Tender document for the independent evaluation of ‘Nepal Emergency Response 2015’ (Birmingham),

October 2016

ISLAMIC RELIEF WORLDWIDE

Islamic Relief is an international aid and development charity, which aims to alleviate the suffering of the world's poorest people. It is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) founded in the UK in 1984.

As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, Islamic Relief promotes sustainable economic and social development by working with local communities - regardless of race, religion or gender.

Our vision:

Inspired by our Islamic faith and guided by our values, we envisage a caring world where communities are empowered, social obligations are fulfilled and people respond as one to the suffering of others.

Our mission:

Exemplifying our Islamic values, we will mobilise resources, build partnerships, and develop local capacity, as we work to:

Enable communities to mitigate the effect of disasters, prepare for their occurrence and respond by providing relief, protection and recovery.

Promote integrated development and environmental custodianship with a focus on sustainable livelihoods.

Support the marginalised and vulnerable to voice their needs and address root causes of poverty.

We allocate these resources regardless of race, political affiliation, gender or belief, and without expecting anything in return.

At the international level, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through raising awareness of the issues that affect poor communities and through its work on the ground. Islamic Relief are one of only 13 charities that have fulfilled the criteria and have become members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (www.dec.org.uk)

IRW endeavours to work closely with local communities, focussing on capacity-building and empowerment to help them achieve development without dependency.

Please see our website for more information http://www.islamic-relief.org/

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is an international relief and development agency that enjoys a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the world’s poorest people through promoting social and economic development in over 30 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters.

Nepal is the 11th most earthquake-prone country in the world (UNDP, 2009). Ever since the first recorded earthquake of 1,255 AD that killed one-third of the population of the Kathmandu Valley and its King, Abhaya Malla, Nepal has experienced a major earthquake every few generations. The last great earthquake (of magnitude 8.4) in 1934 AD resulted in more than 10,000 deaths in the Kathmandu Valley. Most of the infrastructure and major heritage sites had to be rebuilt. There have since been earthquakes causing severe human and physical loss in 1980, 1988 and 2011. These earthquakes have been a terrible calamity for Nepal as they affecting almost half of its districts, including hard-to-reach isolated mountainous areas.

The successive earthquakes of magnitude 7.8 and 7.3 that struck Nepal’s Gorkha district on 25 April 2015, and Dolakha district on 12 May respectively caused massive losses of lives and infrastructures. Approximately 9,000 people lost their lives and more than 22,300 people were injured. As per the latest estimates, more than half a million houses were totally or partially destroyed (Assessment report, 2015). The scale of destruction is immense. This catastrophe has tested the nation in many ways. It was a disaster which largely affected rural areas, with the most poor and vulnerable disproportionately impacted.

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) started its earthquake response operations in Nepal from 26th April 2015 by deploying its Disaster Response Team (DRT). An amount of £2,750,247 was received/ committed by IR partners and Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for the overall earthquake response. Responding in four districts (Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Sindupalchok and Kathmandu), IR partnered with 2 local implementing agencies: Ram Prasad Seti Maya Batas Foundation and Lutheran World Federation Nepal.

PROJECT INTERVENTIONS

The planned results of the project were to:

a) Increase access of 250 EQ affected HHs to disaster resilient permanent housing.

b) Increased access of 250 affected HHs to safe drinking water facilities and disability and age inclusive family latrines by April 2017.

c) Increased access to livelihoods options through recovery of productive assets, and support to on and off farm opportunities for EQ affected HHs by the end of April 2017.

The project was to be implemented with a rights-based approach, and prioritise and engage poor and marginalised people to realise their right to seek humanitarian relief with dignity, right to life, protection and secuirty. The project integrated cross-cutting issues like gender, disability, age, caste in the implementation of the various response while promoting linking if relief and rehabilitation with development.

Based on need assessment and with the approval of the District Disaster Relief Committee (DDRC), IRW focused its DEC Phase 2 activities in the remote two Village Development Committees (VDCs) of Yarsha & Ramche where 2380 households (i.e. approximately 10,267 people) were severely affected by the earthquake. Out of these most affected huseholds were targetted based on the vulnerability criteria and prioritised for Shelter, WASH and Livelihood support.

SHELTER

Outcome A: Increase access of 250 EQ affected HHs to disaster resilient permanent housing.

Output A1: 250 EQ resilient permanent houses constructed.

For the DEC project, IRW worked with the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and its local partner, BATAS Foundation, to launch the relief operations in Rasuwa district. The needs assessment jointly conducted by IRW and LWF revealed that nearly 85% of most disaster affected families in the district had used corrugated roofing sheets and timber from their destroyed houses to construct temporary shelters, with the remaining 15% of the households using only plastic tarpaulins.

Sixty percent of the self-built temporary shelters were found out to have serious safety or environmental health issues, including the incorporation of unstable partially-destroyed house walls within the temporary shelter structures, poor ventilation/lighting, leaking roofs from the nail holes in the re-used roofing sheets, poor drainage, and insufficient floor area for the number of family members. In addition, there were very few family pit latrines that were reconstructed and most of their superstructures were damaged by the earthquake.

The following indicators were set to measure the success of this output:

250 EQ resilient permanent houses constructed. 50 masons and carpenters trained on EQ resilient construction techniques. Training on improved cooking stoves for shelter beneficiaries. DRR and CCA mainstreamed in detail assessment, shelter design and construction

practices.

WATER & SANITARY HEALTH

Outcome B: Increased access of 250 affected HHs to safe drinking water facilities and disability and age inclusive family latrines by April 2017.

Output B1: 250 HH latrines constructed Output B2: Clean Water DWS rehabilitated Output B3: VDC level Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP) prepared, endorsed and

implemented

During the project assessment, there were very few family pit latrines that were reconstructed and most of their superstructures were damaged by the earthquake. The sustainable provision of water was a challenge in some communities as the earthquake has damaged or re-routed water source; and with such limited access to water, there was an urgent need to restore water supplies on a permanent basis.

In some areas, people needed to walk 2-3 kilometers outside of their settlement to reach water streams, which were now their main source of water but which were not suitable for drinking during the rainy season. Damage to sanitation facilities such as toilets and latrines also led to an increased practice of open defecation amongst the households in Rasuwa.

The following indicators were set to measure the success of this output:

250 gender and age friendly latrines constructed. 3 DWS schemes and water collection points rehabilitated. 3 each water samples tested and sources treated. 3 VDC level VCA completed. 3 LDRMP prepared with VDCs.

LIVELIHOODS

Outcome C: Increased access to livelihoods options through recovery of productive assets, and support to on and off farm opportunities for EQ affected HHs by the end of April 2017.

Output C1: Productive assets created for EQ affected people Output C2: Promotion and rehabilitation of Agriculture and Livestock based enterprise

opportunities created Output C3: Off farm income generating opportunities to women and occupational caste groups

provided.

Almost 80% of the population settling around Kathmandu Valley belongs to the Tamang, a major ethnic group of Nepal. They inhabit mainly the neighbouring districts of Kathmandu including Kavre, Rasuwa, Sindhupalchowk, and Dolakha. The main occupation of the Tamang is agriculture but an increasing number of them, especially the young people, have been involved in the tourism industry, either residing in Kathmandu or migrating to foreign countries. The economically inactive people include children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and women, all of whom were usually left in the communities and thus remained highly vulnerable to post-earthquake related disasters like avalanches and landslides.

Around 1,358 of these vulnerable households were relocated to safer places and which included people with the aforementioned disabilities. These highly disadvantaged social groups, as well as the Dalits, have suffered the largest damages and losses from the earthquake.

The following indicators were set to measure the success of this output:

2 irrigation systems rehabilitated and targeted farmers have access for irrigation/farming.

Rustic store house established and operated for local farmers. Collection centres established for market promotion of local crops. EQ affected HHs participated in vegetables and potato farming and marketing

trainings and received seeds. Provided EQ affected HH with 100 Goats and 800 poultry for re stocking. 30 women provided tools for off-farm income. 20 women supported in establishment of petty businesses.

EVALUATION

A. Background

IRW’s commitment to moving climate vulnerable people out of poverty requires rigorous evaluation of the ‘Nepal Emergency Response 2015’ intervention funded by the DEC. As a result of this, and also as per DEC requirements, an independent evaluation is being commissioned by IRW of the aforementioned intervention.

The report (executive summary at a minimum) will also be made available on the IRW website as per DEC requirements, and lessons would also be institutionalised and used to inform any and all future programming.

B. Progress to-date

i) A logframe has been developed to show the indicators, baseline and milestones at different levels of objective hierarchies.

ii) The project team has prepared statutory progress reports for the donors highlighting the achievements against logframe. The reports include 6 monthly progress update and the next one will be annual report due in November 2016. These reports are available with IRW.

C. Objectives of the evaluation

Working closely with the local programmes and M&E teams, the independent consultant will conduct an evaluation of the project activities implemented under this project.

The specific objectives of this assignment are to:

1. Assess the extent to which the DEC project as a whole has delivered the anticipated objectives indicated in the log frame with specific attention to outputs, outcomes and goal.

2. Search for evidence of the goals of this project having been met in terms of both the positive and negative, intended and unintended, and also the primary and secondary

effects of the programme, alongside any direct or indirect contributions to any systemic change.

3. Evaluate the extent to which 250 earthquake-effected households have access to disaster-resilient permanent housing.

4. Evaluate the extent to which 250 earthquake-affected households have access to safe and adequate drinking water facilities by the end of April 2017.

5. Evaluate the accessibility, appropriateness and effectiveness of the gender, age and disability-friendly family latrines implemented by the project.

6. Assess the extent to which access to and recovery of livelihood options for earthquake-affected households has been achieved, and will likely be so by the end of April 2017.

7. Assess the key innovations used in the project that improved or worsened delivery of project goals, outcomes, outputs, and deliverables, and how the learning was used in improving project performance.

8. Analyse and comment on the sustainability of the project outcomes/impacts and suggest measures to maintain long term sustainability.

9. Provide a judgment of the quality and accountability of the intervention, using the Core Humanitarian Standards as a framework. (See Appendix 2).

10. Document lessons learned, and also develop clear and actionable recommendations for adoption and integration into any similar future development related projects within the region and elsewhere.

D. Methodology

The consultant will design methodologies following the indicators of logframe and result framework. The methodologies will include (but not be limited to):

1. A desk review of programme information including project proposals and reports.2. Meetings with the M&E team at IRW, the programmes teams in Nepal, and the Regional

Desk Co-ordinator for Nepal3. Interviews with selected project focal points and staff whose work contributes towards the

objectives.4. Interviews/surveys with local implementing partners and development actors.5. Project site visits, Interviews (1 to 1), FGDs with the sample beneficiaries, ensuring the

sample is representative and reflective of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities, and any other tools the consultant deems necessary to produce an effective and useful report.

6. Organisation of initial workshops to train evaluation teams in evaluation methodology (if relevant) as well as a final post-fieldwork workshop to assess and discuss the initial findings with Islamic Relief partner staff.

7. Submission of the draft evaluation report to IRW prior to the finalisation of the report.8. If requested a member of IR staff will be part of the team, and the consultant is expected to

lead and build their capacity.9. The Consultant should consider participatory methods in the design of the evaluation

methodology, both to involve beneficiaries as well as to build their capacity. There should also be a mechanism to provide feedback to communities on the findings of the evaluation, e.g. through a meeting, newsletter, or other methods as appropriate. The overall evaluation should also assess the extent of beneficiary involvement throughout the project cycle.

E. Expected outputs of the consultant

The consultant is expected to produce:

i) A detailed work plan developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the field visits.

ii) A full report with the following sections:

a) Project title and countryb) Organisation and partner namesc) Name of person who compiled the evaluation report including summary of

role/contribution of others in the team d) Period during which the evaluation was undertaken e) Acknowledgementsf) Abbreviationsg) Table of contentsh) Executive summary (setting out key achievements, lessons learned, and

recommendations against the logframe; and also a summary of the judgment about the achievements of the project against the Core Humanitarian Standards.)

i) Introduction/backgroundj) Methodologyk) Context analysisl) For each key intervention, a section in the form of:

Findings (effectiveness of the intervention including any under-achievement issues with reasons), as measured against the stated goals, outcomes, and outputs of the project.

Judgment about the accountability of the intervention to the affected-groups using the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) as a framework, with examples for each of the nine commitments. The accountability of the intervention should be evaluated against all nine commitments of the CHS.

Conclusions Assessment

m) A two to three page summary of best practices, lessons and recommendationsn) Annexes

Terms of reference for the evaluation Profile of the evaluation team Evaluation schedule Documents consulted during the evaluation Persons participating in the evaluation Field data used during the evaluation including baselines Bibliography

The final report must be submitted in English and within a 30-day window of completing the field work.

F. Required inputs

The following are the key inputs to the evaluation:

i) Stakeholders to be involved include: IRW and IRW-partner staff Community leaders and relevant local officials Project beneficiaries, ensuring an appropriate balance of all women, men,

girls and boys of all ages and abilities.

Other NGOs/INGOs working in the areaii) Relevant IRW and partner reports/documentationiii) External secondary information and data as appropriate to the evaluation

G. Responsibilities of IRW/IRW partners

i) Develop and manage activity budgets (both itemised and summary) for the project evaluation.

ii) Provide in-country accommodation, transportation including travel between the project sites and Kathmandu, for the period of stay in Nepal.

iii) Provide copies of proposals, baselines, progress reports and other relevant documents.

iv) Provide the consultant, with office space, an internet connection and a mobile phone for the duration of the stay in Nepal.

v) Give final approval to the consultant at relevant stages of the surveys and assessments, particularly when developing tools, work plans and final reports.

vi) Team members drawn from IRW Partner staff and counterparts in all project locations if requested) will support the consultant during the assessment. Team members will be specifically responsible for:

Participating in the field study, collecting case studies, focus group discussions, one-to-one interviews, and sharing results with other team members.

Providing any other assistance required by the consultant.

H. Timetable and reporting duration

Total duration of the consultancy/contract = 30 working days between January and March 2017 (including field visit and all deliverables)

Action By when Who

Tender live date 21 October 2016 IRW

Final date for submission of proposal/bid 07 November 2016 (11.00am)

Consultant

Proposals considered, short-listing and follow up enquiries completed

11 November 2016 IRW

Consultant interview and final selection 25 November 2016 IRW

Review of all project documents, reports, and relevant secondary data.

20 January 2017 (1 working day)

Consultant

Meeting with the consultant and agree on an evaluation methodology, plan of action, working schedule

20 January 2017 (1 working day)

Consultant/IRW

Submission of Inception Report (at least 7 days before commencing the evaluation)

27 January 2017 (3 working days)

Consultant

Evaluation/Data collection Between 06 February and 24 February 2017 (12 working days)

Consultant

Collation and analysis of evaluation data, and submission of the first draft to IR Nepal/IRW for comments

10 March 2017 (10 working days

Consultant

IRW/IR Nepal responses to draft report 17 March 2017 IR Nepal/IRW

Final report submitted to IRW 22 March 2017 (3 working days)

Consultant

I. Proposal to tender and costing:

Consultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:

a) Submit an expression of interest, including the followinga. Cover letter outlining a methodology and approach briefing noteb. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant

who will be carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the project

c. Example(s) of relevant workd. The consultancy daily ratee. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be

included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signedb) Be able to complete the project within the timeframe stated abovec) Be able to demonstrate significant experience of evaluation approaches for similar

work

J. Proposal submission details

Please submit your proposal by Monday 7th November 2016 (11.00am UK time) via email to: procurement@irworldwide.org (and queries regarding applications can also be emailed here too). Following a preliminary short listing, selected consultants will be approached to participate in a video/skype/ face-to-face interview (Birmingham, UK).

K. Payment schedule

Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows:

25% of the total amount – submission of the inception report 25% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report 50% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all outputs and

attachments mentioned above

L. Additional information and conditions of contract

IRW will cover:

The costs associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team

International and local travel for the consultant and the local team Accommodation while in the field Training venues Consultancy fees

IRW will not cover:

Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by

the consultant

CONSULTANCY CONTRACT

This will be for an initial period of 30 days contract commencing from January 2017 (exact date to be mutually agreed) March 2017. The selected candidate is expected to work from home and/or from one of the UK based offices reporting into the Head of Programme Quality.

The terms upon which the consultant will be engaged are as per the consultancy agreement. The invoice is to be submitted at the end of the month and will be paid on net payment terms 28 days.

All potential applicants must fill in the table beneath in Appendix 4 to help collate key data pertaining to this tender. The applicant must be clear about other expenses being claimed in relation to this consultancy and these must be specified clearly.

For this consultancy all applicants are required to submit a covering letter with a company profile(s) of all stakeholders and the CV of the lead consultant(s).

A proposal including, planned activities, methodology, deliverables, timeline, and cost proposal (including expenses) are expected.

Other relevant supporting documents should be included as the consultants sees fit.

All applicants must have a valid visa or a permit to work in the UK (if travel is required to the UK). A valid visa/work permit is also required for those areas required to be visited as part of this consultancy.

TENDER DATES AND CONTACT DETAILS

All proposals are required to be submitted by Monday 7th November 2016 (11.00am UK time) pursuant to the attached guidelines for submitting a quotation and these be returned to tendering@irworldwide.org

For any issues relating to the tender or its contents please email directly to t endering@irworldwide.org

Following submission, IRW may engage in further discussion with applicants concerning tenders in order to ensure mutual understanding and an optimal agreement.

Quotations must include the following information for assessment purposes.

1. Payment terms (payment normally made within 28 days of invoice)2. Full break down of costs including taxes, expenses and any VAT3. References (two are preferred)4. Technical competency for this role5. Demonstrable experience in a similar consultancy role

Note: The criterias are subject to change.

APPENDIX 1: PROJECT LOCATIONS IN NEPAL (RASUWA DISTRICT)

APPENDIX 2: CORE HUMANITARIAN STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)

Below is a suggested questionnaire, for reference, for the consultant to frame their questionnaire for this evaluation. The consultant should use this and any extra questions they feel necessary, to provide an overall judgment about the performance of IR Nepal, and the implementation of this project, against the quality criteria set out by the CHS.

Please see the following link to learn more about the CHS:

1. https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf

2. https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/CHS-Guidance-Notes-and-Indicators.pdf

------------------------------------

1. Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

Has a comprehensive needs assessment been conducted and used to inform response planning?

Are multiple sources of information, including affected people and communities, local institutions and other stakeholders consulted when assessing needs, risks, capacities, vulnerabilities and context?

Are assessment data and other monitoring data disaggregated by sex, age and ability?

Does the response include different types of assistance and/or protection for different demographic groups?

Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Was the assistance culturally appropriate?

Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated?

Has the assistance provided by IR Nepal met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men and women, children, the elderly, the disabled?

What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and relevant?

2. Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

Are constraints and risks identified and analysed? Does planning consider optimal times for activities? Are contingency plans used? Are globally recognised technical standards used and achieved? Are unmet needs identified and addressed? How timely was IR Nepal’s response in meeting the needs of the affected people,

especially vulnerable people? Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely

completion of the project activities? If yes, were any changes made to the project as a result and if not, should changes have been made to be more appropriate?

15

What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response?

3. Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

• What local capacities for resilience (structures, organisations, leadership, and support networks) exist and how can these be strengthened?

• Is existing information on risks, hazards, vulnerabilities and related plans considered • In what ways are local leaders (formal and informal) and/or authorities consulted to

ensure strategies are in line with local and/or national priorities? • Are there equitable opportunities for participation of all groups in the affected

population? • Does the response facilitate early recovery? • What mechanisms exist for prompt detection and mitigation of unintended negative

effects?

4. Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback.

Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to affected communities and people?

Are people, especially vulnerable and marginalised groups, accessing and understanding the information provided?

Are crisis-affected people’s views, including those of the most vulnerable and marginalised, sought and used to guide programme design and implementation?

To what extent longer-term and interconnected problems were taken into account? What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local

government policies and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation?

To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported and developed?

Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?

5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

Is information provided to and understood by all demographic groups about how complaints mechanisms work and what kind of complaints can be made through them?

Are complaints about sexual exploitation and abuse investigated immediately by staff with relevant competencies and an appropriate level of authority?

Was there a written complaints system developed (preferably in local language) involving the communities?

Did the complaint system clearly and effectively communicated to staff and partners? Was there any complaint received? How were they dealt with?

16

6. Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

Is information about the organisation’s competences, resources, areas and sectors of work shared with others responding to the crisis?

Is information about the competences, resources, areas and sectors of work of other organisations, including local and national authorities, accessed?

Have existing coordination structures been identified and supported? Are the programmes of other organisations and authorities taken into account when

designing, planning and implementing programmes? What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most

vulnerable areas where the needs were highest? How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people

affected? What criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?

Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled, and the poor?

Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?

7. Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

Are evaluations and reviews of responses of similar crises consulted during programme design?

Are monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints-handling processes leading to changes and/or innovations in programme design and implementation?

Is learning systematically documented? What kind of actions and systems are used to share learning with relevant

stakeholders? To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader

humanitarian community and the government? What have been the biggest successes in coordination? What were the biggest

gaps? Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships

with local CBOs, CSO organisations been built-up? What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country

offices and between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed?

What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?

8. Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.

Does staff sign a code of conduct? If so, do they receive orientation on this and other relevant policies? Are complaints received about staff? How are they handled? Is all staff provided with an induction and appropriate and ongoing training to help

them to effectively do their jobs? Was staff working as per the agreed IRW values? Does the office have all appropriate and upto date policies and procedures, including

the IR Handbook, available to them for reference should they be required?9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

17

To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame? To what extent have agreed humanitarian standards, principles and behaviours

including the Code of Conduct standards been respected? What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing

their resilience capacity? What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response? Are services and goods procured using a rapid competitive bidding process? Are potential impacts on the environment monitored, and actions taken to mitigate

them? Is a safe whistle blowing procedure in place and is known to staff, communities,

people and other stakeholders? How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-

going or completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation?

Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources, logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?

How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?

Were the funds used as stated? How does the project demonstrate value for money? Were small scale mitigation activities cost-efficient? To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response

been explored and exploited to reduce costs and maximise results? What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response? How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate

vulnerability over time and is there evidence of this? To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met? Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the

perceptions of key stakeholders? How do you know? What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the

intervention? What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost

effective? Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How

are you adjusting your programme with the unforeseen risks?

Cross cutting issues

i) How well did the response mainstream/ensured the inclusion of gender, age and disability?

ii) How did you ensure protection of children from abuse?iii) How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural

sensitivities integrated in the project?iv) How well this project include ethnic people/ socially excluded v) What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in IR NEPAL’s response?vi) What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future

response?

Sustainability:

18

To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?

**********

APPENDIX 3: SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, DISAGGREGATED DATA

Further to the first cross cutting issue mentioned in Appendix 2, the below will need to be considered when designing a questionnaire to ensure that they are covered and reported in the final report. Further documentation will also be shared with the successful candidate, for this purpose.

------------------------------------------

1. Collection and disaggregation of data throughout the project by sex, age and disability.

2. Has the project met the differentiated needs of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities including older people and people with disabilities?  

3. Did the project reflect direct and meaningful participation of all groups?4. Did the project implementing partners had proper referral systems in place and what

was it for?5. Did the implementing partners used differentiated communication tools to reach ALL

vulnerable groups to ensure participation in needs assessment, consultation and feedback mechanisms?

19

APPENDIX 4

Please fill in the table below. It is essential all sections be completed and where relevant additional expenses be specified in detail. In case of questions about how to complete the table below, please contact tendering@irworldwide.org

Cost evaluation for independent evaluation consultancy for Nepal

emergency response 2015 (Birmingham) September 2016

Applicants name

Company name

No of proposed hours per week

No. of proposed days

Preferred days

Earliest available start date

Non preferred days

Hourly/day rate

Total per week

Inclusive of Taxes if relevant (Total)

Other expenses (please specify)

Other expenses (please specify)

Other expenses (please specify)

Other expenses (please specify)Preferred payment terms (IRW UK terms are normally 28 days).Total cost for consultancy (for one month)Total cost for consultancy (for proposed period)

Note

The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.