Announcement for Consultancy Service

អង្គការសម្ព័ន្ធភាពដើម្បី​អភិរក្សធន​ធានជលផល
Fisheries Action Coalition Team

Terms of Reference for Consultancy Opportunity
to Conduct Project Ending Evaluation

1. Introduction

Fisheries Action Coalition Team (FACT) was established in 2000. FACT works to strengthen the NGO coalition, and the Coalition of Cambodia Fishers (CCF) for advocacy on fisheries resources, support the capacity development of fishing community leaders and focal person and strengthening grassroots organizations (CBOs) to empower them to work and advocate on practical issues that are affecting their livelihoods. FACT implements its project activities in three regions of Cambodia such as Tonle Sap, Coastal and Mekong areas. In collaboration with different NGOs, CBOs, and CFi partners, FACT focuses its work around the Tonle Sap, Mekong and Coastal provinces on fisheries conservation and issues that affect the rights and livelihood of local fishing communities.

With funding from European Union (EU), FACT has been implementing an Action called Strengthening Capacity of Fisher’ Network and NGO Coalition towards Fisheries Resources Sustainability and Ownership in the Mekong and Tonle Sap Regions (SFIN-NGO), is a three-year (1^st January 2016 to 31^st December 2019). This Action is being implemented by a consortium of three organizations namely FACT (lead), NAS (co-applicant), and CCF (affiliation). It is being implemented in 2 provinces in Mekong (Stung Treng and Kampong Cham) and 3 provinces in Tonle Sap (Pursat, Battambang and Kampong Chhnang).

The overall objective of SFIN-NGO is:  To contribute to the improvement of policies and law enforcement, better access to and control of fishery resources, and improved livelihoods. The specific objective of the Action is to strengthen the grassroots Cambodian fisher and communities in Cambodia’s Mekong and Tonle Sap and empower them to protect and conserve fisheries resources in a sustainable manner.

To achieve the above specific objectives, the initial results of Action had been formed as follows:

R1.          Networking between NGO partners working on fisheries resources management in Cambodia’s Mekong and Tonle Sap is established and well strengthened.

R2.          Networking between grassroots fishers and communities in Cambodia’s Mekong and Tonle Sap is established, strengthened and empowered to advocate for better fisheries resources management via policy dialogues and advocacy campaigns.

R3.          Fisheries resources in the target areas where the Action is implemented will be increased.

R4.          A result of baseline fish catch study and monitoring and evaluation on the fish catch will be produced and disseminated widely among donors, NGO partners and grassroots communities.

R5.          Experience, lesson learnt from the Action implementation will be replicated via learning and replication workshop(s).

Following recommendation from Result Oriented Monitoring (ROM) held in September 2017, the above initial objectives and results had been reformulated as follows:

 

The overall objective of SFIN-NGO is: To contribute to the improvement of policies and law enforcement, better access to and control of fishery resources, and improved livelihoods. And the specific objective of the Action “To enhance and strengthen the capacity of target Cambodia Fisheries Network (CFN) and target 14 CBOs/CFis in Mekong river and Tonle Sap Lake to sustainably protect and conserve the fisheries resources and engage consultation with authorities”.

 

Result 1 (R1): CCF and NGO-CF are strengthened to become better organized and more professional (Capacity building). – merging of initial R1 and R2.

Result 2 (R2): “(Networking): NGOs partners and fishers representatives are empowered and partner with Fisheries Administration to advocate for better fisheries resources management via policy dialogues and advocacy campaigns”. – reformulated from initial R1 and R2.

Result 3 (R3): The benefit of community-led conservation initiatives on fish recruitment and fish catch is assessed and demonstrated. – merger of initial R3 and R4. Activities that were related to livelihood improvement and misplaced under the previous R3 are now separated to form a specific and distinct R4 below.

Result 4 (R4): “Livelihood actions”: Alternative income-generation options have been promoted in selected locations – (merging of initial R3 and R4).

Result 5 (R5): Experience, lesson learnt from the project implementation will be replicated via learning and replication workshop(s) – kept the same.

 

About the Project End Evaluation: the hired consultant will be assigned to conduct the assessment of achieved results of the project interventions versus the overall objective/results frameworks, and to determine whether the intervention is in line with the current strategies.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this consultancy are to:

1. Make an informed judgement about the performance of the project – the relevance of project outputs and outcomes to overall and specific objectives, and the value of the results to the intended beneficiaries.
2. Assess the long term impact and sustainability of the project in terms of the extent to which the results achieved can continue without additional support.
3. Provide practical recommendations for learning to FACT’s team and partner organisations in order to improve intervention strategies, project effectiveness of the 2016-2019 project phase and provide better support and benefits to marginalised people, including women in the target areas.

3. Expected Outputs

The expected outputs of the consultancy are:

1. A concise report in English with a maximum of 30 pages which clearly outlines the evaluation process, methods, analysis, findings, and recommendation and applications.
2. Oral or visual presentation of the draft and final report to FACT representative for comments and suggestions.
3. Submission of the final report, database/statistics, and other relevant documents in soft copy to FACT.
4. Key Activities

In order to achieve the expected outputs, the activities of the consultancy are to:

• Produce a realistic work plan in close consultation with FACT.
• Desk review of relevant documents.
• Design appreciated evaluation methods (Outline: rational, objectives, sample approach, data collection tool and approach, and data analysis).
• Prepare and conduct fieldwork data collection with all selected key respondents by applying agreed methodologies including data entry and analysis.
• Meet with the project team to present findings from fieldwork prior to writing the first draft report.
• Produce a precise evaluation report.
• Oral/visual presentation draft and final report to FACT and NGO partners.
• Address comments and suggestion and submit the report by the agreed timeline.

5. Evaluation Questions and Criteria

The consultants should assess and document the results and impact in respect to the project’s objectives, results and strategies presented in the Description of the Action as well as provide practical recommendations for improving future implementation.

Therefore, the project performance will be assessed and evaluated through the analysis of the followings:

5.1. RELEVANCE:

The appropriateness of project objectives to the issues that it was supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operates. It should include an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design – i.e. the logic and completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design. Specifically, it should answer the following questions:

• Is the intervention consistent with living conditions of the targeted marginalised rights holders, including women? Does the project intervention is relevant to address their needs and priorities?
• How have the environmental conditions affected the planning and implementation of the project? Specify those and provide strategic advice for improvement.
• An analysis should always be made on whether the intervention is relevant for women and indigenous people regardless if women were not identified as specific target groups: were women included in the original project planning processes?

5.2.         EFFECTIVENESS:

The evaluation should consider if the project design was the most effective means of achieving the objectives, and the extent to which the objectives have been achieved while taking into account the relative importance of each objective. The evaluation should examine how the inputs (financial, technical and human) are appropriated and potential contributed to achieve outcomes or hindered the achievement of the objectives in the project timeframe. Specifically, it should answer the following questions:

• To what extent do the development changes according to or a right direction with the planned results and objectives of the proposed intervention in the last four years?
• To what extent is the identified development the result of the intervention rather than extraneous factors? What are the reasons for the achievement or non-achievement of setting objectives and results?
• Given the Cambodian context and the project’s objectives and results, have the chosen strategies been appropriate and effective enough? What can be done to make the interventions more effective?

5.3.         EFFICIENCY:

The evaluation should assess whether the cost of the project can be justified by its results, taking alternatives into account. Specifically, it should answer the following questions:

• Was the use of resources cost-efficient, i.e. could the intervention have been implemented with fewer resources without reducing the quality and quantity of the results? Could similar results have been achieved at lower costs?
• How much resources were spent on male and female beneficiaries? How does this compare to the results achieved for men and women?
• Were resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) allocated strategically to achieve gender-related objectives and results? Please elaborate those changes through case studies.
• Were resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) allocated strategically to make changes in knowledge, behaviour of relevant authorities, partner organisations and the marginalised groups in fisheries resources management? Please elaborate those changes.

5.4.         IMPACT:

The evaluation should determine the long-term effects of the project, whether the progress to date are potential produced positive results or negative, intended or unintended, and the relation to the overall goal of the project. Specifically, it should answer the following questions:

• What are the intended and unintended/positive and negative effects of the intervention on people, institutions and the physical environment? How has the intervention affected the access to rights and quality of life of different groups of stakeholders, especially rights holders (particularly fishermen and women) at the grassroots level?
• What is the impact of the intervention on partner organisations and community fisheries (CFis)? To what extent does the intervention contribute to capacity development of the grassroots marginalised people, including women and partner organisations’ employees?
• Have results (effects of activities and outputs) affected women and men differently? If so, why and in which way?
• What effects (expected/unexpected) have the interventions had on gender relations?
• What do target groups and other stakeholders affected by the intervention perceive to be the results of the intervention themselves?

5.5.         SUSTAINABILITY:

The evaluation should determine if the project results and objectives will be maintaining sustained results within the proposed project timeframe without continuing external financial or technical support. Specifically, it should answer the following questions:

• Is the project strategy, planning and intervention are consistent with the strategic planning and implementation? These are response to the fishermen’ priorities? Is it supported by local institutions and well integrated with local social and cultural conditions?
• Are the requirements of local ownership satisfied? Did partners, target groups and other stakeholders (preferably also duty-bearers, women) meaningfully participate in the planning and implementation of the intervention?
• Do partners and their target groups have the financial and technical capacity to maintain the benefits from the intervention when the donor support has been withdrawn?
• Has the project planning taken the environmental prerequisites into account?
• What are the possible long-term effects on gender equality?
• Are the gender-related results likely to be sustainable?

 

6. Recommendations and Lessons Learnt

In addressing the above criteria and questions, the evaluation should provide FACT and partner organisations with the following recommendations and lessons learnt:

• Changes/adjustments in the project focus, strategies and methods of work and/or organisation that could potentially bring more effective, relevant and/or sustainable results.
• How FACT and partner organisations can improve strategies of work in order to reach better results for women and gender equality through its project mainstreaming approach.
• How FACT and partner organisations can improve strategies of work with target groups in order to reach the planned results.
• How FACT and partner organisations can improve strategies of work with duty bearers in order to reach the planned objectives.
• How FACT and partner organisations can improve ecological sustainable practises or mainstream ecological sustainability.
• The capacity development of partner organisations – are there methods that could be more effective in delivering expected results?
• Identify lessons learned and create opportunities for reflection, learning and improvements for FACT and their partners.

7. Methodology and Scope of Work

The evaluation should primarily be carried out with participatory methods, looking at changes in results. The data collection and analysis methods of the evaluation should be focused on a rights based approach and also be gender sensitive. The consultant should propose and select methods and approaches in their proposal.

After receiving the consultant’s proposal and finalised procurement of project end evaluation services, these Terms of Reference (TOR) might be re-negotiated with the selected Consultant(s), but only to a limited extent. Methods to be used could include:

• Review of project documents like proposals, intervention strategic plans, baselines, reports, project policies, recent evaluations.
• Interviews with FACT staff members.
• Interviews with Partner staff members.
• Interviews with committee groups.
• Interviews with rights holders.
• Interviews with duty bearers.
• Interviews with donors and like-minded NGOs (local and international).
• Collect and analyse case studies.

In the evaluation, the process should also contain opportunities for reflection on the proceedings and outputs from the study, giving the opportunity to adjust the evaluation’s work. For this reason, at least one reflection workshop preliminary debriefing of key findings and recommendations should be held in the mid¬term with partners and FACT staff members. It also could possibly include donors’ staff members.

A final debriefing report and presentation workshop should be held at the end of the study presenting the outputs from it, and this event should also be an opportunity to discuss the way forward to further develop and refine FACT’s project planning together with Partners.

 

8. Timing and Duration

The duration of the evaluation will take place around 30 working days, starting from 18^th October to 30^th November 2019 including travels in Phnom Penh and travel to other target provinces. A detailed schedule/activity plan for the consultancy will be prepared by the consultant in close consulting with FACT representative shortly after signed contract. All relevant documents must be submitted by 21^st October 2019, specific date to be agreed upon an agreement signed.

No	Tasks	Timeline	# day	Responsible
1	Document review and drafting inception report	18-25 Oct	5	Consultant
2	Submission of Inception Report to FACT (including evaluation framework, methodology and tools, specifying how participation of all relevant stakeholders will be ensured)	28	1	Consultant
3	Approval of inception report	28-31 Oct	3	FACT
4	Field research	1-10 Nov	10	Consultant
5	Report writing	11-15 Nov	5	Consultant
6.	Submission of draft evaluation report to FACT and other stakeholders	18 Nov	1	Consultant
7.	Evaluation workshop for sharing the findings and conclusions of the evaluation to FACT and project stakeholders	20 Nov	1	Consultant
8.	Written feed-back on the draft evaluation report send to consultant (the evaluation report will be assessed based on standard quality criteria)	21-22 Nov	2	FACT
9	Incorporation of feed-back and comments	23-24 Nov	2	Consultant
10	Submission of final evaluation report	25 Nov	1	Consultant

9. Reporting

The consultant is expected to produce the following deliverables:

• An inception report (attach with the setting working schedule) including a description of the methodology to be employed and of how relevant stakeholders will be involved, as well as a detailed work plan. The inception report must be approved by FACT before the field work can start.
• A draft evaluation report that should be submitted to FACT no later than: 18^th November. The draft report will be assessed against standard quality criteria for evaluation reports.
• Presentation of evaluation findings and conclusions during a seminar with FACT, partners, donors and other relevant stakeholders to be held on 20^th November.
• Final evaluation report to be delivered to FACT no later than 25 November, in three hard copies at least and one soft copy.

The draft and final evaluation report should adhere to the following:

• Should be of maximum 25 pages long, excluding the Executive Summary and Annexes.
• Should be written in clear English. The executive summary will be both in English and Khmer. The font used shall not be less than Arial 11 in a Microsoft Word Document.
• The consultant is instructed to adhere to the terminological conventions of the OECD/DAC Glossary on Evaluation and Results-Based Management.
• The reports need to be sent to management of FACT.
• Should follow the structure presented in the table below.

Evaluation report structure

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – maximum 4 pages

Summary of the evaluation, with particular emphasis on main findings, conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations.

• INTRODUCTION

Presentation of the evaluation’s purpose, questions, methodology and limitations.

• THE EVALUATED INTERVENTION

Description of the evaluated intervention, and its purpose, logic, history, organisation and stakeholders.

• FINDINGS

Factual evidence, data and observations that are relevant to the specific questions asked by the evaluation and what are based on sound analysis and interpretation of such evidence.

• EVALUATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of the intervention and its results against given evaluation criteria, standards of performance and policy issues. The conclusions should refer to both positive achievements and less successful aspects of the project. Concise explanations for achievement or non-achievement should be presented. Conclusions should be cross-referenced to the main text of the report.

• LESSONS LEARNED

General conclusions that are likely to have a potential for wider application and use. Lessons learned should be anchored in the findings and conclusions of the evaluation. They should be rooted in real project experiences, i.e. based on good practices and successes which could be replicated or derived from problems encountered; and mistakes made which should be avoided in the future. Lessons should briefly describe the context from which they are derived and specify the contexts in which they may be useful.

• RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are actionable proposals on how to resolve concrete problems affecting the project or the sustainability of its results. As for the lessons learned, all recommendations should be anchored in the findings and conclusions of the report, with proper cross-referencing. In some cases, it might be useful to propose options, and briefly analyse the pros and cons of each option.

• ANNEXES

Evaluation Terms of Reference, Response to stakeholder comments received but not (fully) accepted by the consultant(s), Methodology for data gathering and analysis, Evaluation plan, References, and Names of the evaluator(s) and its (their) office

List of people/organisations consulted

Schedule of evaluation mission

Literature and documentation consulted

Other items

10. Consultancy Qualifications

Qualifications will include an advanced university degree in social sciences, development studies/ natural resources management and development, fisheries science, environmental science, project management, monitoring and evaluation, or related disciplines. Excellent knowledge in the thematic area (Sustainable Use of Natural Resource Management and Climate change, and Gender Equality) of FACT is an asset.

• Minimum 5 years demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations of interventions in similar geographical and thematic context.
• Proven excellent evaluation experience with evaluation of projects, methodology skills, particularly in conducting evaluations with a participatory approach.
• Experience in the field of community development, especially on community based natural resources management, in particularly fisheries.
• Experience in conducting meetings with different actors (NGOs staff, community people, etc.).
• Expertise on gender equality and human rights.
• Basic knowledge of climate change and mainstream into the rights based programming.
• Familiarity with volunteering and working in partnership as approaches to development work is also desirable. Socio-cultural expertise.
• English proficiency skills, if Khmer language is a plus.
• A gender-balanced and culturally diverse team that makes use of national/regional evaluation expertise will be considered an advantage.

11. Organization Supports

Total task is 30 working days maximum. To help support the works of the Consultant, FACT will supply relevant documents and database if necessary. Venue for findings presentation will be arranged by FACT.

12. Budget and Payment

The maximum budget for this evaluation is USD $20,000, including travels (local and international) of the consultant team, food, accommodation, communication, expenses of workshops, participants’ travel cover cost, writing and reading materials, and other associated costs to the evaluation. FACT will not pay any cost other than the evaluation fees that have been agreed by both parties.

The evaluation fee is subject to tax deduction. FACT will withhold tax on this evaluation fee according to taxation law and remit to General Department of Taxation.

13. Terms of Payment

The payment of the consultant’s fee will be made in three instalments:

• 30% of the evaluation fee will be paid to the consultant(s)/team upon the signature of the evaluation contract.
• 50% of the evaluator’s fee will be paid after the submission of the draft evaluation report.
• The remaining 20% will be paid to the consultant(s) after the final evaluation report has been received and approved by FACT.

14. Procurement

14.1.      Tender Procedure

The assignment is subject to an open tender procedure, handled directly by a FACT assessment group. The tenders will be assessed considering the following aspects:

• The contents of the tender (that all the required information is enclosed)
• The qualifications and experience of the Consultant/Consultant Team
• Experience from working with country/sector
• The methodology and approach proposed
• The cost for the tender

Questions concerning the tender can be posed to the contact persons indicated below until 10 October 2019. FACT reserves the right not to accept any of the tenders submitted. In addition, FACT reserves the rights to interview candidate(s) from the selected tender by the assignment group and to also confirm references.

14.2.      Documentation and information required in tender

Interested candidates must submit the following documents for consideration:

1. Proposal including rational, objectives, methodological approach based on the terms of reference, sample approach, data collection tools and approach;
2. A detailed schedule/activity plan, A total budget (with breakdown by purpose of expense) for the consultancy including consultant fee per day and travel, accommodation, and other related costs;
3. Organizational profile of consultancy agency (if any);
4. Curriculum vitae of the core consultant(s)/team detailing core competencies and relevant work experience, highlighting that with a similar focus to the current task; and
5. An example of a report prepared by the consultant,
6. Names and contact details for at least two referees

14.3.      Submission of Tender and Final Date

The tender, including all required information is to be submitted to FACT by ordinary mail and e-mail as address indicated below at the latest 13th Octber 2019 at 17:00 to the following address:

Fisheries Action Coalition Team (FACT), at # 57z, St 430, Sangkat Phsar Deum Thkov, Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Office:   +855-23 992 044, or E-mail: to info@fact.org.kh.

Website: www.fact.org.kh.

The envelope/e-mail should be marked; “Tender for Project End Evaluation”

14.4.      Contact Data

For further information, kindly contact:

Mr. Sophal Mar, Program Manager, FACT, Mobile Phone: +855 (0)12 845 091 E-mail: pm@fact.org.kh