Consultant (final evaluation of a nutrition project - The approximate budget available is £4,700 GBP (consultancy fee for team leader and research assistant/s)

PHASE Nepal

Detailed Job description / requirements:



Request for a consultancy service 



PHASE WORLDWIDE (www.phaseworldwid.org) & PHASE NEPAL (www.phasenepal.org) is seeking proposals for consultancy services from interested and experienced consultant/firm Team (from Nepal and abroad) for the final evaluation of the project “Addressing Causes of Malnutrition in Women and Children in 6 remote Regions of Mugu District, Nepal” The deadline for submission of the proposal is 23 July 2021.  Please refer to the detailed ToR below:



ToR

PHASE WORLDWIDE AND PHASE NEPAL

Background

A UK Aid Direct Community Partnership grant was a funding opportunity of up to £250,000 for small non-governmental organizations which were registered in the UK. It is registered in one of the lowest 50 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index (UN HDI) and considered by the UK government to be of high or moderate fragility with an average income of less than £1 million per annum.

Read more here: https://www.ukaiddirect.org/apply/community-partnership/

 

Project Description

Project Title: Addressing Causes of Malnutrition in Women and Children in 6 remote Regions of Mugu District, Nepal

Project Aim: Contribute to Global Goal Targets 2.1 – 2.4: poor and vulnerable families (including infants) will have better access to safe, nutritious food all year round (Global Goal 2.1) which will reduce stunting and wasting in children U5 and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons (Global Goal 2.2) this will be achieved by both improving the agricultural productivity, production and income for small-scale food producers, in particular women and family farmers through productive resources, inputs, knowledge, and markets (Global Goal 2.3) and improving resilient agricultural practices which will strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather and other disasters (Global Goal 2.4)

Project Summary

Mugu has an extremely high number of children under 5 years old with global acute malnutrition. This project aims to sustainably address the immediate and underlying causes of malnutrition among 1,600 ‘left behind’ children in Mugu; integrating both health and nutrition into one project. By 2021, PHASE will have changed the lives of 800 marginalized and vulnerable families (including young children). The project aims to improve the access these families have to a safe and nutritious food supply all year round, reducing the prevalence of child stunting and wasting in children under 5. Additionally, the access to food supply all year round supports the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons. This will be achieved by both improving the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women and family farmers, through productive resources and inputs, knowledge, and access to markets. The project also aims to improve resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and strengthen capacity for adaption to climate change, extreme weather, and other disasters.

Region: Mugu, Far West Nepal

Project Duration: April 1st, 2018 – June 30th, 2021

Project Budget: GBP 249,771

Report Commissioners

The report is jointly commissioned by PHASE Worldwide Director Tom Edwards and PHASE Nepal Executive Director Dr Jiban Karki.

Purpose of the Independent Final Evaluation

Independent final evaluation reports will be used to inform the Fund Manager’s (Mannion Daniels) understanding of the grantee’s performance at the project level and will also be used to inform the Evaluation Manager’s assessment of performance at the UK Aid Direct fund level.

The independent final evaluation report needs to be a substantial document that:

·         Should answers all the elements of the Terms of Reference (ToR)

·         Should provides findings and conclusions that are based on robust and transparent evidence

·         Where necessary supplements the grantee’s own data with independent research

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the progress made towards the achievement of the specific objectives of the project, its outcome, and its impact on the lives of beneficiaries that include families, communities, and governments.

It will also measure the level of community and other stakeholder participation. It will also identify the intended and unintended outcomes, best practices, lessons learned as well as challenges arising from project execution. In addition, the evaluation will come up with conclusions and recommendations for learning and future intervention.

Specific Objectives of the Evaluation

The Evaluation has two objectives:

1. To independently verify (and supplement where necessary), grantees’ record of achievement as reported through its Annual Reports and defined in the project log frame; 

2. To assess the extent to which the project was good value for money, which includes considering:

•     How well the project met its objectives

•     How well the project applied value for money principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity in relation to the delivery of its outcome

•     What has happened because of FCDO funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened

•     How well the project aligns with FCDO’s goals of supporting the delivery of the SDGs.

 

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation should answer the following questions:

Relevance

  • To what extent did the grantee support achievement towards the SDGs, specifically off-track SDGs?

  • To what extent did the project target and reach the poor and marginalized?

  • To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activities (and or other relevant excluded groups)?

  • How well did the project respond to the needs of target beneficiaries, including how these needs evolved over time?

Effectiveness

  • To what extent are the results that are reported a fair and accurate record of achievement?

  • To what extent has the project delivered results that are valued for money? To include but not limited to: How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency, and equity in relation to the delivery of its outcome;

  • What has happened because of FCDO funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened

  • To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery?

  • What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the project?

 Efficiency

  • To what extent did the grantee deliver results on time and on budget against agreed plans?

  • To what extent did the project understand cost drivers and manage these in relation to performance requirements?

 

Sustainability

  • To what extent has the project leveraged additional resources (financial and in-kind) from other sources?

  • What effect has this had on the scale, delivery or sustainability of activities?

  • To what extent is there evidence that the benefits delivered by the project will be sustained after the project ends?

Impact

  • To what extent and how has the project built the capacity of civil society?

  • How many people are receiving support from the project that otherwise would not have received support?

  • To what extent and how has the project affected people in ways that were not originally intended?




                                                                                             Evaluation Methods
 

Specific details around the methods that are the most appropriate for demonstrating impact will be decided together with PHASE Worldwide at the start of the evaluation. Evaluation methods should be rigorous yet proportionate and appropriate to the context, data should be triangulated so that findings are as robust as possible.

The research should be based on a contribution-based approach which results in a ‘plausible’ account of the difference that FCDO’s funding has made on the impact of grantees. This approach should be informed by a wide range of evidence sources that are brought together to produce a ‘plausible’ assessment of the ‘contribution’ of grantees to higher-level outcomes and impacts.

The evaluator should apply a mixed-methods approach for assessing impact. This would combine qualitative data to provide an explanation of ‘why’ and ‘how’ the project has achieved the type and scale of results that are quantitatively observed.



Relevant primary and secondary research (subject to Covid-19 restrictions) may include:

  • Review of existing documents and review of context and poverty trends including the project proposal and other documents, annual and quarterly reports, monitoring, and evaluation reports

  • A household survey using survey questionnaires (remote or using local staff) (100 HH)

  • Interviews and workshops with PHASE key staff, local authorities, and local groups

  • Remote focus group discussions involving primary project participants, other social groups, and key stakeholders.

  • Report writing and debriefing with project and management teams

  • Scoping reviews of secondary studies and sources, measuring impact where possible and proportionate through comparison groups and other quantitative methods

  • Verifying reported data through backchecking and quality control assessments

List of partners/stakeholders to be involved/consulted (remotely) in the evaluation include:

  • Government bodies (DDC, DHO, DADO, DEO)

  • Community group

  • Participants

  • PHASE Nepal staff (management as well as field staff)

Materials to review will include

  • The original application for funding

  • MOU with FCDO for funding

  • Project log frames (original and revised) 

  • Monitoring data

  • Monitoring systems

  • Annual reports and comments provided by the fund manager

  • Other evaluation reports are undertaken by the grantee

  • Financial information/information on resources spent

  • Information on synergies/collaboration with FCDO country programs and other actors

  • Published material (e.g. To demonstrate sharing of learning with others)

 



 Timeframe

If the consultant is based in Nepal and travel is permitted to Mugu:

  • Early August, 2021 – Contract Awarded

  • Early August – Desk Study, research design, and planning

  • Mid-Late August – Research and visit to Mugu, Far West Nepal

  • Early-Mid September – Submission of the initial draft report

  • September 24th – Final report due

If the consultant is based in the UK or Nepal and travel is not permitted due to Covid-19, the visit to Mugu will be excluded from the process and 100% desk research will be accepted.

*As of June 2021, due to Covid-19 and the Monsoon, we believe the research will be fully desk-based.


Deliverables

The following should be delivered:

  • Inception report with detailed evaluation plan

  • First draft report

  • Final evaluation report

  • Submission of hard and electronic copies of materials, data collected and analyzed, and other evaluation documents

  • A summary PowerPoint presentation highlighting main findings and recommendations

The main body of the report must be limited to 40 pages (exclude annexes). One of the annexes should consist of a table that summarises the findings according to the OECD-DAC criteria.

To ensure consistency across evaluation reports, the following structure should be used for reporting:

Introduction

  • Purpose of the evaluation

  • Organization context

  • Logic and assumptions of the evaluation

  • Overview of UK Aid Direct funded activities

Evaluation Methodology

  • Evaluation plan

  • Strengths and weaknesses of selected design and research methods

  • Summary of problems and issues encountered

Findings

  • Overall Results

  • Assessment of the accuracy of reported results

  • Relevance

  • Effectiveness

  • Efficiency

  • Sustainability

  • Impact

Conclusions

  • Summary of achievements against evaluation questions

  • Summary of achievements against the rationale for UK Aid Direct funding

  • Overall impact and value for money of UK Aid Direct funded activities

Lessons learned (where relevant)

  • Project level - management, design, implementation

  • Policy level

  • Sector level

  • UK Aid Direct management

Recommendations

Annexes (such as)

  • Independent final evaluation terms of reference

  • Evaluation research schedule

  • Evaluation framework

  • Data collection tools

  • List of people consulted

  • List of supporting documentary information

  • Details of the evaluation team

  • Grantee management response to report findings and recommendations

 

Outline Budget

The approximate budget available is 4,700 GBP (consultancy fee (team leader and research assistant/s).

The budget should be inclusive of all costs covering team member costs, research costs, and any other costs associated with the completion of the work.

Cost of travel to and from the field will be provided by PHASE Worldwide – and not included in the budget above - but the local travel and other costs in Kathmandu if any should be borne by the consultant team themselves. PHASE Nepal team will offer support with the project visit to the Far West.


   
Required Qualifications

  • A minimum of seven years experience in program/project evaluation in an international development context.

  • Experience in results-based monitoring and evaluation

  • Ability to design and plan the evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods.

  • Relevant subject matter knowledge and experience have given the aims and objectives of the project and the context in which it is being delivered

  • Experience of working in Nepal

  • Excellent writing skills

  • Fluency in English and, ideally, Nepali

 

 

Terms of Payment

PHASE Worldwide shall pay the consultant 25% upon submission of the outline desk study report and detailed work plan for a three-month contract period. Final 75% will be paid after submission and acceptance of the final evaluation report.


Tenders

Tenders should include and will be assessed on:

  • Method statement – description of activities to deliver requested services; 30%

  • Project team’s and organization’s experience and relevant expertise; 30%

  • Project and resource plan; 20%

  • Quality assurance and risk; 10%

  • Price - 10%

The top three bids will be invited for an interview over Microsoft Teams on one of the days 26th/27th and 29th of July 2021.

Please also submit your research proposal along with your team composition, budget and CVs, and anonymized report highlighting similar evaluations you have conducted previously.

Applications from qualified firms/individuals should be submitted by 17:00 UK on 23rd July 2021 to Tom Edwards, Director, tom@phaseworldwide.org

 

 

Job Overview

Category Consulting & Professional Services, Public Health, Development and Project
Openings 1
Position Type Contract
Experience 7+ years
Education Please check details below.
Posted Date 30 Jun, 2021
Apply Before 23 Jul, 2021
City Kathmandu