DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
IN THE PRESIDENCY
Private Bag X944, Pretoria, 0001 |Union Buildings East Wing, Pretoria |www.thepresidency-dpme.gov.za
TERMS OF REFERENCE / SPECIFICATIONS
Request for proposals for:
Delivery and Supervision of Evaluation Courses for Government Officials at
National and Provincial Level for the period Jan-Sept 2015
SCM reference number:
DPME T11/2014
Closing date and time:
5 December 2014 at 12h00
Compulsory briefing session:
None
1.
BID INFORMATION
Information on the format and delivery of bids are contained in the attached bid documents. Please take note of
closing date and date of compulsory briefing session (if any).
Please note that you may apply for both evaluation course facilitation (A) and supervision (B) but successful
bidders will only be contracted to do one (A or B).
2.
PROPOSAL FORMAT





3.
Annexure A must contain the published terms of reference (this document).
Annexure B must contain the proposal and services offered.
Annexure C must contain a summary of qualifications of employees and past experience.
Annexure D must contain pricing information. Price proposals should be fully inclusive to deliver the outputs
indicated in the terms of reference and must be submitted in a separate envelope.
Annexure E must contain all other forms / certificates required (SBDs, Tax clearance certificate etc. – see bid
documents).
CONDITIONS OF BID
3.1. Administrative compliance
See bid documents
3.2. Functional Evaluation
Only bids / quotes that comply with all administrative requirements (acceptable bids) will be considered
during the functional evaluation phase. All bids / quotes will be scored by the Bid Evaluation Committee
against the functional criteria indicated in the Terms of Reference.
Minimum functional requirements: Service providers that submitted acceptable bids and that scored at
least the minimum for each element as well as the overall minimum score (75%), based on the average of
scores awarded by the Bid Evaluation Committee members.
The Department reserves the right to call bidders that meet the minimum functional requirements to
present their proposals. The Bid Evaluation Committee may decide to amend the scoring assigned to a
particular bid based on the presentation made.
3.3. Price evaluation: The PPPFA
See bid documents
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 1
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1. The National Evaluation Policy Framework and Plan
The National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) was approved by Cabinet on 23 November 2011. This
includes the establishment of an annual and a 3 year rolling National Evaluation Plan (NEP) as a focus for
priority evaluations of government. This focus was initially at national level (i.e. national priorities), but has
expanded to provincial and departmental level.
The Plan is led by the Evaluation and Research Unit (ERU) of DPME, supported by a national Evaluation
Technical Working Group, including Auditor General, Treasury, DPSA, DSD, DBE, Health, Human Settlements,
Stats SA, the Public Service Commission, a number of sector departments, and the Offices of the Premier for
Gauteng and Western Cape.
1.2. Capacity development to support the National Evaluation Plan (NEP)
1.2.1 The Evaluation Capacity Development Plan
The ERU has developed a capacity development plan to provide government officials with the necessary
background knowledge and skill set to be able to successfully evaluate their policies and development
programmes in accordance with the NEPF. In addition to aligning directly to the NEPF, this capacity development
plan coincides with the annual NEP cycle. Whilst the content of the courses correspond to the NEPF, the timing of
the courses correspond to the annual NEP cycle. This process will evolve at both national and provincial level.
The annual cycle of the NEP involves a number of different elements. A number of capacity development events
have been developed to assist officials and evaluators in producing high quality evaluations that contribute to
effective programming and that maximise the likelihood that evaluations will be used to improve the
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of government’s work. It is critical that these happen at the
right point in the lifecycle of the Plan to maximise the likelihood that the learning with be utilised effectively.
1.2.2 Collaboration with CLEAR
The course material has been developed by DPME in partnership with Regional Centre for Learning on Evaluation
and Results – Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA). CLEAR is a global initiative aimed at strengthening developing
countries’ capacities in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and performance management (PM) to support a focus
on results, and evidence-based decision making. DPME has a framework agreement with Wits acting through
CLEAR around M&E in South Africa and internationally. As CLEAR has access to significant training capacity, as
well as international experience with capacity development, DPME collaborated with Wits acting through CLEAR
in the development of the courses.
1.2.3 Lifecycle of the Plan
The annual cycle of the NEP involves a number of different elements. As this is a fairly new process, a number of
capacity development events have been developed to assist officials in producing high quality evaluations that
contribute to effective programming and that maximise the likelihood that evaluations will be used to improve
the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of government’s work. It is critical that these happen at the
right point in the lifecycle of the evaluation to maximise the likelihood that the learning with be utilised
effectively.
The likely timings for the 2014/15 evaluations are:
April 2014
Dec 2014- Feb 2015
Feb - March 2015
April - June 2015
Work underway on all evaluations
Draft reports
Final reports approved
Improvement plans developed
The likely timings for the 2015/16 evaluations are:
30 July 2014
26-27 August 2014
22-23 September 2014
November 2014
Oct – Dec 2014
Evaluations selected to the NEP
ToC workshop
Design Clinic
NEP approved by Cabinet
TORs developed for evaluations
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 2
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
January 2015
March 2015
April 2015
Dec 2015- Feb 2016
Dec 2015 - Jan 2016
February - May 2016
1.
Procurement initiated
Evaluations commissioned
Work underway on all evaluations
Draft reports
Final reports approved
Improvement plans developed
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF PROJECT
The DPME is requesting the submission of quotes/proposals for the delivery and supervision of evaluation training in
the form of the delivery of a suite of short (3 day) courses to government officials at national and provincial level
during January to September 2015.
2.
DELIVERABLES
Course 1a – How to Manage an Evaluation on the National Evaluation Plan
Course 1b – How to Develop a Terms of Reference for an Evaluation
Course 2 – Deepening Evaluation
Course 3 – Evaluation Methodology
For each course what is required of the training delivery service provider (A) is:
1.
Supply 2 facilitators and take care of all their requirements (travel, accommodation, fees & laptop etc.).
2.
Facilitate/ run training workshops successfully.
3.
Complete attendance registers and participant course evaluation forms.
4.
Write a course report (to include any suggestions for refining the course - example to be provided).
5.
Submit deliverables 3 & 4 by no later than the Friday following the week in which the course was run.
For each course what is required of the training delivery supervisor (B) is:
1.
Supply supervisor and take care of all their requirements (travel, accommodation, fees & laptop etc.).
2.
Supervise training workshops successfully.
3.
Provide formative (verbal and/or written) feedback to the training delivery service provider during each course.
4.
Provide formative (written) feedback to the training delivery service provider on their course report 1 day prior
(Thursday) to the deadline of submission of their report.
5.
Write a course report (to include any suggestions for refining the course - example to be provided).
6.
Submit deliverables 5 by no later than the Friday following the week in which the course was run.
For each course DPME/Office of the Premier will provide:
1. The list/register of attendees
2. The training venue
3. The training materials
4. The certificates of completion.
All training needs to be complete and all reports submitted by 1 September 2015.
3.
REQUIREMENTS
3.1. Proposed Methodology / Approach
3.1.1. For the training delivery service provider (A)
An experiential approach should be followed, providing maximum time for participants to work on
exercises (learning by doing) and minimum classroom style teaching, balancing theory with practice,
interactive and participatory.
A programme, PPT slides, facilitators guide, and learner manual will be provided by DPME
incorporating theory, examples, exercises, glossaries, and references for further reading.
At the end of the course participants should have been taken through a process of developing their
own products (where applicable) and have clear direction on how to finalise them.
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 3
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
The successful candidates need to demonstrate their understanding of the national evaluation system.
3.1.2. For training delivery supervisor(B)
A formative/ supportive approach should be followed, providing quality assurance of the course
facilitation.
A programme, PPT slides, facilitators guide, and learner manual will be provided by DPME
incorporating theory, examples, exercises, glossaries, and references for further reading.
Throughout the course facilitators should receive verbal and written feedback on their deliverables.
The successful candidates need to demonstrate their understanding of the national evaluation system.
3.2. Skills Required
3.2.1. Prospective service providers (Bidders) must be competent in the areas of evaluation as detailed
below. It is imperative that bidders offer the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience. The
Department will draw on these skills and competencies for evaluation course facilitation and/or
supervision.
3.2.2. The competencies for this contract are provided in table 1. These are drawn from the Evaluation
Competencies available on the DPME website but customized to this contract. In some cases these are
for the company, in others staff members (who may have that competency working with other
organisations).
Table 1: Summary of customised evaluation capacity development competencies
Domain/descriptor
1 Overarching considerations
1.1 Contextual knowledge and
understanding
1.2 Ethical conduct
1.3 Interpersonal skills
2 Evaluation leadership
2.1 Project management
2.2 Composition of the team
3 Evaluation craft
3.1 Evaluative discipline and
practice
3.2 Research practice
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Demonstrated ability to
Have knowledge of relevant sectors and government systems in relation to
the 14 priority outcomes and can appropriately relate the
evaluation training to current political, policy and governance
environments
Have knowledge and experience of evaluation capacity development in
South Africa (preferably with government officials)
Perform appropriately in cross-cultural roles with cultural sensitivity and
attends appropriately to issues of diversity
Understand ethical issues relating to evaluation, including potential or
actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/anonymity, and
obtaining informed consent and ethical clearance from evaluation
participants where necessary.
Lead an evaluation capacity development activity and its processes using
facilitation and learning approaches, to promote understanding and
application of knowledge by participants
Lead and manage a team effectively and efficiently, and manage the
project effectively to completion in a way which delivers high
quality evaluation training and builds skills of participants.
Strong project manager, evaluation capacity development specialist (may
be the same person)
Use knowledge base of evaluation (theories, models including logic and
theory based models, types, methods and tools), critical thinking,
analytical and synthesis skills relevant to the evaluation training
Design specific research methods and tools that address the evaluation’s
research needs. This may include qualitative, quantitative or mixed
methods.
Systematically gather, analyse, and synthesise relevant evidence, data and
information from a range of sources, identifying relevant material,
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 4
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
Domain/descriptor
4 Implementation of evaluation
4.1 Evaluation planning
Theory of change
Design
4.2 Managing evaluation
4.3 Report writing and
communication
Demonstrated ability to
assessing its quality and spotting gaps
Develop clear theory of change with quality programme logframes with
good programme logic and indicators
Design and cost an appropriate and feasible evaluation with appropriate
questions and methods, based on an evaluation’s purpose and
objectives.
Manage evaluation resources to deliver high quality evaluations and
related objectives within budget, on time and to appropriate
standards
Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible, useful and
actionable, address the key evaluation questions, and show the
evidence, analysis, synthesis, recommendations and evaluative
interpretation and how these build from each other
In addition we will want to know your expertise in relation to the 6 types of evaluation in the National Evaluation
Policy Framework:






Diagnostic evaluation (diagnosis of current situation root causes and options)
Design evaluation (testing the robustness of the theory of change and design of an intervention)
Implementation evaluation (evaluating how an intervention is being implemented, and how it can be
strengthened)
Impact evaluation (assessing the impact at outcome or impact level of an intervention, and how far changes
can be attributed to the intervention)
Economic evaluation (cost benefit, cost effectiveness, PETS)
Evaluation synthesis (undertaking rigorous analysis across evaluations to draw out evidence)
3.2.3. For the training delivery service provider (A)
The training provider must have experience of running 2-4 day training using an experiential approach.
Course developers and facilitators must have a minimum of a Master’s degree in a relevant field plus a
minimum of 5 years proven experience of having conducted programme planning/monitoring and/or
evaluations before.
Course developers and facilitators must have a minimum of 5 years proven experience of having
developed and facilitated programme planning/monitoring and/or evaluation courses before.
3.2.4. For training delivery supervisor(B)
The training provider must have experience of running 2-4 day training using an experiential approach.
Course supervisors must have a minimum of a Master’s degree in a relevant field plus a minimum of 6
years proven experience of having conducted programme planning/monitoring and/or evaluations
before.
Course supervisors must have a minimum of 6 years proven experience of having developed and
facilitated programme planning/monitoring and/or evaluation courses before.
3.3. Structure of Proposal (for both A & B)
The Bidder must provide the following details. Failure to provide this will lead to disqualification.
3.3. 1. Be clear as to whether you are applying to be a course facilitator (A) or course supervisor (B) or both (A
& B).
3.3.2. Understanding of the brief and the ToR
3.3.3. Approach, design and methodology for the course facilitator and/or supervision
3.3.4. Detailed budget (in South African Rand, including VAT)
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 5
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
3.3.5. Competence (include list of related projects undertaken of developers and facilitators and/or
supervisors, making clear who did what, and contact people and details for references).
3.3.6. Team (team members, roles and level of effort)
3.3.7. Capacity development elements if any (building capacity of PDI/young)
3.3.8. Quality assurance plan (to ensure that the process and products are of good quality)
3.3.9. Attachments – evidence
3.3.9.1. CVs of course developers and facilitators and/or supervisors including 3 references for each.
3.3.9.2. A list of programme planning, monitoring and/or evaluation assignments already conducted
(including assignment names; dates; and contactable references) as evidence of meeting the required skill.
3.3.9.3. Programmes of courses already developed and facilitated and a list (including course name; dates run
and contactable references) as evidence of meeting the required skill.
3.3.9.4. An example of a training manual and slides of any relevant short course you have developed and
facilitated
3.3.10. Completed supply chain forms, tax clearance etc.
Please note that huge documents are not welcome (except a relevant example of previous work if necessary).
3.4. Costing of Proposal (for both A & B)


4.
Your fee per 3 day course (regardless of location)
Your disbursement cost per 3 day course per province (include all travel accommodation etc. which must be a
fixed cost per province)
FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Scoring system:
1 – Does not comply with the requirements
2 – Partial compliance with requirements
3 – Full compliance with requirements
4 – Exceeds requirements
4.1. For the Training Delivery Service Provider (A)
Functional Evaluation Criteria
Weight
Score
Weight X
Sco
re
Minimum
Lead facilitator has a Master’s degree (if not disqualify)
Proposal addresses the requirements of the TORs
1= does not satisfy
2= covers most but not all of the requirements
3= covers all requirements (minimum)
4= covers all requirements and gives evidence of world class insight into
the use of evaluation
Proposal demonstrates understanding of South Africa’s (government)
approach to evaluation
1= No or cursory mention of the evaluation system
2= Demonstrate awareness of the evaluation system
3= Demonstrate good understanding of the evaluation system
(minimum)
4= Demonstrate deep understanding of the evaluation system, the
issues where capacity is needed, and the challenges the courses
need to address
Lead facilitator experience of running evaluation courses
1= Run courses in planning or M&E generally but not evaluation
specifically in last 5 years
2= Run 2-3 courses specifically in evaluation in last 5 years (minimum)
3= Run 4+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years
4= Run 4+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years, as well as courses in
programme planning including logframes and theory of change
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
5
15
5
15
5
10
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 6
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
Functional Evaluation Criteria
Weight
Lead facilitator experience of programme planning/M&E
1= <5 years proven experience of having conducted programme
planning/monitoring and/or evaluations before
2= 5 years proven experience of having conducted programme
planning/monitoring and/or evaluations before, with a
minimum of 3 evaluations conducted (minimum)
3= 5-10 years proven experience of having conducted evaluations
before, with at least 5 evaluations conducted
4= >10 years proven experience of having conducted evaluations before,
with at least 10 evaluations conducted, including international
evaluations
Company experience of running courses in evaluation (examples of
product and process to be provided)
1= Run courses in planning or M&E generally but not evaluation
specifically in last 5 years
2= Run 2-3 courses specifically in evaluation in last 5 years (minimum)
3= Run 3-4 courses in evaluation in last 5 years
4= Run 5+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years, as well as courses in
programme planning
Company has demonstrated strong experience of running experiential
training in the M&E field
1= Less than 2 courses in planning or M&E generally where the
approach has been explicitly experiential and a product
produced
2= Run 2-3 courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach
has been explicitly experiential and a product produced
(minimum)
3= Run 3-4 courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach
has been explicitly experiential and a product produced
4= Run 5+ courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach has
been explicitly experiential and a product produced
TOTAL
Score
Weight X
Sco
re
Minimum
4
8
3
6
3
6
25
4.2. For the Training Delivery Supervisor (B)
Functional Evaluation Criteria
Weight
Score
Weight X
Sco
re
Minimum
Lead facilitator has a Master’s degree (if not disqualify)
Proposal addresses the requirements of the TORs
1= does not satisfy
2= covers most but not all of the requirements
3= covers all requirements (minimum)
4= covers all requirements and gives evidence of world class insight into
the use of evaluation
Proposal demonstrates understanding of South Africa’s (government)
approach to evaluation
1= No or cursory mention of the evaluation system
2= Demonstrate awareness of the evaluation system
3= Demonstrate good understanding of the evaluation system
(minimum)
4= Demonstrate deep understanding of the evaluation system, the
issues where capacity is needed, and the challenges the courses
need to address
Supervisor experience of running evaluation courses
1= Run courses in planning or M&E generally but not evaluation
specifically in last 5 years
2= Run 2-3 courses specifically in evaluation in last 5 years (minimum)
3= Run 4+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
5
15
5
15
5
15
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 7
ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE
Functional Evaluation Criteria
Weight
Score
Weight X
Sco
re
Minimum
4= Run 4+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years, as well as courses in
programme planning including logframes and theory of change
Supervisor experience of programme planning/M&E
1= <5 years proven experience of having conducted programme
planning/monitoring and/or evaluations before
2= 5 years proven experience of having conducted programme
planning/monitoring and/or evaluations before, with a
minimum of 3 evaluations conducted (minimum)
3= 6-10 years proven experience of having conducted evaluations
before, with at least 5 evaluations conducted
4= >10 years proven experience of having conducted evaluations before,
with at least 10 evaluations conducted, including international
evaluations
Supervisor experience of running courses in evaluation (examples of
product and process to be provided)
1= Run courses in planning or M&E generally but not evaluation
specifically in last 5 years
2= Run 2-3 courses specifically in evaluation in last 5 years (minimum)
3= Run 3-4 courses in evaluation in last 5 years
4= Run 5+ courses in evaluation in last 5 years, as well as courses in
programme planning
Supervisor has demonstrated strong experience of running
experiential training in the M&E field
1= Less than 2 courses in planning or M&E generally where the
approach has been explicitly experiential and a product
produced
2= Run 2-3 courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach
has been explicitly experiential and a product produced
(minimum)
3= Run 3-4 courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach
has been explicitly experiential and a product produced
4= Run 5+ courses in planning or M&E generally where the approach has
been explicitly experiential and a product produced
TOTAL
5.
4
12
3
9
3
9
25
GENERAL
The consultants will report to Ms. Christel Jacob, Director of Evaluation, Outcomes Monitoring and Evaluation Branch,
DPME ([email protected]).
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 8
ANNEXURE B – PROPOSAL AND SERVICES OFFERED
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 9
ANNEXURE C – SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND PAST EXPERIENCE
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 10
ANNEXURE D – PRICING SCHEDULE
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 11
ANNEXURE E – TENDER DOCUMENTS
All documentation included in and referred to in the tender documentation pack (SBDs, tax clearance certificate, BBBEE certificate etc.) must be attached as Annexure E.
T11 2014 DPME SCM ToR Evaluation Training
Ver: 2014/07/05
Page 12