bid no: scmu: 32-2015/16 terms of reference to · pdf fileincluding other setas was...

Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority

The information in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the sole use of the individual/s or entity to whom this has been addressed or copied. If you are not the

intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this communication and/or its attachments, is strictly prohibited and will be unlawful

Website: www.etdpseta.org.za - e-mail: [email protected] - Anti Corruption Hotline: 0800 204 937

E-mail: [email protected] Website: mail: info Hotline: 0800 204 937

E-mail: tip-offs.com

BID NO: SCMU: 32-2015/16 TERMS OF REFERENCE TO APPOINT EVALUATOR/S1 TO CONDUCT A STUDY TO TRACK

AND TRACE THE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT BENEFICIARIES FUNDED BY THE ETDP SETA AND EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THESE PROGRAMMES AS IMPLEMENTED DURING

2011/12 – 2015/16 FINANCIAL YEARS

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND RATIONALE

1.1 Background to the intervention being evaluated

Skills shortages in the country are real and documented in volumes of literature. These shortages are attributed to a number of factors including interplay of complex social, political and economic factors. The government enacted key skills development legislation –the Skills Development Act (SDA), No. 97 of 1998 as amended in 2008 and the Skills Development Levies Act (SDLA) No. 9 of 1999 as amended in 2010. The purpose of the former is to create institutional arrangements and frameworks to facilitate skills development in the country while the latter is to set mechanism in place for funding all of the skills development initiatives driven by government. In support of the implementation of the aforementioned key pieces of legislation, the Human Resources Development Strategy of South Africa (HRDS-SA) and the National Skills Development Strategies (NSDS) I, II and III were developed in order to further facilitate the implementation through setting performance measures for assessing progress (Allais, 2012). It is against the backdrop of the aforementioned pieces of legislation that the Education Training and Development Practices - Sector Education Training Authority (ETDP SETA); including other SETAs was established. The primary mandate of these SETAs; including the ETDP SETA is to facilitate implementation of skills development within their respective economic sectors. The other key mandates as prescribed in the SDA is to develop a Five-Year Sector Skills Plan (SSP) in consultation with employers and other key players in the Education; Training and Development Sector. As prescribed, the SSP is developed in line with other national policies and plans such as the NSDS III, HRDS-SA, Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) 2014/15 – 2016/17, National Development Plan (NDP) Vision 2030, White Paper on Post School Education and Training, Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) for 2014 – 2019 and others. Based on the SSP approved by the Ministry of Higher Education and Training, the ETDP SETA then develops a Five Year Strategic Plan in line with the government’s MTSF. It

11 The bidders must submit bids separately as categorised in table 1.1 – 1.3 and the ETDP SETA does not behind itself to accept the highest bid and any other bid and reserves the right to accept the whole or part of the bid.

http://www.etdpseta.org.za/

The information in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended for the sole use of the individual/s or entity to whom this has been addressed or copied. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the

contents of this communication and/or its attachments, is strictly prohibited and will be unlawful

of 17

also has to develop an Annual Performance Plan (APP) articulating various skills development programmes to be implemented to support both workers in the sector, unemployed youth and students in various tertiary institutions. The various skills development programmes are in a form of learning programmes described by the SDA as learnerships, internships, apprenticeships, and skills programmes all of which must include structured work experience learning (Kraak et al, 2013). In 2011/12 – 2015/16 financial years, the ETDP SETA implemented a number of skills development programmes. The purpose of the programmes is to provide the beneficiaries with relevant skills to achieve competence in occupationally directed programmes from intermediate and high level skills. The following is the break-down of the sub-programmes and the actual numbers of beneficiaries: Table 1.1 - BID A No. Programme Name

Number trained in 2011/12





1. Supporting TVET

Institutions to be

responsive to the

ETD sector and

national priorities

1612+120+ 676

834 1117 1627

3575

2, Teacher

development in

support of the

Integrated Strategic

Planning

Framework for

Teacher Education

and Development in

South Africa

4163 3968 2083

Table 1.2 - BID B

3. Youth development

through increasing

access to workplace

learning

2165 250 2336 2438

900

4. Increasing student

access to graduate

out in HEIs and

TVET Institutions 824+620 1021+353+

357 2322 2255

4113




of 17

Table 1.3 - BID C

5. ETDP SETA

Constituency

support through

skills development

38 beneficiaries

505 beneficiaries

2038 beneficiaries

847 beneficiaries

331 organisations

65 organisations

- -

103

organisations

The aforementioned programmes were implemented across the nine provinces through the ETDP SETA Head Office and Provincial Offices and in partnerships with various constituency employers and others. Constituency employers include but not limited to Provincial Departments of Education, Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), and other provincial government departments who participated in various capacities; mainly as host employers of these beneficiaries. The sub-programmes were implemented for periods ranging from six months to maximum of two years. About 70% of the learners have exited the programmes with the exception of those learners who enrolled in 2014/15 and 2015/16 respectively. It is for this reason that ETDP SETA wishes to establish how this project has changed the lives of these beneficiaries, whether it was positive or negative and why. In other words, the learner tracking and tracing study seeks to locate these leaners to see if they have moved on in their lives for the better as a result of having participated in the ETDP SETA funded.

NOTE:

Mandatory biding documents that are only applicable to public

institutions will clarified during the compulsory briefing session to

be held on 01 February 2016 from 10h00 – 15h00

1.2 Purpose of the study

To trace and track where the beneficiaries of these programmes are and to subsequently assess as to whether the aforementioned ETDP SETA funded and implemented programmes have had a sustainable impacts on the level of skills attainment and whether these programmes have increased the beneficiaries’ opportunities for




of 17

employment or self –employment and/or improved their socio-economic status in society.

2. THE FOCUS OF THE STUDY

2.1 Key questions of the study

This study wishes to respond to the following research questions: 2.1.1 What were the intended outcomes and impacts of the aforementioned

programmes on the target beneficiaries? 2.1.2 Where are the beneficiaries of these programmes? 2.1.3 Can the changes in the beneficiaries’ lives or socio-economic circumstances be

attributed to these programmes or are they due to other factors? 2.1.4 Are the positive impacts of the aforementioned programmes sustainable?

2.2 Intended users and stakeholders of the evaluation

The following table depicts the potential users of the impact evaluation results:

Potential Users of the Evaluation How they will use it

Parliament/Higher Education & Training Portfolio Committee

For monitoring progress of the ETDP SETA and others

Department of Higher Education & Training

For monitoring progress of the ETDP SETA and possibly, reviewing of policy

The ETDP SETA Board and Management For reviewing its programmes and sub-programme and its implementation approaches

The ETDP SETA constituent employers For information sharing purposes

The beneficiaries of the programme and the public

For information sharing purposes

2.3 Scope of the evaluation

The project will run for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months covering all the programmes as indicated above in sub-section 1.1. As already indicated, these programmes were implemented in all the nine provinces and were implemented between 2011/12 – 2015/16 financial years.




of 17

3. THE EVALUATION DESIGN

Prospective bidders must present in their proposals an appropriate research design to respond to the aforementioned research questions as presented in sub-section 2.1 above. This must be a comprehensive design using mixed-methods that are seventy percent qualitative and thirty percent quantitative. These entail documentation but not limited to review/analysis of programme/projects records; interviews; research synthesis; participatory methodologies with key stakeholders; statistical analysis; surveys; and identification strategy and selection of counterfactuals. The proposed research design must show that 80-100 percent of the target population will be reached or contacted.

4. THE RESEARCH/STUDY PLAN

4.1 Expected deliverables from the study

The following are expected deliverables that should be encapsulated in the research/study plan: 4.1.1 Inception report/s following the approved proposal that entails:

- a revised study plan, - a detailed analysis of the intervention, - a detailed analysis of the research problem, - revised research questions; - an appropriate research methodology containing the research strategy,

research design, data collection and analysis strategy; and - the structure for the final study report with limitations, detailed findings

and clear specific recommendations.

4.1.2 Using the Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline on planning of new implementation programmes, develop a theory of change and the results chain framework for each of the programmes against which impact will be assessed. This should inform the explanatory/theoretical framework for the study.

4.1.3 Conduct an extensive review of literature on past and similar empirical studies. 4.1.4 Reporting structure, analysis plan, final data collection instruments and tools.

4.1.2 First draft study report/s for with preliminary findings and recommendations for

review by the SETA.




of 17

4.1.2.1 Workshops with stakeholders to discuss the draft report/s. 4.1.3 The final evaluation report/s both hard copy and electronic as approved above

with the following: 4.1.3.1 Proposed changes to the interventions design if needed – if the design is found to be inadequate the appointed evaluators will need to suggest what revisions to the results framework are required. These proposed changes must be included in the final report. 4.1.3.2 Detailed profiles of the beneficiaries of each of the programmes. 4.1.3.2 Provision of all datasets, metadata, and survey documentation (including interviews) used during data collection. 4.1.3.3 A PowerPoint and/or audio-visual presentation of results.

4.2 Key project meetings

The appointed evaluators will be expected to attend the following critical meetings that need to be encapsulated in the plan: 4.2.1 Initial debriefing meeting with the evaluation reference team and the ETDP SETA senior management. 4.2.2 Follow up debriefing meeting/s with Provincial or Programme Managers. 4.2.3 Four progress follow up meetings with the evaluation reference team. 4.2.4 Presentation of preliminary findings to the five ETDP SETA chambers meetings. 4.2.5 Presentation of preliminary findings to the ETDP SETA management. 4.2.6 Presentation of final report to the evaluation reference team and the ETDP SETA senior management.

4.3 Time frames for the project

The project will run for a maximum of 18 months from time of signing of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) by all parties.




of 17

5. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENT

5.1 Evaluation Reference Team

The ETDP SETA has established the aforementioned team entrusted with following tasks: a. Approve the Project Plan for the evaluation. b. Recommend approval of the TORs for the evaluation. c. During the inception phase review the proposal by the service provider and

recommend changes. d. Review the inception report, consider comments from peer reviewers, recommend

changes if needed, and approve the inception report. e. Approve the data collection instruments and tools where applicable. f. Provide technical inputs, support and advice to the service provider on an on-going

basis. g. Ensure that senior management and broad management are kept informed of both

progress and emerging findings and learnings from the evaluation. h. Provide feedback on draft reports, including comments from peer reviewers to the

service provider, and a workshop with stakeholders if appropriate. i. Approve the final report as a satisfactory evaluation report that fulfils the agreed

inception report. j. Ensure recommendations are relevant, appropriate and actionable. This should not

compromise the independence of the evaluation but rather enrich the recommendations. Senior management will then produce a management response which will indicate any concerns they have around content and will work with the ETDP SETA’s PME&R Unit on communicating the results of the evaluation.

k. Participate in the development of an Improvement Plan, although management of the improvement plan will remain the responsibility of the units.

5.2 Reporting arrangements

The appointed evaluator/s will report directly to the PME&R Unit of the ETDP SETA in the project leadership of the PMR&R Specialist.

6. THE PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED

6.1 Structure of the proposal

The bidders must submit bids per programme to be evaluated and the following must be indicated as part of their proposals. Failure to provide will lead to disqualification. a. Understanding of the ToRs and the programme of interest. b. Approach, design and methodology for the evaluation.




of 17

c. Activity based evaluation plan with clear timelines and responsibilities. d. Activity based budget in South African rand; including VAT. e. Proof of competence in a form of list of related projects undertaken in the past and

contact people for references. f. Evaluation team structure: outlining clear roles and responsibilities. g. Capacity development elements. h. Quality assurance plan that will ensure that the process and the product will be of

good quality. i. CVs and qualifications of all team members.

6.2 Proposed Evaluation team

An appropriate evaluation team must be comprised of the following who may be three individuals or one playing all the roles: a. Project Manager/s – at least 5 years relevant experience & at 3 years in M&E, plus a

post graduate degree preferably Master’s degree. b. Evaluation Specialist/s - at least 3 years’ experience in evaluations, plus a post

graduate degree preferably Master’s degree. c. Sector Specialist/s – an appropriate degree plus at least 3 years relevant experience

and skills development in education, training and development

6.3 Core competencies and skills set required

a. Contextual knowledge and understanding b. Interpersonal skills c. Project management d. Evaluation discipline and practice e. Research practice f. Report writing and communication g. Excellent communicating skills

7. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS

7.1 Key background documents

Key programme documents will be made available to bidders during a COMPULSORY BRIEFING SESSION that shall be held on 01 February 2016 from 10h00 – 15h00 at the ETDP SETA Head Office. During the briefing session, it will be compulsory for bidders to sign two attendance registers that will be provided at different intervals of the scheduled briefing session as deemed necessary by the ETDP SETA. NB*Bidders arriving more than 15 minutes late will not be allowed into the briefing session and will not partake in the tendering process.




of 17

7.2 Bid Evaluation criteria

Proposals received will be evaluated against two main criteria, which are:

- functionality/capability; and - price.

7.3 Pricing requirements

All prices should be inclusive of VAT. Price escalations and conditions of escalation should be clearly indicated. No variation of contract price or scope creep will be permitted and therefore, price proposals should be fully inclusive to deliver all outputs indicated in these Terms of Reference.

7.4 Evaluation of the proposal

THE ETDP SETA applies the provisions of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework ACT, NO 5 OF 2000 and Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2011. Blacklisted companies appearing on the National Treasury database and prohibited from conducting business with public entities, will be disqualified.

7.4.1 Administrative Compliance

Mandatory biding documents to be submitted in order to be eligible for evaluation are: a. Covering letter a. Invitation to Bid – SBD 1 (Must only be included in Envelope B) b. Original Valid Tax Clearance Certificate c. Certified B-BBEE Status Level of Contribution/Sworn Affidavit d. Certified CIPC Registration documentation e. Certified copies of ID’s of shareholders/directors f. Signed activity based budget / pricing schedule g. A brief description / profile of the organization h. Declaration of bidder’s past SCM Practices – SBD 8 i. Declaration of Interest – SBD 4 j. Preferential Points Claim Form – SBD 6.1 k. Certificate of Independent Bid Determination – SBD 9 l. Copy of the Proposal as outlined in 6.1 above




of 17

7.4.2 Functionality Evaluation

The evaluation of this bid shall include functionality whereby the bids will be evaluated in terms of the evaluation criteria as attached here as appendix. a. The minimum qualifying percentage for functionality will be 75% and bids that fail

to achieve the minimum qualifying percentage will be disqualified. b. Only bids that achieved the minimum qualifying percentage for functionality will be

evaluated further in accordance with the 90/10 preference point systems prescribed in Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2011, sections 5 and 6.

c. Functionality/Capability factors will be evaluated by the ETDP SETA Bid Evaluation Committee including technical experts.

Functionality/Capability factors include the following dimensions/descriptors: a. Structure & quality of the proposal. b. Contextual knowledge and understanding of the interventions. c. Composition, qualifications and experience of the team. d. Inclusion of PDI members in the evaluation team who will gain experience. e. Capacity Development f. Evaluation discipline and practice g. International exposure h. Research practice i. Evaluation approach, design and methodology j. Quality of the activity based plan k. Report writing and communication The evaluation criteria for functionality are attached as an Appendix A1. Bidders must provide sufficient proof/documents to justify awarding the points, and such proof should include details of contactable references.

7.4.3 Price-evaluation: The PPPFA

The ETDP SETA will evaluate the bid per provider submission. Please take note of the value and scoring point system of your proposed bid. 90/10 preference point system shall be applicable in this bid: - Price 90 - B-BBEE status level of contributor 10




of 17

In the application of the 90/10 preference point system, if all bids received are equal to or below R1 million, the bid will be cancelled, If one or more of the acceptable bid(s) received are above the R1 million threshold, all bids received will be evaluated on the 90/10 preference point system.

8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Ownership of the material generated during the evaluation shall remain with the ETDP SETA.

9. General conditions of bids

1. ETDP SETA does not bind itself to accept the lowest bid or any other bid

and reserves the right to accept the whole or part of the bid.

2. RFQs which are late, incomplete, unsigned or submitted by facsimile will

not be accepted.

3. Bidders with a turnover above R 10 million must submit a valid certified

B-BBEE Verification Certificate from SANAS Accredited Verification

Agency or Registered Auditor approved by Independent Regulatory

Board of Auditors (IRBA) in order to be eligible for empowerment points.

4. According to the amended Codes, an Exempted Micro Enterprise (EME)

is only required to obtain a sworn affidavit or a Certificate issued by

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) confirming

their annual turnover of R 10 million or less and level of black ownership

to claim points, whereas in terms of the Preferential Procurement

regulations, a certificate is required from a registered auditor,

accounting officer as contemplated in the Close Corporations Act, or an

accredited verification agency .

5. Companies who bid as a joint venture must submit a consolidated B-

BBEE Verification certificate prepared for this bid only, from SANAS

Accredited Verification Agency or Registered Auditor approved by

Independent Regulatory Board of Auditors (IRBA) in order to be eligible

for empowerment points. Companies who form part of this joint

venture MUST be accredited.




of 17

6. Failure of a bidder to submit a valid certified B-BBEE Certificate or, in a

case of EMEs, a sworn and the accompanying fully completed and signed

Standard Bidding Document (SBD 6.1) will result in the bidder not

qualifying for claiming preferential points.

7. RFQs submitted are to hold good for a period of 90 days.

8. No subcontracting will be allowed for this RFQ.

9. The winning bidder will be expected to have Public Liability Insurance

prior to the signing of a Service Level Agreement.

10. Deregistered and blacklisted companies including

directors/owners/individuals linked to the company will not be

considered. Due diligence will be conducted with successful bidders to

validate submitted information.

11. Counter offers by training providers shall not be considered and shall

therefore nullify the offer to the company.

10. SUBMISSION OF BIDS

Bid documents for participation must be downloaded from the ETDP SETA website: www.ETDP SETA.org.za, Main Menu > Supply Chain Management > Tenders as from 25 January 2015 by 12h00 midday. - Bids must be submitted in separate envelopes (Envelope A for “Administration Compliance and Functionality” and Envelope B for “Price Proposal”) per bid (i.e. BID A, B and C) - All bids must be completed as follows: One original, three copies and one CD which includes the proposal (i.e. functionality and the price) and SBD1) must be posted or hand delivered to: The ETDP SETA – Head Office Riverwoods Office Park

http://www.etdpseta.org.za/




of 17

The Oaks Building 24 Johnson Road Bedford view Johannesburg

Submissions can be delivered into the tender box between 08h00 and 16h30 Monday to Friday prior the closing date of 19 February 2016. Submissions should be in a sealed envelope marked the name of the Impact Evaluation of the ETDP SETA’ skills development programmes implemented in 2011/12 -2014/15 financial years and BID NUMBER SCMU: 32-2015/16

11. CLOSING DATE AND TIME

19 February 2016 at 11h00 and NO late submission will be accepted!

12. ENQUIRIES

Email address: [email protected] Note Well: NO telephonic or any other form of communication relating to this bid will be permitted with any other ETDP SETA member of staff either by Bidders (as collective bidding team or individual of the bidding team), representative of Bidders, associates of Bidders, shareholders of Bidders, other than with the named individual stated above. ANY MEANS OF ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE ADJUDICATION PROCESS OR OUTCOMES OF ADJUDICATION PROCESS WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE ENTIRE BID. APPENDIX A1

Descriptor Functional Evaluation Criteria Weight Score Weight x Score

Contextual knowledge and understanding

Understanding the relevant skills development sector/intervention and government systems in relation to the evaluation and can appropriately relate to the evaluation to current political, policy and governance environments. 0 = No evidence of understanding the sector/intervention 2 = Limited evidence of understanding of the sector but not deep in accordance with the project brief

15

mailto:[email protected]




of 17


3 = Good evidence of understanding of the sector in accordance with the project brief. 4 = There is evidence of strong understanding of the sector in accordance with the project brief. Reference to national and international best practice is made and can bring international insight

Composition and quality of the team

Project Team (Manager) has experience of having successfully managed projects of this size previously (examples and references to be provided) 1 = Project team successfully managed 1 evaluation or research project of less than R1 million in the ETD sector 2 = Project team successfully managed 2 evaluation or research projects of R1 million and above in the ETD sector 3 = Project team successfully managed 3 evaluation or research projects of R1 million and above in the ETD sector 4 = Project team successfully managed 4 evaluation or research projects of R1 million and above in the ETD sector

5

Evaluation Specialist has experience of having successfully undertaken evaluations of this size and nature previously (examples and references to be provided.) 1 = Successfully undertaken 1 - 2 evaluations of similar nature and of > R500 000. 2 = Successfully undertaken 3-5 evaluations of similar

nature and of R500 000. 3= Successfully undertaken > 5 evaluations of similar

nature and of R500 000. 4= Successfully undertaken > 5 evaluation or research

projects of R1mil with demonstration of knowledge of international best practice

5




of 17


Sector Specialist has deep knowledge of the ETD sector. 1 = Worked in the sector for < 3 years. 2 = Worked in the sector for 3-5 years and a reasonable understanding of the sector demonstrated. 3 = Worked in the sector for 5 -10 years and a strong understanding of the sector and intervention concerned. 4 = Worked in the sector for 10+ years and a strong understanding of the sector and intervention concerned as well as international best practice clearly demonstrated

5

PDI ( Youth) role in a team

At least 30% of team must be youth and they must play a meaningful role in the evaluation. 1 = Team consists of < 30% youth and < 30% of person days allocated to PDIs. 2 = Team consists of 30% youth but < 30% of person days allocated to PDIs. 3 = Team consists of 30% youth and 30% of person days allocated to PDIs (either staff or could be a joint venture/consortium with a BEE company). 4 = Team consists of more than 30% youth and more than 30% of person days allocated to PDIs, and one of the two specialists above is PDI (either staff or could be joint venture/consortium with BEE company)

10

Capacity Development

Capacity Development elements and building capacity of the organisation (ETDP SETA): 1 = No indication of capacity development at all. 2 = Capacity development included in proposal but not relevant to the evaluation practice. 3 = Well thought through strategy within the evaluation practice of how they would use junior staff on evaluation. 4 = Innovative model for building capacity in evaluation of junior and potential other staff members.

5

Evaluative discipline and practice

Demonstrated experience of having undertaken quality evaluations (so using evaluation knowledge) relevant to the evaluation. 1 = The bidder has undertaken successfully <2 evaluations of a similar nature of above R500 000. 2 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 3 - 4 evaluations of similar nature of above R500 000.

15




of 17


3 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 5 evaluations of a similar nature of above R500 000 (convincing as an evaluator in this type of work). 4 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 5 evaluations of a similar nature of above R1 million (convincing as an evaluation service provider in this type of work)

Knowledge of /and exposure to international best practice, particularly in middle income and African countries.

1= No international experience. 2 = Proposal makes reference to international experience but not convincing on how this will benefit the project. 3 = Organisation has undertaken international work and shows in the proposal how it will draw in international experience and insight into the project 4 = Proof of recognised international expertise included in the team (either sector or evaluation)

5

Research Practice

Demonstrated experience of systematically gathering, analysing and synthesising relevant evidence, data and information from a range of sources, identifying relevant material, is assessing its quality, spotting gaps and writing effective research reports. 1 = The bidder has undertaken successfully <2 research projects which demonstrate knowledge of mixed methods research of above R500 000. 2 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 3-4 research projects which demonstrate mixed methods and of above R500 000. 3 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 5 research projects which demonstrate mixed methods research and of above R500 000. 4 = The bidder has undertaken successfully 5 research projects which demonstrate mixed methods research and of above R1 million (convincing as a service provider undertaking this type of evaluation or research)

15

Approach, design, methodology for evaluation.

1= All combined three elements not likely to address the needs of the evaluation. 2 = Two of the three elements of the evaluation addressed satisfactory but overall not convincing. 3= All combined three elements addresses these satisfactory. There is clear conviction that the evaluation can be implemented. 4= All combined three elements addresses these satisfactory. In addition there is evidence of some

10




of 17


interesting approaches suggested for undertaking the evaluation which are likely to increase the use.

Quality of activity based plan (including effort for different consultants per activity and time frame linked to activities)

1 = No evidence/proof of a plan. 2 = Proof of activity based plan produced but not convincing that the methodology can be delivered using resources proposed. 3 = Proof of activity based plan clear and realistic to address the methodology. 4 = Proof of activity based plan clear and realistic to address the methodology and there are elements of innovation so that more can be delivered.

5

Report writing and communication

Write clear concise and focused reports that are credible, useful and actionable, address the key evaluation questions, and show evidence, analysis, synthesis, recommendations and evaluative interpretation and how these build on each other. 1 = No examples/proof of reporting writing provided 2 = Examples/proof provided show adequate but not good writing skills, but use of evidence is not good. 3 = Examples/proof provided show good reports which demonstrate use of evidence, good logic, and are well written. 4 = Examples/proof of well written and effective reports with good use of info graphics, good summaries, good use of evidence.

5

bid no: scmu: 32-2015/16 terms of reference to · pdf fileincluding other setas was...

Documents