REQUEST FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI)

Calls for expression of interest (EOI) – in French "appels à manifestation d’intérêt" (AMI) - serve to invite economic operators to put themselves forward as candidates in advance of a public procurement operation by a contracting authority. The shortlists generated this way may be used and updated many times for different procurement procedures.

The purpose of this EOI is to provide the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD or the Organisation) with a list of candidates who will be invited to participate to the upcoming Call for Tenders/Market Consultations. Applicants can be individuals, companies, cabinets or any entity authorised to perform the contract under applicable national law, i.e. by way of inclusion in a trade or professional register or sworn declaration or certificate, membership of a specific organisation, express authorisation or entry in the VAT register.

The Call for Tenders/Market Consultations will be published on the eSourcing Portal of the OECD (https://oecd.bravosolution.com/web/en/login.html).

Calls for Tenders are open for participation to all the interested and eligible parties who will register to the Portal. Market Consultations are accessible only by invitation.

Once they are registered on the eSourcing Portal, the candidates will be informed of any other tender launched on the Portal, and in connection with activities related to the areas of expertise that they have selected.

Interested applicants are asked to fill in and submit the standard application form. Submissions may start from the date of publication on the OECD web site.

Title of the EOI

External Evaluation of MOPAN (2015-2020)

Directorate

DCD

Field of Activity

MOPAN

Publication date of the EOI

December 17th, 2020

Closing date for reception of EOI

January 12th, 2021

Address EOI responses by e-mail to:

Ms. Erika Maclaughlin

Subject of the e-mail:

EOI_020_MOPANEVAL2020

E-mail address:

Erika.Maclaughlin@MOPANonline.org

DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENTS

The Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) is an independent network of 19 countries that assesses the performance of multilateral organisations and provides other insights with the aim of promoting a more effective multilateral system. Created in 2002 by eight countries, the Network’s membership and scope of activities has grown over its relatively short history. In 2012, MOPAN’s rotating hosting arrangement with its members was replaced by a permanent Secretariat hosted at the OECD, governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

MOPAN members have codified the Network’s programme of work and the agreed financial contributions of member countries within the current MoU (2020-22). This MoU introduced analytical studies as a new MOPAN product with the intention of maximising the value of its existing body of performance assessments and providing insights to members on broader issues affecting the multilateral system that go beyond any individual organisation. Furthermore, the assessment methodology was updated to a 3.1 version, integrating new issues facing the multilateral system and lessons learned from prior years. MOPAN’s assessments are publically available and can be accessed here.

Following on the last independent evaluation of MOPAN in 2013, MOPAN is launching a second independent evaluation covering the period of 2015 to 2020, as feasible. MOPAN is seeking to identify an independent service provider to implement the evaluation under the guidance of an Evaluation Reference Group and the oversight of the MOPAN’s Steering Committee represented by the MOPAN Bureau. This evaluation will inform the development of the next MOU with MOPAN’s member countries, set to begin in 2023, as well as their decision to reaffirm their support to the network.

MOPAN will soon launch a market consultation for the purposes of selecting an independent service provider to implement the evaluation. The purpose of this Expression of Interest is to identify qualified firms to be invited to bid as part of the market consultation to be initiated in January 2021. The Expression of Interest will result in a short-list of service providers who will be invited to bid.

Purpose and Scope of the Assignment

The evaluation is intended to be a participatory exercise with the Network, implemented by an independent service provider, for the purposes of accountability and learning. The evaluation will be launched in March/April 2021 and completed in autumn 2021.

The evaluation will be theory-based, examining the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and, to the extent possible, impact and sustainability of MOPAN’s activities. The methodology should be guided by MOPAN’s Theory of Change and Logical Framework (see Annex 1 of Appendix 1, below). Particular emphasis is expected to be placed on examining MOPAN’s comparative advantage and cost-effectiveness in delivering its mandate. These issues will support accountability by justifying Members’ contributions to the Network and informing the next MOU.

With respect to learning, the evaluation is intended to identify opportunities for MOPAN to: (i) strengthen uptake and use of its reports by member states; (ii) expand the scope of the influence of its assessments on multilateral organisations; (iii) strengthen the rigour and quality of its assessments; (iii) identify lessons learned and good practices in addressing key operational challenges (e.g. COVID-19); and (iv) identify opportunities to further leverage MOPAN’s comparative advantage through new or modified products and deliver these products more efficiently.

The evaluation will be guided by three overarching questions:

1. To what extent is MOPAN meeting its objectives of fulfilling members’ accountability information needs and supporting performance of the multilateral system? (effectiveness, sustainability, impact);

1. To what extent is MOPAN’s work relevant for an evolving multilateral context and supporting coherence of efforts to improve the multilateral system? (relevance, coherence); and

1. To what extent is MOPAN organised and working in an efficient way? (efficiency)

In conducting the evaluation, the service provider will be expected to identify and triangulate multiple sources of evidence. Lines of evidence may include document reviews, consultations with key stakeholders, surveys, case studies and other lines of evidence, as feasible. MOPAN Secretariat will provide support in compiling relevant documents and facilitating contact with key stakeholders.

Strategic dissemination of findings and lessons from the evaluation to the Steering Committee members and other potential users will be an important consideration in the assignment.

Further details on the assignment are available in Appendix 1, External Evaluation of MOPAN 2020-21 – Terms of Reference.

Specifications and Requirements

Consultancy firms or consortiums wishing to express their interest in the assignment are requested to submit:

· An initial analysis of key issues relevant to the assignment that demonstrates an understanding of MOPAN and the multilateral development context, including the 2030 Agenda, the Grand Bargain and related initiatives as demonstrated through related analytical work and evaluations;

· A capacity statement illustrating related assignments implemented over the past 5 years;

· A selection of potential team members with skills and experience suitable for the assignment;

· Comments and clarifications to the Terms of Reference; and

· A short proposed approach and methodology.

Service providers are asked to limit their submission to no more than 15 pages, excluding annexes.

The selection of a service provider will be made through a market consultation according to OECD Procurement Rules and Regulations. Given the nature of this assignment, particular emphasis will be placed on ensuring that selected service providers are not subject to a conflict of interest in delivering the assignment. A conflict of interest will be construed as substantive involvement in key MOPAN products delivered over the evaluation timeframe. Consultants considered in a situation of conflict of interest therefore include current and past service providers involved in assessments, studies and reviews, and individual consultants who directly contributed to the work, excluding purely advisory roles and consultants who delivered the 2013 evaluation of MOPAN

Appendix 1.

External Evaluation of MOPAN 2020-21 – Terms of ReferenceIntroduction and process

This document is the terms of reference (ToR) for the forthcoming external evaluation of MOPAN.

These terms of reference set out the broad parameters of the evaluation. Service providers are invited to propose alternatives in terms of scope or approach for consideration by MOPAN.

Background

The Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) is an independent network of 19 countries that assesses the performance of multilateral organisations and provides other insights with the aim to make a more effective multilateral system.

Created in 2002 by eight countries, the Network’s membership and scope of activities has grown over its relatively short history. In 2012, MOPAN’s rotating hosting arrangement with its members was replaced by a permanent Secretariat hosted at the OECD, governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with that organisation.

Making use of conclusions from the last evaluation in 2013, in 2015 MOPAN adopted its 3.0 methodology and set out to cover a larger share of the multilateral system with assessments. Under the 2015-19 period, MOPAN sought to increase the visibility of its work and the credibility of its methodology and assessments as well as further professionalize its Secretariat. Other new activities, such as the strategic selection of organisations for assessment using a multi-year pipeline and the introduction of case-studies to help continuously adapt the methodology to a changing multilateral landscape, similarly reflect MOPAN’s intent to position itself as an important learning and accountability tool in the context of the broader multilateral system. This direction was informed by substantive reviews and strategic work undertaken in 2017-18.[footnoteRef:1] [1: For example, the Strategic and Methodology Reviews (2017-18); Governance Review (2019); and the logic model and reimagining of MOPAN’s mission reflected in key documents presented to the Steering Committee (e.g. 2020 and forward looking PWB [MOPAN/SC(2019)20/REV1]; Strategic direction paper [MOPAN(2019)1]; MOPAN framing paper [MOPAN/SC(2018)3]).]

MOPAN members codified the Network’s new approach with the current MoU (2020-22; see [C(2019)82]), which brought their financial contributions in line with the expanded programme of the 2015-19 period that had been enabled by a large carry-over from the previous period. This MoU also introduced analytical studies as a new product which seeks to maximise value from its existing collection of performance assessments and provide insights to members on broader issues affecting the multilateral system that go beyond any individual organisation. The assessment methodology was also updated to a 3.1 version, integrating new issues facing the multilateral system and lessons learned from prior years.

MOPAN also adjusted its approach from a single service-provider model to having multiple service providers on framework contracts competing for individual assessments and studies.

Purpose

This evaluation is intended as a participatory exercise with the Network, supported by an independent service provider, and with a dual purpose of accountability and learning.

The evaluation will provide accountability information for MOPAN member countries to justify their past and continuing contributions to the Network. It is therefore important for the evaluation to reflect on MOPAN’s achievements, and to capture its relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and, to the greatest possible extent, its impact and sustainability.

The evaluation will also support learning, with outputs and engagement with stakeholders designed to support the improvement of the Network in the short and medium-term. The evaluation should provide perspective on how MOPAN learns and is managing ongoing challenges (e.g. COVID-19), seizing new opportunities (e.g. analytical studies), and is being affected by recent changes (e.g. multiple-service-provider arrangement).

The evaluation will constitute an important piece informing the strategic thinking leading up to the next MoU, set to begin in 2023. Concretely, the MoU establishes the mandate for MOPAN and so in the renewal process, members will need to decide collectively with the Secretariat how the Network should look, and individually, whether they will continue to be a part of it.

Scope

The evaluation should cover MOPAN’s mandate and theory of change / logic model,[footnoteRef:2] and all aspects of MOPAN’s work including its internal stakeholders / actors, outputs and processes (assessments, analytical work, engagement, communications, governance, etc.). It should capture both what value MOPAN brings to its members as well as how MOPAN affects other stakeholders, organisations, and the multilateral system as a whole. These issues will be examined further during the inception period of the evaluation and the scope of the evaluation and will be refined to optimise rigour and learning and target the information needs of MOPAN’s members. Recommendations from the evaluation may be directed toward the MOPAN Secretariat and its members. [2: MOPAN’s logic model is presented Annex 1.]

The period under study will be from 2015 under the previous MoU, and cover until current day as is feasible. Due to important changes in the Network over the most recent period, the evaluation may focus its efforts on the more recent period within the timeframe under review.

Evaluation questions

The evaluation will be guided by a set of overarching questions linked to the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria.[footnoteRef:3] These questions are: [3: Based on the updated DAC evaluation criteria (2019): relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.]

· To what extent is MOPAN meeting its objectives of fulfilling members’ accountability information needs and supporting performance of the multilateral system? (effectiveness, sustainability, impact)

· To what extent is MOPAN’s work relevant for an evolving multilateral context and supporting coherence of efforts to improve the multilateral system? (relevance, coherence)

· To what extent is MOPAN organised and working in an efficient way? (efficiency)

The service provider is expected to answer each of these questions in detail, though not all evaluation criteria may be fully covered. A number of sub-questions under the above questions should also be developed as part of an evaluation framework to be presented in the inception phase of the evaluation. The set of sub-questions in Annex 2 can be considered a starting point, however the service provider will be responsible for refining the list in consultation with the Reference Group, Bureau, and Secretariat.

Governance and management

The governance structure of the evaluation will include the Bureau, the Steering Committee and MOPAN member countries and the Evaluation Reference Group. The Secretariat will support these stakeholders in managing the evaluation by playing a limited quality assurance role, but will not directly influence the substantive content of the evaluation findings. The evaluation is designed to be carried out through a collaborative and participatory process supported by an independent external service provider. This approach is meant to support the credibility and buy-in of the process.

The Bureau

The evaluation will take place under the oversight of the Bureau, who will be responsible for providing overall steer to the work and approving evaluation deliverables in terms of adherence to the terms of reference and agreed upon approach. The Bureau will receive advice from the Reference Group.

The Steering Committee and MOPAN member countries

The Steering Committee, MOPAN’s governing body composed of all its members, will approve these terms of reference and be both an essential stakeholder and audience for the evaluation.

Members’ representatives on the Steering Committee, as well as colleagues in their administrations, will be important to consult throughout the process (see Stakeholder Feedback and Interviews below). For transparency and information purposes, the MOPAN Steering Committee will have access to key deliverables (e.g. inception report) throughout the process.

The Reference Group

A Reference Group, composed of three MOPAN members and three external experts has been convened to advise the Bureau and service provider. The Reference Group is intended to provide both a proxy perspective from the membership and an external vantage to help ensure the quality and relevance of the evaluation’s outputs.

Concretely, the role of the Reference Group will be to advise the Bureau at key stages of the evaluation process, including development of the ToRs; inception and scoping; emerging findings / workshop; and the implications of the evaluation for MOPAN. Each deliverable produced by the service provider will be presented to the Reference Group for comments on quality and substance, and potentially adjusted on that basis before going to the Bureau.

More information about this group is available in their terms of reference, presented in Annex 3.

The Secretariat

The MOPAN Secretariat will facilitate the evaluation with day to day support to the other actors involved (Bureau, Steering Committee, Reference Group and service provider). Each deliverable produced by the service provider will also be presented to the Secretariat for quality assurance purposes (e.g. fact checking and substantiation of findings and recommendations). In performing these activities, the Secretariat will provide advice to the Reference Group, who remain independent in providing their own perspective to the Bureau. The Secretariat is also a key stakeholder to the evaluation in terms of consultations as well as recommendations.

Selection criteria for service provider

In general the service provider should draw on significant understanding of and experience with the multilateral landscape and organisational evaluations. They should have general knowledge of MOPAN and MOPAN’s work, as well as an appreciation for MOPAN members’ accountability and information needs and priorities.

Service providers and selected team members having specific experience performing evaluations of programmes or organisations that implement activities related to influence, advocacy, knowledge management, learning and/or uptake would also be an added benefit.

Criteria by which service providers will be judged include:

· Quality of proposal in terms of understanding and approach

· Team’s expertise in institutional evaluation and evaluation of knowledge-based work

· Team’s knowledge of the multilateral system

· Financial cost

Note that the selection of a service provider will be according to rules and regulations of the OECD and will include due diligence efforts to avoid any conflict of interest. Further specifications on the proposal will be provided in the instructions to suppliers as part of the procurement process.

Methodology and expected outputs

The methodology should be refined during the inception phase of implementation and reflect the DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. The evaluation will be implemented through a collaborative and participatory process supported by an independent external service provider.

What is presented below is an initial outline including the expected outputs for each phase, also including touch-points to enable learning throughout the process. In proposed work plans, suppliers should allocate sufficient time for consultation and addressing the feedback provided by the Reference Group, Steering Committee and Bureau, as appropriate.

Inception phase

A key objective of the inception phase is to refine the scope and firm up the methodology of the evaluation, based on the outline presented here and the proposal from the service provider, to focus on what is most critical and feasible. The inception phase will in particular be used for defining the methods for data collection and for orientation to and collation of data sources.

The inception phase should place emphasis on examining the evaluability of the proposed evaluation issues and questions, including potential sources of data and suitability for the application of rigorous evaluation methods. The final methodology and scope should be guided by both the evaluability of proposed evaluation issues as well as the feasibility of applying a rigorous approach within the evaluation timeframe and budget.

The work will involve initial scanning and review of key documentation, as well as some orientation interviews with members, the Secretariat, and potentially other stakeholders. The service provider will be in ongoing contact with the Secretariat to provide documentation and fill information gaps about MOPAN’s history or current operations. The inception phase will also include at least two meetings with the Reference Group – one for orientation and one to present the outputs of this phase.

The output should be a 5-10 page (excluding annexes) inception report that gives the Bureau a full picture of how the evaluation will proceed, including evaluation framework, methods for data collection and related tools (e.g. interview guides), initial mapping of data sources, detailed process, timeline and work plan. These terms of reference should not be seen as limiting the approach, but rather as broad guidance.

The inception report will be shared with the Steering Committee and presented to the Evaluation Reference Group for review and approved by the Bureau.

Expected outputs

· Inception report, including revisions based on comments and a matrix of agreed changes

Document review

Strategic selection of internal and public-facing documents to review will be critical. The Secretariat will prepare a broad set of background documentation from which to draw from, as well as supporting the collection of other documents from stakeholders – notably members and MOs. Where possible, the service provider should identify and collect documentation from stakeholders that can be used to demonstrate the use of MOPAN or its impact on various processes and entities in the multilateral system.

Documentation may include:

· MOPAN strategic documents, including its programmes of work and budgets

· Minutes of Steering Committee and Bureau meetings and summary records of other events (e.g. strategic workshops)

· MOPAN institutional assessment reports and accompanying performance briefs and management responses

· MOPAN case studies and analytical studies, including preliminary drafts or inception reports

· MOPAN governance arrangements and procedures

· Past reviews of MOPAN’s work, including the previous evaluation (2013), its governance review (2019), and strategic and methodology review (2017-18)

· Technical working group documentation, including meeting minutes

· MOPAN surveys of stakeholders (Institutional Leads, members and multilateral organisations)

In addition to formal documentation, the service provider may need to follow the “stories” of certain developments in the Network by reviewing correspondence and other informal communication.

Expected outputs

· No specific documentation is expected for the document review, though the service provider will be expected to update and maintain a list of all documentation consulted for the final report

Stakeholder Feedback and Interviews

Besides documentary review, the evaluation needs to integrate inputs from different categories of key stakeholders as a line of evidence. Data collection may involve a combination of interviews, surveys or focus group discussions. Targeted stakeholder groups may include:

· Staff at headquarters and country levels in MOPAN members’ administrations, including Steering Committee representatives, senior level representatives, desk officers for multilateral organisations, multilateral policy staff, development effectiveness staff, staff with technical expertise in evaluation (including TWG members), and other end-users of MOPAN products

· MOPAN member representatives on the governance structures (Boards) of multilateral organisations

· Former Institutional Leads

· Staff from multilateral organisations that have been assessed, including former focal points for assessments, evaluation offices, users of MOPAN products

· Members of the service provider teams who have conducted assessments or studies for MOPAN

· MOPAN Secretariat staff

· External stakeholders involved in multilateral policy and development effectiveness and results agenda

Interviews (by phone, video conference, or in-person) and other methods may be used for stakeholder consultation.

Expected outputs

· The service provider should keep a running list of all individuals interviewed / contacted that will be presented in the final report

· A summary transcript of interviews that preserves confidentiality

Interim findings

As part of the participatory nature of the exercise, the service provider will develop and present interim findings of the evaluation for review and discussion. These will help to give an understanding of the direction the evaluation is taking to support buy-in and ownership of findings and allow prioritising the information needed to support upcoming strategic processes for the Network.

This stage is also designed to inform real-time learning by the Network, and so should bring any relevant “quick-wins” that that Secretariat or members can undertake to improve performance in the short-term. The findings should therefore present both an assessment of a given issue or area, as well as initial recommendations to address that area, where feasible. The presentation of interim findings is also an opportunity to present initial recommendations and discuss options for fine-tuning to ensure their relevance and feasibility.

The interim findings will be presented by the service provider to the MOPAN members, Reference Group, and Secretariat, potentially in the context of a dedicated workshop or Steering Committee meeting.

0. Expected outputs

· Presentation (slide deck) of emerging findings

· Active participation in a workshop or similar event to unpack and discuss the emerging findings

Final report

The final report of the evaluation should be in line with DAC Evaluation Quality Standards. It should give responses to the evaluation questions that are substantiated by evidence and presented in a clear and concise manner. Findings should be triangulated across multiple lines of evidence / sources wherever possible to lend credibility. The final report should describe the limitations and challenges of the evaluation as well.

Each recommendation should follow from findings and, where appropriate, indicate to which category of stakeholder it is directed, which can include the Secretariat and member countries. Where relevant and in relation to future directions, the evaluation may recommend different scenarios of evolution to provide a good basis for ongoing discussion about the future of the Network.

The evaluation team is responsible for the editing and the quality control of the language. The final report is to be written in English and should be presented in a way that directly enables publication. The report will include an executive summary of maximum 3 pages.

The final evaluation report will initially be presented to the Bureau and Evaluation Reference Group, who will provide feedback on the overall quality of the report and identify recommended changes before the report is resubmitted and finalised.

Following finalisation, the evaluators will present the final report to the Steering Committee. The service provider may also be required to participate in a strategic workshop.

Expected outputs

· Final evaluation report of a maximum of 50 pages (excluding annexes) with an executive summary of maximum 3 pages

· Final matrix of comments made and agreed changes incorporated

· Presentation at a Steering Committee meeting

· Participation in a strategic workshop to further unpack the findings and discuss implications

Timeline

A detailed timeline for the implementation of the evaluation will be developed by the service provider during the inception phase.

A broad understanding of the timeline to date and going forward is presented below. Flexibility around the schedule will be maintained in light of what is feasible.

· September 2020: Concept Note developed and approved by MOPAN Steering Committee

· October-November 2020: Formation of Reference Group, development of ToRs

· November 2020: Approval of ToRs by MOPAN Steering Committee

· December 2020 – March 2021: Procurement of service provider to implement evaluation (Expressions of interest followed by a market consultation)

· March/April 2021 – June 2021: Implementation of evaluation

· May 2021: Emerging findings / workshop

· July 2021: Presentation of findings and conclusion of evaluation

· Autumn 2021: MOPAN workshop

Annex 1: MOPAN logic model 2020-22

Figure 1. Logic model for MOPAN 2020-22

Figure 2. Logic model assumptions

Annex 2: Sample sub-questions

The service provider is expected to provide robust answers to the overarching questions outlined in the body of this document and define sub-questions during the inception phase in consultation with the Reference Group, Bureau, and Secretariat. The indicative set of sub-questions presented below is provided as a starting basis for this process and reflects past discussions with the various stakeholders.

To what extent is MOPAN meeting its objectives of fulfilling members’ accountability information needs and supporting performance of the multilateral system? (effectiveness, sustainability, impact)

· To what extent is there a strategic and transparent approach for selecting and engaging organisations for assessment?

· To what extent does MOPAN inform the accountability, due diligence processes, and engagement of its members with multilateral system?

· To what extent are MOPAN products used by different stakeholders within members’ administrations?

· What are the key factors driving or hindering the use of MOPAN products within members’ administrations – e.g. format, relevance to ongoing discussions, shelf-life?

· To what extent do the MOPAN processes contribute to inform organisational change and improvement in organisations?

· To what extent has MOPAN’s engagement with organisations, both outside and throughout the assessment process, promoted participation, ownership and uptake of MOPAN’s work?

To what extent is MOPAN’s work relevant for an evolving multilateral context and supporting coherence of efforts to improve the multilateral system? (relevance, coherence)

· To what extent is MOPAN’s mission and organisational theory of change (logic model) relevant for the current multilateral context and in line with members’ needs and priorities?

· To what extent are MOPAN’s products suited to achieve its objectives and support stakeholders (members, organisations, broader stakeholders to multilateral system)?

· To what extent does MOPAN adapt to changes in context (e.g. COVID-19), including by capturing and learning lessons?

· To what extent do MOPAN products contribute to a reduction or re-focus of bilateral exercises examining multilateral organisations (assessments, reviews, studies, and evaluations) to reduce overall duplication?

· To what extent is MOPAN’s work designed to add value and complement existing resources and parallel efforts in the multilateral system (e.g. independent evaluation functions, JIU work)?

· To what extent is the way MOPAN’s measures organisational performance (or the systems, policies, and practices that enable performance) accurate and up-to-date?

· What evolution of the assessment approach should be pursued as a matter of priority to meet MOPAN’s objectives?

To what extent is MOPAN organised and working in an efficient way? (efficiency)

· To what extent are MOPAN’s structure, funding model, and assessment implementation model fit-for-purpose against its mission?

· To what extent do MOPAN’s governance arrangements enable its efficient functioning?

· To what extent is MOPAN’s organisational architecture well-suited to enable efficient achievement of its objectives?

· Does MOPAN provide good value for money to member countries compared to potential alternative instruments?

· To what extent would MOPAN becoming a Part 2 entity within the OECD support the effectiveness and efficiency of MOPAN, compared to the terms of the current hosting arrangement?

Annex 3: Terms of Reference: Reference Group MemberBackground

The Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) is a network of 19 Member States[footnoteRef:4] with a common interest in assessing the effectiveness of the major multilateral organisations that they fund. MOPAN carries out joint assessments of multilateral organisations that generate credible information which MOPAN Members can use to meet domestic accountability requirements and fulfil their responsibilities and obligations as bilateral donors. The MOPAN Secretariat is hosted at the OECD, a relationship governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that has been renewed periodically (in 2015 and in 2020) since it began in 2012. [4: As of 2019, MOPAN Members are: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.]

MOPAN last underwent a full evaluation in 2013, though it undertook several key strategic processes ahead of the signature of the current MoU, including Strategic, Methodology, and Governance Reviews. Building on the previous evaluation and more recent reviews, MOPAN will comission an external evaluation of the Network to provide accountability and learning information, as well as to support discussions leading up to the end of the current MoU (2022).

This evaluation will be overseen by the MOPAN Bureau, supported by the MOPAN Secretariat, and will benefit from the advice of a Reference Group composed of three experts from MOPAN members and three independent experts. The Reference Group’s advice will support definining the scope of the evaluation and reviewing deliverables at each stage of the process. This document defines the role of each reference group member.

Objectives and Scope Tasks

The main task of the reference group member is advising the planning and implementation of the evaluation, helping to ensure that:

· The scope and parameters of the evaluation, as defined in the terms of reference, are realistic and aligned to priority areas for the Network

· Key deliverables (e.g. inception report, interim findings, and final report) are of a sufficient quality, with findings substantiated by evidence and in line with the evaluation objectives

· The evaluation is delivering information that is useful for both members’ accountability purposes and for the Network’s learning

Members of the reference group are expected to support the Bureau with the development of the terms of reference for the evaluation by advising these entities and offering substantive inputs. Throughout the evaluation process, the reference group will advise the Bureau and interact with the Secretariat to help ensure that implementation stays on-track in terms of delivering useful information aligned to the evaluation objectives and priorities for the Network.

Deliverables

The reference group’s deliverables will be centred around advice to the Bureau regarding the scope of the evaluation and key deliverables, which can be received in either written or oral format. These deliverables include:

· Draft terms of reference

· Products delivered by the service provider (inception report, interim findings, final report)

· Input for framing recommendations

Members of the reference group are expected to actively participate in virtual meetings, including with the Bureau and potentially the MOPAN Steering Committee, to be defined in the terms of reference and around key milestones of the evaluation. Members of the reference group may also be engaged bilaterally by the evaluation team, Bureau, or Secretariat if appropriate and to clarify issues between formal meetings.

No travel will be required as part of the reference group participation, though there may be opportunities for in-person and/or hybrid meetings if the context permits.

Resources and timeline

Participation in the reference group will be confirmed by the Bureau and subsequently communicated to participants on 23 October 2020. Work on the terms of reference is expected to begin shortly thereafter, with an initial meeting of the reference group tentatively planned for the end of October.

The timeline for further meetings and periods of work will depend on the terms of reference and actual implementation of the evaluation. A tentative timeline, as set out in the evaluation concept note (see [MOPAN/SC(2020)12]), views implementation of the evaluation beginning in early 2021 and concluding in July of 2021. Depending on interest from MOPAN members and availability of the reference group, there may also be an opportunity to participate in a MOPAN strategic workshop in the autumn of 2021.

The total workload expected for participants in the evaluation reference group is 5-7 days:

· 1-3 days for initial background reading, work on the terms of reference, and during the inception phase of the study

· 1-2 days during data collection and analysis to support emerging findings

· 1-2 days to review the final report

· 1 day for distilling implications for MOPAN, participating in strategic discussions, and closing the process

Qualifications

Participants in the reference group should be familiar with MOPAN’s work and the multilateral system in general. They should have expertise either in evaluation, multilateral affairs, international development, organisational effectiveness or related issues.

Members of the reference group from MOPAN member countries should serve both in their capacity as MOPAN members and their capacity as individual experts. They should seek to take on not only a national view, but also to represent the broader membership in their role.

Independent external experts should serve in their capacity as experts and should not seek to represent any national perspective.

Effective communication skills – both verbally and in writing – in English are expected as all deliverables and meetings will be conducted in that language.

Location and management arrangements

The assignment is home-based. Members of the reference group will be managed and supported by the Secretariat on a working level. For external experts, the Secretariat will also be the formal contract holder.

The reference group itself will issue advice directly to the Bureau, who is overseeing the evaluation.

Additional information:

Approved By:

Suzanne Steensen

Date:

17-12-2020

Last Updated By:

Date/Time:

EOI - CANDIDATES RESPONSE FORM

NOTICE

The OECD requires all Vendors interested in participating to the Call for Tenders to register to the OECD eSourcing Portal (https://oecd.bravosolution.com/web/en/login.html)

Once they are registered on the eSourcing Portal, the users will be informed of any other tender launched on the Portal, and in connection with activities related to the areas of expertise that they have selected.

ENTITY INFORMATION

Legal Entity Name

Entity Contact

Address

City

Postal Code

Country

Phone Number

Phone Number #2

E-mail address

Entity Website (if applicable)

Years of operation

(if applicable)

Number of staff (if applicable)

Areas of specialisation and expertise

OECD Sourcing Platform

Registered on the Sourcing Platform of the OECD (YES / NO)

User ID

RELEVANT INFORMATIONS FOR THE EOI

Additional information

MINIMUM GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR OECD CONTRACTS

Please acknowledge the Minimum General Conditions for OECD contracts

[Double click on the document]

Name and title:

Date:

PREREQUISITES OF ELIGIBILITY

In order to be eligible for participating to the Call for Tenders launched by the OECD, the Tenderer must declare that:

i. That it is not bankrupt or being wound up, is not having its affairs administered by the courts, has not entered into an arrangement with creditors, has not suspended business activities, is not the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, and is not in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;

ii. That it has not been convicted of an offence concerning its professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata;

iii. That it has not been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation or any other illegal activity detrimental to the interests or reputation of the OECD, its members or its donors;

iv. That it is not guilty of misrepresentation in supplying the information required as a condition of participation in this call for Tenders or fail to supply this information;

v. That it is not subject to a conflict of interest;

vi. That its employees and any person involved in the execution of the work to be performed under the present Call for Tenders are regularly employed according to national laws to which it is subject and that it fully complies with laws and regulations in force in terms of social security and labor law;

vii. That it has not granted and will not grant, has not sought and will not seek, has not attempted and will not attempt to obtain, and has not accepted and will not accept any advantage, financial or in kind, to or from any party whatsoever, constituting an illegal practice or involving corruption, either directly or indirectly, as an incentive or reward relating to the award or the execution of the Contract.

MINIMUM GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR OECD CONTRACTS

The following articles constitute the minimum general conditions of the contract to be signed between the OECD and the Contractor to whom the Call for Tenders would have been awarded (the “Contract”). These minimum general conditions are not exclusive and could, as the case may be, be modified and/or complemented with additional conditions in the Contract.

ARTICLE 1 – GOODS OR SERVICES

The goods and/or services provided under the Contract (hereinafter “The Work”) shall strictly comply with the standards mentioned in the Terms of Reference. It is expressly agreed that the Contractor shall perform the Work in strict accordance with all Standards or, where no such standards have yet been formulated, the authoritative standards of the profession will be the applicable norms.

ARTICLE 2 - PRICES

Prices charged by the Contractor for the Work shall not vary from the prices quoted by the Contractor in its Tender, with the exception of any price adjustment authorised in the Contract.

ARTICLE 3 - PAYMENTS AND TAXES

Payment will be made in Euros.

In case the Contractor is located outside of France, the Organisation is exempt from taxation, including from sales tax and value added tax (V.A.T.). Therefore, the Contractor shall not charge any such tax to the Organisation. All other taxes of any nature whatsoever are the responsibility of the Contractor.

ARTICLE 4 - DELAY IN EXECUTION

The Contractor shall perform the Work in accordance with the time schedule and the terms specified in the Contract, this being an essential element of the Contract. Any delay will entitle the Organisation to claim the payment of penalties as negotiated between the Contractor and the Organisation.

ARTICLE 5 - ACCESS TO THE PREMISES

If the Work requires at any time the presence of the Contractor and/or of the Contractor’s employees, agents or representatives (“Personnel”) on the premises of the Organisation, they shall observe all applicable rules of the Organisation, in particular security rules, which the Organisation may enforce by taking any measures that it considers necessary.

ARTICLE 6 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORK

The Contractor undertakes that the Work shall be performed by the individual(s) named in the Contract or otherwise agreed in writing by the Organisation. The Contractor may not replace said individual(s) by others, without the prior written consent of the Organisation.

ARTICLE 7 - AUTHORITY

The Contractor hereby declares having all rights and full authority to enter into the Contract and to be in possession of all licences, permits and property rights, in particular intellectual property rights, necessary for the performance of the Contract.

ARTICLE 8 - LIABILITY

The Contractor shall be solely liable for and shall indemnify, defend and hold the Organisation and its personnel harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, costs or liabilities of any nature whatsoever, including those of third parties and Contractor’s Personnel, arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance or breach of the Contract.

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to possess adequate insurances to cover such risks, including any risks related to the execution of the Contract.

ARTICLE 9 - REPRESENTATIVES

Neither the Contractor nor any of its Personnel:

shall in any capacity be considered as members of the staff, employees or representatives of the Organisation;

shall have any power to commit the Organisation in respect of any obligation or expenditure whatsoever;

shall have any claim to any advantage, payment, reimbursement, exemption or service not stipulated in the Contract. In particular and without limitation, it is understood that neither the Contractor, nor any of the Contractor’s Personnel may in any manner claim the benefit of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Organisation or by its personnel.

ARTICLE 10 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

The copyright and any other intellectual property rights arising from the Work carried out in performance of this Contract, including the intermediate and final results thereof, shall, on an exclusive and worldwide basis, automatically vest in the Organisation as the Work is created, or be assigned to the Organisation, as the case may be under any applicable legal theory. The price agreed between the Contractor and the Organisation is deemed to include this transfer of rights.

The Contractor undertakes not to use the Work for any purpose whatsoever that is not directly necessary to the performance of the Contract, except with the prior written consent of the Organisation. The Contractor shall ensure that the Contractor’s Personnel are expressly bound by and respect the provisions of the present clause.

ARTICLE 11 - TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS

The Contractor shall not transfer to any third party any rights or obligations under this Contract, in whole or in part, or sub-contract any part of the Work, except with the prior written consent of the Organisation.

ARTICLE 12 - TERMINATION

Without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of Contract the Organisation may claim, the Organisation reserves the right to terminate the Contract without any prior notice or indemnity:

i) in the event of failure by the Contractor to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract; and/or

ii) if the Contractor, in the judgment of the Organisation, has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in executing the Contract.

The Organisation may also, by written notice sent through registered mail with recorded delivery to the Contractor, terminate the Contract, in whole or in part, at any time for its convenience. The notice shall specify that termination is for the Organisation's convenience, the extent to which Work of the Contractor under the Contract has been completed, and the date upon which such termination becomes effective. The Work that is complete on receipt of notice by the Contractor shall be accepted by the Organisation, at the Contract terms and prices. For the remaining, the Organisation may elect:

i) To have any portion completed at the Contract terms and prices; and/or;

ii) To cancel the remainder and pay to the Contractor the amount corresponding to the completed work.

ARTICLE 13 – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

During the Contract and at least seven years after its termination, the Contractor shall :

i). keep financial accounting documents concerning the Contract and the Work ;

ii). make available to the Organisation or any other entity designated by the Organisation, upon request, all relevant financial information, including statements of accounts concerning the Contract and the Work, whether they are executed by the Contractor or by its any of its subcontractors.

The Organisation or any other entity designated by the Organisation may undertake, including on the spot, checks related to the Contract and/or the Work.

ARTICLE 14 - ARBITRATION CLAUSE

Given the status of the Organisation as an international organisation, the rights and obligations of the Contractor and the Organisation shall be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions of the Contract.

Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the interpretation, application or performance of this Contract, including its existence, validity or termination, shall be settled by final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitration between International Organizations and Private Parties, as in effect on the date of this Contract. The number of arbitrators shall be one. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English. The place of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The appointing authority shall be the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Parties expressly renounce their right to seek the annulment or setting-aside of any award rendered by the arbitral tribunal, or if this renunciation is not legally possible, the Parties expressly agree that if an award rendered by the arbitral tribunal is annulled, the jurisdiction ruling on the annulment proceedings cannot rule on the merits of the case. The dispute will therefore be settled by new arbitral proceedings in accordance with this clause. Nothing in the Contract shall be construed as a waiver of the Organisation’s immunities and privileges as an international organisation.

ARTICLE 15 – CONFIDENTIALITY

Any information, on any medium whatsoever, sent to the Contractor to which the Contractor obtains access on account of the Contract, shall be held confidential. In consequence, the Contractor shall not disclose such information without the written prior consent of the Organisation. The Contractor shall ensure that the Contractor’s Personnel is expressly bound by and respect the provisions of the present clause.

ARTICLE 16 - DURATION OF THE CONTRACT

Unless otherwise stated in the Call For Tenders, the duration of the Contract shall be for one year. It may be renewed twice by tacit agreement for periods of one year, but the total duration may not exceed three years.