PRF10056 – Call for Consultancy for Endterm Evaluation for Improving SRH and GBV Outcomes for Women of Reproductive Age with Disability Inclusion

The full document can be gotten from the link below:

https://www.redcross.or.ke/uploads/tenders/pr9142022PRF10056PRF10056-CallforConsultancyforEndtermEvaluationforImprovingSRHandGBVOutcomesforWomenofReproductiveAgewithDisabilityInclusion(1).docxEvaluationforImprovingSRHandGBVOutcomesforWomenofReproductiveAgewithDisabilityInclusion.docx

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose

The primary purpose is to conduct the end-term evaluation of the Improving SRH and GBV outcome for women of reproductive age Project (herein called “the Project”) in Tana River and Kilifi counties. The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data and analysis against the Project indicators and understand the impact of the Project’s interventions.

1.2 Details

Partners

Finnish Red Cross, Kenya Red Cross Society and county governments

Duration

30 days

Estimated Dates

1st – 30th November 2022

Geographical Location

Tana River and Kilifi Counties

Target Population

People with Disabilities (PWDs), Women of Reproductive Age, Community members, stakeholders (County Government Representative & Partners) and project staff and volunteers.

Deliverables

Inception report and tools, Draft and final report plus all data sets

Methodology

Quantitative and qualitative methods

Evaluation Management Team

KRCS M&E and Project representatives and Finnish Red Cross representatives

2. Background Information

Kenya Red Cross with funding from Finnish Red Cross implemented a 1 year and 6 months (1st June 2020 – 31st December 2021) Project to improve SRH and GBV outcomes for women of reproductive age with disability inclusion in Kilifi and Tana River Counties. The project intended to benefit an estimated 42,000 women of reproductive age in both Tana River and Kilifi Counties including 2,000 persons with disability. The project was implemented in partnership with County health and gender departments and KRCS in six community health units: three (Sokoni, Mtwapa and Shimo la tewa) in Kilifi and three (Dukanotu, Bangal and Boka) in Tana River.

The Project sought to increase demand for, access to and quality of SRH and GBV services, at the community and health facility level, and enhance behavioral practices amongst providers and users, including volunteers, for improved health outcomes. At the community level interventions to raise awareness for prevention and response and encourage care-seeking behaviour were supported. At the health facility level training for key staff was delivered for community health volunteers and health care workers. Traditional birth attendants were also engaged to support safe delivery and other SRH service uptake. Male involvement through men’s clubs were used to address gender and cultural barriers to access to services. KRCS participated in advocacy and collaboration with county government departments to improve county health systems for sustained delivery of quality and inclusive SRH and GBV services and commitments to gender and disability sensitive policies.

In the last quarter of 2020 a baseline assessment was conducted by an external consultant; HSED group Africa, to describe the status of SRH and GBV indicators for women of reproductive age and persons with disabilities in the targeted communities. The baseline provided benchmark statistics for programme indicators, against which programme progress, performance and impact can be gauged. In addition, this baseline assessment sought to understand more about the harmful social norms and behaviours dictating SRHR outcomes in the target communities.

In 2022, FRC and KRCS were able to extend the project from its original timeframe ending in December 2021 to end in December 2022. The additional time was used to support project approach improvement and develop the approaches and plans for beyond 2022, in line with the FRC and KRCS strategies.

In 2022 KRCS and FRC undertook two internal review and assessment processes for the Project. The first, a mid-term review, conducted in February 2022 sought to assess project progress and identify any adjustments that may support project effectiveness and performance. The mid-term review aimed to assess the extent to which the project was on track to achieve the expected results, provide lessons learnt and clear recommendations on how to proceed to reach the objectives and results. The mid-term review applied new and emerging evidence to investigate the drivers of SRHR access gaps and entry points to work with communities and within the Kenya health and social systems to sustainably improve SRHR outcomes. The second, an internal assessment on Disability Inclusion sought to further understand impediments to access of health services by people with disability (PWD) especially access to reproductive health services. This was conducted in June 2022.

As a result of both of these recently applied processes, and the intention of FRC to focus and shift priorities in SRH programming, this end line evaluation will focus on understanding the extent to which the Project’s objectives have been achieved, the impact of the project on the communities as well as lessons and challenges to consider for future programming.

2.1 Project Objectives

The goal of the Project was to contribute to improved Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and Gender Based Violence (GBV) outcomes for women of reproductive age and a healthier community in both Tana River and Kilifi Counties.

The objectives of the project have been:

1. Increased demand and access for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender Based Violence including Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) response services in Tana River and Kilifi Counties
2. Enhanced quality of SRH and GBV services at both community and health facility level
3. Enhanced behavioural practices amongst providers and users for improved health outcomes
4. Enhanced institutional capacity for project implementation

2.2 Key Project Stakeholders

The Project was implemented in close coordination with the Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of public service, Youth and Gender affairs, Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Interior & Coordination(MiC), Department of Children Services at national and county level. Project objectives were aligned with County Annual Operational Plans and County Integrated Development Plans, thus making more ministries stakeholders in the programme. The programme was additionally implemented through the Community Health Strategy. The MoH and state department of gender hosts coordination meetings with other stakeholders in their respective Counties, a forum in which the KRCS is represented.

At the community level, the programme was implemented by community health volunteers (CHVs) supervised by the Community Health Assistants (CHAs) with links to the health facilities structures. The programme staff worked closely and coordinated with the volunteers, community health assistants (CHAs) and the relevant MoH staff at link facilities. Community members: women, men, boys, and girls, including those with disabilities were also important stakeholders at the community level.

3. Assessment Purpose & Scope

3.1 Purpose

The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data and analysis against the Project indicators and understand the impact of the Project’s interventions. This stands apart from the recent internal reviews which can be used as an ongoing resources by KRCS, FRC and the reviewers but need not be repeated in view of the ongoing partnership between KRCS and FRC.

The specific objectives of the end-term evaluation will be:

1. To measure project achievements against benchmark statistics of the indicators
2. To understand whether shifts in knowledge, attitudes and social norms around SRH and GBV occurred in the target community/populations as a result of Project interventions.
3. To examine the extent to which access to and care seeking practices regarding SRH and GBV services by women of reproductive age with and without disability changed as a result of Project interventions.
4. To identify specific interventions/approaches in the Project that were most or least effective in creating positive change and impact in SRH and GBV.
5. To highlight lessons learned from the project and make practical recommendations for improvement of future strategies and projects.

4. Key questions

The evaluation is expected to answer the following questions:

Measuring against indicators and targets

• What are the end-line values for indicators (section 5.1) as per the project plan?
• Did they reach the targets?
• Are they meaningfully different from baseline?

Shifting knowledge, attitudes, and norms

• In what ways has knowledge, attitudes and social norms of the target communities/populations improved, stayed the same or worsened?
• To what extent can these changes be attributed to Project interventions?
• To what extent were KRCS branches able to apply the recommendations from social norms assessments conducted in the internal mid-term review?

Service access and utilisation

• How were CHVs and health workers trained as part of the Project able to apply new knowledge and skills?
• To what extent was the project able to improve care-seeking for SRH (including safe delivery) services for women of reproductive age including those with disabilities?
• To what extent was the project able to improve care-seeking for GBV services for women of reproductive age including those with disabilities?

Achieving positive change/impact

• Which project interventions were most and least effective in achieving impact in the opinions of target communities/populations?
• Which project interventions were most and least effective in achieving impact in the opinions of health workers/ CHVs?
• Which project interventions were most and least effective in achieving impact in the opinions of government stakeholders?
• In what ways were Project interventions inclusive or not inclusive to people with disabilities?
• In the context of limited resources, which 2-3 project interventions should be considered most impactful to replicate in the project locations or elsewhere for the empowerment of women and girls including those with disabilities?
• Were there any unexpected negative effects of the project? Which ones?

5. Survey Methodology

The consulting firm/individual will propose the most suitable study design, sampling methods, sample size, data collection and analysis approaches that is suitable for this project during the end-line. This should be clearly outlined in the bidding document/proposal and if qualified to oral stage to have further discussion with the evaluation management team. The consulting firm can also propose targeted respondents to interview or data sources that can answer the log frame indicators and provide comparable statistics (meaningful comparison between baseline and end-line) to document any changes.

The evaluation will use the following literature and any other for reference and to inform the evaluation process further*:*

• Project proposal and log frame
• Existing project reports by the time of data collection
• Internal Review of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender-Based Violence with Disability Inclusion Project Report February 2022
• Internal Assessment of Disability Inclusion Report September 2022
• Documents, policies and frameworks by partners, county, and national government

5.1 Project Indicators

Outcome 1: Enhanced quality of services in SRH and GBV interventions at community level

1a. Percentage of SRH and SGBV clients that report to be satisfied with the services.

1b.Percentage of services provided that are delivered as per the set MNH and SRH guidelines

Output 1.1: Frontline community health volunteers and health workers fully understand Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender Based Violence including FGM as recommended for each of them.

1.1a. Percentage of targeted frontline health workers who correctly describe at least three key benefits of IFAS, 4ANC and SBA

1.1b. Percentage of targeted frontline health volunteers who correctly describe at least three key benefits of IFAS, 4ANC and SBA

Output 1.2: Health Systems strengthened in the counties to support high quality SRH and GBV services

1.2a. Number of referrals made

1.2b.Number of referrals completed

1.2c.Percentage of CHUs targeted that report completely and timely

1.2d. Percentage of data consistency in the facilities.

Outcome 2: Increased demand and utilization of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender Based Violence services including FGM in Tana River & Kilifi counties

2a. Number of individuals using SGBV social services

2b. Number of cases of SGBV reported to health services

2c. Percentage of pregnant women attending all 4 ANC clinics

Output 2.1: Increased knowledge on SGBV, MNCHN and FGM among community members

2.1a.Percentage of community members who correctly describe SGBV, MNCHN and FGM, and their effects and have the correct attitude about them.

Output 2.2: Increased access to SGBV, MNCHN and FGM support services

2.2a. Percent of health units with at least one service provider trained to care for and refer SGBV survivors

2.2b. Percentage of targeted population within the recommended distance to a health facility with least one service provider trained to care for and refer SGBV survivors

2.2c. Number of stock out days of SGBV and MNCHN commodities in the targeted health facilities

Outcome 3: Enhanced capacity of the organization to effectively implement the project.

3a.Percentage of outcomes achieved on time and as per the set budget

3b. Percentage of outputs achieved on time and as per the set budget

3c.Percentage of activities conducted on time an as per set budget

3d.Percentage of expenditures that are eligible

3e. Percentage of programme data that is +-10% in consistency

Output 3.1: Improve coordination between KRCS, partners, and stakeholders, especially the County Governments

3.1a.Percentage of mapped stakeholders and partners in the area of implementation and in MNH and GBV engaged in the programme

Output 3.2: Improved monitoring and evaluation

3.2a. Percentage of completed reports shared on time

6. Quality & Ethical Standards

The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the assessment is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team shall be required to adhere to the assessment standards and applicable practices as recommended by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

• Utility: Assessments must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: Assessments must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
• Ethics & Legality: Assessments must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the assessment.
• Impartiality & Independence; Assessments should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: assessment activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: Assessments should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the assessment process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the assessment process improves the legitimacy and utility of the assessment.

It is also expected that the assessment will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.

7. Qualifications and Experience for Consultants

The lead consultant must possess the following qualifications:

1. A master’s degree in public health/social science/gender studies speciality, community health and health systems strengthening or related field.
2. Proven experience in participatory and results-based M&E. Kknowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative researchh methods.
3. Must have led in at least five participatory assessments. Experience of conducting end-lines, monitoring and assessment work in the target or similar communities (preferred)
4. High level of professionalism and an ability to work independently and in high-pressure situations under tight deadlines.
5. Strong interpersonal, facilitation and communication skills
6. The team must have a statistician able to analyse quantitative and qualitative data as well as key technical team members in to handle specific components of the project evaluation
7. Firm/bidder must have experience in participatory data collection methods and using mobile phone technology for data collection, monitoring and reporting
8. The lead consultant must have strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner.
9. Availability for the period indicated.

8. Management of the Baseline assessment

8.1 Duration

1st to 30th November 2022

8.2 Deliverables

1. Inception report detailing the evaluation design, sampling methodology & sample frame, evaluation tools, agreed budget and work plan.
2. Copies of original and cleaned data sets with codebook. The raw data, the database which has been cleaned (both qualitative and quantitative, including original field notes for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, as well as recorded audio material), should be submitted together with the report. A simple inventory of material handed over will be part of the record. KRCS will have sole ownership of all final data and any findings shall only be shared or reproduced with the permission of KRCS.
3. Draft end-line evaluation report that will culminate in the final report with the following elements:
4. Table of contents
5. Clear executive summary with among others major findings and summary of conclusions and recommendations.
6. The objectives of the end line, methodology and any challenges encountered in the field.
7. A presentation of the results and discussion of the same (including analysis) according to evaluation questions.
8. Conclusions
9. Recommendations.
10. Report annexes.
11. A power point presentation highlighting key results and discussion from the end-line evaluation will be presented at a feedback meeting with stakeholders to be held after completing the draft report.
12. Final Evaluation report – submit 10 well designed and bound hard copy and one electronic copy of the report by the agreed timeline.
13. A power point presentation highlighting key results, findings, and recommendations to be disseminated to the key stakeholders as nominated by KRCS and FRC after approval of the final end line report.

8.3 Evaluation Management Team

The evaluation management team shall consist of KRCS MEA&L Unit representatives, KRCS program Manager and Finnish Red Cross Representative. They shall ensure that the deliverables agreed upon and approved in the inception report are achieved on time. KRCS MEA&L representative will be the chair of the team.

Role of KRCS (project and M&E team)

• Lead the recruitment and evaluation process
• Coordinate the evaluation implementation process
• Review of assessment products including the inception report tools, and reports
• KRCS will organize logistics for the assessment team
• Avail data collectors within agreed criteria
• Avail all necessary documents for desk review
• KRCS will be the link between the community, stakeholders and the consultant and will organise all the data collection activities (identifying respondents and setting up appointments)
• Will be the custodian of all data generated from the assessment
• Organize dissemination forums as necessary

Role of Finnish Red Cross

• Participate in the TOR development
• Review and give feedback on all evaluation products
• Provide any relevant tools for assessment (i.e. social norms tools and questions)
• Fund the activity budget
• Final approval of the report

9. Application Requirements

Application materials shall include:

• A written response to this TOR in terms of a proposal detailing the technical understanding of the task, proposed methodologies of the evaluation, expected activities and deliverables, proposed work plans with schedule, and financial bids. See Annex 1
• Detailed CVs of all professionals (s) who will work on the evaluation. If there is more than one contractor on the proposed evaluation team, please attach a table describing the level of effort (in number of days) of each team member in each of the evaluation activities. See Annex 3
• Professional references: please provide at least three reference letters from your previous clients and full contact details of the referees (working and active email & phone number).
• 2 Sample reports of relevant previously completed assignments

Please also note that the people whose names appear in the team composition template MUST be the ones to undertake the evaluation. As such, they MUST be the ones to appear in person if the proposal moves to the interview stage.

10. Submission of proposal

The Technical Proposal MUST be prepared in conformance to the outline provided in Annex 1 while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2. Team composition should conform to Annex 3

Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate Folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal” and “Financial Proposal”. The subject of your email should “Tender No. PRF10056 – Call for Consultancy for Baseline Evaluation for Improving SRH and GBV Outcomes for Women of Reproductive Age with Disability Inclusion”

The proposal should be addressed as below to reach the undersigned (by mail) through [email protected] on Wednesday, 28th September 2022 at 11:00 AM.

Chairperson, Tender Committee

Kenya Red Cross Society

P.O Box 40712 – 00100

Nairobi, Kenya

ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOMART

1. Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications, and statutory compliance (1 page)
2. Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services, Key questions (2 pages)
3. Proposed methodology – Indicate methods to be used for each indicator and highlight any areas where indicators may need adjustment. The targeted respondents should be indicated for each indicator. Proposed detailed questions should be indicated. Detailed sampling procedure and sample size determination needs to be described. (5 pages)
4. Firms experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from the geographical area for other major clients (Table with: Name of organization, name of assignment, duration of assignment (Dates), reference person contacts-2 pages
5. Proposed team composition (As per annex 3)-1 page
6. Work plan (Gantt chart of activity and week of implementation)-1 page

ANNEX 2: BUDGET TEMPLATE

The consultant shall only quote for the items below as KRCS will manage all other related costs (Logistics and payment of enumerators)

Item

Unit

# of Units

Unit Cost

Total Cost (Ksh.)

Consultancy Fee (for the whole assessment period)

Per day

Office expenses (Printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.)

lump sum

Grand Total

ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE

Name of Team Member

Highest Level of Qualification

General Years of Experience related to the task at hand

Roles under this assignment

ANNEX 4: TENDER ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

A three-stage assessment procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders. The total number of points which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:

• Technical Proposal 50 marks
• Oral presentation 50 marks

1. Mandatory Requirements

The proposal shall ONLY be evaluated on the basis of its adherence to the following compulsory requirements, this applies to both local and international firms or individuals.

Document/ Requirements

Tax compliance certificate

Certificate of incorporation/registration ( Only applicable for firms)

PIN certificate

Proceed to next stage (Yes / No)

1. Assessment of the Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:

Evaluation Criteria

Maximum Points Possible

Bidders score

Remarks

(1) Introduction: Description of the Firm and the Firm’s Qualifications

5

(2) Background : Understanding of the project, context, and requirements for services

5

(3) Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology MUST provide an indication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment.

15

(4) Firms Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from related geographical area for other major clients

• Provide a summary and supporting information on overall years of experience, and related technical and geographic

coverage experience.

10

(5) Proposed Team Composition:

• Tabulate the team composition to include the general qualifications, suitability for the specific task to be assigned and overall years of relevant experience to the proposed assignment.
• The proposed team composition should balance effectively with the necessary skills and competencies required to undertake the proposed assignment.
• Lead Consultant Qualifications – should be as per the TOR
• Provide CVs for key Consulting team including Statistician/Data Analyst

10

(6) Work Plan: A Detailed logical, weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided.

5

TOTAL SCORE

50

The firm, or team of consultants that attains a score of 30 and above out of 50 in the technical evaluation will be invited to proceed to oral presentation.

1. Oral phase assessment

From this stage, the technical and oral scores are combined. The top two firms/consultants proceed to the financial stage if they have a gap of not more than five points. If the Gap is more than 5 points only the top consultant/firm proceeds to the financial stage.

Criteria

Maximum points

Bidder’s Score

Remarks

Understanding of the assignment

5

Clear and scientific methodology: samplings, data collection, understanding indicators, respondents, tools, data analysis etc.

20

Presentation of previous similar assignment (Consultant will be required to show/present 2 previous completed assignment reports at the oral stage and at least three reference letters)

15

Consulting team preparedness and participation, team composition, CVs

10

Total Score out of 50

50

1. Assessment of the Financial Proposal

The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2. The lowest bidder at the financial stage shall be awarded.

How to apply

The Technical Proposal MUST be prepared in conformance to the outline provided in Annex 1 while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2. Team composition should conform to Annex 3

Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate Folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal” and “Financial Proposal”. The subject of your email should “Tender No. PRF10056 – Call for Consultancy for Baseline Evaluation for Improving SRH and GBV Outcomes for Women of Reproductive Age with Disability Inclusion”

The proposal should be addressed as below to reach the undersigned (by mail) through [email protected] on Wednesday, 28th September 2022 at 11:00 AM.

Chairperson, Tender Committee

Kenya Red Cross Society

P.O Box 40712 – 00100

Nairobi, Kenya