CFO EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF ECHO PROJECT

Viewed 1 time

Job Description

Country: Iraq
Organization: Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion
Closing date: 9 Jan 2021

https://ngosjobs-bids.com/bids/373-hi-cfo-external-evaluation-of-echo-project

TERMS OF REFERENCE

END OF PROJECT EVALUATION

Project Title: Support to the return process and recovery of conflict-affected populations with specific needs, in Ninewa Governorate.

Implemented in Mosul, Qayarah, Hammam al Alil, Salamiyah camps (Federal Iraq)**

Start Date: 01/04//2019, End Date: 28/02/2021, Duration: 22 months

1. General information:

1.1 . About Humanity & Inclusion

*Our vision:** Outraged at the injustice faced by people with disabilities and vulnerable populations, we aspire to a world of solidarity and inclusion, enriched by our differences, where everyone can live in dignity.

Our mission: HI is an independent and impartial aid organization working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. We work alongside people with disabilities and vulnerable populations, taking action and bearing witness in order to respond to their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights.**

On its 35th anniversary, Handicap International network changed its name to Humanity & Inclusion.

Our Values: Humanity; Inclusion; Commitment; Integrity**

1.2 About Humanity & Inclusion in the country/region

HI has been registered and operational in Iraq since 1991 and has become a lead implementing agency in the emergency response in the Health and Protection sectors, operating across Ninewa, Kirkuk, Baghdad, Sulemaniyah and Diyala Governorates. Since 2014, HI has scaled up its intervention in Iraq to respond to the humanitarian needs generated by the capture of territory by the IS-group, subsequent military operations and the widespread displacement of Iraqi populations.

In line with HI Iraq’s Operational Strategy for the period 2017-2020, the global objective of HI programming in Iraq is to enhance the protection and resilience of conflict-affected communities in Iraq; an objective achieved through an operational framework of three central pillars:

  1. Arms Risk Reduction: Reduce the impact of the Conventional Weapon (CW) and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) for conflict-affected populations through Risk Education and land release

  2. Health: Improve access to specific services for the most vulnerable people whose physical and functional and/or psychological integrity is compromised, through the provision of physical rehabilitation and Mental Health/Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) services

  3. Access to Essential Services: Ensure equal access to essential services, protection and basic needs for all conflict-affected populations, including persons with disabilities. These pillars are complemented by three cross-cutting themes: a comprehensive approach to mine action, inclusion mainstreaming, and protection mainstreaming.**

2. Context of the evaluation

2.1 Brief Presentation of Project

The project aims to improve the resilience and physical recovery of conflict-affected populations in Ninewa Governorate, through the provision of direct comprehensive physical and functional rehabilitation services, for persons with injury and physical and functional impairments, in Ninewa camps and community health structures facing barriers to access specialized services. The goal is to reduce the risk of long term physical impairment of vulnerable populations, through direct provision of comprehensive rehabilitation services and by supporting strengthening local capacities to deliver comprehensive rehabilitation services.

As a continuation of HI’s rehabilitation response at healthcare facilities in and around Mosul, as well as earlier work in trauma post-operative care coordination, funded under the 2017 and 2018 ECHO action. HI’s presence in the governorate since the 2016 emergency operations, treating, referring, and providing case management support to persons with injuries, and through more recent (2018) liaison and support to DoH Health rehabilitation structures in the area (notably Mosul Rehabilitation Centre and Ibn Sina Hospital), HI teams have an in-depth understanding of the healthcare landscape and the gaps in the response.

Accordingly, Handicap International is coordinating closely with other health actors such as MSF France, MSF Belgium, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Emergency NGO, the WHO and the Ninewa Directorate of Health to ensure that Hl’s work at hospital level is positioned alongside other health services. As well, HI is working in formal partnership with the Mine Action Group (MAG) and Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) to ensure in-depth and accessible service mapping for victims of conflict in Ninewa and the improved data collection of incidents of injury due to IED/ERW, to help reduce the risk of physical and psychological harm to people living in conflict areas.

Further to this, this action was built upon HI’s response to raising the level of awareness and promoting safe behaviors of the most at-risk groups regarding the threat posed by Explosive Ordnance (EO) including IED contamination.

NOTE: Detailed Logical Framework and narrative project documents will be shared upon final selection.

2.2 Implementation Context:

Iraq’s humanitarian situation is characterized by violent conflict, large-scale internal displacement and overwhelming protection needs. The Humanitarian Response Plan for Iraq 2018 highlighted the scale and pace of the displacement in Iraq has made it one of the largest and most volatile in the world. Intense clashes between Islamic State (IS) Group and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), supported by coalition forces and ongoing conflict throughout Iraq has displaced millions. Over 1.8 million people remain internally displaced in Iraq, 576,030 of which are in Ninewa governorate, with over four million returnees (IOM, December 2018). The 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview highlights there are 6.7 million people in need in Iraq.

The military operations to take Mosul city between October 2016 and July 2017 resulted in more than 21,000 injured people treated through trauma referral pathways. Traumatic injuries included large numbers of burn, spinal cord, severe orthopedic and neurological injuries. Blast and fragmentation injuries caused by explosive hazards, burns, and neurological injuries often required long hospital stays and multiple surgeries. Studies have reported that high percentages (as high as 70%) of survivors of explosive hazard related incidents require amputation. Explosives Hazards have continued to cause widespread injury and death. In 2018, 24.2% (411) of HI beneficiaries had injuries caused by IED, mines, bombing, or ERW (20.01% or 751 beneficiaries since December 2016). Other indicators of trauma include 6% of HI beneficiaries since December 2016 have suffered from burns (121 beneficiaries in 2018); 15% have had an amputation (394 beneficiaries in 2018), and 20% have had a fracture(s) (298 beneficiaries in 2018). According to the MRC database, 4,493 amputees are living Ninewa, of which 668 are victims of the improvised explosive devices, mines and booby traps left behind as a result of the major military campaigns and the withdrawal of various armed groups (OCHA, HNO, November 2018).

Persons that sustained severe injury during the conflict and those suffering from psychological distress will continue to require support to recuperate, and the decline of the DoH Ninewa capacity to address rehabilitation needs in Mosul is exacerbated by the low technical training capacity in Iraq and budgetary shortfalls. The Ministry of Health (MoH) delivers healthcare services in Iraq through a network of Primary Healthcare Centres (PHCCs), sub-centres, and district and general hospitals spread across 118 health districts. Since 2014, however, the quality and coverage of services has steeply deteriorated across Iraq, especially in Ninewa. The presence of IS-group and subsequent battle to retake the city has left the health infrastructure in a state of destruction, which despite one year of investment continues to be largely un-operational, or working in a reconstructed temporary set-up using caravans. According to the MoH 32% of hospitals and 14% of PHCCs in Ninewa remain destroyed (OCHA, HNO, November 2018). Meanwhile, the healthcare system and services in general, remains weakened from lack of suitably skilled medical personnel, equipment, and other consumables.

Physical rehabilitation needs were high well before the conflict with IS group; with an estimated 15% of Iraqi’s living with a disability, in 2014 (UNAMI/OCHA Report on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Iraq. December 2016). Meanwhile, Hasansham and Khazer IDP camps, showed this rate to have increased to at least 17% (HI Disability Study (Norwegian Mofa) February 2018). Moreover, prior to the conflict, Iraq faced a shortage of physical rehabilitation facilities, reported at only 28 in total and all located in provincial capitals, as well as of mental health services, reported at 0.11 outpatient facilities per 100,000 people. Therefore, the system is even further burdened with the newly injured.

The 2014 presence of IS-group, subsequent battle to retake areas from IS group, and the lasting economic crisis across Iraq, particularly in KRI (including areas of Ninewa formerly controlled by KRG) worsened the already complicated needs of vulnerable persons in Iraq. The resulting consequences are that:

  • There is a massive increase of people with new disabilities as a result of injury;

  • Poor living conditions increased the rate of non-communicable disease which has led to increased health burden and complications

  • Higher rates of children being born with complex needs due to the lack of quality reproductive health services and maternity care (WHO Iraq: Quality of Care – June 2018 – Phase 1) and the heightened stress of mothers living through traumatic situations (stressful environment)

Continued high prevalence of trauma patients and victims of conflict combined with access barriers faced by IDPs and communities highlight the ongoing need for early rehabilitation, physical and functional rehabilitation follow-up. Without adequate rehabilitation support, the injuries reported above can become leading causes of morbidities, disabilities, and avoidable chronic pain.

Ninewa governorate has over 1.8 million returnees and 298.233[1] displaced the highest concentration of returnee and displacement in Iraq (IOM displacement matrix). Populations are living in and returning to contaminated areas, and are facing unprecedented risks from EO including IEDs. The context is changing quickly with government-led camp consolidation and closure processes, increasing the risk of secondary displacement or early returns to locations that are heavily contaminated with EO. While the camp consolidation and closure process is underway, it is recognised that not all families will return home. At camp level, Ninewa authorities have implemented phase one of camps closure late 2019, closing Jadaa 6, Haj Ali and Nimrud camps. According to camp management, the preliminary analysis indicated that 75% of the IDPs either went back to their areas of origin or relocated to the Erbil camps and only 25% moved to Jada’ah 5. Then, consolidation and closure process included consolidation of Salamiyah 1 and 2 as well as Jada’ah 2 and 3 into Jada’ah 1 then closing of Qayarra Airstrip. Further to this Jada’ah 4 and 5 were consolidated into Jadaa 5.

In March 2020, COVID-19 pandemic impacted the humanitarian context in Iraq; imposed lock-down and access restrictions presented challenges for the humanitarian actors. Activities implementation and service delivery were affected directly, as most of the activities were suspended, scaled down or modified to adapt that period.

The camps closure process was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the emerged humanitarian needs in the camps. In November 2020, authorities resumed camps closure process to include all Ninewa camps. By mid of November, several camps were closed, including Hammam Al- Aleel and Jadaa 1. Closing the camps with no defined return plans, raised several protection concern for the families; families with perceived affiliation with extremist groups faced several challenges during at the check-points, social cohesion issues with the host community and not feeling welcomed in the community. For now, the process was put on hold and MoMD Representative announced no family will be force to leave the camps and they will support voluntary return.

2.3 Justification of the Evaluation

As per project design, HI’s evaluation polices and, donor’s requirement, a final evaluation is required to be conducted at the end of the project. The evaluation report and the recommendations will be used for strengthening future projects/programming (learning) and accountability. Besides, the report will be shared with the different stakeholders of the project to disseminate learnings from the programme.

The users of this evaluation will be:

Type

Users

HI Field

Country Director, Operations coordinator, MEAL coordinator & Technical Unit

At field level: Field Coordinators, project managers and project staff.

HI HQ

Technical Specialists (MEAL and thematic areas), Operations Officer

External Stakeholders

Donors and other technical and operational staff at Field, Country or HQ Level

3. Objectives of the evaluation

3.1 Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

The final evaluation aims to assess the effectiveness, level of change and sustainability of the project interventions (Interventions include; all activities implemented by HI under ECHO funding over the past years) as well as the beneficiaries’ level of participation. Furthermore it aims to provide recommendations for future such projects in order to improve access to and quality of services provided to persons with disabilities. In addition, the evaluation shall measure the impact of the intervention on beneficiaries and stakeholders of the project.

3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this evaluation are:

  1. To establish the relevance of the project design and implementation

  2. To determine to what extend the project has achieved efficiency in design and implementation.

  3. Assess the comprehensiveness of services between rehabilitation and MHPSS.

  4. Provide recommendations to project stakeholders based on identified best practices and improvement areas. (lessons learned)

The scope of the external evaluation is to analyze the impact (using mix-method approach) of the implemented project in Ninewa governorate. The evaluation should clearly report on:

• Was the implementation of the proposed project consistent with the initial assessment, design and plan?

• Was the project implementation aligned with general and specific objectives stated in the project proposal?

• Does the project respect the work plan accepted by the donor?

• Has the designed project produced the expected impacts through the implemented activities?

• Have the project inputs been converted into project outputs and outcomes, as planned? (Quality and Quantity)

• Does the project respect the main donor guidelines? (correspondence of Objectives-Outcomes – Outputs – Source of Evidence)

• Does the project take into account and meet the specific needs for persons with disabilities, children, women and elderly?

• According to the achieved Output-Outcomes, should the Organization change its approach or strategy for the upcoming similar project? Any recommendations must be in line with the evolving context of area of operations.

• Has COVID-19 pandemic affected implementation of project or overall, on any aspect of the project. **

• Have the project adaptations- in respond to COIVD-19 pandemic and context changes -were effective and relevant.**

3.3 Evaluation criteria (HI Quality Framework)

HI subscribes to the Quality Framework defined in HI’s Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, which is based on Development Assistance Committee (HI QUALITY FRAMEWORK) having following 5 evaluation criteria for evaluation:

a. Impact,

b. Effectiveness

c. Efficiency

d. Sustainability,

e. Relevance / Appropriateness,

HI also promotes systematic analysis of the monitoring system and cross cutting issues (gender, inclusion, environment, protection etc.).

All HI external/independent evaluations are expected to use HI Quality Framework throughout the whole evaluation process. In particular, the evaluation must complete the following table and include it as part of the final report.

The evaluator will be expected to use the following table to rank the performance of the overall intervention using the HI QUALITY FRAMEWORK criteria. The table should be included either in the executive summary and/or the main body of the report.

Criteria

Rating

Rationale

1: Criteria not Fulfilled
2: Partially Fulfilled
3: Fulfilled.

1

2

3

Impact (Change – Short to Medium Term)

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Sustainability

Relevance / Appropriateness

3.4 Evaluation Questions

The following set of questions shall be answered by this evaluation exercise.

A. CHANGE:

  1. How has the project contributed of improving the resilience and physical recovery of conflict-affected populations in Ninewa Governorate?

  2. How has the project contributed of reducing risk of long term physical impairment of vulnerable populations?

  3. How has this project contributed of improving the quality of care in the targeted government health services?

  4. How has the project contributed in increasing knowledge on the risks posed by explosive hazards and on safe behaviors to adopt among targeted communities?

  5. What changes did the project bring out in targeted communities and partners?

  6. Were there any longer terms changes in targeted communities and partners through various sectors of intervention? Is approach adequate enough for longer term impacts? What are the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches?

  7. What were the unintended/unplanned changes? Overall from all aspects and especially considering the COVID19 impacts.

B. EFFECTIVENESS:

  1. To what extent were the projects objectives achieved? Were the targets realistic? To what extent the targets were achieved?

  2. Did the outputs lead to the intended outcomes? What is the strength of the relations between outcomes with its corresponding outputs?

C. EFFICIENCY:

  1. Were stocks and required services available on time and in the right quantities and quality?

  2. Were activities implemented on schedule and within budget?

  3. Were the processes of inputs to outputs conversion optimal?

D. SUSTAINABILITY:

  1. Are the benefits likely to be maintained for an extended period after the project ends?

  2. What were the aspects of the project that contributes to sustainability?

E. RELEVANCE:

  1. Were the project objectives consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and context; and with Humanity and Inclusion policies and strategies?

The evaluation report is expected to provide sets of:

a. Best Practices

b. Lessons Learned

c. Recommendations

4. Evaluation methodology

4.1 Methodology

The general approach is defined here, as methodology shall come from the evaluator based on the evaluation criteria, questions, and COVID19 situation. The evaluator shall adopt a mixed-method approach where following data collection tools maybe applied.

  1. Secondary data analysis and reviews with existing data management approaches and M&E Systems in place. The mission has established M&E department at coordination level and is under process of expansion and strengthening of existing systems.

  2. Beneficiary survey (if feasible)

  3. House-hold Interviews (semi-structured including both open ended and close-ended questions)

  4. Key Informant Interviews

  5. Focus Groups discussion

  6. Phone Interviews (structured and semi-structured)

  7. Observations in the field

  8. Interviews with relevant staff

POINTS OF ATTENTION

· Please note that all the data collection tools shall cover all quality framework points under study

· The field data collection exercise will take place in Ninewa governorate.

· Consultants are expected to collect an appropriate range of data using Mix-method approach. This includes (but not limited to):

a. Direct information: Interviews/group discussions with beneficiaries and related stakeholders – observation visit to project sites and to the facilities provided to the beneficiaries

b. Indirect information: Secondary information analysis: including analysis of project monitoring data or of any other relevant statistical data.

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

HI program team

HI technical team (coordination level)

Local Partners:

Beneficiaries: IDPs in Hammam Al Aleel, Qayyara and Salamiyah camps and targeted villages with RE activities.

Relevant Key Government Agencies: Ebn Sina staff (DoH)

Management: This evaluation will be coordinated by Coordination office of HI in Erbil. The lead focal point for this exercise will be MEAL Coordinator HI with the support of an Evaluation Committee comprising of Project Managers, Technical and support unit staff and MEAL staff of HI.

External Stakeholders: Consultant and their team will work with targeted populations, community leaders/representatives, donor, local authorities, other NGO actors in the field, cluster representatives and other related stakeholders.

5. Principles and values

5.1. Protection and Anti-Corruption Policy

Selected consultant(s) and the team will comply with the following institutional policies and values of Humanity & Inclusion.

  • Adapting participatory approach

  • Respect security policies, protocols and procedures

  • Child Protection Policy

  • Protection of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Policy

  • Code of Conduct Policy

  • HI Values

Humanity: Our work is underpinned by the value of humanity. We include everyone, without exception and champion each individual’s right to dignity. Our work is guided by respect, benevolence and humility.

Inclusion: We advocate inclusion and participation for everyone, upholding diversity, fairness and individual choices. We value difference.

Commitment: We are resolute, enthusiastic and bold in our commitment to developing tailored, pragmatic and innovative solutions. We take action and rally those around us to fight injustice.

Integrity: We work in an independent, professional, selfless and transparent manner.

Follow the following links to review HI *Code of Conduct, Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, Child Protection Policy and Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy

*Code of Conduct

*Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment

*Child Protection Policy

*Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy

5.2. Ethical measures*

As part of each evaluation, HI is committed to upholding certain ethical measures. It is imperative that these measures are taken into account in the technical offer:

o Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.

o Ensuring a person/community-centered approach: the technical offer must propose methods adapted to the needs of the target population (e.g. tools adapted for illiterate audiences / sign language / child-friendly materials, etc.).

o Obtain the free and informed consent of the participants: the technical proposal must explain how the evaluator will obtain the free and informed consent and/or assent of the participants.

o Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data. **

*These measures may be adapted during the completion of the inception report.

5.3. Participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries

Mention the involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the evaluation:

  • Involvement of partners in surveys

  • Consultation of beneficiaries in the construction of the tools

  • Etc…

5.4. Others

Report on safety aspects

Report on sensitive aspects requiring discretionary measures

6. Expected deliverables and proposed schedule

6.1. Deliverables

ü An inception report refining / specifying the proposed methodology for answering the evaluation questions and an action plan. This inception report will have to be validated by the Steering Committee.

ü A presentation document presenting the first results, conclusions and recommendations, to be presented to the Steering Committee.

ü All the transcripts and data in hard and soft will be handed over to HI.

ü A final report of approximately 30 pages maximum and the following annexes. For details have a look at the attached format in the following section.

The evaluation exercise will have the following expected milestones and deliverables.

1. Inception report specifying the methodology

2. Preliminary findings Workshop with Evaluation Committee.

3. Draft report and a possible feedback document to provide feedback

4. Final report, with PowerPoint presentation and summary (mandatory)

The final report should be integrated into the following template:

The quality of the final report will be reviewed by the Steering Committee of the evaluation using this checklist:

**

**

6.2. End-of-Evaluation Questionnaire

An end-of-evaluation questionnaire will be given to the evaluator and must be completed by him/her, a member of the Steering Committee and the person in charge of the evaluation.

6.3. Evaluation dates and schedule

Total mission duration (we may add one or two additional days, (Preferable Evaluation shall be completed before end of Feb 2021)

Activities

Evaluator

Wor**king Days**

Evaluation briefing with Evaluation Committee (Skype or face-to-face)

1

Desk review, preparation of field work in close coordination with evaluation focal point of HI

4

Inception Report (including data collection tools)

2

Travel and security brief

2

Field work, which includes collection of primary data, meetings with stakeholders and analysis of available secondary data.

5

Debrief Workshop in-country & Presentation of Preliminary findings

2

Draft Report

4

Feedback from HI Management and Final Report with Data sets

4

Total:

24 working days

7. Means

8.1 Expertise sought from the consultant(s)

  1. Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken.
  2. Previous evaluation / research experience in the middle east
  3. Knowledge of relevant Projects/programming with relevant experience for Multi-sectorial and integrated approaches
  4. Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian / development projects in similar themes
  5. Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programs
  6. Ability to independently access and travel to the project location in KRI and Federal Iraq
  7. Experience in OECD- Criteria based evaluations.
  8. Sound Statistical and analytical skills.
  9. Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation
  10. Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work)
  11. Fluent in English (Arabic/Kurdish will be an asset)
  12. Understanding of donor requirements
  13. Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work on tight deadlines

8.2 Budget allocated to the evaluation

Statement of the budgetary modalities that the candidate must detail in his offer: the cost per day for each evaluator; the breakdown of the time spent per evaluator and per stage of work; the ancillary costs (services and additional documents); the overall cost of the intervention including transport costs (international and local), logistics costs, translation costs; with proposals for payment modalities.

7.3. Available resources made available to the evaluation team

(Data, documents, housing, software …)

  • Evaluation Toolkit

  • Project Proposal and Log-frame

  • Project Budget

  • Assessments/studies

  • Reports

  • Dataset of beneficiaries (anonymous)

  • Any other related documentation to evaluate the project

  • Set of Institutional policies of HI

  • Project Data

  • M&E reports

7.4. Required documentation and resources from consultant(s)

  • Legal and valid registration.

  • Evidence that government taxes have been paid

  • The consultant(s) are responsible for personal/life/travel and health insurance during the evaluation for themselves and their team(s).

  • Proof that the Service Provider has paid social security contributions.

  • Certificate from your tax office or equivalent.

  • The consultant(s) will also provide any necessary materials (including their own laptops) required for the evaluation.

8. Submission of applications

Description of the desired application: technical and financial proposal (number of pages), CV, references if any.

Address and submission deadline

Ø Further information and or any queries that you may have can be directed to email to: tenders@iraq.hi.org

Ø Please send your official proposals to email tenders@iraq.hi.org not later than January 9, 2021by 24:00 Iraq Time.

Ø For any communication / request of information / submission of proposal, please clearly indicate “2021 HI ECHO External Evaluation” in the email subject line.

Ø Please note that only short-listed candidate(s) will be contacted / interviewed.

8.1 Technical Proposal

The technical proposal should contain:

  1. Profile / CV of the Consultant(s) and proposed team.

  2. Previous work samples/examples of final evaluation studies with references.

  3. Complete list of all Evaluations conducted, with title and dates.

  4. Proposed methodology (mandatory to adopt and propose two approaches)

a. Direct Implementation.

b. Remote management.

Furthermore, the proposed methodology shall have coverage of all HI Quality Framework points, participatory and mixed-method approach, with clear timelines for all the phases of this study. (Please refer to 6.2: Evaluation Schedule) (Preferable Evaluation shall be completed before end of Feb 2021)

8.2 Financial Proposal

The financial proposal should outline:

  1. Total Cost

  2. Cost per day of each contributor;

  3. Additional costs (additional services and documents);

  4. Transport costs (international and local),

  5. logistics costs,

  6. translation costs;

  7. With agreement proposed schedule of payments.

8.3 Schedule of Payment

Upon submitting the proposals the consultants’ agree upon the below given schedule of payments

· 30% upon contract signature

· 40% upon approval of first draft of evaluation report

· 30% upon approval of final draft of the evaluation report with presentation and summary.

All payments will be made upon reception of invoice and signature of the selected consultants, by cheque in USD/EUROS, under the name of the contracting parties. The offer and payments are subject to in-country fiscal regulations applicable and fulfillment of deliverables.

9. Appendicies

· HI’s Quality Framework*, on which all evaluators must base their evaluation.*

· The Disability – Gender – Age Policy*, which must guide the approach and the construction of evaluation tools in the technical offer.*

· Etc…

Following Annexes will be shared with the selected consultant.

1. Evaluation Protocol and Standard procedure

2. Inception Report Template

3. PME Policy

4. Report Template

5. Related documentation of the project (log frame, proposal, budget, reports, assessments etc.)

6. Assessing quality of the Evaluation – Template

7. Child Protection Policy

8. Protection, Sexual, Exploitation and Abuse Policy

9. Code of Conduct Policy

[1] http://iraqdtm.iom.int/Dashboard

How to apply:

Dear Bidders :

Handicap International in Iraq is inviting you to propose your bids respecting the procedure mentioned in the appendix (ToR _ ECHO Evaluation)) in order to participate in the quotation request to assess the mentioned project. Please note that the deadline of receiving the bids will be 09th of January 2021 by the end of the day.

Bids shall be received only on the following email: tenders@iraq.hi.org**

Source:

Job Summary

wave-1-bottom
Development Job Type

Similar Jobs

The largest community on the web to find and list jobs that aren't restricted by commutes or a specific location.