SEED Foundation (SEED) is seeking proposals for professional consulting services to conduct a final evaluation of SEED’s “Addressing GBV and Increasing Protection for the Most Vulnerable in Iraq (AGIP)” Funded By BPRM, covering the program implementation period from September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2023. The program evaluation service should end with a final report submitted to SEED’s President on October 15, 2023. Please see the attached terms of reference for details and timeline.

Individuals and/or companies who wish to apply should indicate their interest according to the instructions and time frame provided below:

1) Submission of full proposal and required documents through email to procurement@seedkurdistan.org by July 31, 2023. The email subject line must be “PRM AGIP Final Evaluation Proposal – name of person/organization”.

2) If applicants have any questions regarding this Request for Proposals or its submission guidelines, these can be emailed to procurement@seedkurdistan.org by July 22, 2023 with the email subject line “PRM AGIP Final Evaluation Proposal – Question”. Phone calls will not be accepted.

3) Responses to questions will be generated in an official letter issued by SEED to all applicants by July 24, 2023.

Your proposal must include the following components and will be evaluated based on the criteria described:

#	Required submission	Criteria	Credits
1	Cover letter	One page cover letter outlining how the candidate(s) meets the requirements and highlighting the relevant qualifications, skills, languages, and experience of key personnel involved in the evaluation.	15 points
2	CV of candidate(s)	Previous relevant experience of the candidate(s) demonstrated through CV (past experience of conducting major donor program evaluations, with U.S. Government experience preferred; experience in child protection, MHPSS, GBV, and/or other protection program implementation and/or evaluations; experience in the Middle East preferred).	15 points
3	Technical proposal	Brief proposal of 2-3 pages outlining proposed methodology in line with the terms of reference below.	20 points
		Proposed completion schedule with adherence to the timeline below.	15 points
4	Financial/cost proposal	The financial proposal should be all inclusive and submitted on a separate sheet from the above documents. Please note that the prices should be in USD and excluding VAT.	20 points
5	Previous research sample	Relevant writing sample of similar work.	15 points
	Total Scoring		100

Language: All documents shall be submitted in English.

This RFP in no way obligates SEED Foundation to award a contract, nor does it commit SEED Foundation to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal.

Terms Of Reference: External Final Evaluation

Addressing GBV and Increasing Protection for the Most Vulnerable in Iraq (AGIP)

Funded By BPRM

Introduction
SEED Foundation (SEED) is a locally registered NGO in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), whose mission is to protect, empower, and support the recovery of survivors of violence and others at risk. SEED seeks to engage an experienced consultant to conduct an independent end term evaluation of the 24-month U.S. Government funded program described below, ending in August 2023, to assess progress towards intended results and evaluate the impact of the program.

Program Overview

SEED is implementing a two year PRM-funded Program that builds on SEED’s existing GBV and protection programming, pursuing a three-pronged approach to:

1. Deliver direct services consisting of individualized case management, MHPSS, cash assistance, legal representation and counseling, and mental health services.
2. Strengthening and building the capacity of national service providers who operate in KRI to improve their provision of protection, GBV, and MHPSS services.
3. Address the root causes of violence, particularly GBV, partnering with two other stakeholders to contextualize, adapt, and offer innovative evidence-based, trauma-informed group programs to men and boys.

Program Timeline: September 1, 2021 – August 31, 2023

Program Goal: Prevent GBV, and protect, empower and support survivors and vulnerable and conflict affected populations to address protection risks and support durable solutions.

Purpose

The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the program in terms of achieving its objectives; assess the implementation of the program against key evaluation criteria; assess the results, effects, and quality of the program; assess the sustainability of interventions beyond the program cycle; identify challenges and lessons learned; and provide concrete recommendations to strengthen future programming across SEED’s portfolio.

The evaluation is expected to be conducted in the KRI governorates of Erbil, Dohuk and Sulaymaniyah where the program was implemented.

Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation questions will be included in the evaluation criteria. This evaluation criteria is based on the OECD DAC, which include relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

• RELEVANCE is the intervention doing the right things?

• To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program design relevant to the context and needs present in the KRI/HRP at its conception?
• To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program relevant to the requirements of the donor?
• To what extent did the interventions as designed and planned in the PRM-AGIP program address the needs and priorities of stakeholders and beneficiaries?
• How satisfied are the stakeholders and beneficiaries with the interventions undertaken by the project?

• COHERENCE how well does the intervention fit?

• How did the PRM-AGIP program fit within SEED’s overall portfolio?
• How well has the project’s intervention been compatible with other interventions led by SEED?
• How did the PRM-AGIP program complement similar interventions by other actors?

• EFFECTIVENESS is the intervention achieving its objectives?

• Has the project been implemented in accordance with its overall intention and in accordance with the approved results-framework?
• Which approaches and activities had the deepest and most effective contribution towards the project outcomes?
• To what extent were the PRM-AGIP program’s objectives achieved?
  • To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 1) able to protect and empower conflict affected and at-risk individuals through its service delivery?
  • To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 2) able to build the capacity of national service providers in Ninewa to improve their provision of protection-related services for returnees?
  • To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 2) able to provide technical leadership to GBV actors and support the government involved partners?
  • To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 3) able to engage targeted beneficiaries in the activities?
• What changes as reported by the community/stakeholders can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected, and unexpected)?

• EFFICIENCY how well are resources being used?

• Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what caused them? What has been done in an innovative way?
• To what extent did the PRM-AGIP program management structures and processes enable, or hinder, the efficient implementation of the project activities and its results achievement?
• Was the process of achieving results efficient? How did the efficiency affect the effectiveness of the project?
• How and to what extent were the risks listed in the PRM-AGIP program proposal mitigated during implementation of the program?

• IMPACT what difference does the intervention make?

• How and to what extent has the implementation of the PRM-AGIP program contributed to the achievement of impactful results? (both intended and unintended)
  • How did the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 1) strengthen well-being and promote durable solutions and recovery to target beneficiaries through service delivery? And were beneficiaries able to access the support and services required?
  • How did the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 2) training and capacity building component support participants to provide better services to conflict affected and at-risk individuals in Ninewa?
  • To what extent did the PRM-AGIP program (obj.2) strengthen local leadership of GBV prevention and response??
  • To what extent was the PRM-AGIP program (Obj. 3) able to create change in attitudes and behaviors?

 

• SUSTAINABILITY will the benefits last?

• How and to what extent were the achievements and outputs of the PRM-AGIP program sustainable beyond the period of the program?
• To what extent are the processes and systems established during the PRM-AGIP program likely to support future similar program intervention led by SEED or other protection actors?

Methodology

The impact evaluation shall be both transparent and participatory, involving all relevant stakeholders, including SEED staff, implementing partners, clients and participants, trained government staff, and others as deemed relevant.

The consultant(s) is expected to use participatory evaluation methodologies and mixed data collection methods to complete this evaluation. The consultant(s) is expected to conduct in person or remote interviews, key informant interviews, and desk review of program data.

The methodology used must be gender sensitive, conflict sensitive, trauma informed, and respect the Do No Harm principle.

Timeframe

The duration of the assignment will be around 55-60 consultancy days including travel (if needed) and delivery of the final report. The evaluation is expected to begin in mid August 2023 and be completed in mid October 2023 with a finalized evaluation report submitted and key findings to be presented in mid October 2023.

Evaluation activities will take place between August, 15 – October, 15 2023.

The evaluation will follow the key phases detailed below:

Methodology	Approach	Persons involved
Phase I: Inception Phase:	Contract signing and project kick-off Desk review of relevant information The MEAL Manger will review relevant program documents, tools, and reports. Conceptualize evaluation approach	Lead Evaluator & SEED
Phase II: Data Collection	Develop data collection tools Inception meeting with SEED Submit draft inception report Consultation on the inception report Submit final inception report Data Collection Data QA, cleaning & coding Analysis and interpretation	Evaluation Team
Phase III: Data analysis and production of evaluation report	Draft Report Submitted SEED Team Review of Draft Report (5 working days) Consultation on the Draft report Present evaluation findings Final Report Submitted	Lead Evaluator & SEED

Deliverables

The following deliverables will be submitted by the consultant(s):

1. Inception Report. During the inception phase, the consultant will submit a draft inception report to SEED for discussion, feedback, and agreement, outlining:
   1. Proposed evaluation design and its rationale
   2. Data collection methods and tools
   3. Work plan

A final version of the inception report, incorporating feedback from SEED, must be approved prior to beginning data collection.

1. Presentation of Findings. During the analysis and reporting phase, the consultant will deliver an informative PowerPoint presentation to SEED, containing:
   1. Key evaluation findings
   2. A brief summary of the final evaluation report

1. End Term Evaluation Report. During the analysis and reporting phase, the consultant will submit a draft narrative evaluation report to SEED for discussion and input. The evaluation report must be clear, concise, empirically grounded, and persuasive, no longer than 25 pages (excluding annexes), and in the described format:
   1. Executive Summary
   2. Program description, including implementation context
   3. Evaluation purpose and scope
   4. Evaluation design and data collection methods
   5. Data and findings
   6. Main conclusions
      1. Relevance
      2. Effectiveness
      3. Impact (including main achievements)
      4. Coherence
      5. Efficiency
      6. Sustainability
   7. Best practices and lessons learned
   8. Recommendations
   9. Annexes
      1. Terms of Reference

A final version of this report, incorporating feedback from SEED, must be submitted to SEED by the completion of the consultancy on May 31, 2022.

All deliverables should be submitted in English. In addition to the deliverables specified above, periodic check-ins will take place between SEED and the consultant to assess progress and exchange relevant information throughout the consultancy.

Responsibilities of the Consultant

In conducting the evaluation, the consultant(s) must:

1. Coordinate with SEED’s Senior MEAL Manager and Project Manager and others program relevant staff and the program sub grantees.
2. Compose an evaluation team that is capable of achieving required deliverables to a high level of quality within the specified timeframe. Any additional personnel should be mentioned in the proposal.
3. Manage all logistics in coordination with SEED.
4. Ensure the consultant and all personnel adhere to SEED’s Code of Conduct, Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA), and Child Safeguarding (CSG) policies.
5. Submit all deliverables on time.
6. In case of any delays or changes, inform SEED in a timely manner.
7. Maintain strict confidentiality of all information gathered and findings.
8. Utilize their own technology equipment and maintain a workable Zoom account and email account for communications.

Responsibilities of SEED

1. Provide access to all relevant program data, policies, documents, and contact information for relevant stakeholders.
2. Connect consultant(s) with key stakeholders and actors as required for interviews and meetings and keep them informed of the evaluation.
3. Share PSEA, CSG and Code of Conduct policies and conduct briefing.
4. Issue payment of the consultant fees upon satisfactory completion of the assignment within the stipulated time frame.
5. Provide feedback/comments for draft inception report and data collection tools, draft report, and presentation.