Since 2017/18 Ethiopia is threatened and affected by insecurity, severe and food insecurity, flooding, wide-scale inter-ethnic and communal clashes, violence, outbreaks of epidemic prone diseases, and COVID-19 pandemic. These ongoing crises have resulted for an increased the number of people requiring humanitarian assistances, displacement of people, civilian deaths and injuries, and significantly disrupted the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the country.
For more than a year, the violent and prolonged conflict between the government of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front forces that are designated as a terrorist organization caused severe humanitarian suffering and fatalities in the thousands. Furthermore, the conflict and continued attack of civilians by anti-government insurgencies, including” OLF-Shene Fighters “and from the Benishangul-Gumuz region has devastated civil infrastructure, increased civilian deaths, and perpetrating sexual violence and displacement against civilians. The inter-communal violence had resulted for displacement of thousands of people, death and injuries of civilians in Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR), Benishangul-Gumuz, Somali and Amhara regions of Ethiopia. In addition, the continued weather variability resulted pastoralist areas of Oromia, low lands of Somali and Gambella to be affected and impacted by drought and flood in 2021/2022. In addition, health infrastructures were damaged due to the conflict and health care workers had left the places due to the continuous security challenges and were not in the position to provide lifesaving health care to the affected community in Tigray, Amhara and Afar regions. Moreover, the outbreaks of epidemic prone diseases related with cholera, measles and COVID-19 have continued to challenge and affect the people and already weakened health care system of the country. Cholera outbreak had been reported throughout 2021/2022 in the country. The Measles outbreak was one of the problem across different parts of the country, especially in remote and in accessible areas as well as conflict and drought affected woredas. Thousands of Ethiopians citizens from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were returned as migrants and stayed in temporary shelters in 2021/2022 in Addis Ababa.
Currently, millions of people are in need of humanitarian assistances due to the violent conflict, drought and outbreaks of epidemic prone diseases in the country. In addition, the displacement of people poses serious protection concerns, increased existing humanitarian needs and escalated the vulnerabilities of women, girls, at-risk children, older person, person living with disabilities, and make them susceptible to GBV, exclusion from services or assistance, discrimination and risk of separation of children from care givers during displacement. Displaced and affected IDPs, IDP returnees, migration returnees and host community were highly in need of life-saving assistances of food, Non Food Items, health and WASH services, essential ES NFI supplies, child protection, GBV risk and mass psychosocial support. With the aim to address the existing multi-faceted identified problems/gaps and priority needs, SWAN partners provided lifesaving integrated multi-sectoral WASH, NFI and Emergency Shelter, Protection and Health assistances with the fund received in continued two rounds of reserve allocation of EHF since the end of 2020. SWAN projects have continued to provide timely and effective humanitarian support through addressing the existing inefficiencies by focusing on a flexible, faster and proactive assessment and decision-making processes; designing and providing swift and first line response both in multi-sectoral and sectoral integrated type of approach within the cluster system, ensuring faster procurement lead times; timely and efficient delivery of emergency responses for displacement affected and most vulnerable people; and improved data quality/reporting of humanitarian supplies since March 2019.
In general, nowadays SWAN becomes one of the default rapid humanitarian response mechanism due to its robust, flexible and proactive mechanism, and approach for timely mobilization of critical supplies (Non Food Items-NFIs, cash/in-kind, health, reproductive health, WASH, protection services) for ongoing nationally prioritized crises and based on the most likely scenario of anticipated similar crisis in consultation and approval of the national clusters and ICCG. The needs of affected communities were identified by the sectors through consultations between Government, Clusters members and local actors. As a result of this, SWAN projects have contributed and allowed the country humanitarian supply pipeline management to be result oriented and successful for a timely and efficient responses to the immediate humanitarian needs as they emerge for the last three years.
With the fund secured, 2020 second round reserve and 2021 first round standard allocations from EHF, Save the Children Ethiopia in consortium with World Vision, Action Against Hunger and Norwegian Refugee Council (SWAN) have implemented two projects entitled on “Multi-sectoral Integrated Responses in Protection, WASH, Health and ES/NFI” during the period from 30 December 2020 to 29 June 2022 (with NCE period) and 11 June 2021 to 10 June 2022. The allocated budget for the two SWAN projects were 12 million and 6 million of USD for 12 months of projects duration periods. The projects interventions have addressed the immediate humanitarian and priority needs of IDPs, returnee IDPs, migration returnees and host communities who were affected by the recurrent drought, conflict, localized flooding, migration, diseases outbreak, including cholera and measles, and COVID-19 pandemics with integrated and multi-sectoral responses of Protection (6% from total allocation), WASH (31%), NFI and ES (31%), and health (32%). These SWAN projects are in line with the HRP strategic objectives of the country. The first SWAN project (implemented from 30 December 2020 to 29 June 2022 ) which was mainly designed for Tigray response and neighbouring regions of Amhara and Afar aimed for improvement of the physical and mental well-being of 5.7 million crisis-affected people, and identified and addressed the protection needs of 1.9 million IDPs and other groups with specific needs by government, humanitarian and development actors; and the second round EHF 2020 standard allocation that focusing on IDPs and Ethiopia Humanitarian preparedness plan developed for the north. The second SWAN project implemented from 11 June 2021 to 10 June 2022 was also in line with the 2021 First Round Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund Standard Allocation focusing on creating the required response capacity by preposition essential supplies in conflict hotspot areas, as identified, for the country national election which was peacefully completed in June 2021. The project amended after the peaceful completion of the election to respond and use it for any upcoming crises throughout the country. These SWAN projects have enabled IDPs/returnees and other affected communities to get access immediate and life-saving assistances in the country. This is realized as a result of provision of safe and clean drinking water, life-saving WASH NFIs, construction of sanitation and hygiene facilities (latrine and bathing, handwashing facilities) and protecting crisis-affected communities, women, adolescent girls and children from violence, exploitation, abuse and harmful practices, receiving quality and timely response services and benefit from risk reduction and preventive measures. In addition, the projects achieved intended results due to provision of accessible life-saving shelter and NFIs to safeguard their health security, privacy and dignity; and essential health services, quality care prepare for, detect and respond to epidemic.
SWAN partners implemented both projects in collaboration and adequate consultation, and decision making with the national and regional clusters, ICCG and active engagement of federal to local levels concerned government sector and administration offices, IDPs, returnee IDPs and host community, and its representatives. SWAN consortium included REACH as one partner with formal agreement piloted by the consortium as part of SWAN. REACH engaged on Humanitarian Situation Monitoring (HSM)-multi-sectoral assessment and analysis of needs from hard-to-reach areas across Tigray region. The partner recommended by the donor-EHF and the consortium provided seed funding (150,000 USD) to launch HSM pilot focused on Tigray with an aim of informing more effective humanitarian action for three months (February 2021 – June 2021). REACH collected HSM data and analyzed the data, produced information products providing key findings from HSM pilot. This action conducted in coordination with OCHA and 7 partners, including 1 UN agency, 4 INGOs and 2 LNGOs, and the results of the assessment shared through the rapid assessment working group to its partners. The information products contributed to REACH was an innovative Humanitarian Situation Monitoring Pilot project of SWAN humanitarian response project within the Tigray region. The humanitarian situation monitoring aimed at to provide regular information on population movement, settlements in conflict area and changing humanitarian needs in Tigray. REACH collected information about settlements in the Tigray conflict area using the AoK (Area of Knowledge Method). This method interviews newly arrived IDPS to provide direct assessments on the area of interest, as well as remote areas that are inaccessible. This project successfully assessed 134 inaccessible woreda’s across Mekelle providing much needed multi-sectoral analysis to the response. Most importantly, this assessment was a critical source for the IPC update in June. This analysis was distributed through the ICCG at Mekelle level, the Rapid Assessment Working Group at Addis level and directly to the clusters. As the TPFL retook Mekelle and the large areas of the region more access became available to WFP and other food and nutrition actors. The IPC update and the HSM analysis was used to prioritize the areas that were targeted first after this new access. This project successfully assessed 134 inaccessible woreda’s across Mekelle providing much needed multisectoral analysis to the response.
These SWAN projects will end up and closed out on 29th of June 2022 and 10th of June 2022 for Tigray and nationwide responses respectively. Hence, Save the Children has planned to conduct final external led evaluation survey in both projects implementation areas. The final evaluation will examine the results and outcomes of the humanitarian integrated multi-sectoral responses of the two projects in relation with the indicated strategic objectives of EHF and clusters priorities, and governance and management, cost-benefit or value for money analysis, gender, protection and other cross-cutting issues, and complementarity with other response mechanisms. The outcome of this final evaluation survey is envisaged to enable consortium partners to compare and measure results with indicated indicators for the projects outcome and impact, draw lessons on what has worked well and identify challenges to the delivery of responses and functioning of the SWAN consortium in providing timely, coordinated, and sustainable response to affected IDPs, returnees and host communities.
As a consortium lead, as well as the lead of the MEAL Technical Working Group (TWG), SCI will lead the final evaluation survey in collaboration with consortium partners. The evaluation will be done by selected well experienced, appropriate and eligible external consultant or firms. The entire processes of the final evaluation (evaluating applicants, awarding, inception report, organizing team and field data collectors, training, data collection, data analysis and reporting) will be carried out from mid of April up to end of June 2022. Both SWAN projects general overview and important summarized information, and envisaged results or the logical framework (Objective, Outcome, Outputs and Standard Output Indicators) are presented in the following sections as an additional information and source of document for the evaluation.
Table 1: Brief Description of SWAN Projects
Description of the Projects | SWAN Project #1 (SOF82605096) (Fund Code-17963) | SWAN Project #2 (SOF82605186) (Fund Code-18595) |
Project Title | SWAN (Save the Children, World Vision, Action Against Hunger, Norwegian Refugee Council) Multi-sectoral integrated response in WASH, Protection, Health and ES/NFI | SWAN (Save the Children, World Vision, Action Against Hunger, Norwegian Refugee Council) Multi-sectoral integrated response in WASH, Protection, Health and ES/NFI. |
Project Allocation Type | 2020 2nd Round Reserve Allocation | 2021 1st Round Standard Allocation |
Project Implementing Partners | SWAN (Save the Children, World Vision, Action Against Hunger, Norwegian Refugee Council) and REACH | SWAN (Save the Children, World Vision, Action Against Hunger and Norwegian Refugee Council) |
Geographical Coverage (targeted Location) | Tigray, Afar and Amhara Regions | Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Gambella, Somali and SNNP Regions, and Addis Ababa City Administration |
Project Lifespan (Start and end dates) | 30 December 2020 to 29 June 2022 (Including NCE period) | 11 June 2021 to 10 June 2022 |
Contract Number (Fund Code) | ETH-20/DDA-3379/RA2/H-WASH-NFI/ES-P/INGO/17963 | ETH-21/DDA-3379/SA1/H-WASH-NFI/ES-P/INGO/18595 |
Targeted Affected Persons | 1,170,000 Individuals (70,560 IDPs in Protection, 364,560 IDPs in WASH, 86,700 IDPs in ES NFI and 1,176,000 IDPs, returnee IDPs and host community in Health sectors) | 1,744,275 individuals (21,786 people in protection, 356,630 people in WASH, 58,355 in ES and NFI, and 1,307,504 in Health sector) |
Allocated Budget for the Project | 8.5 million USD | 6 million USD |
1.3 SWAN Projects Result Framework
Table 2: SWAN Projects Logical Framework
INTERVENTION LOGIC | SWAN PROJECTS RESULTS FRAMEWORK BY FUND CODE | |||
SWAN Project #1 (SOF82605096) (Fund Code-17963) | SWAN Project #2 (SOF82605186) (Fund Code-18595) | |||
OBJECTIVE, OUTCOME, OUTPUT/RESULT AND ACTIVITY | STANDARD OUTPUT INDICATOR (SOI) | OBJECTIVE, OUTCOME, OUTPUT/RESULT AND ACTIVITY | STANDARD OUTPUT INDICATOR (SOI) | |
Overall Project Objective | Provide immediate and lifesaving WASH, ESNFI, Protection and Health assistance to IDPs/returnees and other affected communities. | |||
1. Protection | ||||
Outcome 1 | Crisis-affected communities, especially women (including women with disabilities and older persons) and children, are protected from violence, exploitation, abuse and harmful practices, receive quality and timely prevention and response services and benefit from an improved protective environment as a result of risk mitigation and prevention activities. | |||
Output 1.1 | Responsive services to identify those at risk (including women with disabilities and older persons), adolescent girls, boys, and children at risk of violence, including GBV, exploitation, abuse, and other protection risks. | Indicator 1.1.1: Number of persons with protection issues including those with specific needs identified through protection monitoring and referred for services (1813). | Women, adolescent girls and children (including those with disabilities) who are victims of violence or at risk receive a quality and timely response service | Indicator 1.1.1: Number of persons with protection issues including those with specific needs identified through protection monitoring and referred for services (500) |
Indicator 1.1.2:Number of cases identified for case management (800) | Indicator 1.1.2: Number of individuals at risk or survivors of violence are supported with emergency assistance (1.1.3) (600) | |||
Output 1.2 | Preemptive measures and responsive services for survivors, women, men, adolescent girls, boys and children | Indicator 1.2.1: Number of individuals informed on Housing, Land and Property (HLP) rights (500) | Women, adolescent girls and children (including those with disabilities) benefit from improved protective environment through preventive and mitigation measures | Indicator 1.2.1: Number of individuals provided with GBV awareness-raising and risk mitigation activities (336) |
Indicator 1.2.2: % of survivors who report are referred to health, psychosocial, case management, legal or any other service based on their needs and informed consent within the recommended timeframe (90%) | Indicator 1.2.2: % of beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable and participatory manner (1.2.4) (70%) | |||
Indicator 1.2.3: # of foster case families supported with cash assistance and CP trainings (1,000) | ||||
2. WASH | ||||
Outcome 2 | Increased access to safe drinking water and promotion of safe hygiene practice through provision of WASH supplies and items for displacement-affected girls, boys, women, and men. | |||
Output 2.1 | Affected IDPs have access to basic WASH NFIs. | Indicator 2.1.1: # of joint end-use post distribution monitoring conducted (22) | Affected IDPs have access to basic WASH NFIs | Indicator 2.1.1: Number of people reached through essential WASH NFIs (114,000) |
Indicator 2.1.2: Number of people reached through essential WASH NFIs (72,000) | Indicator 2.1.2: Number of women, adolescent girls and girls with specific needs, of reproductive age provided with dignity kits (6,000) | |||
Indicator 2.1.3: Number of women, adolescent girls and girls with specific needs, of reproductive age provided with dignity kits (18,825) | Indicator 2.1.3: Number of people reached through key sanitation and hygiene messages (32,732) | |||
Indicator 2.1.4: Number of people reached through key sanitation and hygiene messages (36,000) | Indicator 2.1.4: # of joint end-use post distribution monitoring conducted (Activity 1.1.4) (16) | |||
Output 2.2 | Targeted beneficiaries including women, men, girls, boys, elderly and disabled have access to safe water that meet SPHERE standard of 15l/c/d and lifesaving water access (7.5 liter /person/day) through water trucking, rehabilitation or maintenance of existing water supply sources, and provision of treatment chemicals. | Indicator 2.2.1: Number of sachets of household water treatment chemical distributed (1,000,000) | Targeted beneficiaries including women, men, girls, boys, elderly and disabled have access to safe water that meet the SPHERE standard of 15l/c/d and lifesaving water access (7.5 litre /person/day) through water trucking, rehabilitation or maintenance of existing water supply sources, and provision of treatment chemicals . | Indicator 2.2.1: Number of people with access to safe drinking water through water trucking (64,602) |
Indicator 2.2.2: Number of people with access to safe drinking water through durable solution (110,001) | Indicator 2.2.2: Number of people with access to safe drinking water through durable solution (17,800) | |||
Indicator 2.2.3: Number of people with access to safe drinking water through water trucking (85,091) | Indicator 2.2.3: Number of sachets of household water treatment chemical distributed (1,500,000) | |||
Indicator 2.2.4: Number of water distribution points rehabilitated (boreholes, hand-dug wells) (57) |
| |||
Activity 2.2.1: Emergency water supply pipelines maintenances and quick fix | Activity 2.2.1: Emergency Water trucking provision | |||
Activity 2.2.2: Water supply through water trucking | Activity 2.2.2: Pipe Maintenance and Rapid Repair | |||
Activity 2.2.3: Procure and distribute water treatment chemicals (PUR and Aqua tabs) | Activity 2.2.3: Procure and distribute water treatment chemical (Aqua Tabs and Pur) | |||
Output 2.3 |
| Targeted beneficiaries including women, men, girls, boys, elderly and disabled persons have access to basic sanitation facilities. | Indicator 2.3.1: Number of people with access to latrines (21,200) | |
3. NFI and Emergency Shelter | ||||
Outcome 3 | Displaced households have access to life-saving emergency shelter and non-food item (ES/NFI) assistance and improved physical protection, privacy and safety | |||
Output 3.1 | Life-saving emergency shelter and non-food item kits (ES/NFI) assistance provided in-kind for 6600 displaced households representing 39600 individuals. | Indicator 3.1.1: # of ES/NFI kits distributed (6,600) | Life-saving emergency shelter and non-food item kits (ES/NFI) assistance provided for 4,180 displaced households representing 22,990 individuals, specifically VII of Shelter & NFI cluster approved kit | Indicator 3.1.1: Number of displacements affected population receiving emergency shelter and NFI assistance (4,180) |
Indicator 3.1.2: Number of displacements affected population receiving emergency shelter and NFI assistance (6,600) | Indicator 3.1.2: Number of post distribution monitoring conducted (1) | |||
Indicator 3.1.3: # of post distribution monitoring conducted (1) |
| |||
Output 3.2 | Life-saving sufficient core relief items provided to 3650 households to improve their living conditions representing 21900 individuals | Indicator 3.2.1: Number of displacements affected population receiving core relief items (Non-food items) (3,650) | Life-saving sufficient Non-food items in line with VI of cluster approved kit.) provided to 5,140 households to improve their living conditions representing 28,270 individuals | Indicator 3.2.1: Number of displacements affected population receiving core relief items (Non-food items) (5,140) |
Indicator 3.2.2: # of core relief items distributed (3,650) | Indicator 3.2.2: Number of post distribution monitoring conducted (1) | |||
Indicator 3.2.3: # of post distribution monitoring conducted (1) |
| |||
Output 3.3 | Cash support is provided to 1,100 displaced households for core relief items to reduce the likelihood of health and protection consequences | Indicator 3.3.1: Number of HHs receiving Cash for Shelter/Rent and the related tenancy agreement to support vulnerable IDPs in the host communities (3,100) | Providing cash support to 1,290 displaced households for core relief items (Non-food items) to reduce the likelihood of negative health and protection consequences | Indicator 3.3.1: Number of displacements affected population receiving emergency shelter and NFI assistance (1,290) |
Indicator 3.3.2: Number of households receiving cash grants for provision of core relief items (1,100) | Indicator 3.3.2: # of End-use/ post distribution monitoring conducted (1) | |||
Indicator 3.3.3: # of End-use/ post distribution monitoring conducted (1) |
| |||
4. Health |
|
|
|
|
Outcome 4 | Conflict affected communities, both IDPs/refugees and host communities, as well as epidemic prone disease outbreak affected population have access to basic preventative and curative health care services through timely provision of essential lifesaving medicines and provision of primary health care services. | |||
Output 4.1 | Sufficient stocks of basic and essential medicines and medical supplies availed for rapid response to communities affected by conflict and epidemic prone disease outbreaks | Indicator 4.1.1: Number of assorted emergency medical kits distributed in crises affected locations (1,083) | Conflict affected communities, both IDPs/refugees and host communities, as well as epidemic disease outbreak affected population have access to basic preventative and curative health care services through timely provision of essential lifesaving medicines and provision of primary health care services | Indicator 4.1.1: Number of assorted emergency medical kits distributed in crises affected locations (1,679) |
Indicator 4.1.2: Number of kits procured and reached at the central warehouse (1,354) | Indicator 4.1.2: Number of beneficiaries served through medicines and medical supplies (817,200) | |||
Indicator 4.1.3: Number of Emergency Health kits prepositioned at health facilities (271) | Indicator 4.1.3: Number of epidemic prone disease alerts verified and responded to within 48 hours (24) | |||
Indicator 4.1.4: Number of beneficiaries served through medicines and medical supplies (1,176,000) |
| |||
Output 4.2 | Emergency public health and essential lifesaving primary health care needs will be timely responded (including need based responses to | Indicator 4.2.1: Number of health care workers and staffs of consortium trained on PFA (360) | Emergency public health and essential lifesaving primary health care needs will be timely responded (including needs-based responses to COVID19 pandemic). | Indicator 4.2.1: Number of epidemic prone disease alerts verified and responded to within 48 hours (24) |
Indicator 4.2.2: Number of epidemic prone disease alerts verified and responded to within 48 hours (24) | Indicator 4.2.2: Number of health care workers trained (280) | |||
Indicator 4.2.3: Number of Mobile Health Team established and deployed (2) | Indicator 4.2.3: Number of OPD consultations for CU5 in priority locations (88,012) | |||
Indicator 4.2.4: Number of total OPD consultations (21,600) | Indicator 4.2.4: Number OPD consultations for Adults in priority locations (132,012) | |||
Indicator 4.2.5: Number of health facilities providing MHPSS services (35) | Indicator 4.2.5: Number of children 6 months to 15 years receiving emergency measles vaccination (27,000) | |||
Indicator 4.2.6: Number of health facilities providing CMR services for SGBV survivors (35) | Indicator 4.2.6: Number of health facilities providing MHPSS services in priority locations (35) | |||
Indicator 4.2.7: Number of health facilities providing CMR services for SGBV survivors (35) | ||||
Indicator 4.2.8: Number of referral cases to higher level and specialized services (2,000) |
SWAN humanitarian consortium projects in Ethiopia for 2021/2022 draws to a close, it is logical for SWAN to have an external led final evaluation of its performance including the effectiveness and relevance of its strategies to achieve expected results. The evaluation provides an opportunity to highlight lessons learnt and good practices from the humanitarian response programmes for replication and scale up in future emergency programming. Considering the recurrent natural crises, displacement of people, and diseases outbreak in the past years in Ethiopia, findings of the evaluation will help better prepare SWAN as one of the rapid humanitarian response mechanism for possible continued humanitarian responses in 2022 and onwards. The evaluation will further prepare SWAN for a smooth transition in to programming approach to predict, plan for, and deliver effective, localized and accountable responses in Ethiopia.
The purpose of this evaluation is to generate information and learning that the SWAN consortium partners, concerned stakeholders, government, clusters, EHF/OCHA will use to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the humanitarian responses implemented by the two projects in Ethiopia. This evaluation will gauge the contribution of SWAN projects in provision of an immediate and life-saving humanitarian assistances timely and effectively for IDPs, returnee IDPs, host community and targeted vulnerable community groups.
The primary objectives of the evaluation are to identify the impact, results, and outcomes of SWAN projects in providing a timely, coordinated and principled humanitarian responses for people affected by crisis. Similarly, the evaluation seek to draw lessons, document good practices, identify challenges, and establish the causal relation on what has worked well and why to the functioning of the SWAN projects, particularly how it operates, in order to provide recommendations on how to further strengthen SWAN projects implementation on the efforts made to provide timely, coordinated, and sustainable response to affected people.
The specific objectives of the evaluation are:
o To assess the extent to which SWAN humanitarian response programme has delivered against its set objectives and expected results across Protection, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), NFI and Emergency Shelter, and Health programme interventions;
o To generate key successes, strengths and shortcomings of delivery throughout the programme cycle, and draw key lessons from SWAN projects programme, and incorporate them in actionable recommendations that will help to inform the design and implementation of future programme, and improve and make a positive difference to the functioning and impact of the projects;
o To assess SWAN’s preparedness to smooth transition into programming approach to predict, plan for, and deliver effective, localized and accountable responses in Ethiopia.
o To contribute to greater transparency and accountability for all stakeholders involved in terms of receiving humanitarian assistances timely, effectively and in coordinated manner; and the level of engagement throughout the projects/intervention phases including the selection/prioritization of the interventions and the monitoring /evaluation of its efficiency and impact on targeted communities.
o To assess and document the gender dimensions of the programme to see the extent to which the humanitarian response programmes has an impact on men, women, girls, and boys.
o To assess the affected population ability to access the services with safety and dignity, including persons with reduced mobility, children and women; and the information provision, and complaint and feedback mechanism in place and beneficiaries’ ability to access it with no fear of retaliation, including to lodge complaints against potential sexual exploitation and abuse.
The evaluation should follow the standard OECD/DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, coherence, connectedness, coverage, sustainability, accountability and cross-cutting themes as specified below which to be applied to all four cluster evaluations (Protection, ES/NFI, WASH, and Health):
· Relevance is concerned with whether the project is in line with local needs and priorities (as well as with donor policy). This can be considered in terms of appropriateness – the need “to tailor humanitarian activities to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability, and cost-effectiveness accordingly”. While relevance refers to the overall goal and purpose of the programmes or projects, appropriateness is more focused on the activities and inputs. These two criteria complement each other and should be used for this evaluation. This is because even where the overall projects goals are relevant.
Specific evaluation questions relevance: Are the response mechanisms carried out by the projects used strategically to meet the most urgent and prioritized humanitarian needs? Are the assistances appropriate for and serve the purpose of the target groups of beneficiaries? To what extent is the assistance adequate to meet the needs and expected outcomes it has been set up to achieve? Does the projects align with national and international priority concerns? Did the projects address the priority needs of the affected population and effectively reach the most vulnerable households?
· Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative – in relation to the inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been used. Cost-effectiveness should also be assessed which looks beyond how inputs were converted into outputs, to whether different outputs could have been produced that would have had a greater impact in achieving the projects purpose.
Specific evaluation questions for efficiency: Is the management of the SWAN consortium ‘fit for purpose’ and does it operate efficiently? To what extent does the SWAN consortium coordinate and collaborate with and complement existing working groups and clusters? Could SWAN delivery been done by other mechanisms? Is it cost proportionate? What evidence is available on the cost effectiveness of the intervention? How do intervention costs compare with other modalities? What evidence is available that efficiencies were sought in programme design? Were adequate human and financial resources allocated to delivering project outcomes? Were outputs delivered in a timely fashion? Was technology deployed to improve efficiency?
· Effectiveness measures the extent to which the activity achieves its purpose, or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of the outputs. Implicit within the criteria of effectiveness is timeliness (e.g. for if the delivery of food assistance is significantly delayed the nutritional status of the target population will decline). For the evaluation of SWAN projects, it is recommended that timeliness is used more explicitly as one the standard criteria since its objective is to provide rapid response through strengthening the coordinating and collaboration with other humanitarian and emergency rapid response mechanisms.
Specific evaluation questions for effectiveness: To what extent to which the projects activities achieves its purposes? Does the projects able to provide rapid and timey responses through strengthening the coordinating and collaboration with other humanitarian and emergency rapid response mechanisms? Are the projects implementation practices and its mechanism aligned with its objective of providing rapid responses? Is the service delivery timely and effectively? Are risks managed appropriately and is there sufficient oversight and accountability, including monitoring and reporting systems? Were the monitoring mechanisms effective in providing timely data to inform programming decisions? To what extent did the project meet its targets and deliver outputs? Identify any exceptional experiences/achievements (including on indirect beneficiaries) of the project substantiated with evidences such as but not limited to case studies, human interest stories, quotes, good practices etc.
· Impact looks at the wider effects of the projects – social, economic, technical, and environmental – on individuals, gender and age-groups, communities, and institutions. Impacts can be immediate and long-range, intended and unintended, positive and negative, macro (sector) and micro (household).
Specific evaluation questions for impact: To what extent did this project achieve the intended outcome and changes observed? What was the performance against the stated indicators? Are there any ill effects or unplanned challenges encountered as a result of this project? To what extent does the assistance make a difference in the change of lives of affected people?
· Sustainability measures whether an activity or an impact is likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. The evaluation should assess whether in responding to acute and immediate needs, the SWAN project takes the longer-term into account and potential for building scale and dealing with unexpected results (positive and negative).
Specific evaluation questions for sustainability: To what extent did the programme utilise established institutions or mechanisms to ensure sustainability at the end of the project? To what extent were relevant partnerships or capacity developed to ensure sustainability? Was an exit strategy developed to ensure sustainability? Does the SWAN projects have appropriate exit strategies? How would the clusters and other stakeholders cope, particularly in areas where the SWAN partners have had strong presence and/or have been working extensively? What contribution had the project on capacity of the government to respond to disasters quickly and effectively?
· Coherence
Specific evaluation questions for coherence: Were the projects implemented meeting consortium partner’s program quality standards for quality and change? To what extent including systems within which the projects operates and its effect on them – and use of existing Government of Ethiopia and humanitarian platforms. Are the resources invested in coordination adequate? |
· Connectedness and Coordination
Specific evaluation questions for Connectedness and coordination: To what extent does the SWAN consortium coordinate and collaborate with and complement existing working groups and clusters? Did the consortium members ensure their commitment of multiple accountability and how? To what degree have we learnt from this experience and shared the learning with others and ourselves? What will we now do differently, or what will we do more of? To what extent did the consortium structure allow to reinforce the effectiveness of this action? Did the consortium structure (including TWGs) enable to improve synergies, harmonization of intervention, to ensure the quality of the work of the different partners? Did the consortium utilize and leverage of existing Government of Ethiopia and humanitarian platforms, clusters and coordination forums? |
· Accountability to Affected Population
Specific evaluation questions for Accountability to Affected Population: How the projects engaged the community throughout the project cycle management? Did SWAN designed and used information provision and community feedback and response mechanisms? Did feedback collected from beneficiaries used for project monitoring and ensure quality and accountability? Was there a participatory assessment conducted with active participation of different groups of the targeted communities-including children/adolescents, men, women and elderly persons? Have groups with specific needs-people with reduced mobility/ minority groups-been identified and consulted? Does the design of the project ensure equal/indiscriminate /sage and dignified access of all targeted beneficiaries including children/ women and persons with reduced mobility, as well as minority groups-if any? Is there a complaint and feedback mechanism in place? Do beneficiaries know of it and how to access it with no fear of retaliation? Has feedback been provided systematically to complainants? Are beneficiaries aware of their right to protection against sexual abuse and exploitation? is there a mechanism in place to receive and process SEA complaints? Has the monitoring and evaluation of the project taken into consideration the feedback of the targeted beneficiaries? |
· Cross-cutting Themes
Specific evaluation questions for Cross-cutting Themes: How does the projects consider cross-cutting issues such as gender, child protection and safeguarding, inclusion, accountability for affected population and ensure the quality, effectiveness and impact of the project with respect to these issues? Were the projects activities respond the most urgent and pressing humanitarian needs of women and men? To what extent does the project respond to key humanitarian needs and priority issues of women and men (as defined by communities and other stakeholders)? To what extent projects could facilitate challenging gender stereotypes and under this opportunity to promote women’s leadership and empowerment? Have practical and strategic gender interests been adequately considered in the project strategy? If so, how and to what effect? If not, why not? Has the project been planned on the basis of a gender-differentiated beneficiaries’ analysis? To what extent will / could the gender sensitive approach lead to an improved impact of the project? Has a protection risk assessment been conducted with clear identification of the main protection risks, risk groups and measures to mitigate identified risks? Has data been collected in a segregated manner with a breakdown of age and sex? What evidence is there, if any, that gender and diversity was adequately mainstreamed throughout the intervention? A gender analysis, in line with the UNEG Guidance on Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in evaluation, and will consider other cross-cutting issues such as age, disability or other relevant factors depending on the context. |
These evaluation criteria and key areas of inquiry will be further reviewed and finalized during the inception phase of this evaluation. Overall, the evaluation will contribute to accountability by reviewing evidence on the performance and impact of the SWAN projects. It will examine what has worked well, how, and for whom, while identifying key bottlenecks/setbacks in ensuring the speed of delivery, efficiency and accountability of the humanitarian assistance in the four clusters.
o This evaluation includes the humanitarian assistances provided for affected population by the two projects in the four clusters i.e. Protection, WASH, ES and NFI, and health thematic areas.
o The evaluation will cover SWAN two projects entitled on “Multi-sectoral Integrated Responses in Protection, WASH, Health and ES/NFI” during the period from 30 December 2020 to 29 June 2022 (with NCE period) and 11 June 2021 to 10 June 2022.
o The evaluation shall be conducted in the two SWAN projects intervention sample selected locations. The first SWAN project (implemented from 30 December 2020 to 29 June 2022) which was mainly designed for Tigray response and neighboring regions of Amhara and Afar regions. Therefore, the evaluation for this project will be carried out in SWAN implementation areas of Amhara, Afar and Tigray regions. However considering the security problem and travel restriction in Tigray region, the evaluation might not cover SWAN project implemented areas in the region. If the security situation improved in Tigray, the evaluation will be conducted in the region.
o The second SWAN project that has been started 11th of June 2021 implemented in Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Gambella, Somali and SNNP Regions, and Addis Ababa City Administration will be part and parcel of the geographic areas of focus as project intervention sample areas.
o The following target groups, and internal and external stakeholders shall be part and subjects of the evaluation processes:
Targeted IDPs, returnee IDPs and host communities or beneficiaries (Direct and Indirect)
IDP or targeting committees, WASH committees, Community Feedback Committees
Government Sector offices of Ethiopia, including Administration, Water and Energy, Disaster and Risk Management (DRM), Bureau of women, children and social afaairs and Health Offices at regional, zonal and woreda levels
National UN clusters (Primarily Protection, WASH, ES NFI, and health)
UNOCHA/EHF coordination office in Addis Ababa
Mobile and Health Nutrition Team (MHNT), RRT and Technical Working Groups on health/AWD/Cholera, Cash etc.
Humanitarian NGOs operational in various regions of the country.
SWAN consortium and partners’ coordination teams in Addis Ababa
Consortium partners technical team and members of the TWGs
Consortium partners field teams in various regional/zonal/woreda/kebele or IDP sites.
o The evaluation shall review projects proposal and MOU, projects operations manual and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (SWAN governance, supply chain, Protection, WASH, ES NFI and cash transfer, health and MEAL), SWAN portal system, MEAL framework, projects detailed implementation plans, reports (monthly and interim narrative, and financial reports), rapid multi-sectoral needs assessments, market functionality and feasibility assessment reports, Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) survey reports, multi-sectoral responses and inputs distribution report, research documents, evaluation reports, relevant sectoral strategies and plans;
o The evaluation shall be conducted using mixed methodologies including both quantitative and qualitative, secondary data collection at supported health facility; but not limited to desk review and visits to sample selected SWAN projects implementation sites;
o The evaluation findings, analysis and recommendations shall be specific in nature and include gender (men and women) and age segregated ((boys and girls) information;
o The evaluation findings shall be substantiated with evidences (e.g. case studies, individual case or success stories, quotes, good practices, etc.).
This evaluation will employ mixed methods to deliver credible and rigorous findings by using both qualitative and quantitative methods of study for data collection, the creation of datasets building and analysis. The evaluation will focus on participatory approach and key learnings from the evaluation processes and evaluation products are used as input for consortium partners, donor and to key stakeholders, with the objectives of stimulating learning, informing decision-making, and improving future humanitarian response mechanisms. The evaluation firm or consultant should adhere with key Save the Children and consortium partners’ principles or requirements. Child participation is the key requirement and selected consultant or firm is expected to ensure that the technical proposal meets the requirements for meaningful and safe participation of children and young people, as well as women, elderly persons and persons with specific needs, minority groups (if any). It is expected the consultant to adapt and use the four national clusters evaluation tools, checklists, guidelines and take in to account Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), SPHERE standards during primary and secondary data collection processes to assess the contribution and change observed by both projects during the evaluation.
The evaluation process will consist of three main parts:
Inception and planning: During this phase, the consultant will submit and present an inception report outlining the evaluation approach that includes refined evaluation criteria, evaluation matrix, and a detailed work plan. The submitted evaluation matrix should include a series of sub-questions, indicators for each evaluation criteria, and analytical approaches suitable to assess relevant evaluation questions as well as data sources. The choice of activities to be evaluated for each sector (Protection, WASH, ES NFI and health) will be made during the inception phase in consultation with the SWAN consortium, donor and should cover different modalities, for instance cash or in-kind, specific types of interventions by sectors and geographical areas, and delivery modalities.
Data collection and Data Analysis: Once the evaluation matrix is approved as part of the inception process, the consultant team will move to the data collection and data analysis phase informed by the evaluation matrix. The consultant will identify experienced local enumerators who know the language, culture and context adequately. Three days training will be organized for enumerators. Key topics of the training that should be covered during the training are related with overview of the projects, objectives of the survey, procedures of sampling kebeles/IDP sites and household selection, responsible data collection and ethical considerations, techniques of managing respondents and conducting interviews, protecting and preventing households from COVID-19 pandemic and procedures to be followed, final evaluation survey household questionnaires, including internalizing in local languages, introducing mobile based data collection tool and techniques, household survey questionnaires pretesting using mobile based data collection tool, reviewing of the questionnaires as per feedback collected from field pre-test results and finalizing the questionnaire accordingly. It is expected the consultant firm to use mobile based and digital data gathering tools such as KoBo, Mobenzi for the household survey and use SPSS or Stata for the analysis purpose and test the findings wherever needed.
The consultant will develop tools for data collection which will include document review protocol, interview protocols adaptable to different clusters (Protection, ES/NFI, WASH, and Health), and protocols for household survey, FGDs with targeted beneficiaries (men and women separated) ensuring age and sex balance, KII with targeting committee members, local admin, MHNT, Health Extension Workers (HEWs) and health workers at health facility. Interview with consortium partners’ staff and local government authorities’ staff from woreda administration, health, water and energy, bureau of women, children and social affairs and DRM offices. An interview and discussion with regional government office representatives, national cluster and consortium partners’ staff, and SWAN consortium.
During this data gathering phase the consultant team will review procurement and payment documents, product lists and quantities of medicines and medical items, stock-keeping records, transaction records, and consumption records both at SWAN central ware house and supported health facility at field locations. The evaluation team will commence visits to project sites and carry out field partners interview and discussion sessions, in-depth household level interviews, health facility assessments, FGDs and KIIs, and observations in consortium partners sample selected operational areas. The team will assess impact of supported health facilities, protection services, trained health staff and volunteers on epidemic case management, and contribution of the RRT and MHNT, and PHEM support in diseases surveillances, case management, OPD consultations, MHPSS, PFA, management of GBV survivals, essential PHC services, public education, environmental sanitation and hygiene programs, and timely provision of lifesaving essential medicines and medical supplies such as IEHK, ERH and other kits for government health facilities. The evaluation team will review procurement and payment documents, master beneficiary lists, and cash and in kind distribution documents/payment sheets for ES NFI. Life-saving ES NFI responses impact and its contribution in terms of protecting and improving living conditions and the capacity for self-recovery of IDPs and affected people through cash for NFI, shelter/renting, and in kind type of modality will be assessed by the team. For WASH, the team will assess the procurement, pre-position, and distribution of WASH NFI or hygiene kits, water treatment chemicals to households, water tanks, HTH chlorine, etc. The team will assess water supply through emergency water trucking, rehabilitated or maintained/quick fixed non-functional water schemes, and social mobilization and hygiene promotion activities in WASH sector.
Reporting: At this stage, the consultant team will carry out synthesis of data analysis, report writing, delivery of a final report, presentation of findings of the evaluation, validation and lessons learned documentation workshop. The final report will include the extent to which the SWAN projects contributed and ensured that sufficient effort is made in providing immediate and lifesaving activities including access to safe water, establishment of sanitation facilities, and support to health and nutrition services; averting pipeline breaks, responding to the shelter and other needs of IDPs, returnees and other affected communities. The findings of the evaluation will provide insights into how the SWAN consortium projects operates across different clusters and regions and provide direct constructive feedback to the consortium partners, OCHA-EHF Ethiopia, and concerned stakeholders.
SWAN consortium and implementing partners MEAL and sector specific Technical Working Group (TWG) members, and concerned programme staff will be responsible in taking the lead responsibility of jointly working during preparatory, identification of potential consultant, finalizing inception report, actual data collection, reporting and dissemination, and sharing of findings of the evaluation. However, the following key role and responsibilities are identified for consortium partners and consultant:
o SWAN Consortium Lead and Operations Manager will provide briefing about the project to the winning consultant
o Provide all relevant background documents and data to the winning consultant
o SWAN Consortium Lead and Operations Manager in consultation with SC MEAL unit will provide orientation on the preparation of an inception report
o SWAN consortium and SCI will provide feedback on inception report and data collection tools, supervise the process of data collection and analysis to ensure quality
o MEAL and program staff will ensure if all project indicators are included according to the logical framework
o SCI HO MEAL will work with consortium and finance, logistic in bidding processes, organising potential consultant’s selection committee represented from all consortium partners, identifying selection criteria, signing of agreements and different phases of payments.
o SCI HO MEAL, in collaboration with the MEAL TWG members (organized from all implementing organizations) will be responsible to coordinate and administer the entire final evaluation processes
o SWAN consortium and SCI will review and provide feedback on draft report during the consultancy period
o Organize validation workshop
o Arrange or facilitate meetings with the consultant, donor and consortium partners
o SWAN consortium and SCI will effect payments pursuant to the agreement signed with the consultant in collaboration with procurement and finance departments.
o SWAN consortium, in collaboration with the consultant will organize evaluation findings presentation, lessons documentation workshop to present findings from final report after the provided comment during validation workshop.
o Consortium partners will actively participate during entire consultant bidding processes
o The consortium partners are responsible for supporting and overlooking the overall final evaluation process, assigning relevant technical advisors/coordinators in providing required data/information, participating during interviews, supporting field data collection, providing technical comments on the overall process of the final evaluation, ToR, tools, inception report, final evaluation reporting, identifying and documenting key lessons and etc.
o Each consortium partner will be responsible to support the consultant for data collection (both qualitative and quantitative) in their respective implementation areas
o Consortium partners will provide all relevant documents and data to the winning consultant
o Provide technical feedback and inputs on inception report, data collection tools, evaluation report
o Supervise the process of data collection and analysis to ensure quality
The consultant selected for this assignment will have the following role and responsibility:
o Attend SWAN/SCI’s briefing session about the project and on how to develop an inception report.
o Review all project documents relevant to the final evaluation
o Recruit experienced data collectors/enumerators in collaboration with program staff and partners
o Provide 3-4 days intensive training for enumerators on survey tools, and on COVID-19 mode of transmission and prevention methods to ensure the safety of enumerators and interviewees
o Deploy pertinent qualified and experienced evaluation team members for the assignment.
o Prepare, submit and present draft inception report (as per SCI and partner’s guidance) along with the tools, detailed survey methodology and approach designed for data collection
o Finalize the inception report
o Coordinate and administer the final evaluation including developing detailed evaluation implementation plan, preparing field data collection methodologies instruments/tools, providing training to local enumerators and evaluation team, supervise during data collection
o Ensure the quality of field data collection and if all needed data are collected; conduct daily evening sessions with the enumerators to share experiences among themselves on the challenges they encountered during data collection
o Be responsible for the collection, entry, cleaning and analysis of data and manage all costs associated to this survey
o The consultant will be responsible to facilitate data collection (both qualitative and quantitative) in sample selected geographical locations of partners’ respective implementation areas, analysing quantitative and qualitative data, developing and sharing draft report
o The consultant will draft the final evaluation report according to Save the Children evaluation report standard/guideline and share it with consortium lead, and the consortium lead will share for partners for comment and technical inputs on the draft report for finalization. The consultant will finalise the report as per the comment and feedback provided by all.
o Present evaluation findings and recommendations during validation workshop to include relevant inputs and suggestions
o Produce final evaluation report as per the inputs of the validation workshop and technical inputs shared previously
o Present the findings of the final evaluation, and document lessons learned through organizing workshop by the consortium
o Sharing of the final evaluation report and prepared two pages of evaluation synthesis as per SCI’s template.
The consultant is expected to deliver the following key tasks.
The inception report prepared by the consultant should capture the following:
o Outcome of the initial desk review
o Well-articulated evaluation matrix
o Team members profile and the consulting firm experience in conducting similar surveys
o Standard detailed methodology, approach, sampling methods, tools and work plan for the evaluation
o Data collectors training and field data collection management/supervision
o Data management and analysis including the software to be used for analysis
o Ethical issues to be considered
o Protection and Child Safeguarding (CSG) issues to be considered to ensure the safety of children during data collection
The final report should include:
o Cleaned complete dataset(s) of all quantitative data
o A data dictionary for the quantitative dataset(s), using a template provided by SCI or consortium partners
o Output of statistical analysis of quantitative results in MS Word
o Complete transcripts of all qualitative data collected in English
o Content analysis or other analytical output of the qualitative data, including key themes identified and frequencies of those themes
o Documentation of the qualitative topics analysed and frequency analysis.
o A meeting to present draft inception report and collect feedback among consortium partners
o The consultant will organise one-day validation workshop to validate evaluation findings, analysis and recommendations (to be organized by Consortium Coordination)
o Closing workshop with EHF, SCI and Consortium partners’ staffs to present findings and get feedback, and lessons documentation
o Discussion on agreed lessons learned, best practices and success stories that can be incorporated into relevant sectors’ programming and future humanitarian response projects
o Discussion on agreed recommendations that will inform and improve SWAN’s/SCI and consortium partner’s future programmatic strategy, with agreed action points and deadlines.
It is expected the consultant to share a maximum 30 pages, excluding annexes of high quality and concise final evaluation report in agreed template and in Microsoft word format (accepted by Senior Management Team of SWAN consortium) capturing following:
o Detailed report including executive summary (the final report will factor in minimum two round of feedback by consortium partners as listed above and outcome of validation workshop). The report should be in line with Save the Children evaluation report standard
o Draft evaluation report submitted to SWAN consortium and SCI, consortium partners MEAL TWG, WASH/ES NFI/Health technical working groups of the consortium members, managers of the consortium members for feedback and comments, ten days after conclusion of field data collection
o Final Evaluation Report- The report must be clear, concise and consistent, and the following sections must be included as a minimum: Executive Summary, Literature Review of SWAN project, Methodology, Analysis of Findings, Conclusion, Recommendations, Annexes
o Annexes - ToR, logical framework, work plan, list of team members, list of all the secondary information reviewed for the evaluation, inventory of places visited, data collection tools and people met etc.; high quality case studies, human interest stories, explanatory pictures, quotes, brief report from the validation and lessons documentation workshop.
o The consultant will prepare concise and high quality power point presentation which captures key findings and lessons, of the evaluation report. It is also expected the consultant to prepare and submit two pages of evaluation synthesis which will be shared for donor, SMT of consortium partners and others.
The consultant is expected to deliver the assignment within a period of 72 days after signing of the agreement. The technical proposal submitted to SWAN consortium or Save the Children needs to include a work plan in compliance with the aforementioned duration of the assignment. The timeline may be further adjusted or refined during the inception phase.
The consultant firm will make clear to all evaluation participants that they are under no obligation to participate in the evaluation study if they are not willing. All participants will be assured that there will be no negative consequences if they choose not to participate. The evaluation team will obtain informed consent from the participants. The evaluation team will ensure prior permission is received for taking and use of photos and videos for specific purposes, i.e., ‘for revaluation report and presentations’. The evaluation team will assure the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality and will ensure the visual data is protected and used for agreed purposes only. In particular, the evaluation team will employ robust data security measures to further ensure participants’ confidentiality and anonymity. The consultant should develop and implement context specific adaptation plan and strategy to maximize participation of concerned stakeholders and protect, prevent stakeholders from COVID-19 pandemic. During data collection and meeting with beneficiaries; enumerators and the evaluation team should be adequately communicated and informed to adhere to social distancing, use of individual or small groups with distancing, use of wider/open/well ventilated areas and wear masks, wash hands with soap. The consulting firm should abide to Save the Children/Consortium Child Safeguarding (CSG) policy.
o The consultant team will have access to all documentation and can take part in relevant meetings, workshops and field visits data collection within the timeframe of the assignment
o The evaluators will contact key staff of the consortium partners, government counterparts, targeted community, national clusters and donor representatives to obtain required and adequate information/data for this evaluation purpose
o The evaluation team in collaboration with field consortium partners staff will contact project targeted beneficiaries, IDPs or host community for HH survey, FGD and KII
o The team will contact through consortium partners field staff and Woreda Health Offices representatives to do health facility assessment, collect data from supported health centres or hospitals
o Evaluators will take confidentiality and objectivity into consideration during the process.
o The consultant team leader frequent communication with all concerned as mentioned if there is any change from the plan.
The consultant is expected to submit details of the total cost based on unit costs and disaggregated by line items in a separate sealed envelope. The total cost needs to be inclusive of VAT. The consultant will present costs related with perdiem of the evaluation team, including costs from inception report preparation to report writing, validation and close-out workshops, enumerators payments, flight and vehicle rents, fuel costs etc.
The payment will be effected in three rounds:
1st payment: 20% upon signing of agreement and submission of inception report
2nd payment: 30 % upon receipt of acceptable first draft report
3rd payment: 50% up on submission of the final report and all other deliverables.
All payments shall be subject to appropriate taxation
The major evaluation criteria and the score threshold are related with:
o Save the children will evaluate the technical and financial proposals out of 60 and 40% respectively.
o Technical proposals that scored 40 and above out of 60 points will qualify for the next step (financial analysis). Details of the technical evaluations criteria includes:
Technical design (methodology) 30%
Capability and experience 20%
Work plan 10%
The bidder shall bear all cost associated with preparation and submission of the application. The bidder shall submit duly signed one (1) copy of technical and one (1) copy of financial proposal in Microsoft pdf format in the template provided below. The bids not submitted in the below template will be automatically rejected.
Table 4: Components of the technical proposal and score marks
Topic | Maximum Marks | Maximum Page Limit |
Cover letter explaining your overall motivation, past experience on the humanitarian response programs, multi-sectoral response projects or programs, experience of evaluating consortium projects, and justification of suitability for the evaluation. | 5 | 1 Page |
Understanding of the task (Not just copy and paste from the ToR content) | 5 | 2 Page |
Proposed Evaluation Matrix in line with key evaluation questions and scope | 20 | 5 Pages |
Based on the evaluation matrix, proposed Methodology and Sampling to undertake the evaluation | 20 | 4 Pages |
Detailed Work Plan to carry out the evaluation highlighting key mile stones and deadlines | 5 | 2 pages |
Team Composition along with rationale and role of each member (Please include CVs of each member not more than 3 page each) | 5 | 2 pages (excluding CVs) |
Copy of legal documents (valid registration, TIN and VAT certificates) | Mandatory criteria |
NB. Financial proposal will be opened/considered for those bidders that scored the technical proposal above 40 (out of 60).
The financial Proposal will have 40% score threshold during selection of potential firms of this work. The detailed budget to deliver all the deliverables such as consultancy or professional fees, VAT and taxes, travel (flight costs), transport costs (vehicle rental and fuel) to carry out field work, accommodation expenses (including in field), other expenses (please mention nature of expenditure), total amount including VAT and other applicable taxes, terms of payment should be included in the financial proposal. The applicant should clearly indicate the validation period of the firm financial proposal. SWAN consortium and SCI will directly organize (including financial arrangements) validation and project close out workshops costs. Therefore, it is not important to include workshop costs in the applicant financial proposal. Applications lacking any of the above requirements will not be considered.
All data and products of the evaluation are the property of SWAN consortium project and donor. Therefore, the consultant shall not be entitled either directly or indirectly to make use of the report for other purposes without the prior written consent of SWAN consortium and donor.
For the purposes of this evaluation, SWAN consortium or SCI welcomes experienced evaluators or consultants or firms to apply. The profile of the lead consultant or firms should be:
o Include the profile of all team members for this evaluation
o Individuals or firms in humanitarian evaluation or research with a background in humanitarian aid, recovery and development arena, social research, or humanitarian, research methods, development economics, life sciences, agricultural economics, development studies, or other related fields
o Extensive experience of conducting evaluations along OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, ideally leading an evaluation team and experience of designing evaluation methodology / tools, data analysis etc.
o Experience using Value-for-Money tools and methodologies
o Experience of working in humanitarian contexts and good understanding of humanitarian response work – both in programmes and operations
o In-depth knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research methods
o Competent in using statistical packages for quantitative and qualitative analyses, use of mobile based data collection method and analysis experiences
o Excellent presentation and writing skills
o Capacity to work collaboratively with multiple stakeholders
o Excellent analytical and writing in English and as well as knowledge of local language (Afan Oromo, Somali, Afar, Amharic) preferred.
o Proven ability to work with community and Ethiopian government stakeholders
o Experience using mobile devices to collect quantitative data.