TENDER DOCUMENT FOR THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION CONSULTANCY OF

PHASES 1 AND 2 OF ‘EAST AFRICA CRISIS APPEAL, SOMALIA, 2017’

2

ISLAMIC RELIEF WORLDWIDE

Islamic Relief is an international aid and development charity, which aims to alleviate the suffering of the world's poorest people. It is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) founded in the UK in 1984.

As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, Islamic Relief promotes sustainable economic and social development by working with local communities - regardless of race, religion or gender.

Our vision:

Inspired by our Islamic faith and guided by our values, we envisage a caring world where communities are empowered, social obligations are fulfilled and people respond as one to the suffering of others.

Our mission:

Exemplifying our Islamic values, we will mobilise resources, build partnerships, and develop local capacity, as we work to:

Enable communities to mitigate the effect of disasters, prepare for their occurrence and respond by providing relief, protection and recovery.

Promote integrated development and environmental custodianship with a focus on sustainable livelihoods.

Support the marginalised and vulnerable to voice their needs and address root causes of poverty.

We allocate these resources regardless of race, political affiliation, gender or belief, and without expecting anything in return.

At the international level, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through raising awareness of the issues that affect poor communities and through its work on the ground. Islamic Relief are one of only 13 charities that have fulfilled the criteria and have become members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (www.dec.org.uk)

IRW endeavours to work closely with local communities, focussing on capacity-building and empowerment to help them achieve development without dependency.

Please see our website for more information http://www.islamic-relief.org/

3

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is an international relief and development agency that enjoys a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the world’s poorest people through promoting social and economic development in over 30 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters.

The long anticipated rains in Somalia didn’t fall on time, with consecutive seasons of poor rainfall creating severe drought and which resulted in a rapid and significant worsening of food security. The UN Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) reported that more than 3.2 million people in Somalia were continuing to experience Crisis (IPC Phase 3) and Emergency (IPC Phase 4) levels of acute food insecurity including nearly 700,000 experiencing Emergency-level acute food insecurity.

The hygiene and sanitation conditions in the IDPs settlements remained poor with insufficient sanitation facilities leading to open defecation. Several water points were dysfunctional due to over-use, forcing IDPs to buy water at prohibitive costs. Additional emergency latrines and garbage disposal pits in IDP camps also needed to be built and there is a need to continuously dislodge existing pit latrines. With the expected and hoped for rainfall season, rehabilitation of WASH facilities (water points and latrines) remained very critical. (WASH Cluster). The facilities required reinforcement to avoid breakages that would lead to water contamination in flood prone areas and an upsurge of AWD/Cholera cases.

Gaps were also still felt in service provision due to new arrivals in various IDP camps; there was pressure on the limited WASH resources. The Ministry of Health of Somalia reported 1068 AWD/cholera cases and 3 deaths from 10 – 16 July 2017) with a case-fatality rate of 0.3%. Of these, the highest number of cases (286/27%) was reported in Middle Shebelle region, followed by Mudug, Sool and Banadir. Somalia was also experiencing its worst outbreak of measles in four years. Drought and a real threat of famine, coupled with low vaccination rates, left millions of children in Somalia weak, hungry, and particularly susceptible to contracting measles and other life-threatening diseases (WHO July 2017).

4

With DEC funding, Islamic Relief Somalia (IRS) intervened to provide humanitarian support the most affected and needy of the vulnerable population, which were children and women in IDP camps in Tredish – Mogadishu; and also several at ADC, Towfiq and Hanaano in Baidoa.

Key sectors for this intervention included WASH, Shelter, NFIs and Food.

PROJECT INTERVENTIONS

The planned results for Phase 1 of the project were:

Outcome A: Improved nutritional status amongst drought affected communities through addressing the immediate gaps in household food requirement

1200 households were to receive food packs, disaggregated by age, sex and disability, in Mogadishu.

800 households were to receive food packs, disaggregated by age, sex and disability, in Baidoa Town.

Outcome B: Improved culturally appropriate and dignified WASH practices being adopted amongst targeted drought affected households leading to a decrease in water and sanitation related morbidities and mortalities e.g. AWD

1200 people were to receive direct hygiene promotion (excluding mass media campaigns and without double-counting) disaggregated by age, sex and disability in Mogadishu.

800 households were to receive direct hygiene promotion (excluding mass media campaigns and without double-counting) disaggregated by age, sex and disability in Baidoa Town.

1200 households were to benefit from solid waste management, drainage, and/or vector control activities (without double-counting) disaggregated by age, sex, and disability in Mogadishu.

Outcome C: Reduced vulnerability and improved protection amongst drought affected communities

500 households were to receive emergency/transitional shelter (tents) disaggregated by age, sex and disability, in Mogadishu.

700 households were to receive emergency/transitional shelter material (plastic sheets) disaggregated by age, sex and disability, in Mogadishu.

5

800 households were to receive emergency/transitional shelter material (plastic sheets) disaggregated by age, sex and disability, in Baidoa Town.

Outcome D: Improved dignity of vulnerable IDPs in targeted intervention areas

1200 households were to receive NFIs, disaggregated by age, gender, disability, in Mogadishu.

800 households were to receive NFIs, disaggregated by age, gender, disability, in Baidoa Town.

Outcome E: Affected communities and people have access to safe and responsive complaints handling mechanism

1200 households were to have access to information on how to access the complaints mechanism and its scope, in Mogadishu.

800 households were to have access to information on how to access the complaints mechanism and its scope, in Baidoa Town.

The planned results of Phase 2 of the project were:

Outcome A: Improved nutritional status amongst drought affected communities through addressing the immediate gaps in household food requirement

Food packs consisting of 25kg rice, 25kg white flour, 10 kg sugar, 3 litre cooking oil, 4 kg porridge, 2 kg dates and 900 gram milk powder were to be provided to 900 newly arrived IDP households specifically households with children, lactating and pregnant women and people with disabilities.

Outcome B: Improved culturally appropriate and dignified WASH practices being adopted amongst targeted drought affected households leading to a decrease in water and sanitation related morbidities and mortalities e.g. AWD

Pipe water for 15,000 IDP households throughout the project. This was to involve water piping where private boreholes would be identified and extend piped water taps nearer to IDPs in Baidoa and Mogadishu.

Twelve distribution points with separate queues for women and men in the selected IDP camps were to be established.

Each distribution site was to receive 20,000 litres of water per day for a period of 6 months.

6

Twelve portable water tanks were to be provided at each of the water distribution sites, situated where women and girls could easily access them without safety implications.

Outcome C: Improved access to emergency primary health care services for IDPs in Mogadishu

Medical drugs and equipment were to be procured for a fixed health post and 2 mobile clinics, expected to reach 8,400 individuals (1500 children, 1440 men, 5460 women).

Mobile clinics services would be functional for all the project implementation and accessible for the most vulnerable IDPs (children and women), who otherwise could not reach the fixed structure due to their weak condition.

Equipment for the mobile clinics was to be purchased and installed in the vehicles to meet minimum standards for emergency intervention.

Outcome D: Effective beneficiary accountability mechanisms in South Central Somalia

Targeted IDPs, especially understand appropriate complaints and response mechanisms that were established in phase 1 and ensure the same in enhanced throughout the project.

IDPs and other stakeholders were also to have been briefed about the existing Complaints and Response Mechanism which they could utilise should there be violations by the staff of the Code of Conduct and Child Protection Policy.

The target communities were to provide their views about distributions, delivery of services and conduct of IR Staff among others, as part of this mechanism.

Gathering feedback from the beneficiaries and assessing the ongoing relevance and appropriateness of the response was to be considered in this project, and also involving community leaders and target population in project evaluations.

Standards and Best Practice

The project was to be implemented with a rights-based approach and was to ensure that community resilience and local capacity would be built. In addition to this, standards and best practice relating to timeliness, accountability, technical implementation of the project, as well as co-ordination of the intervention with peers was to be ensured.

7

EVALUATION

Background

IRW’s commitment to moving climate vulnerable people out of poverty requires rigorous evaluation of Phases 1 and 2 of the ‘East Africa Crisis Appeal’ intervention in Somalia, funded by the DEC. As a result of this, and also as per DEC requirements, an independent evaluation is being commissioned by IRW of the aforementioned intervention.

The report (executive summary at a minimum) will also be made available on the IRW website as per DEC requirements, and lessons will also be institutionalised and used to inform any and all future programming.

Progress to-date

The project team has prepared statutory progress reports for the donors highlighting the achievements against the agreed objectives. The reports include 6 monthly progress updates and are available with IRW.

OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

Working closely with the local programmes and M&E teams, the independent consultant will conduct an evaluation of the project activities implemented under this project.

The specific objectives of this assignment are to:

Assess the extent to which both Phases 1 and 2 of the DEC project as a whole have delivered the anticipated objectives indicated in the log frame with specific attention to outputs, outcomes and goal.

Search for evidence of the goals of this project having been met in terms of both the positive and negative, intended and unintended, and also the primary and secondary effects of the programme, alongside any direct or indirect contributions to any systemic change.

Evaluate the extent to which the outcomes and outputs (as above in the Project Interventions section) have been/are being met in line with the agreed project objectives.

8

Assess the key innovations used in the project that improved or worsened delivery of project goals, outcomes, outputs, and deliverables, and how the learning was used in improving project performance.

Analyse and comment on the sustainability of the project outcomes/impacts and suggest measures to maintain long term sustainability.

Provide a judgment of the quality and accountability of the intervention, using the Core Humanitarian Standards as a framework. (See Appendix 1).

Document lessons learned, and also develop clear and actionable recommendations for adoption and integration into any similar future development related projects within the region and elsewhere.

METHODOLOGY

The consultant will design methodologies following the indicators of logframe and result framework. The methodologies will include (but not be limited to):

A desk review of programme information including project proposals and reports.

Meetings with the M&E team at IRW, the leadership and programmes teams in Somalia, and the Regional Desk Co-ordinator for Somalia.

Where relevant, and in consultation with IRW and IR Somalia, design indicators to measure success of the project.

Interviews with selected project focal points and staff whose work contributes towards the objectives.

Interviews/surveys with local implementing partners and development actors.

Project site visits, interviews (one to one), FGDs with the sample beneficiaries, ensuring the sample is representative and reflective of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities, and any other tools the consultant deems necessary to produce an effective and useful report.

Organisation of initial workshops to train evaluation teams in evaluation methodology (if relevant) as well as a final post-fieldwork workshop to assess and discuss the initial findings with Islamic Relief partner staff.

Submission of the draft evaluation report to IRW prior to the finalisation of the report.

If requested, a member of IR staff will be part of the team, and the consultant would be expected to lead and build their capacity.

9

The Consultant should consider participatory methods in the design of the evaluation methodology, both to involve beneficiaries as well as to build their capacity. There should also be a mechanism to provide feedback to communities on the findings of the evaluation, e.g. through a meeting, newsletter, or other methods as appropriate. The overall evaluation should also assess the extent of beneficiary involvement throughout the project cycle.

The consultant would need to ensure that the evaluation conforms to BOND’s evidence principles, and against which the quality of the evaluation will be reviewed by IRW and the donor agency.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS OF THE CONSULTANT

The consultant is expected to produce:

1. A detailed work plan developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the field visits.

2. A full report with the following sections:

a) Project title and countryb) Organisation and partner namesc) Name of person who compiled the evaluation report including summary of role/contribution of

others in the team d) Period during which the evaluation was undertaken e) Acknowledgementsf) Abbreviationsg) Table of contentsh) Executive summary (setting out key achievements, lessons learned, and recommendations against

the logframe; and also a summary of the judgment about the achievements of the project against the Core Humanitarian Standards.)

i) Introduction/backgroundj) Methodologyk) Context analysisl) For each key intervention, a section in the form of:

Findings (effectiveness of the intervention including any under-achievement issues with reasons), as measured against the stated goals, outcomes, and outputs of the project. Case study examples should be given throughout the report to illustrate evaluation findings.

Judgment about the accountability of the intervention to the affected-groups using the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) as a framework, with examples for each of the nine commitments. The accountability of the intervention should be evaluated against all nine commitments of the CHS.

Conclusions Assessment

m) A two to three page summary of best practices, lessons and recommendationsn) Annexes

Terms of reference for the evaluation

10

Profile of the evaluation team Evaluation schedule Documents consulted during the evaluation Persons participating in the evaluation Field data used during the evaluation including baselines Bibliography

The final report must be submitted in English and within a 30-day window of completing the field work.

3. The consultant will be required to visit IRW HQ and provide feedback on, and answer questions about, the findings from the evaluation.

REQUIRED INPUTS

The following are the key inputs to the evaluation:

Stakeholders to be involved include:

IRW and IRW-partner staff Community leaders and relevant local officials Project beneficiaries, ensuring an appropriate balance of all women, men, girls and boys of

all ages and abilities. Other NGOs/INGOs working in the area

a) Relevant IRW and partner reports/documentationb) External secondary information and data as appropriate to the evaluation

TIMETABLE AND REPORTING DURATION

Total duration of the consultancy/contract = 30 working days between January and March 2017 (including field visit and all deliverables)

Action By when Who

Tender live date 5 February 2018 IRW

Final date for submission of bid proposal 21st February 2018 (1pm) Consultant

Proposals considered, short-listing and follow up enquiries completed

26 February 2018 IRW

Consultant interview and final selection 5 March 2018 IRW

11

Review of all project documents, reports, and relevant secondary data.

9 March 2018 (1 working day)

Consultant

Meeting with the consultant and agree on an evaluation methodology, plan of action, working schedule

16 March 2018 (1 working day)

Consultant/IRW

Submission of Inception Report (at least 7 days before commencing the evaluation)

21 March 2018 (3 working days)

Consultant

Evaluation/Data collection Between 2 April and 20 April 2018 (12 working days)

Consultant

Collation and analysis of evaluation data, and submission of the first draft to IR Somalia/IRW for comments

4 May 2018 (10 working days after completion of data collection)

Consultant

IRW/IR Somalia responses to draft report 18 May 2018 IR Somalia/IRW

Final report submitted to IRW 23 May 2018 (3 working days)

Consultant

Contract duration: Duration to be specified by the consultant

Direct report: Programme Quality Department

Job Title: Consultant: Evaluation of crisis appeal in Somalia

PROPOSAL TO TENDER AND COSTING:

Consultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:

a) Submit an expression of interest, including the followingi. Cover letter outlining a methodology and approach briefing noteii. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant who will be

carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the projectiii. Example(s) of relevant workiv. The consultancy daily rate

12

v. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signed

b) Be able to complete the project within the timeframe stated abovec) Be able to demonstrate significant experience of evaluation approaches for similar work

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows:

25% of the total amount – submission of the inception report 25% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report 50% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all outputs and attachments

mentioned above

We can be flexible with payment terms

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

During the consultancy period,

IRW will cover:

The costs associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team

International and local travel for the consultant and the local team Accommodation while in the field Training venues Consultancy fees

IRW will not cover:

Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by the consultant

CONSULTANCY CONTRACT

This will be for an initial period that is to be specified by the consultant commencing from February 2018 (exact date to be mutually agreed). The selected candidate is expected to work from their home/office and be reporting into the Head of Programme Quality Department of IRW.

The terms upon which the consultant will be engaged are as per the consultancy agreement. The invoice is to be submitted at the end of the month and will be paid on net payment terms 28 days though we can be flexible.

13

All potential applicants must fill in the table beneath in Appendix 3 to help collate key data pertaining to this tender. The applicant must be clear about other expenses being claimed in relation to this consultancy and these must be specified clearly.

For this consultancy all applicants are required to submit a covering letter with a company profile(s) and CV’s of all consultants including the lead consultant(s).

A proposal including, planned activities, methodology, deliverables, timeline, and cost proposal (including expenses) are expected.

Other relevant supporting documents should be included as the consultants sees fit.

All applicants must have a valid visa or a permit to work in the UK (if travel is required to the UK). A valid visa/work permit is also required for those areas required to be visited as part of this consultancy.

TENDER DATES AND CONTACT DETAILS

All proposals are required to be submitted by Wednesday 21st February 2018 1.00pm UK time pursuant to the attached guidelines for submitting a quotation and these be returned to tendering@irworldwide.org

For any issues relating to the tender or its contents please email directly to tendering@irworldwide.org

Following submission, IRW may engage in further discussion with applicants concerning tenders in order to ensure mutual understanding and an optimal agreement.

Quotations must include the following information for assessment purposes.

1. Payment terms (payment normally made within 28 days of invoice)2. Full break down of costs including taxes, expenses and any VAT3. References (two are preferred)4. Technical competency for this role5. Demonstrable experience of developing similar training courses

Note: The criterias are subject to change.

APPENDIX 1: CORE HUMANITARIAN STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)

14

Below is a suggested questionnaire, for reference, for the consultant to frame their questionnaire for this evaluation. The consultant should use this and any extra questions they feel necessary, to provide an overall judgment about the performance of IR Somalia, and the implementation of this project, against the quality criteria set out by the CHS.

Please see the following link to learn more about the CHS:

1. https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20- %20English.pdf

2. https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/CHS-Guidance-Notes-and-Indicators.pdf

1. Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

Has a comprehensive needs assessment been conducted and used to inform response planning? Are multiple sources of information, including affected people and communities, local institutions and

other stakeholders consulted when assessing needs, risks, capacities, vulnerabilities and context? Are assessment data and other monitoring data disaggregated by sex, age and ability? Does the response include different types of assistance and/or protection for different demographic

groups? Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are

the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Was the assistance culturally appropriate? Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated? Has the assistance provided by IR Somalia met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men

and women, children, the elderly, the disabled? What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and

relevant?

2. Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

Are constraints and risks identified and analysed? Does planning consider optimal times for activities? Are contingency plans used? Are globally recognised technical standards used and achieved? Are unmet needs identified and addressed? How timely was IR Somalia’s response in meeting the needs of the affected people, especially

vulnerable people? Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely completion of

the project activities? If yes, were any changes made to the project as a result and if not, should changes have been made to be more appropriate?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response?

3. Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

What local capacities for resilience (structures, organisations, leadership, and support networks) exist and how can these be strengthened?

Is existing information on risks, hazards, vulnerabilities and related plans considered In what ways are local leaders (formal and informal) and/or authorities consulted to ensure strategies

are in line with local and/or national priorities? Are there equitable opportunities for participation of all groups in the affected population? Does the response facilitate early recovery? What mechanisms exist for prompt detection and mitigation of unintended negative effects?

4. Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback.

15

Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to affected communities and people?

Are people, especially vulnerable and marginalised groups, accessing and understanding the information provided?

Are crisis-affected people’s views, including those of the most vulnerable and marginalised, sought and used to guide programme design and implementation?

To what extent longer-term and interconnected problems were taken into account? What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local government policies

and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation? To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported

and developed? Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project

sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?

5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

Is information provided to and understood by all demographic groups about how complaints mechanisms work and what kind of complaints can be made through them?

Are complaints about sexual exploitation and abuse investigated immediately by staff with relevant competencies and an appropriate level of authority?

Was there a written complaints system developed (preferably in local language) involving the communities?

Did the complaint system clearly and effectively communicated to staff and partners? Was there any complaint received? How were they dealt with?

6. Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

Is information about the organisation’s competences, resources, areas and sectors of work shared with others responding to the crisis?

Is information about the competences, resources, areas and sectors of work of other organisations, including local and national authorities, accessed?

Have existing coordination structures been identified and supported? Are the programmes of other organisations and authorities taken into account when designing,

planning and implementing programmes? What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most vulnerable

areas where the needs were highest? How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people affected? What

criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?

Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled, and the poor?

Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?

7. Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

Are evaluations and reviews of responses of similar crises consulted during programme design? Are monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints-handling processes leading to changes and/or

innovations in programme design and implementation? Is learning systematically documented? What kind of actions and systems are used to share learning with relevant stakeholders?

16

To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader humanitarian community and the government?

What have been the biggest successes in coordination? What were the biggest gaps? Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships with local CBOs,

CSO organisations been built-up? What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country offices and

between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed? What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?

8. Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.

Does staff sign a code of conduct? If so, do they receive orientation on this and other relevant policies? Are complaints received about staff? How are they handled? Is all staff provided with an induction and appropriate and ongoing training to help them to effectively

do their jobs? Was staff working as per the agreed IRW values? Does the office have all appropriate and upto date policies and procedures, including the IR

Handbook, available to them for reference should they be required?

9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame? To what extent have agreed humanitarian standards, principles and behaviours including the Code of

Conduct standards been respected? What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing their resilience

capacity? What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response? Are services and goods procured using a rapid competitive bidding process? Are potential impacts on the environment monitored, and actions taken to mitigate them? Is a safe whistle blowing procedure in place and is known to staff, communities, people and other

stakeholders? How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-going or

completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation? Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources,

logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?

How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?

Were the funds used as stated? How does the project demonstrate value for money? Were small scale mitigation activities cost-efficient? To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response been explored and

exploited to reduce costs and maximise results? What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response? How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate vulnerability over time and

is there evidence of this? To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met? Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the perceptions of key

stakeholders? How do you know? What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the intervention? What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost effective? Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How are you adjusting

your programme with the unforeseen risks?

17

Cross cutting issues

How well did the response mainstream/ensured the inclusion of gender, age and disability? How did you ensure protection of children from abuse? How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural sensitivities integrated

in the project? How well this project include ethnic people/ socially excluded What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in IR SOMALIA’s response? What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future response?

Sustainability:

To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased? What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability

of the project?

APPENDIX 2: SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, DISAGGREGATED DATA

Further to the cross cutting issues mentioned in Appendix 1, the below will need to be considered when designing a questionnaire to ensure that they are covered and reported in the final report. Further documentation will also be shared with the successful candidate, for this purpose.

1. Collection and disaggregation of data throughout the project by sex, age and disability. 2. Has the project met the differentiated needs of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages

and abilities including older people and people with disabilities?  3. Did the project reflect direct and meaningful participation of all groups?4. Did the project implementing partners had proper referral systems in place and what was it

for?5. Did the implementing partners used differentiated communication tools to reach ALL

vulnerable groups to ensure participation in needs assessment, consultation and feedback mechanisms?

APPENDIX 3

Please fill in the table below. It is essential all sections be completed and where relevant additional expenses be specified in detail. In case of questions about how to complete the table below, please contact tendering@irworldwide.org

18

Cost evaluation of a independent evaluation of crisis appeal in Somalia,

January 2018

Applicants name

Company nameNo of proposed hours per week

No. of proposed days

Preferred days

Earliest available start date

Non preferred days

Hourly rate

Total per weekInclusive of Taxes if relevant (Total) Other expenses (please specify) Other expenses (please specify) Other expenses (please specify) Preferred payment terms (IRW UK terms are normally 28 days).

Total cost for consultancy (for one month)

Total cost for consultancy (for proposed period)

Note

The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.