Evaluating the Effectiveness of ICRC’s International Humanitarian Law Training Approach with State Armed Forces (SAF) 2019-2023

***Please note, see this link for the full TOR/RFP document plus ‘Annex 2 – response grid’ (the excel sheet that must be completed and returned with the technical proposal).***

Introduction

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

The work of the ICRC is based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Additional Protocols, its Statutes – and those of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – and the resolutions of the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The ICRC is an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. It takes action in response to emergencies and at the same time promotes respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation in national law.

For further information, visit the ICRC web site:

Mandate and mission – overview

Terms of Reference

NAME OF PROJECT / BACKGROUND

The ICRC is commissioning an independent external evaluation of the Unit Relations with Arms Carriers (FAS)’s training and educational approach on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) of State Armed Forces (SAF) as part of FAS’ Integration Approach to promote IHL principles. Agreements such as the Hague Convention IV and the Geneva Conventions obligate states to issue instructions and incorporate IHL into military programs. However, the specifics of awareness and training are determined by governments, with recent treaties providing additional guidance. IHL training aims to internalize norms, encouraging greater adoption through attitudinal changes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)’s mandate is to promote understanding and dissemination of IHL in armed conflicts, underscores this commitment in its Institutional Strategy for 2019-2024, prioritizing behavior influence. Over time, the ICRC has developed two approaches to shape arms carriers’ behavior: dissemination activities, spreading IHL awareness through ICRC initiatives, and integration activities, encouraging arms carriers to embed IHL into their doctrine, training, education, and sanctions regimes. IHL Integration is a continuous process that a State Armed Forces should commit to, falling under the state’s responsibility for the adoption of ongoing knowledge transfer and doctrine adoption.

The ICRC’s Unit for Relations with Arms Carriers (FAS) has actively trained armed forces globally since 1994, with more details on the breakdown per rank and country in 2022, as the latest report of FAS’ activities1. Education and training of the state armed forces represent two core objectives of the “Integration Approach” of the ICRC’s FAS strategy. The ICRC’s ‘integration approach’ is based on the recognition that training and legal knowledge were not sufficient alone to generate behavioral change. The integration approach emphasizes states embedding IHL into their armed forces’ doctrine, education, training, and equipment, reinforced by their institutional sanctions for non-compliance. The FAS’ integration approach is based on internal lessons learned and two ICRC’s studies ‘Roots of Behavior in War’2 (2004) and ‘Roots of Restraint in War ‘3 (2018) that stressed the importance of context, trainer credibility, and the need for an adaptable approach to accommodate diverse cultures within armed forces. Twenty years after the first research and after years of engaging with State Armed Forces, the FAS team is interested in learning what works best in influencing behaviour and what can be improved in its IHL training and educational methodologies to promote IHL amongst SAF.

Description of the theory of change or logic model

The FAS vision for the period 2019-20224 is reflected in the graphic below, outlining four core objectives that underpin the Unit’s mission in support of its vision on how to integrate IHL into the military doctrine and practice. role as a provider of expertise, aims to play a pivotal role in exerting influence and fostering sustainable impact on the behaviour of arms carriers who can create, or mitigate, humanitarian risks through their actions. As highlighted in its strategy, FAS’ role is tied to the caliber, competence, and experience of its team members, making its human resources its most valuable asset. As a specialized field, FAS makes dedicated efforts in recruiting, nurturing, cultivating, and retaining a highly skilled workforce with the right qualifications. The key lies in leveraging the full pull potential of FAS mobile and resident staff through an all-inclusive ‘one-team approach’.

The ICRC aims to foster enduring change by working to integrate IHL practice into systemic long-term mechanisms by providing technical expertise to assist state armed forces in integrating IHL principles into their military doctrines and bolstering compliance mechanisms. One of the four Core Objectives of the FAS Vision is “Integrate the Law”. This work remains largely based in approaches developed following the “Roots of Behaviour in War” Study and developed in the handbook “Integrating the Law”5

The independent evaluation team will use the FAS vision as a foundational document to recreate the theory of change and focus on the Integrate the Law Core Objective that includes training and education of State Armed Forces at the inception phase. This process will help them unpack the pathways for achieving the vision through these four core objectives, and especially focus ‘Integrate the Law’ objective. They will test assumptions and identify barriers and enablers that could hinder or contribute to the vision’s success.

Context of implementing the intervention

As part of the IHL FAS’ Integration Approach, the ICRC delivers training programs and technical assistance for State Armed Forces aimed at enhancing their understanding of and compliance with IHL and fostering a culture of respect for humanitarian norms during armed conflicts. Over time, these activities have expanded from conventional training initiatives and support in developing doctrines and compliance procedures to engaging in dialogues with armed forces regarding issues related to a wide range of ICRC protection concerns, including the conduct of hostilities, sexual violence, protection of the medical mission and protection concerns the conduct of hostilities, sexual violence to protection of medical mission, to name a few. Additionally, the ICRC has initiated flagship events like the Senior Workshop on International Rules Governing Military Operations (SWIRMO) for armed forces to the practical application of IHL on military operations with senior military officers through a mix of theoretical and scenario-based contents. Whilst SWIRMO is a global event, there are also regional and local events that convene military officers for engagement on key issues.

In 2022, for instance, the chart below gives an overview of the number of personnel trained in IHL for the top ten countries:

The evaluation will take place as the ICRC’s new institutional strategy for 2024–2029 will also begin. It is an opportunity for the FAS team to review what has worked well and less in the training and education approaches on IHL and use the recommendations to strengthen their approach to meet the Institutional Objectives and reinforce the FAS’ impact through this forward-looking evaluation.

Evaluation Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of training and educational methods of the FAS “integration approach” methodology and mechanisms in influencing state armed forces’ adoption and application of IHL principles from 2019 to 2023. The purpose is to identify strengths, and areas for improvement in the current IHL promotion methodologies, tools, and strategies. By benchmarking against best practices, FAS is interested in learning from the findings and recommendations to build on its IHL training and promotion methodologies and materials for greater effectiveness and impact.

Objective/s
Conduct a forward-looking evaluation to assess the current FAS IHL educational and promotion methodology’s effectiveness in achieving better norm adoption, and successful integration of IHL into military doctrines and operations by state armed forces globally, in order to drive further development of the programme.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

• To assess the effectiveness of the FAS’ IHL training and education methodologies that are part of the overall ‘Integration Approach’, tools and delivery medium, identifying areas of success and also highlighting aspects where it the methodologies can be strengthened to support the outcomes enshrined in the FAS vision.
• To benchmark FAS’ methodologies against international best practices in IHL training and promotion, influence and strategies and other topics offered to state armed forces.
• To Identify best practices, and lessons learned that FAS could leverage in its next strategy.
• To propose actionable recommendations to strengthen FAS’ approaches to influence arms carrier behaviour.

Scope and requirements of this RFP

Scope

The evaluation will focus on the FAS’ IHL training and educational approach as part of their Integration Approach with state armed forces globally over the past five years 2019-2023. The evaluation will develop judgement criteria based on the SWOT, the benchmarking review and the analysis of the current FAS’s Integration Approach, training documents and other relevant literature to draw conclusions and offer recommendations on how to improve the training and education approach to be more effective and achieve the FAS’ objectives. The evaluation team will use existing documentation like the current the FAS integration approach as well as to test assumptions. The evaluation will not include the training conducted with non-stated armed groups due to the challenges involved in collecting data with such groups, from access to security standpoints and the relative short timeframe to conduct this evaluation.

Intended users

The main users of this evaluation are the ICRC FAS team and PES/LDP and Ops that collaborate on influencing, prevention and other activities related to IHL dissemination and promotion.

Key stakeholders

The final list of stakeholders will be mapped by the external evaluation team during the inception phase in collaboration with the FAS team and the Evaluation Office. This list will be composed of the following types of stakeholders6:

• State armed forces, trainers, LEGAD, partnering institutions (multilateral entities, training centers, academic institutions, other ICRC units to gather feedback on the existing training programs, to understand their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach.
• Seek input from experts in the field of IHL and behavioral changes to gain insights into emerging challenges and effective training methodologies from different institutions.

Evaluation criteria and questions

The evaluative questions are based on a mix of OECD DAC7 and tailored criteria to meet the evaluation objectives.

SWOT Analysis of FAS’ Training and Education Approach

1. What are the ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ of the current FAS’ IHL training and education methodologies in strengthening the integration of IHL into state armed forces’ military doctrines and in their own trainings8?
2. What does success look like within the Theory of Change of FAS’ training and education approaches and to what extent is success being achieved or will be achieved?

Relevance to evolving challenges and added value of FAS’ Approach

Added Value

1. How does the current IHL training compare to global best practices in IHL education and training for state armed forces?
2. What specific elements from benchmarked practices can be integrated into the FAS approach to enhance the effectiveness of the training?

Evolving Challenges

1. How well does the current FAS’s IHL training and education approach address and adapt to emerging challenges in contemporary conflict scenarios?
2. What are the ongoing challenges with adult training and education on the topic of change behavior? Can these new training and educational approaches be applied to IHL training and educational methodologies for greater achievements?
3. To what extent has FAS training approaches incorporated relevant good practices in adult education?

Theory of Change to FAS IHL Integration Approach

The evaluation team will look at assessing the following components in addition to test the reconstructed Theory of Change. These following factors are forward looking assumptions that are worth testing during this evaluation.

Behavioral Change Mechanisms

1. How clearly defined and effective are the approaches/tools/processes within the FAS’ theory of change that aim to generate behavioral change/influence9 among participants/trainees, both at the individual and organizational levels?
2. Are adaptive learning strategies relevant and useful for FAS’ training and education approach?

FAS’s Training and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

1. How does FAS integrate its training activities/approach within its stakeholder engagement strategy to ensure effective and sustainable behavioral change regarding adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) among the state armed forces?”
2. At what hierarchical level within the state armed forces should FAS prioritize closer collaboration to discern observable behavioral changes among officers regarding their adherence to IHL training?
3. What unintended and unexpected outcomes can be observed through the training and education engagements with state armed forces?

Mid-and longer-Term Impact Measurement

1. What are the current tools used by the FAS team to monitor and evaluate the impact of FAS IHL training and education approaches and state armed forces’ knowledge integration and behavioral change over time?

Requirements: Evaluation approach

Overall design, methodology

The evaluation will adopt a theory-based approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to review the current approach. These can include surveys, interviews, document reviews (such as training materials), a SWOT analysis, a gap analysis, and a benchmarking exercise. The evaluation team will also unpack innovation and adaptation opportunities through the benchmarking exercise and the SWOT analysis. The evaluation will include ‘a peer review process10’ that will provide the forum for high-level discussions on the findings and offer a set of recommendations that will serve the FAS team’s future approach. The evaluation suppliers can propose alternative methodologies should they see them more suited to achieving the evaluation’s purpose and objectives.

Specific methods

Benchmarking

• Identify and review best practices in IHL training and educational methodologies globally focused on influencing behaviors, looking at successful approaches adopted by other organizations, countries that have engaged with ICRC, or international bodies.
• Analyze benchmarked practices to understand their key components, methodologies, and success factors.

SWOT and Gap Analysis

• Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, alongside a gap analysis to underline the areas that could be improved in the current FAS training and education methodologies compared to global best practices through a thorough desk review of FAS and ICRC’s documentation on IHL training and educational approaches over the past years.
• Determine whether there are specific challenges or trends that need to be addressed in the context of evolving conflict scenarios.
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Based on the evaluation, benchmarking, and stakeholder feedback, propose actionable recommendations to adapt the current training methodologies to incorporate elements of global best practices.
• The evaluation will look at whether FAS should consider different innovative approaches, incorporate different technology, simulations, and/or developing other case studies to enhance engagement and knowledge uptake and transfer.

Peer Review Process

• The peer review process during the analysis phase of the evaluation provides valuable external perspectives, helps validate findings, and contributes to the overall quality and credibility of the evaluation
• Offer inputs on potential blind spots or aspects that could enhance the depth of the evaluation.

Primary data collection expectations and disaggregation

• The available data is constituted of lists of trainees, attendees of SWIRMOs and other regional conferences, training and education materials, pre-post training evaluation questionnaires, legal documents produced by the FAS team, tools and platforms used for trainings.

Secondary data availability

Currently, the monitoring of IHL trainings with state armed forces is limited to quantitative data on the number of trained forces, ranks, countries and, in some cases, sex disaggregated data. Thus, the evaluation team will have to harvest additional quantitative and qualitative information during this evaluation through different tools and approaches.

Risks, limitations

Stakeholder outreach

The timing of this evaluation is between 8 to 12 months as the evaluation team will need additional time to reach out and be granted authorization to interview and send surveys11 to members of the state armed forces across different geographies. The evaluation team will work closely with FAS as the commissioning team and the Evaluation Office to facilitate the engagement process.

Survey responses and usability

Survey responses might take some time to obtain useful response rates due to the hierarchical process that armed forces must respect to obtain the authorization to participate. It will be necessary for the ICRC FAS to inform their counterparts within the targeted state armed forces of the evaluation so they fully understand that they are not under review, rather the focus is the ICRC’s training and that their honest opinions will offer valuable insights. The surveys will be available in multiple languages to facilitate the response rate (English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and possibly others if relevant). It will also be explained that it will remain fully anonymous and only the external evaluation team will have access to the data.

Context sensitivity

The effectiveness of IHL training and education approach can be highly context-specific, and it may not be easy to generalize findings across different armed forces and conflict settings. The external evaluation team will collaborate closely with the FAS and the Evaluation office and to address such concerns if they arise.

Selection Bias

If certain state armed forces or regions are more willing to contribute to the evaluation than others, it can introduce bias into the findings. The external evaluation team will have to propose mitigating approaches to compensate that bias through the sampling approach and the tools.

Ethical considerations and safeguarding

Evaluators are required to adhere to international best practices and standards in evaluation. Evaluators are required to abide by the Professional Standards for Protection Work; the ICRC’s Code of Conduct; the ICRC’s Code of Ethics for Procurement; and the ICRC Rules on Personal Data Protection.

The ICRC evaluation office will submit the Inception Report to the ICRC’s Ethics Review Board process. This process will be immediately addressed at the beginning of the evaluation.

The confidentiality of respondents will be protected through anonymization of inputs and there will be no personally identifying information or attribution of comments in any of the interim and final reports. All primary data plus any sensitive and internal ICRC documentation will be subject to appropriate data protection and management practices. Data and documentation (including primary collected data) remains the property of the ICRC. No data or documentation will be shared outside of the contracted supplier without the express permission of the ICRC.

Management of the evaluation

The Evaluation Office and the FAS team of the ICRC will jointly manage the evaluation process.

Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG)

An Evaluation Advisory Group will accompany the evaluation, providing their expert advice and feedback on key stages of the evaluation. This engagement is particularly important but not limited to the main products of the evaluation i.e. the draft inception report, and draft evaluation report. The membership of the EAG is internal to the ICRC. The protocol for the Evaluation Advisory Group is set out in its dedicated TOR. The members of the EAG may be included in the initial onboarding process for the evaluation team during the inception phase.

Timeline

The timeline of the evaluation is laid out with indicative timings for specific key deliverables, milestones, travel, or events. Field work for data collection, that will include the visit to one or two countries and two visits to ICRC’s HQ in Geneva will have to be factored in the workplan. The first HQ visit will take place after the initial desk review and initial interviews will have been conducted to test the reconstructed Theory of Change and finalize the inception report with additional interviews on identified gaps.

See full TOR/RFP for timeline graph

Evaluation Quality Assurance

The evaluation will adhere to the ICRC’s standards in evaluation. The quality criteria (checklists) for evaluation products (Inception Report and Evaluation Report) will be provided to the evaluation team. Drafts of these key products will be quality assured through the ICRC’s QA mechanism which will provide feedback to the supplier via the Evaluation Office.

A round of comments (x2 max) will be submitted to the Panel of Experts of the ICRC Evaluation Office giving the external evaluation team the opportunity to review and edit the final deliverables to meet international and ICRC standards for evaluations.

The Evaluation report and/or a summary of the evaluation (for example, the Executive Summary of the report and/or the visual communication product) will be published on the ICRC website in line with the ICRC’s Access to Information Policy.12

Dissemination of findings

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be presented by the commissioning unit internally to relevant audiences. Dissemination will include presentations of preliminary findings and recommendations, workshops/webinar, and publication of key findings within ICRC staff members, the EODG directorate and in relevant academic journals or policy briefs.

The executive summary of the report will be published on ICRC’s website after careful review of the content to ensure a conflict sensitive approach. On the same principles, the full report may be published as well. These considerations will be reviewed at the end of the evaluation process.

Follow up of recommendations

To strengthen the use of the evaluations at the ICRC, fostering ownership over the process of change and ensuring accountability for results, the intended users of this evaluation will initiate the management response process as a follow-up action facilitated by the Evaluation Office. The Evaluation Office will support FAS and respective stakeholders in developing and tracking the agreed actions to the recommendations after 6 and 12 months.

Budget range

The budget is of 150,000 CHF, that includes all field visits and level of effort required for the scope and timeframe of the evaluation. A field visit to two countries is to be anticipated for the Team leader and a member of the team. In addition, two visits to Geneva (once at the inception and once at the end for the preliminary findings workshop) are also to be budgeted for and factored into the workplan. The two trips to Geneva can be reviewed based on the location of the team lead and the necessity. The peer review process will be covered separately by the Evaluation Office.

Required expertise and experience

The evaluation team should possess the following combined skills and qualifications:

Team Leader

• Substantial experience (minimum 15 years) in leading teams and designing and delivering rigorous mixed methods evaluations in the international and humanitarian sectors, meeting international evaluation quality standards.
• In-depth knowledge and expertise in IHL, including its principles, rules, and applicability in various conflict contexts.
• Experience in engaging with state armed forces and the different military cultures.
• Experience in conflict dynamics and fragile states.
• Advanced stakeholder engagement, risk analysis, project and team management skills.
• Experience in applying conflict sensitivity and evaluation ethics that will be critical throughout this evaluation- engagement, and in the deliverables.
• Demonstrable experience of applied ethics in evaluations.
• Sectoral contributions track record.
• Fluency in English – written and spoken is essential. Additional languages welcome.
• Minimum academic qualification: post-graduate research methods in evaluation, , IHL, learning and behavioral change, or other field relevant to the evaluation of the ICRC’s IHL training

Across the team members the following experiences should be part of the skill sets composing the team

• Experience of strategic evaluations.
• A military background with experience in conflict settings, if possible or strong experience in engaging with armed forces.
• Knowledge/expertise in designing, delivering or assessing training, education, behavioral change, capacity building and innovative approaches.
• Knowledge, understanding, and/or experience of the ICRC’s institutional and operating models.
• Expertise in developing and tailoring qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis tools including literature reviews, semi-structured key informant interviews, and surveys.
• Experience in conflict dynamics and fragile states.
• Minimum academic qualification: post-graduate research methods in evaluation, education, humanitarian response, IHL, human rights, social sciences, or other field relevant to the evaluation of the ICRC’s IHL training
• Ability to work in some of these languages: English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian.

Deliverables

The evaluation will generate several outputs, as outlined in the graph of the phased approach. These will include an inception report, which will provide a detailed plan for the evaluation process, as well as presentation of the preliminary findings, a draft and final report.

1. A 1-page briefing outlining the purpose, timing and key messages to explain the evaluation process to stakeholders. This acts as a communication tool internal within the evaluation particularly during the data collection phase. It includes the contact details of the evaluators, the evaluation commissioner, and the ICRC’s integrity weblink.
2. An inception report combined with a PPT detailing a proposed methodology, evaluation matrix, list of stakeholders to be consulted, workplan and timeline, and the tools for data collection to be presented to the Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG) and the commissioning Unit/Delegation for validation. The evaluation team will present the Inception Report to the FAS team and members of the Evaluation Advisory Group.
3. A draft evaluation report This should be clear and simply written, free of unnecessary jargon. The main body of the report should not exceed 40 pages. The report outline will be agreed with the evaluation team as part of the inception report. The report will include the following sections:

• Executive Summary – a short overview of the report
• Context and background
• Methodology
• Main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions
• Concise recommendations, with consideration of the degree of prioritization and any necessary sequencing for actions and the responsible units/departments to them forward.

1. A PPT presentation of the key findings, recommendations, lessons learned, and best practice addressed to the EAG and the FAS team. Any relevant complementary materials should be provided as annexes to the final report.
2. Draft and final reports, with feedback integrated from the EAG and the FAS team
3. Final presentation to the relevant stakeholders

Administrative information

Providers are invited to submit a written proposal to the ICRC for review, in a concise way, considering the instructions, scope, requirements, required answer format and timeframe defined in this tendering document.

Timetable

It is the intention of the ICRC to follow this timetable. However, the ICRC reserves the right to change any part of this timetable at any time depending on operational constraints. The ICRC will notify providers of such changes.

For all bidders Deadline 31.01.2024 (23.59 GVA)

• Tendering document Publication 02.01.2024
• Tendering document Questions Close 17.01.2024
• ICRC’s answers to questions 19.01.2024
• Proposals submission 31.01.2024
• Communication of short list to selected bidders 09.02.2024

For short-listed bidders Deadline

• Short-listed providers’ interviews 12.02.2024 to 16.02.2024
• Communication of selected bidder 19.02.2024

For selected bidder Deadline

• Estimated start date 26.02.2024
• End Date According to project roadmap

Point(s) of contact

The sole point(s) of contact for the purpose of this tendering process are/is the following:

• Name:Hélène Richard
• Position title: Evaluation Officer
• Email address: [email protected]

The proposal must be submitted by email, to be received by 23:59 (Geneva, Switzerland time) on the date indicated under paragraph 3.1 “Proposal submission”, to the above-mentioned ICRC contact(s). Any proposal received after this exact time will be discarded.

Questions from providers

All questions regarding this tendering process and the terms of reference must be directed to the ICRC point(s) of contact indicated under section 3.2. Please submit all questions by e-mail, indicating the document concerned, referring to the section and page of the document. Questions asked by phone or in person will not be answered.

The providers must not contact any entity within ICRC, or any of its subcontractors regarding this tendering process. Any other contact with regard to this subject within the ICRC is prohibited unless with the express permission of the issuing office or the project manager. A possible consequence of providers soliciting information about this tendering process either directly or indirectly from any other sources may result in disqualification of the provider from the tendering process.

Should the questions put be too numerous, the first 10 questions from each bidder will be answered.The ICRC therefore recommends that bidders prioritize their questions.

The ICRC will respond to questions promptly and will send answers to providers as a group. In doing so, the ICRC will delete the provider names from the text of questions before the answers are sent.

Questions from ICRC

The ICRC may have further questions at any time throughout the course of this tendering process, for which additional written answers might be requested.

Information and document exchange

E-mail will be the main method of communication. The required formats for documents are either PDF files, or MS-Office files (e.g. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, or Visio for diagrams).

Data Protection, ICRC’s Legal Status and supplier questions

If applicable to the requirements of this tendering process, please refer to the Appendices (if included). If Appendix is included, providers are required provide answers to the questions within their proposals. If the Appendix is not included, please disregard this subject deemed as not relevant for the subject being tendered.

Submission of proposal

Firms (not individual consultants) are requested to submit the following:

• Maximum a 10-page-proposal highlighting:
• Your understanding of the assignment
• Conceptual approach (design) of the evaluation
• Practical steps to delivering the evaluation
• Methodological and contextual risks and limitations (and mitigation strategies)
• Team and evaluation management, Quality Assurance, ethics considerations and relevant experience.
• CVs of consultants including descriptions of relevant assessment/evaluations or projects the consultants were involved in previously, and at least 2 referees (names and email addresses). The team can be composed of a mixed team with international and local consultants, or only with international consultants. Please provide justifications for your team selection.
• At least 2 examples of previous evaluation reports for which the Team Leader was responsible for similar assignments.
• Financial proposal (including daily rates and the anticipated travel costs).

To: [email protected] by 31st January 2024 (23:59 hours). Please indicate “Evaluation of IHL Training” in the subject line.

Questions for clarification can be submitted by 17th January 2024, and answers to all suppliers will be provided by 19th January 2024.

Required format of proposal

Proposals must contain a version number in order to facilitate the identification of revisions.

All proposals submitted shall conform to the following format:

Cover letter

The cover letter must identify the provider name and address, and the name, email and telephone number of the person authorized to represent the provider in relation to the proposal.

The letter shall be signed by a person authorized to bind the provider to all commitments made in the proposal. It shall indicate that the provider has thoroughly reviewed this document.

The Cover letter should indicate that requirements for the RFP are met and address any items below that are not covered elsewhere (i.e. in the Response Grid or the Proposed Approach):

• Overall approach
• Specifications of expected deliverables
• Risks and concerns arising from this RfP
• What is needed from the ICRC to begin the project
• Proposed workplan
• Proposed team
• Proposed budget (pricing including daily rates and estimation of travel costs (note that ICRC will not pay for business class travel))
• Any pricing constraints on the provider part
• Any hidden or related costs that the ICRC may not have anticipated

Customers references in the domain

Company Presentation

Presentation of the Company Profile. This section should at a minimum contain the following information:

Use the ResponseGrid.xls to provide information about:

• Official registered name, mailing address, main telephone number and web address
• Official status (company or self-employed) with documentation to support this declaration (extract from commercial register for companies or social security certificate for self-employed)
• Number of employees (figures of last three years)
• Financial figures over the last three years

Use the Cover letter to provide additional information if relevant:

• Organizational structure, including holding companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates including the names of any affiliates, divisions or subsidiaries that will take part in delivery of the products or services requested)
• Recent mergers, acquisitions, etc.

Proposed Approach

Maximum 10-page technical proposal highlighting how you would approach this evaluation, plus a proposed timeline/ workplan (use Appendix 2 Response Grid). To include:

• Understanding of the TOR and the ICRC’s context with relevance to this evaluation
• Conceptual and analytical framework to meet the needs of the evaluation
• Methodological approaches to both data collection and data analysis
• Methodological and contextual risks, limitations and mitigations
• Ethical considerations

Proposed team

CVs of consultants including descriptions of relevant assessment/evaluations or projects the consultant was involved in previously, and at least 2 referees (names and email addresses).

Provide at least 2 examples of previous evaluation reports for which the Team Leader was responsible for similar assignments.

French and English will be the standard means of communication on the project.

Planning proposal

Provide proposed timeline/ workplan using the tab in the ResponseGrid.xls.

Response Grid

The document ResponseGrid.xlsx provides a pre-defined structure to gather the information required to compare all bids. See appendices.

Please fill in as much information as possible.

See appendices

Pricing

Pricing must be established according to pricing sheet provided in the document ResponseGrid.xls

All prices shall be quoted in CHF without VAT.

All expenses related to the project must be included. Please include any additional cost (including 3rd party software and licenses) unforeseen by ICRC.

See appendices

Standard Terms & Conditions

ICRC Terms and Conditions shall apply (link provided below in Section 4 Appendices). Please comment the clauses/ wordings you may want to discuss. If no comment is made, this means ICRC Terms and Conditions are accepted.

Deviation from the standard terms & conditions: Payment terms will be 60 days upon receipt of invoice.

Vendor creation

The selected provider shall provide the necessary documents before completion of the contracting process to verify bank and payment details. No bank details are required from bidders at the time of the RFP process.

Other

Add other documents and references deemed appropriate.

Please do not submit generic marketing materials, broadly descriptive attachments, or other general literature. Providers are cautioned not to refer to a brochure as a response to a requirement. Providers are expected to write complete answers for each requirement indicated in this RfP and not to refer to previous responses.

Please do not submit generic marketing materials, broadly descriptive attachments, or other general literature. Providers are cautioned not to refer to a brochure as a response to a requirement. Providers are expected to write complete answers for each requirement indicated in this tendering document and not to refer to previous responses.

How to apply

Please note, see this link for the full TOR/RFP document plus ‘Annex 2 – response grid’ (the excel sheet that must be completed and returned with the technical proposal).

Technical and financial proposals should be submitted to: [email protected] by 31st January 2024 (23:59 hours). Please indicate “Evaluation of IHL Training” in the subject line.

Questions for clarification can be submitted by 17th January 2024, and answers to all suppliers will be provided by 19th January 2024.