PartnersGlobal reserves the right to conduct reference checks with any client listed in the documents for further information and verification of the consultant’s qualifications.

 

Procurement of Professional Services

 

Selection Process

All submittals will be evaluated by the PartnersGlobal selection panel based on the following criteria:

 

Evaluation Planning/Ability to Achieve Objectives – 30%

A strong application will include a clear articulation of how the evaluation team will jointly plan and undertake the proposed evaluation. The plan should demonstrate technical understanding and the logistical capacity of the evaluation team.

 

Cost Effectiveness – 10%

PartnersGlobal strongly encourages applicants to clearly demonstrate program cost-effectiveness in their application, including examples of leveraging institutional and other resources. If applicant is a firm, applications should include budgets with reasonable overhead and administration costs and provide clear explanations and justifications for these costs in relation to the work involved. If applicant is an individual evaluator, daily rate of said individual needs to be supported by level of experience and history of daily rate for other comparable assignments. All budget items should be clearly explained and justified to demonstrate its necessity, appropriateness, and its link to the program objectives.

 

Quality of Evaluation Approach – 40%

Applications should be responsive to the RFP, appropriate in the country/regional context, and should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to PartnersGlobal’s mission and values. Applications that have a strong academic focus will not be deemed competitive.

 

Evaluation Team Capacity and Record – 20%

Applications should demonstrate an institutional record of successfully evaluating similar programming, and in particular evaluation of previous projects in Guinea and/or security sector reform, citizen security, community policing and policing more broadly.

 

Interviews

As its option, PartnersGlobal may conduct interviews with any evaluation team and reserves the right to interview only the top-ranked firms based on the review of qualifications. 

 

Negotiations

Upon completion of the selection process, PartnersGlobal will commence negotiations with the selected evaluation team to establish a final scope of work and an appropriate fee to be paid to the team for services required. Negotiations will be suspended from any evaluation team being considered and may commence with any other evaluation team if an agreement cannot be agreed to.  

 

Agreement

PartnersGlobal shall prepare the proposed final agreement between PartnersGlobal and the selected consultant/evaluation firm. 

 

Final Approval

PartnersGlobal’s selection committee (including PartnersGlobal’s Director for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Deputy Director for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and Program Manager for Guinea), will forward a final recommendation for selection to the Director of Operations for the final approval. Final approval is expected to take place no later than 5 business days after the RFP closing date.  

 

 

Submission Instructions and Point of Contact

Applicants should direct any questions and submit proposals by 11:59PM EST on October 25, 2019 via email to Nina Tapsoba at [email protected].

follow us on Twitter