Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 1 of 25
Document Tender Document This document serves as an invitation-for-tender to firms for providing
consultancy services for the assignment outlined in this document. This
document consists of the following contents:
Part 1. Tender specification
Part 2. Terms of Reference
Part 3. Annexes
1 Specifications for preparing the technical proposal
2 Specifications for preparing the tender
3 Guidelines for reports and field-work
4 Standard Contract (Draft). In separate file.
Doffin (Database for public procurements) dated
TED (Tenders Electronic Daily)
Assignment A study of: “Development Aid as viewed by the local population”
Client Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Ruseløkkveien.
26, P.O.B. 8034 Dep, N-0030 Oslo, Norway
Tel : +47 23 98 00 30 / direct 02 15
Attn: Name: Eirik G. Jansen
Title: Senior Adviser
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 2 of 25
Part 1. Tender Specification
1. Short description of the assignment
One way to improve and strengthen aid, according to a number of international aid agencies,
is to urge recipient governments to „take ownership‟ of aid activities. In arguing for a stronger
ownership to the development and aid process, the focus has primarily been on recipient
governments and non-government institutions rather than the local populations in villages,
towns and cities in developing countries that are the ultimate target group and end users of
most development aid.
The purpose of this study is to contribute to our understanding of the perceptions the local
population have about the aid interventions that are targeted at them. The health sector in
Malawi, where Norwegian aid has played an important role, will be used as a case study to
investigate this question.
This study will contribute to the wider learning by developing a general evaluation
framework/methodology and an approach that can be used when studying the relationship
between the local population and the aid interventions in various sectors and in different
For more detailed information, see the Terms of Reference in Part 2 of the tender document.
2. Administrative Conditions
The procurement shall be effected in accordance with the Norwegian Act relating to public
procurements of 16 June 1999, as modified by subsequent acts, the last one being Act No. 41
of 30 June 2006. The procurement shall be carried out through an open procedure involving
published tender competition.
Deadlines and time schedule
The time schedule for the assignment outlined in this tender is as follows. Dates after opening
of tender are tentative.
Announcement of the tender 06.06.2012
Deadline for clarifications related to the tender documents 12.07.2012
Deadline for submission of tenders - 13:00 hrs. (local time Oslo) 07.08.2012
Validity of the tender 07.11.2012
Opening of the tender- 13:00 hrs. (local time Oslo) 07.08.2012
Notification of the award decision 21.08.2012
Contract signature 04.09.2012
Inception report 16.10.2012
Draft final report 12.02.2013
Final report 16.03.2013
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 3 of 25
Publication, distribution April 2013
Clarifications of the tender document
All enquiries regarding this tender document shall be addressed in writing to Norad attn: the
Evaluation Department, by email:
[email protected]. Enquiries should refer to: Tender:
“Development Aid as viewed by the local population”.
Replies to enquiries will be answered and published on Doffin. Furthermore, any corrections,
supplements or changes to the tender document will be published on Doffin. It is the
responsibility of the tenderer to keep up to date on the information published on Doffin.
The tender shall be in the physical possession of the client by the deadline mentioned in the
time-schedule. The tender can be submitted by post or delivered by courier to:
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)
Attn: Evaluation Department
P.O. Box 8034 Dep, N-0030 Oslo, Norway
Norad‟s reception desk (6th
Ruseløkkveien 26, 0251 Oslo, Norway
Norad does not accept tenders by e-mail or fax.
The tender shall be produced in English and structured according to the format given in Part
3, Annex 2 Specifications for preparing the tender of this document. Missing information in
the tender or material non-conformity with the specified structure may result in rejection of
The tender shall be submitted in duplicate. Original tender and the copy shall be bound in
separate ring binders. Individual sheets inside the binders shall not be stapled. Each binder
shall be marked with the tenderer‟s name and binder number. The binders shall be packed in
suitable wrapping marked : Tender: “Development Aid as viewed by the local
population”. Not to be opened before on August 7, 2012, at 1300 hrs, Oslo local time.
Public access to information
Following the selection of the successful tenderer, the tenders and the tender logbook will,
upon request, be made accessible to the public, ref. Freedom of Information Act of 19 May
2006 No 16. If the tenderer wishes that business information of a sensitive nature be exempt
from public disclosure, the tenderer shall submit an additional copy of the tender in which
such information is blacked out for public disclosure. The client reserves the right to take the
final decision concerning public disclosure of the tender.
Opening of the tender Tenders will be opened in Norad‟s offices by at least two representatives of the client. The
Evaluation Department reserves the right to reject tenders that are overdue or deficient.
Tenders not selected will not be returned by the client.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 4 of 25
Possibility for several legal entities to submit a joint tender Firms may associate to enhance their qualifications. In such cases, there shall be one main
contractor for the assignment. The main contractor may make use of sub-contractors for
completion of a part of the assignment. The main contractor, however, will remain liable to
Norad with reference to the whole contract. The main contractor shall submit a letter of
association signed by the sub-contractor, confirming the commitment of the sub-contractor to
The conditions specified in this document including the annexes shall apply for this
assignment. The participation costs incurred by tenderers in connection with the preparation
and delivery of the tender will not be reimbursed by Norad.
Conflict of interest
Neither the tenderer, nor any of the members of the evaluation team, shall have any existing
or potential conflict of interest during the course of undertaking the tendered assignment. By
conflict of interest is meant, in particular, that neither the tenderer nor any individual member
of the evaluation team has been involved in the planning or implementation of any parts of the
object under evaluation, nor has, or has had any financial or similar interest in the object of
the evaluation which can affect the outcome of the evaluation.
Any conflict of interest which may potentially harm the independence of the evaluation shall
be explicitly disclosed by the tenderer, providing detailed information on the character and
scope of association with either object of evaluation, or persons involved in the
intervention. In such cases the tenderer must also elaborate on how this conflict of
interest would be handled by the tenderer.
Based on the information provided by the tenderer, the Evaluation Department will make the
final decision regarding the tenderer's conflict of interest.
3. Qualification requirements
Tenderers shall submit the following documents along with their tenders:
i. CVs each not exceeding 5 pages for the team leader and members of the evaluation
ii. A list of the most important evaluations/relevant services performed/deliveries made
by the tenderer, during the last three years, specifying dates/duration, value, and the
iii. Contact details for three references from clients with previous contracting experience
with the tenderer or the team leader. Contracts should have been allocated through a
competitive process for the relevant assignments.
Quality assurance system – CVs each not exceeding 5 pages for the quality control
i. A company registration certificate. (From “Brønnøysundregisteret” for Norwegian firms)
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 5 of 25
ii. A self-declaration stating that the tenderer meets the statutory requirements in the field
of health, safety and the environment (HSE declaration).
Tax certificate/certificates in accordance with the legislation of the country in which the
tenderer has its head office. The documents should show, that the tenderer is
i. Registered for declaration and payment of value added tax or a similar sales tax.
ii. Free from debts regarding taxes and social security contributions.
Norwegian tenderers shall enclose two tax certificates (form RF-1244 from the Directorate of
Taxes); one issued by the local tax collection office (kemnerkontoret) and the other issued by
the collector of taxes in the county (fylkets skattefogdkontor) in which the tenderer has its
i. A declaration stating the tenderer‟s total turnover in the last three financial years.
ii. Solvency assessment supporting creditworthiness of the tenderer, or credit rating by a
registered financial institution. Acceptance of the documentation is at the discretion of
In case several legal entities submit a joint tender, legal, tax and financial documentation shall
be submitted for the main contractor for the assignment.
4. Award criteria
The contract will be awarded to the economically most favourable tender assessed on the
basis of following criteria applied to information provided in the technical proposal:
Assessment shall be based on the requirements specified in Part 2 Terms of
Reference, 4. Composition of team, organisation and budget.
The tendering firms experience with undertaking multi-disciplinary evaluations
or relevant research in the subject area of the evaluation.
2 Approach and methodology
Assessments shall be based on the tenderer‟s:
Understanding of the purpose, role and subject matter of the assignment
Proposed design for the study, methodological choices, strategy with respect to
concretisation of the issues, and as far as possible indicators and data sources to
be used to answer the main questions posed in this assignment.
Proposals shall be credited for well founded comments and alternative
suggestions where relevant to methodological specifications, issues and questions
outlined in the ToR.
Tenderer‟s Score = (lowest offer/tenderer‟s offer) x (max. points for price
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 6 of 25
4 Quality assurance (QA)
Tender‟s QA system
Competence and experience of the proposed QA personnel
For further specifications of the above award criteria please see Part 3, Annex 1 Specifications
for preparing technical proposal.
5. Technical Proposal
The Terms of Reference in Part 2 of this document specify the details of this assignment. The
tenderer is expected to elaborate a technical proposal on the basis of the information in the
TOR. Technical proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the format given in Part 3,
Annex 1 Specifications for preparing technical proposal.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 7 of 25
Part 2. Terms of Reference
„Development aid as viewed by the local population‟
1.1 One way to improve and strengthen aid, according to a number of international aid
agencies, is to urge recipient governments to „take ownership‟ of aid activities, to
establish their own systems of managing and coordinating donors, and only accept aid
that comes on their terms and accords with their policies. This emerging consensus was
first codified in the “2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness” (OECD, 2005)
adopting ownership as a key pillar of a new aid paradigm. Norway and other
„likeminded‟ donors have been among the strongest advocates for an increased
emphasis on recipient ownership to the development process and poverty reduction
(Norwegian MFA, 2002; 2009).1 In arguing for a stronger ownership to the
development and aid process, the focus has primarily been on recipient governments
and non-government institutions rather than the local populations in villages, towns and
cities in developing countries that are the ultimate target group and end users of most
development aid. The recipient governments and civil society institutions should,
ideally, represent local populations and forward their concerns. Research and evaluation
literature shows that this is often not the case (Easterly, 2006).
1.2 The principles of effective aid that ensued from the Paris declaration around ownership,
alignment with countries‟ strategies, harmonization of donor‟s actions, managing for
results, and mutual accountability are all means towards an end, however, which is to
improve aid effectiveness, in other words people‟s lives. They are hence assumptions
that must be tested on the extent to which they contribute towards this end.
1.3 A main objective of this study is to obtain a better understanding of how the aid
sponsored interventions are seen by the beneficiary local population, and compare this
perception with more „objective‟ measures of success and of outcomes. Furthermore,
the role local participation plays in the perception of ownership and eventual outcomes
will be explored.
1.4 There are several factors that call for such a study but which also make it challenging:
1) The amount of learning and insights that can be gained by studying the local
population in one delimited area of one country and in relation to one program or
sector is limited due to limited external validity.
2) Evaluations of policies, programs and projects show that they affect different
populations groups in different ways. In line with this, there will also be a large
variety of perceptions of the relevance and utility of a given intervention.
3) Local voices will typically be represented by local representatives of line ministries,
local government representatives, NGO or other civil society representatives and
(albeit less often) representatives for traditional authorities. While these may be in
the best position for a broad overview over popular sentiments related to a
1 Having said this, there has been confusion around whether „ownership‟ should be taken to mean ownership as
commitment (i.e. to policies however they are arrived at) or as control (i.e. over the process and outcome of
choosing policies) (Whitfield and Fraser 2009).
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 8 of 25
development intervention, they will only rarely be able to (or interested in) giving the
full picture of local inequalities and possible conflicts of interest.
4) For many programs and projects reliable outcome measures are not available,
something which will prevent the comparison between local perceptions and
1.5 The proposed study will deal with these challenges. First of all, the framework developed
by the study team will allow for the implementation of similar case-studies in different
contexts and sectors, and thereby increase the validity and generalizability of the lessons
and insights derived. Furthermore, the selected study will propose a way in which it will
gain access to outcome and/or impact measures, either by selecting the intervention areas
according to where data exist or by proposing a way of collecting these data that is
independent of local population perceptions. Finally, as for the heterogeneity issues
mentioned in 2 and 3, the selected proposal is expected to explain the methods to be used
to capture this.
1.6 This study will contribute to the wider learning by developing a general evaluation
framework/methodology and an approach that that can be used when studying the
relationship between the local population and the aid interventions in various sectors and
in different countries. Other donors (e.g. DFID and Danida) have already indicated their
interest in this possibility. In addition, the study will pilot the methodology in one country
and sector, and findings from the pilot are expected to provide insights relevant to aid
work in that country and sector.
1.7 In addition, the study is expected to contribute to the debate about whose ownership and
participation donors should be seeking to include when framing the aid interventions.
Central issues in this regard will be how the aid interventions, and the institutions and
people who deliver aid, interplay with local power structures and perceived local
development opportunities, and to explore to what extent higher levels of local
ownership lead to better aid effectiveness. Also what do the aid interventions do with
the local population‟s own perspectives on the relations with, and legitimacy of the
state? Finally, to what extent is the local populations‟ understanding of their role, rights
and obligations as recipients and/or local implementers of a development project
important for achieving desired outcomes? What is the relation between the perception
of the quality and usefulness of a program and measured outcomes?
2.1 The overall purpose of this research is to contribute to our understanding of the
importance of local ownership and participation for perceived and measured aid
2.2 In order to do so, a three-phased approach will be used. First, a draft evaluation
framework will be developed that can be used for replication of the study in other
contexts, countries and sectors. Second, the draft framework will be applied as a pilot to
the health sector in Malawi, where Norwegian aid has played an important role. (The
insights gained from how the local population relate to programmes or projects in the
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 9 of 25
health sector should be points of reference for building an informal model rather than
the programmes being objects of an evaluation.) Finally, the framework will be updated
based on any lessons learned from the Malawi pilot.
2.3 The methodological framework should be such that it allows us to assess (i) the
programs as designed versus the programs as implemented versus the programs as
understood from the local population; (ii) participation as designed versus participation
as perceived; (iii) the relationship between ownership and participation; (iv) the
measured outcomes versus perceived outcomes; (v) measured outcomes versus local
satisfaction with perceived program effects.
2.4 The programme phases:
Phase 1_Framework development: The framework should describe the theory of
change underlying the assumption that local participation and ownership leads to
more effective aid. It should then describe the methodology that will be used to test
the theory of change, including literature review, quantitative and qualitative
methods, and methods triangulation. The framework development should consist of a
more generic version that can be applied to different sectors, and a detailed version to
be applied in the Malawi health sector case study. The framework should be
designed to address the issues raised under paragraph 2.3.
Phase 2_Malawi health sector pilot: The draft framework will be piloted on the
health sector in Malawi. Here the study will: (i) identify relevant programmes and
projects in the health sector, and retrieve the relevant documentation about these; (ii)
identify and assess the health and health service situation in the target areas for the
selected health interventions, based on available health surveys, program monitoring
data, existing impact evaluations, as well as health and health service perceptions
among the population; (iii) assess how the local population has been participating in
the development and implementation of the health programmes, and how this relates
to ownership at different levels in Malawi. The pilot should respond to address the
issues raised under paragraphs 2.3 and more particularly 3.3.
Phase 3_Framework update and consultation: The general framework, which is
meant to be used for replication purposes in other countries and/or sectors, will be
updated based on lessons learned through phases 1 and 2, as well as on consultations
with potential future users in relevant international agencies.
2.5 The users of this study will be government institutions and NGOs in Malawi, the aid
administrators, decision-makers and planners in the Norwegian MFA, Norwegian
embassies, Norad, and NGOs. It is also hoped that the wider international development
community will benefit from this study.
3. Scope and delimitations
3.1 The health sector in Malawi has been chosen to exemplify how a selected set of aid
programmes and projects are perceived and related to by the local population that they are
meant to affect. Norway has been one of the main contributors to this sector in Malawi
over a number of years and several of the supported programmes/projects have been in
effect for sufficient amount of time to be able to demonstrate effects. The health
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 10 of 25
programmes also easily lend themselves to be assessed in light of how the targeted
populations relate to the various aid interventions in this field.
3.2 The study will comprise extensive fieldwork in Malawi. The consultants will need to
spend some time in the communities under study.
3.3 Questions to be addressed in the study. In order to be able to compare people‟s
perceptions of the aid architecture, with reference to the aid programmes in the health
sector in Malawi, a general set of evaluation questions will be used as guide. However,
the questions below should not preclude the option of pursuing questions raised by the
target population itself – which is the very essence of participatory applied research.
The Evaluation Department of Norad also expects the bidding firm to propose
additional questions for the study.
A: Identify relevant programmes and projects:
What are the main interventions international development organizations, including
Norway, have supported in the health sector in Malawi? On the basis of this overview,
a limited number of health programmes and projects should be selected for this study.
In order to cover the variety of actors involved in this field, the study will select
different types of partners supplying health services (government institutions, NGOs,
faith based organizations) in different parts of Malawi.
B: Identify and assess relevant aspects of the health situation in the target areas for the
selected health interventions
What is the health situation and what are the health trends in the target population?
This analysis will be based on available health surveys, program monitoring data, and
existing impact evaluations
What do program and official data reveal about trends in the quality of public
How does the population themselves understand the reasons for poor health
conditions, its origins and the most important strategies for improvement of health?
What role do traditional beliefs in the health sector play for the various groups of the
Has the local population experienced an increase in the quality of public health
services or a decrease over the latest years? (specify health sub-sector) Or are there
different views among various groups in the local community? Can the local people
relate increases or reductions in quality of health services to specific sources, factors?
What does the local population look for in quality services and how does this compare
with official quality indicators?
What role does the local health workers (from local government, NGO and faith based
organization) play in the health interventions? How does this role vary among the
different types of health workers?
What perceptions exist among the various health workers about the health
interventions they are involved in
What are the local health workers perception about the local population‟s participation
and involvement in the health interventions?
How do the various groups of health workers relate to the local population?
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 11 of 25
C: Assess how the local population has been participating in the development and
implementation of the health programmes
What are the local population‟s main channels/options for interactions with the
relevant development programme and project? Have the local people been informed
about the various selected development interventions in the health sector? Have the
local populations been consulted or participated in the design of the development
interventions in the health sector? If so, which groups of the local population have
been informed or participated in the planning of the development interventions? How
does participation relate to a sense of ownership of the programs?
To what extent do the various selected programmes involve and affect the target group
of the programmes („the poor‟, „women‟, the disabled etc.) in the community in
What are the main reasons for the possible non-inclusion of parts of the target
population (political, economic, socio-cultural)?
What are the expectations the various suppliers of the health services have concerning
the participation of the local population in the programmes?
How is money allocated to the various health programmes at the local level and who
are the decision-makers in this regard. What knowledge and perceptions do the local
people have about the allocation of resources in the health sector.
D: Identify local perceptions to the selected health programs
To what extent are local perceptions and concerns, as the evaluators understand them,
reflected in the relevant programmes or projects?
How do local actors perceive and relate to a) the government, b) donors and c) civil
society respectively as providers of development aid in the health sector?
Are there incentive structures connected to the selected health programmes? If so, how
do they work and what is the perception of the local people on this matter?
Does the local population perceive there to exist conditions, expectations,
incentives/disincentives, favouritism etc in the program implementation, and to what extent is
this embedded in the program design
E: Views of the study team
What are, in the study team‟s view, the implications of local perceptions and concerns
for the outcome and likely impact of the programmes or projects?
How should, in the study team‟s view, the relevant programmes best understand and
relate to local needs and grassroots consultation?
What are views of the study team on the role the government officials and other health
workers have been playing in the development interventions and how they relate to the
And in conclusion: What is the utility/non-utility of taking local perceptions into
consideration in the planning, implementation and evaluation of programmes and projects?
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 12 of 25
4. Evaluation Methods
Methodologically, the study should be based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches and data in order to capture:
i) Quantitative expressions of aid interventions and their outcomes in terms of service
provision, health outcomes, poverty indicators or other relevant criteria;
ii) Quantitative and qualitative expressions of social relations of inclusion and exclusion
and perceptions of aid and programme conditions and outcomes among the target
The quantitative information will include available health and socio-economic data on the
target population (from general surveys, programme monitoring data and baseline surveys,
existing impact evaluations etc).
Qualitative data should be collected on the basis of stakeholder interviews (with local
authorities, programme- or project staff, representatives of civil society institutions,
community groups etc.) and a set of target group interviews using participatory methods. The
groups should be carefully composed to reflect different socio-economic categories. The most
relevant methods for capturing the relevance of aid among the target population seem to be
(see Mikkelsen 2005 and Tvedten et al. 2006 for more details):
1) „Immersion‟, or opportunities for development professionals to spend some limited time
(a few weeks) living with and learning from a poor family (IIED 2007). Institutions like
DfID, SDC and SIDA actively use the approach.2
2) So-called “Reality Checks”, as a new way of gaining a genuine understanding of poor
people‟s situation (Sida 2009). Researchers go out and live for short periods with local
families and gather information about the way they live. In the longer term, the aim is for
the information gathered to be used in dialogue with recipient governments to improve
their public services.
These field work methods could involve the following activities:
i) Community Mapping – where the objective is to map the people and institutions
considered most important for well-being and poverty and explain the choices and
ii) Force-field Analysis – where the objective is to capture perceptions of what conditions
(political, economic, social) that may inhibit or accelerate change and development in
iii) Wealth Ranking – where the objective is to capture the community‟s own perception
of poverty and well-being, identify different levels and types of poverty and well-
being, and to identify local perceptions of options for social mobility among each
2 The perhaps most famous case of „immersion‟ is that of the well known and influential economist Ravi Kanbur,
who attributes his interest in combining quantitative economic data and analysis with qualitative studies on the
ground to his immersion in the village of Muhadi in India when he was leading the preparation of the World
Development Report 2000 on development and poverty.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 13 of 25
iv) Venn-Diagrams – which are in-depth interviews about life-stories, social networks and
the role of aid done with households selected from the different categories identified
through the wealth-ranking process.
When applying some of the qualitative methods mentioned above, the focus of the
investigations should be to obtain information about the issues and questions we have posed
under Section 3.
The study involves original field-work on a topic about which there is limited prior
experience and knowledge in Norway. Within Malawi, we suggest that fieldwork should be
carried out in different geographical areas in order to cover some of the variation under which
health services are supplied. This will make it possible to assess the implications of different
socio-cultural configurations in terms of levels of participation in democratic institutions, the
„visibility‟ of the health aid interventions, and possible differences in the way and extent to
which people relate to and confront development interventions in the health sector.
5. Main products
A. Inception report, including the generic evaluation framework, as well as the detailed
evaluation plan for the Malawi pilot study. The inception report shall also attach the
necessary ethical and governmental approvals to carry out the study.
B. Malawi case-study report, including the detailed analyses, results, discussions and
recommendations. The Malawi case study report will be a separate annex to the final
C. Final report, including the updated generic evaluation framework and a discussion around
changes made based on lessons from the pilot and inputs from the wider consultation, and
the Malawi case-study report.
6. Guiding principles for the study:
The proposals shall follow the DAC evaluation guidelines
We would like to draw special attention to the following evaluation standards and norms that
the study team should adhere to:
The consultant shall triangulate and validate information, and assess and describe data quality
in a transparent manner (assess strengths, weaknesses, and sources of information). Data gaps
should be highlighted.
The study report shall moreover describe and explain the method and process and discuss
validity and reliability. It shall acknowledge any constraints encountered and their impact on
the evaluation, including their impact on the independence of the evaluation. It shall detail the
methods and techniques used for data and information collection and processing. The choices
shall be justified and limitations and shortcomings shall be explained.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 14 of 25
The study process should show sensitivity and respect to all stakeholders. The study shall be
undertaken with integrity and honesty and ensure inclusiveness of views. The rights, dignity
and welfare of participants in the study should be protected. Anonymity and confidentiality of
individual informants should be protected.
The study shall be conducted in an impartial manner, and the study team must be perceived as
impartial. Impartiality is the absence of bias in due process, methodological rigor, data
collection, consideration and presentation of achievements and challenges.
The analysis shall be structured with a logical flow. Data and information shall be presented,
analyzed and interpreted. Findings and conclusions shall be clearly identified and flow
logically from the analysis of the data and information. Underlying assumptions shall be made
explicit and taken into account. The report must distinguish clearly between findings,
conclusions and lessons learned. The evaluation shall present findings, conclusions and
lessons learned separately and with a clear logical distinction between them. Conclusions
shall be substantiated by findings and analysis.
The evaluation report shall contain an executive summary. The summary shall highlight the
main findings and conclusions, and lessons learned.
7. Organisation and Requirements
The study will be managed by the Evaluation Department, Norad (EVAL). An independent
team of researchers or consultants will be assigned the study according to prevailing
regulations on public procurement in Norway. The team leader shall report to EVAL on the
team‟s progress, including any problems that may jeopardize the assignment.
Stakeholders, including in the MFA, Norad and the Norwegian Embassy in Lilongwe, as well
as international evaluation experts will be involved in reviewing the following products of the
study, such as the inception report (including methodological framework), draft report and
final report. However, all decisions concerning changes to the ToR, the inception report, draft
report and final report are subject to approval by EVAL.
The team should consult widely with stakeholders pertinent to the assignment.
The study team shall take note of comments received from stakeholders. Where there are
significantly diverging views between the evaluation team and stakeholders, this should be
reflected in the report.
The evaluation is budgeted with a tentative maximum of 3,3 million kroner. The team leader
is expected to participate in the following three meetings in Oslo: a contract-signing meeting,
a meeting to present the work in progress, and a meeting to present the final report.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 15 of 25
The team is supposed to undertake field studies in various places in Malawi.
The budget shall be specified as explained in Annex 1, Price.
The consultants may be requested to make additional presentations, in which case the cost
will be covered by Norad outside the tender budget
8. Composition of the team
The evaluation team shall cover the following competencies:
Competence Team Leader At least one member
Academic Higher relevant
PhD or equivalent
Disciplines (must be covered by
the team as a whole)
One team member from Malawi
should have a professional
background from the health sector.
Evaluation/applied research Leading
Experience with evaluation
methods, principles and standards.
Reports and academic publications
in relevant fields
Community based appraisals Yes Yes
Participatory methods Yes Yes
Research Qualitative method, establishing
narratives and chronologies,
document analysis of primary
sources and other evidence (oral
Quantitative methods in order to
conduct surveys on selected issues
Research Applied social science methods
Gender expertise Yes
Knowledge of international
policies regarding health, and
knowledge of the aid
Familiarity with Norwegian and
Thorough knowledge of
Malawi, including field work
experience from the rural areas
The team as a whole shall meet the minimum requirements in terms of language:
English: spoken, written and read
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 16 of 25
Scandinavian: spoken and read
Local language: Malawi
The team should consist of two researchers/consultants knowing Norwegian and international
development aid well, and two researchers/consultants from Malawi to secure familiarity with
national aid systems and local conditions. Additional assistance may be needed to carry out
fieldwork in the chosen rural and urban location respectively.
9. Budget and Deliverables
The tendering firm is expected to have experience with delivering research oriented studies in
the fields identified above.
Budget and deliverables
The Deliverables in the consultancy consist of following outputs:
Work-in-progress reporting workshop (maximum 1) in Oslo, arranged by the EVAL on
need basis. Workshop should also be organized in Malawi
Inception Report not exceeding 20 pages shall be prepared in accordance with EVAL‟s
guidelines given in Annex A-3 Guidelines for Reports of this document.
Draft Final Report for feedback from relevant stakeholders and EVAL. The feedback
will include comments on structure, facts, content, and conclusions.
Final Evaluation Report prepared in accordance with EVAL‟s guidelines given in Annex
A-3 Guidelines for Report of this document. The report produced shall be no more than 80
pages excluding annexes.
Seminars for dissemination of the final report in Oslo and in Malawi, to be arranged by
EVAL. Direct travel-cost related to dissemination in the case countries will be covered
separately by EVAL on need basis, and are not to be included in the budget.
All presentations and reports are to be submitted in electronic form in accordance with the
deadlines set in the time-schedule specified under Section 2 Administrative Conditions in
Part 1 Tender specification of this document. EVAL retains the sole rights with respect to all
distribution, dissemination and publication of the deliverables.
10. Some relevant literature for the study
Addison, Tony, David Hulme, et al. (eds.) (2009). Poverty Dynamics. Interdisciplinary
Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arndt, Channing; , Sam Jones, et al. (2009). Aid and Growth. Have We Come Full Circle?
Discussion Paper No. 2009/05. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER.
Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corta, Lucia da and Laurance Price (2009). Poverty and Growth in Remote Villages in
Tanzania (2004-2008): Insights from Villages Voices Film Research. O. Working Paper No.
153. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 17 of 25
Easterly, William Russel (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's efforts to aid the
rest have done so much ill and so little good. New York: Penguin Press.
Edelman, Marc and A. Haugerud (eds.) (2005). The Anthropology of Development and
Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Malden
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Eyben, Rosalynd (2008). Power, Mutual Accountability and Responsibility in the Practise of
International Aid. IDS Working Paper 305. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies, IDS.
Foucault, M. (1991). "Governmentality". In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.) The
Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gibson, Clark C. , Krister Andersson, et al. (2005). The Samaritan's Dilemma. The Political
Economy of Development Aid Oxford: Oxford University Press.Green, Maia (2006).
“Representing Poverty and Attacking Representations: Perspectives on Poverty from Social
Anthropology.” In: Journal of Development Studies Vol. 42(7) pp.1108-1129.
Hagberg, Sten and Charlotta Widmark (eds.) (2009). Ethnographic Practise and Public Aid.
Methods and Meanings in Development Cooperation. Uppsala Studies in Cultural
Anthropology No. 45. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsalienses.
Hydén, Göran (2010). Bistånd och utveckling. Afrika: Givarnas store utmaning. Malmö:
IFAD (2010). Evaluation Manual: Methodology and Processes. Rome: International Fund for
IIED (2007). “Immersions: Learning about Poverty Face to Face”. Participatory Learning
and Action No 57 December 2007. London: International Institute for Environment and
Jerve, Alf Morten, Arild Angelsen, et al. (2003). Breaking the Circle: Which Ways Out of
Poverty. Oslo: Research Council of Norway.
Lewis, David and David Mosse (2006). "Theoretical Approaches to Brokerage and
Translation in Development". In: D. Lewis and D. Mosse (eds.) Development Brokers and
Translators. the Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloofield, USA: Kumarian Press.
Menocal, Alina Rocha and Andrew Rogerson (2006). Which Way the Future of Aid? Southern
Civil Society Perspectives on Current Aid Debates on Reform to the International Aid System.
W. P. 259. London: Overseas Development Institute, ODI.
Mindry, Deborah (2001). “Nongovernmental Organisations, 'Grassroots' and the Politics of
Virtue.” In: Signs Vol. 26(4) pp.1187-1211.
MIT (2010). Field Manual for Learning History. (http://ccs.mit.edu/lh/intro.html). Boston:
Massechuset Institute of Technology.
Mosse, David (2005). Cultivating Development. An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practise
London: Pluto Press.
Moyo, Dambisa (2009). Dead aid : why aid is not working and how there is another way for
Africa London: Allan Lane.
MPD (2010). Poverty and Well-Being in Mozambique. Third National Poverty Assessment.
Maputo: Ministry of Planning and Development (National Directorate of Studies and Policy
Norad (2005). Development Cooperation Manuel. Oslo: Norwegian Organisation for
Norad (2007). Resultatrapport 2007. Bistanden virker - men ikke godt nok. Oslo: Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation
Norad (2008). Resultatrapport 2008. Veivalg i bistanden. Ingen snarveier til resultater. Oslo:
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
Norad (2009). Resultatrapport 2009. Bistand og økonomisk utvikling: Ringer i vannet eller
dråper i havet? Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 18 of 25
OECD (2005). The Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development.
Ostrom, Elinor and C. Gibson (2001). Aid, Incentives and Sustainability. An Institutional
Analysis of Development Cooperation. Sida Studies in Evaluation 02/01:1. Stockholm
Swedish International Development Authority, SIDA.
Ravallion, M. (2006). "Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs". In: R. E. Evenson and T. P.
Schultz (eds.) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Riddell, Roger C. (2007). Does Foreign Aid Work? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roll-Hansen, Dag, Marjan Nadim, et al. (2007). Holdninger til norsk bistand. Oslo: Statistisk
Sachs, Jeffery (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York:
SIDA (2004). Looking Back, Moving Forward. SIDA Evaluation Manual. Stockholm:
Swedish International Development Authority.
SIDA (2009). Reality Check Bangladesh 2009. Listening to poor people's Realities about
Primary Health Care and Primary Education. Stockholm: Swedish International
Tarp, Finn (ed.) (2000). Foreign Aid and Development: Lessons Learnt and Directions For
The Future. London: Routledge.
Tvedt, Terje (2005). Utviklingshjelp, utenrikspolitikk og makt : den norske modellen Oslo:
Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2006). 'Opitanha'. Social Relations of Rural Poverty in
Northern Mozambique. CMI Report 2006:16. Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2007) “Xiculungo”. Social relations of Urban Poverty
in Maputo, Mozambique. CMI Report R 2007:13. Bergen. Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Tvedten, Inge, Margarida Paulo, et al. (2008). Mucupuki’. Social Relations of Rural-Urban
Poverty in Central Mozambique. CMI Report R: 2008:15. Bergen. Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Tvedten, Inge, Margraida Paulo, et al. (2009). Monitoring and Evaluating Mozambique's
Poverty Reduction Strategy PARPA 2006-2008. A Synopsis of Three Qualitative Studies on
Rural and Urban Poverty. CMI Report 2009:5. Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Part 3. Annexes
Annex 1. Specifications for Preparing Technical Proposal
Technical proposal not exceeding 15 pages should provide the following information:
Competence - Qualifications and Technical Competence
The technical proposal should provide:
Information about the experience and technical competence of the tenderer firm, its sub-
contractors (where relevant), and the evaluation team to demonstrate that they satisfy the
qualification and competence requirements specified in the ToR for this evaluation.
A summary of the competencies of the team members shall be provided in a tabular form
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 19 of 25
Leader Member Member Member Member
Affiliation (Main employer)
Country of residence
Knowledge and experience
Evaluation principles, methods
Research, subject matter
Other (Field country
Detailed CVs not exceeding 5 pages should be attached in the annex to the tender.
Approach and Methodology
The tenderer‟s understanding of the purpose, role and subject matter of the assignment
The proposed design for the study, methodological choices, strategy with respect to
concretisation of the issues, and as far as possible indicators and data sources to be used to
answer the main questions posed in this assignment.
Tenderers are invited to make well founded comments or alternative suggestions where
relevant to methodological specifications, issues and questions outlined in the ToR. Inputs
and suggestions considered by the selection panel to significantly improve the ToR or
subsequent analysis will be rewarded with a higher score on methodology.
Quality Assurance System
A description of the tenderer‟s quality assurance system to ensure that the assignment will
be performed in accordance with the technical proposal and plans outlined in the tender.
The description should outline the tenderer‟s policy concerning control of scientific
quality of the deliverables, together with routines with respect to document control, ,
auditing of inputs, reporting of deviations from agreed plans and corrections thereof and
communication with the client.
The tenderer shall quote a total price for the assignment. All fees and costs must be quoted in
NOK, exclusive of VAT, and the budget showing the total price will specify:
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 20 of 25
The hourly fee and hours for each member of the staff proposed for the
Specified travel costs (including field visits and other travel)
Other costs if any
Work-Plan and Availability
The technical proposal should include a tentative work-plan that also gives a specification of
the time set out for each member of the team for the fulfilment of the assignment. The
division of work between the team members should be in line with the competencies of the
individual team members. The tentative work-plan should reflect timely completion of the
deliverables in the assignment.
The time-schedule for the project is fixed as given in Part I, Section 2 Administrative
Conditions of this document. Tenderers may however, propose a revised time-schedule for
project deliverables. Maximum acceptable delay in project completion is 2 months.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 21 of 25
Annex 2. Specifications for preparing the tender
Tenders shall be structured as follows:
Part A. Covering Letter and Declarations
A covering letter for the tender (with the signature of an authorised person on the front page)
the tenderer accepts all the conditions specified in this tender document. Reservations
if any to any of the conditions must be explicitly stated in the declaration, specifying
the relevant condition and the terms of the reservation
that neither the tenderer, nor any of the members of the evaluation/study team have
any existing, or potential conflict of interest in undertaking the tendered assignment.
Part B. Technical Proposal Prepared according to the specification in Part 3, Annex 1 of this document.
All the documentation specified in Part I Tender specification, Section 3 Qualification
requirements of this document must be enclosed.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 22 of 25
Annex 3. Guidelines for Reports, Field Work and Quality Assurance
3.1 Guidelines for Inception Report and Field Work
The inception report will give a detailed description of the research strategy and methodology,
data collection and sources, the analytical approach and indicator framework, preferably with
a prototype of the analysis to be performed in the study. The report will also give a summary
of the information collected to date. Information gaps will be identified and strategy to fill the
gaps, including (if relevant), the plans for the field-work will be outlined. The inception report
will specify the list of informants to be contacted in the case countries, the methods to be used
to collect required information, preliminary draft of the questions to be asked of the
informants, and itinerary for the field visit.
A detailed work plan, specifying the roles and responsibilities for each evaluation/study team
member, and a preliminary outline of the final report format will be included as an appendix
in the inception report.
The inception report should not exceed 7000 words, excluding annexes.
It is the obligation of the selected firm and the team-leader to ensure that ethical standards are
maintained in conduct of the field-work, and data collection is conducted under free and
informed consent of the key informants.
3.2 Guidelines for Final Report
The final report shall not exceed 30 000 words, excluding the annexes. The final report shall
be developed in two phases: a draft version, and the final version. The draft version shall
contain all the main elements and major arguments, findings, conclusions and
recommendations that are to appear in the final report. The final report shall be prepared
subsequent to the approval of the draft version by the Evaluation Department.
The report shall convey insights in an informative, clear and concise manner. Use of
abbreviations and acronyms, footnotes and professional terminology shall be limited to the
minimum, and explanations shall be given for all such terms used in the report. The structure
of the reports shall be as follows:
The Consultant is responsible for editing and quality control of language. The final report
shall be presented in a way that directly enables publication.
Front page/title page
The front page shall contain the title of the evaluation/study.
A blank page to be written by the Director, Evaluation Department, Norad.
This page shall provide the following information
o Name of the firm(s) responsible for the report
o Name of the team leader and the team members
o Division of work between the team members
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 23 of 25
o Reference group (stakeholders) members where relevant
o Acknowledgement of individuals outside of the core team who have contributed
substantially to the quality of the report, including task manager in Norad‟s
Evaluation Department when relevant
o A declaration stating:
“This report is the product of its authors, and responsibility for the accuracy of data
included in this report rests with the authors. The findings, interpretations, and
conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of EVAL”.
Table of Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations
The executive summary shall be a maximum of one tenth of the length of the main report
excluding its annexes. The overall objective shall be to convey the main points to a non-
technical reader. The summary shall function as an independent excerpt free of references to
other parts of the report. Use of acronyms, abbreviations, and technical terms shall be
minimised in the summary. The executive summary shall consist of four sections; namely
introduction, findings, conclusions and recommendations. A separate paragraph shall be used
to present each main finding, conclusion and recommendation. The paragraph shall start with
a simple declarative sentence in bold font that presents the subject matter in the paragraph.
Supporting or explanatory sentences shall be included where necessary. The main findings,
conclusions and recommendations shall be presented in the same order as they appear in the
report. Limitations of the analysis shall be clearly identified wherever relevant.
Chapter 1. Introduction or Background
The main purpose of this chapter is to provide information which is important for the reader
to understand the report. The introduction shall state the purpose, objectives, main questions,
scope, and main users of the evaluation/study. This shall be followed by a presentation of the
object of evaluation/study. Included herein is the background information related to
chronology, stakeholders, organisation, budgets, and policy documents. The chapter shall
conclude with a brief literature review of the relevant project and programme cycle
documents related to the object of evaluation/study.
Chapter 2. Methodology and analytical framework
This chapter should provide a detailed description of the research strategy, method and
indicator framework used in the evaluation/study. All data and survey instruments shall be
provided in annex 1 of the report. EVAL is committed to making its evaluation/studies
publicly available and it is important that the details provided in this chapter and annex 1, are
sufficient to enable the replication and extension of results by other researchers.
Chapters presenting findings
Findings: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each finding. The finding shall be
presented as a clear topic sentence. This shall be followed by presentation of the relevant data,
quotations, references, and analysis that shows how and why the evidence presented supports
the position taken in the topic sentence. Included herein is also the presentation of the
comparisons with other studies, significant trends if any, uncertainties, and limitations
relevant for the analysis presented.
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 24 of 25
Chapter presenting conclusions and recommendations
The chapter shall consist of two sections:
Conclusions: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each conclusion. The conclusion shall
be presented as a clear and direct topic sentence. This shall be followed by supporting
sentences that clearly show how the conclusion has been deduced, and which findings are
relevant in deriving the conclusion.
Recommendations: A body paragraph shall be allocated for each recommendation. The
recommendation shall clearly outline the directions and actions that should be taken keeping
in view the findings and the conclusions. It is essential that the actions suggested follow from
the findings and conclusions presented in the report. As far as possible the recommendations
should reflect on the implementation issues related to the concerned recommendation.
o Annex 1: Definitions, data and survey instruments
o Annex 2 : Other information on need basis
o Annex 3: Details of the field work elaborating the itinerary and the list of
o Annex 4: Terms of Reference (TOR)
The references shall preferably follow Oxford‟s Manual of Style: In the text, the last name of
the author, followed by the year of publishing, shall be presented in parenthesis. At the very
end of the report, the references shall be presented in alphabetical order, according to the
author‟s name and year of publishing as referred to in the text.
3.3 Guidelines for quality assurance of the report
The final report shall normally not exceed 60 pages, excluding the annexes. The text shall
preferably be written in Microsoft Word. The font of the body matter shall be Arial 11 points
or equal. The margins shall be 2.5 cm. The report shall be delivered edited, language vetted,
and proofread and ready for publication. The reports shall be submitted to the Evaluation
It is the obligation of the selected firm and the quality assurance personnel proposed for the
assignment to ensure:
Table of contents is complete
All acronyms are explained
Executive summary is accessible to the non technical reader
o Clear statement of the analytical framework
o All assumptions and limitations clearly stated
o Clear documentation of the data collection procedures
o All relevant data presented and summarised
Tender document: Evaluation of agriculture and food security. Page 25 of 25
o All calculations clearly documented and checked
o All data sources clearly referenced
o All biographical references complete
o All conclusions supported by well documented data and evidence
o Clear and complete statement of the limitations
o Sensitivity of the conclusion to the assumptions is clarified
o Responds to TOR
o Responds to comments to inception report and draft version
o Response to stakeholder comments as per DAC quality evaluation
o Acceptable grammar, style and organisation
o Quality assurance is complete and explains deviations if any