Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PROPOSALS FOR THE
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE 9th
EDF
REGIONAL INTEGRATION SUPPORT PROGRAMME AND
THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE 10th
EDF
REGIONAL INTEGRATION SUPPORT PROGRAMME CONTINUATION.
RFP NO. CS/21.11-11
November 2011
BACKGROUND
The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) is one of the 8 Regional
Economic Communities (REC) recognised by the Africa Union. It consists of nineteen
member States that have agreed to co-operate and promote regional integration through
trade and investment development resources for the mutual benefit of their peoples.
The mission of COMESA is to achieve, over the long term, sustainable economic and
social progress in member states through enhanced co-operation and integration in all
fields of development especially in trade, customs and monetary affairs, transport,
communications and information, technology, industry and energy, gender, agriculture,
environment and natural resources.
The 9th
EDF Regional Integration Support Programme (RISP1) has been implemented
from 22 July 2005 to 30 June 2010. It is a requirement that final evaluation of the
programme is carried out in order to assess the implementation of the programme achieved
its objectives The 10th
EDF Regional Integration Support Programme Continuation
(RISP2) runs from 01 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. It is a requirement that an interim review
of the programme is undertaken in order to aliment the design of a second phase of the
RISP2 programme under the 10th
EDF.
COMESA invites proposals from competent consultants to carry out the Evaluation. The
terms of Reference for the services required are contained in Annex 1.
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
1. ELIGIBILITY AND PROFILE OF CONSULTANTS
This consultancy is open to experts who have the nationality of one of the EU ACP
COMESA countries, who have qualifications and sufficient experience that match the
profiles indicated in the terms of reference.
Experts must provide their CVs.
2. LANGUAGE OF TENDER
The language of this tender shall be English.
The offers, all correspondence and documents related to the tender exchanged by the
bidder and the Contracting Authority must be written in English. Supporting documents
and printed literature furnished by the bidder may be in another language, provided they
are accompanied by a translation into the language of the tender. For the purposes of the
interpretation of the tender, the language of the tender will prevail.
3. PRICING
All prices MUST be indicated in USD. The financial offer must be presented in the format
outlined in Annex 5.
There will be no price variation after signing of contract except upon a mutually written
agreement between the two parties.
Prices must be exclusive of all taxes within Zambia only, since COMESA is exempted
from Taxes in the host Country, Zambia.
The maximum budget available for the services required is USD 200,000.
4. PAYMENT PERIOD
The period for payment shall be 30 days from certification of invoices and delivery of
services. Bidders are advised to indicate their payments terms.
5. VALIDITY OF THE BID
The Bid shall be valid for a period of 90 days after the closing date of this tender.
In exceptional cases, the Contracting Authority may ask the bidders to extend the validity
period for a specific number of days, which may not exceed 60.
6. CLOSING DATE OF TENDER
Tenders must be submitted to the COMESA Secretariat on or before 06 January 2012
16:00 hrs LUSAKA TIME.
Bids will be opened thereafter in the presence of bidders‟ representatives who choose to
attend.
It is the responsibility of the Bidder to ensure that the proposal is received by COMESA by
the above specified date and time.
7. SUBMISSION OF TENDER
Proposals should be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked “Tender for Final
Evaluation of RISP1 and Mid-Term Review of RISP2 Ref: No. CS/21.11.11”. Proposals
should be addressed to the address indicated below and shall be delivered by courier or by
hand to COMESA Secretariat before 06 January 2012 16:00 Hrs Lusaka Time.
THE CHAIRMAN
PROCUREMENT COMMITTEE
COMESA SECRETARIAT
BEN BELLA ROAD
P.O BOX 30051
LUSAKA,
ZAMBIA
Tel: 260 1 229725/ Fax 260 1 225107
Attention: Procurement Officer
Electronic Submissions or bids submitted through any other means will NOT be
accepted.
All tenders must have the tender name and reference number clearly marked on final
envelope that is used to send bid:
“TENDER FOR FINAL EVALUATION OF RISP1 and Mid-Term Review of RISP2
RFP NO. CS/21.01-11”
DO NOT OPEN BEFORE 6th
January 2012 AT 16.00 HOURS (Lusaka time).
8. NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED
The tender must comprise of a Technical offer and a financial offer and these must be
submitted in separate envelopes .Each Technical offer and financial offer must contain one
original, clearly marked "Original", and 2 copies, each marked "Copy".
All the costs involved in the preparation of Proposals responding to this RFP will be the
responsibility of the Bidder and shall not be reimbursed by COMESA.
9. ALTERATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF TENDERS
Bidders may alter or withdraw their bids by written notification prior to the deadline for
submission of tenders. No tender may be altered after this deadline.
Any such notice of alteration or withdrawal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance
with clause 7. The outer envelope and the relevant inner envelope must be marked
„Alteration‟ or „Withdrawal‟ as appropriate.
10. REJECTION OF BIDS
Any bid received by the Secretariat after the closing date and time shall be rejected.
11. TECHNICAL QUERIES
For any technical queries related to specifications of work or TOR, kindly contact
[email protected] with a copy to [email protected]
Clarifications to enquiries will be made available to all Bidders expressing interest in
responding to this RFP.
Bidders who intent to submit a bid should register with [email protected] to
enable us provide you with any clarifications or addendums.
Bidders may submit questions in writing to the above email addresses up to 15 days before
the deadline for submission of tenders, specifying the Tender title and Reference.
12. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND COMPARISON OF TENDERS
To assist in the examination, evaluation and comparison of Tenders, the Procurement
Committee may at its discretion, ask the Bidder for clarification of its Tender. The request
for clarification and the response shall be in writing and no change in price or substance of
the Tender shall be sought, offered or permitted.
The Procurement Committee will examine the Tenders to determine whether they are
complete, whether any computational errors have been made, whether the documents have
been properly signed, and whether the tenders are generally in order.
Arithmetical errors will be rectified on the following basis: If there is a discrepancy
between the unit price and the total price that is obtained by multiplying the unit price and
quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected. If the Bidder
does not accept the correction of errors, its Tender will be rejected. If there is a discrepancy
between words and figures the amount in words will prevail.
Prior to the detailed evaluation, the Procurement Committee will determine the substantial
responsiveness of each Tender to the Bidding document. For purposes of these Clauses, a
substantially responsive Tender is one, which conforms to all the terms and conditions of
the Bidding document without material deviations. The Procurement Committee‟s
determination of a Tender's responsiveness is based on the contents of the tender itself
without recourse to extrinsic evidence.
A Tender determined as not substantially responsive will be rejected by the Procurement
Committee and may not subsequently be made responsive by the Bidder by correction of
the, non-conformity.
Proposals may be judged to be non-responsive and removed from consideration if any of
the following occur:
The proposal is not received timely in accordance with the terms of the RFP
The Proposal does not follow the specified format
The Proposal is submitted by fax or email
CVs are not provided or where provided they are not certified by an authorised
individual.
A two stage procedure will be used in evaluating the Tenders, with evaluation of the
technical proposal being completed prior to any Financial Part of the tender being opened
and compared. The Financial Part of the tenders will be opened only for submissions that
will pass the minimum technical score of 70% of the obtainable score of 100 points in the
evaluation of the technical proposals.
In the Second Stage, the Financial Part of the tenders of all Bidders, who have attained the
minimum score of 70% in the technical evaluation, will be evaluated.
Bidders must provide both Technical and Financial proposals. The evaluation shall be
based on Quality and cost based selection system with the technical evaluation being given
a weight of 80% and the financial evaluation a weight of 20% as indicated below.
CRITERIA Marks
(MAX 80)
I. Understanding of the Terms of Reference
30 Marks
II. Adequacy of Approach and Methodology in responding to TOR
35 Marks
III. Education and Qualifications:
i) Key Expert (Team Leader) 10 Marks
ii) 2 Support Experts 5 Marks
15 Marks
IV Experience: i) Key Expert –General Professional Experience 5
Marks
- Specific Professional Experience 7
Marks
ii) 2 Support Experts: - General Prof. Experience
3 Marks
- Specific Prof. Experience 5
Marks
20 Marks
TOTAL TECHNICAL SCORE 100%
WEIGHTED TECHNICAL SCORE 80%
The proposals must be submitted with a cover letter signed by an authorized individual,
containing a confirmation that you have understood the Terms of Reference for this
assignment.
Only proposals that score 70% and above on the technical evaluation will qualify for
financial evaluation.
13. FINANCIAL EVALUATION
The financial evaluation will be carried out using the financial ratio formula:
Weight = 20 [(Lb) / (Bp)]
Where:
(Lb) is the lowest financial proposal
(Bp) is the amount of financial proposal of the bid
The lowest financial proposal (Lb) is be given a financial score of 20 points.
FINANCIAL
PROPOSAL
Marks
(max 20)
Proposal cost 100
Financial Proposal 20
Weighted Score
14. BEST EVALUATED TENDER
The best evaluated tender (BET) that will be recommended for the award of the contract
will be the one found to have the highest ranked bid with combined technical and financial
score.
15. AWARD OF CONTRACTS
COMESA reserves the right to wholly or partially reject or award this contract to any
bidder and has no obligation to award this tender to the lowest bidder.
16. NOTIFICATION OF AWARD
The successful bidder will be informed in writing that its tender has been accepted.
17. COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF WORK
The Assignment should commence the first week of February 2012. The duration is as
shown in the timetable in the Terms of Reference.
18. OWNERSHIP OF TENDERS
The Contracting Authority retains ownership of all tenders received under this Request for
Proposals. Consequently, bidders have no right to have their tenders returned to them.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY
Information relating to evaluation of proposals and recommendations concerning awards,
shall NOT be disclosed to the Bidders who submitted the proposals or to other persons not
officially concerned with the process, until the winning firm has been notified that it has
been awarded the contract.
20. CORRUPTION AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Any bidder who makes a deliberate attempt to influence the tendering process and award
of tender will be automatically disqualified.
21. CANCELLATION OF THE TENDER
In the event of cancellation of the tender, bidders will be notified in writing of the
cancellation by the contracting Authority and informed of the reasons for cancellation.
If the tender is cancelled before the outer envelope of any bid has been opened, the
unopened and sealed envelopes will be returned to the bidders.
22. LIST OF ANNEXES TO THE RFP
Annex 1 Terms of References
Annex 2 Format for Bid Submission Sheet (to be included in technical proposal)
Annex 3 Format (EC) for presentation of CV of Experts
Annex 4 Format for presentation of firm references
Annex 5 Format for submission of Financial Proposal
Annex 6 Format of COMESA Contract
Annex 7 Declaration of availability and exclusivity (signed by each expert)
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Background
The four (4) Regional Organisations (ROs)1 of the Eastern and Southern Africa and the
Indian Ocean (ESA-IO) region have implemented several projects and programmes aimed
at supporting their regional integration and cooperation agendas with the support of the
European Commission (EC), through the successive European Development Fund (EDF)
agreements. Until the 8th EDF, each RO had its own programme under the EDF. Starting
with the 9th EDF and with the establishment of the Inter-Regional Coordinating
Committee (IRCC) the ESA-IO ROs are implementing a joint RSP/RIP.
The Cotonou Agreement allows ROs with overlapping memberships, to participate in a
common RIP to ensure coherence, and to avoid duplication of efforts in projects and
programmes to be financed under the EDF. This approach is in line with the strategy to
promote and strengthen economic development and integration and co-operation amongst
the ACP countries.
As a result, COMESA, EAC, IGAD and IOC obtained the necessary mandate from their
Member States to prepare two (2) common Regional Strategy Papers (RSP), including
corresponding Regional Indicative Programmes (RIP) financed successively under the 9th
and the 10th
EDF. This joint approach adopted by the four ROs recognizes that the
programming, implementation, monitoring, review and evaluation of the ESA/IO regional
strategy and its programmes demands continuing co-ordination amongst the ROs and the
EC.
To assist the ROs in the execution of above mentioned tasks, an Inter-Regional Co-
ordinating Committee (IRCC) was established in 2002 under the authority of the respective
1 Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Eastern African Community (EAC), Indian
Ocean Commission (IOC) and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD)
Final Evaluation of the 9th EDF RISP 1 and the
Mid-term Review of the 10th EDF RISP Continuation (RISP 2)
Region Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean (ESA/IO)
Sector (as defined
in RSP/RIP)
Regional Economic Integration (DAC code: trade facilitation)
Project number FED/2005/193-318 and FED/2009/253-432
Chief Executives of COMESA, EAC, IGAD and IOC in their capacity as Regional
Authorising Officers (RAO). Currently, membership of the IRCC comprises COMESA,
EAC, IGAD and IOC, SADC2 and the EC. The ACP Secretariat and the African Union
Commission (AUC) are observer members of the IRCC. The IRCC was initially foreseen
for the programming of 9th
EDF resources but its responsibilities also included assistance
in monitoring the implementation of regional programmes funded under the 6th
, 7th
and 8th
EDF and later 10th
EDF.
The IRCC was therefore established as a coordination mechanism and as a forum for
dialogue amongst all participating stakeholders. To support its mandate, an IRCC
Secretariat has been established, whose function is to backstop the Committee in carrying
out coordination activities and to provide technical support to the ESA/IO ROs in
accessing the RIP resources and managing the projects through all the stages of the Project
Management Cycle (PCM). In January 2009 the IRCC ToRs were amended to include two
new pillars for the member ROs to collectively address issues of the wider regional
integration agenda and the regional dimension of aid effectiveness.
The key strategic documents underpinning the EU support to the ESA-IO region, also
defining the framework for the IRCC operations, include: (i) the EC Communication of 1
October 2008 on regional integration for development in ACP countries, (ii) the Joint
Africa-EU Strategy (JAES) adopted in December 2007, and its first Action Plan 2008-
2010, in relation to the area of „trade and regional integration‟; (iii) the EU Aid for Trade
Strategy (October 2007); (iv) the European Consensus on Development (December 2005),
notably on the link between trade and development, the support for regional integration
and cooperation and the importance of economic infrastructure; and (v) the EC
Communication of 13.10.2011 on 'increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an
agenda for change'.
Support to regional economic integration under the 9th EDF through COMESA was
provided mainly with the Regional Integration Support Programme (9th
EDF RISP 1), the
Regional Information and Communication, Technology Support Programme (RICTSP) and
the Regional Integration Support Mechanism (RISM). The 9th
EDF RISP 1 was
implemented from July 2005 to 30 June 2010 by COMESA and EAC. A Mid-term review
of the 9th
EDF was conducted in October-December 2008.
The programme has been continued under the 10th EDF with an expanded coverage to all
the four ESA-IO ROs (COMESA, EAC, IGAD and IOC). The 10th
EDF RISP runs from 1
July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The 10th EDF RISP is referred to as RISP Continuation or
RISP 2 in short. Funding for the two programmes is through Contribution Agreements
(CA) signed between the European Union (EU) and COMESA.
The Contribution Agreement has provision for a mid-term review (MTR) of the
programme and a final evaluation (FE) at the end of the programme. A MTR for RISP 1
was conducted in 2009 but the final evaluation has not been carried out.
Considering the need to conduct a Mid-term Review of the RISP 2 in early 2012,
COMESA and the EU Delegation in Lusaka have agreed to undertake both the final
2 Southern Africa Development Committee
evaluation of the 9th
EDF/RISP 1 and the Mid-term Review of 10th
EDF/RISP 2 as a single
exercise.
The Overall Objective of the RISP is to contribute to the Eastern and Southern Africa and
Indian Ocean (ESA-IO) region‟s integration process, by assisting the ROs to fulfil their
mandate and supporting their respective programmes to pursue the objective of regional
integration. More specifically, the Programme Purpose of the RISP 1 is to develop the
capacity of the Regional Integration Organizations (ROs) and their member states in policy
formulation, implementation and monitoring of the regional integration agenda as well as
multilateral and regional trade. Two ROs, COMESA and EAC and the respective member
states, are the primary beneficiaries of the RISP. Treaties establishing the IOC and IGAD
provide for integration mandates as well, but these are achieved through, respectively, a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and a Protocol with COMESA whereby IOC and
IGAD support the implementation of the COMESA integration agenda.
The RISP 2 purpose is to develop the capacity of the ROs and their member states in policy
formulation, implementation and monitoring of the regional integration agenda as well as
multilateral and regional trade. RISP 1 focused on 9 Results Areas that are listed in
Appendix I while RISP 2 focuses on 7 Results Areas as presented in Appendix II.
2. Evaluation Objectives
The final evaluation (FE) of the 9th
EDF/RISP 1 and the Mid-term Review (MTR) of the
10th
EDF/RISP 2 are to be conducted as a single exercise. They are undertaken as a legal
requirement of the CA. The purpose of the FE and MTR is to review the actual state of
affairs regarding the implementation of the CA, record achievements, identify possible
bottlenecks and problems, and formulate recommendations for improvement and
adjustment.
The evaluation is to be conducted at two levels: the first level as final evaluation of the
RISP 1 and a mid-term evaluation of RISP 2; and the second as an evaluation of the
use of the CA as an aid-delivery instrument between the partners.
The expected results of the evaluation are:
- Expected Result 1: Assist the beneficiaries (ROs and their Member States) and
their development partners (EU and EU Member States) to develop a motivated
and critical opinion of the RISP 1 and 2. Focus should be on consultations with
stakeholders and relevant representatives to review relevance and quality of
design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the RISPs by
using wider and specific objectives, results, means and risks/assumptions as
mentioned in the CA and other programme/project documentation.
- Expected Result 2: Assist to re-orient the activities of the RISP 2, if necessary,
in the coming years. Tasks should include, inter alia, briefing/debriefing
sessions, presentation of results, participatory approach, communication and
step-by-step validation as well as a regional validation workshop to be held
after the field missions.
- Expected Result 3: Make recommendations for future programmes in support
of regional integration under the EDF as well, as from Aid for Trade
instruments. The FE and MTR report is aimed at providing the ROs and the EC
with a basis for making more effective and relevant cooperation programmes.
Specific recommendations will be made for a RISP follow up programme
and/or possible time of the current programme.
- Expected Result 4: Assess the use and effectiveness of the CA as an aid-
delivery instrument and to make recommendations on the improvement of the
CA as a preferred aid delivery tool in the context of ROs – EC collaboration.
Main focus is to analyse implementation and management of the CA and
summarize the current situation of the programme in a SWOT analysis that
highlights issues requiring attention in order to make the CA a more effective
aid delivery mechanism.
The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the present ToR, within the
framework of the guidelines for evaluations in the European Commission‟s external co-
operation programmes which can be obtained from the EU website, at:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/index_en.htm
3. Issues to be studied
The specified issues of Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact, Sustainability and
Aid Effectiveness (Paris Declaration) are intended to be indicative, not exclusive and
may be expanded by the consultants if this will contribute to the richness of the evaluation.
The evaluation team should also duly consider actual programme components that might
not have been explicitly identified in the design stage, but that have been supported
through the RISPs successive annual work plans. Examples (not limitative) for
consideration by the evaluators would be RISP‟s contribution to programming and
coordination of external assistance to the RECs, including under the Aid for Trade
initiatives taken by the donor community; the RISP‟s role in inter-REC coordination and
harmonization, etc.
a) Relevance
The evaluation should assess whether:
the problems were correctly identified in the RISP‟s design,
the stated objectives provided an appropriate framework for the guidance of the
programme activities,
lessons learned from RISP 1(including RISP 1 MTR) were considered for RISP 2,
the contributions of ROs and Member States in the RISP design, and the impact
this might have had on the RISP contents and implementation.
the logframe matrix was clear and logic
the RISP activities, as planned in successive annual work plans, have been
responsive to the evolving needs of the beneficiaries, whereas beneficiaries are
understood to be the ROs and their Members States, including their private sectors
and their civil society representatives.
the beneficiaries who were identified were appropriate, and remain relevant.
the coherence of the programme was ensured with the overall strategy and annual
work programme of the regional organisations, in particular its coherence and
complementarity with other activities of the beneficiaries and those of other actors
in the region.
the assumptions given in the Contribution Agreement, as well as in the successive
annual work plans, were valid; how the programme ensured that assumptions were
monitored and how the programme has remained responsive (annual work plans)
to changes in the economic and social environment, such as (list is not limitative,
indicative only) the recent developments in the context of the Economic
Partnership Agreements (EPA) negotiation processes in the ESA-IO region, the
introduction of Aid for Trade initiatives, the importance of donor co-ordination,
the increasing urgency for deeper inter-RO co-ordination to contribute to the
ultimate goals of African integration.
an adequate monitoring and evaluation system was established
cross-cutting issues, in particular environment, gender and HIV Aids were
considered during the design of the projects.
b) Effectiveness
The evaluation should assess:
the extent to which the expected results of the RISP have been/are being achieved,
and if the RISP programme has been an effective contributor to the advancement
of economic integration and cooperation within the ESA-IO region. The evaluation
should outline, if necessary, what remedial measures can be recommended.
whether or not ROs have established the required RISP implementation
monitoring mechanism as provided for in the CA. The evaluation team will, if
necessary, elaborate recommendations to systematise monitoring of RISP
implementation, at COMESA, at EAC, at IGAD, at IOC and jointly.
Whether RISP 1 MTR recommendations were followed.
If assumptions and risk assessment at result level turned out to be inadequate or
invalid, or unforeseen factors intervened, how management adapted to ensure
achievement of purpose;
Whether balance of responsibilities between the various ROs was appropriate and
involvement and follow up of Member States adequate.
Whether shortcomings at this level were due to failure to take into account cross-
cutting issues.
c) Efficiency:
The evaluation should assess:
The quality of the day-to-day management in various ROs (budget, personnel,
reporting etc..) and in particular in COMESA, as the Signatory of the Contribution
Agreement
The cost and value for money: were the costs justified by the benefits?
The day-to-day coordination between ROs (efficiency of the Steering Committee
meetings)
The quality of the monitoring
d) Impact
In particular for RISP 1, the evaluation will assess to what extent the overall objective has
been achieved and what are the wider effects of the programme (RO Secretariats, Member
States, private sector and civil societies in RO member states)? In particular, was economic
integration of Member States facilitated by RISP?
The evaluation will very specifically consider the institutional development impact of the
programme, i.e. the extent to which RISP, and specifically the contribution agreement as
aid delivery instrument, will have initiated change processes and therefore improved upon
the overall capacity of ROs to define and to implement their respective integration
mandates and agendas.
Issues of particular interest will be to what extent RISP has contributed to implement
recommendations made in the respective institutional diagnostics of ROs, particularly in
areas such as the enhancement of processes of strategic planning and programming,
results-based management, financial management and control systems, procurement,
internal audit etc.
The evaluation will also consider the programme‟s possible contribution in areas not
considered during the design stage (e.g. donor coordination, aid for trade, inter-RO
coordination, EDF programming, operationalisation of the COMESA Fund Adjustment
Facility, preparatory studies for the EAC Development Fund).
e) Sustainability
The evaluation should assess the sustainability of the programme achievements after its
conclusion, i.e. the likelihood that the benefits of RISP-funded activities will be maintained
or exceeded beyond the RISP‟s planned lifespan. The evaluation will thereto specifically
address the issue of the complementarity of the external resources (9th
and 10th
EDF) with
the REC‟s own budget resources. EAC and, mainly, COMESA have recruited a
considerable number of staff through the RISP 1. The evaluators should assess the
sustainability of these recruitments, as well as the accompanying HRD (Human Resource
Development) measures taken or being proposed.
The evaluation should consider the measures that have been taken to ensure the ownership
of the programme by beneficiary ROs, including through continuous monitoring of RISP
implementation.
The evaluation should assess the institutional and management capacity building activities
by the beneficiaries (RO Secretariats and their Member States) to assure long-term benefits
for regional integration . To this effect the evaluation should, among others, consider the
extent to which the ROs have effectively implemented the recommendations of the
institutional diagnostics that were undertaken to assess their CA-eligibility (COMESA
during 2004/2005 and 2009; for EAC during 2005/2007).
The evaluation will finally address the specific context of RO coordination within the
framework of RISP implementation (COMESA being the sole RO-signatory of the RISP)
and the specific challenges posed to RISP implementation by the fact that EAC was not
CA-eligible when RISP implementation started. The evaluation will assess the
sustainability (and effectiveness) of the RISP management structure (RISP coordinator,
IRCC acting as RISP Steering Committee, RISP Monitoring mechanisms) and make
recommendations for last phase of RISP implementation, taking into consideration the fact
that in 2012 the EC might declare EAC, IGAD and/or IOC to be eligible to implement
EDF programmes through CA.
f) RISP contribution to aid effectiveness (Paris Declaration)
A sixth key evaluation criterion to be addressed in this evaluation is directly related to the
aid delivery mechanism that was chosen for RISP, and to the 2005 Paris Declaration on
Aid Effectiveness to which COMESA, EAC, the EC and EU Member States have
subscribed. This concerns more specifically the extent that the principle of alignment has
effectively been met, both at policy level, as well as in the use of the ROs own systems and
procedures.
Questions to be addressed would include:
- Has RISP contributed to increased donors‟ (EC and others, especially EU Member States)
use of the ROs own development strategies as the reference framework for planning and
programming external assistance?
- Has RISP contributed to assistance programming being more aligned with ROs internal
budget cycle?
- Has RISP contributed to assistance being provided in a more predictable way and has it
been timely disbursed?
- Has support been delivered using RO systems and procedures?
The evaluation team will make recommendations how to further improve coordination
among the different (potential) donors in the implementation of RISP in particular and the
ESA regional integration agendas in general. ROs expect that this part of the evaluation
will support their contributions to the ongoing debates on Aid for Trade and Aid
Effectiveness.
4. Methodology
In its proposal, the bidder is expected to present a methodology for carrying out the
assignment, and to demonstrate adequate understanding of the present ToR. It is
essential to demonstrate that the evaluation is to be conducted at two levels: the first
level as a final evaluation of the RISP 1 and mid-term review of RISP 2 as
programmes; and the second as an evaluation of the use of the CA as an aid-delivery
instrument between the partners.
The methodology should include a step by step description of the means and ways of
achieving the objectives of the evaluation, the tools to be used in the collection of data
and their analysis.
The RISP evaluation will be undertaken in all its technical, administrative and financial
aspects, by a team of independent consultants. The evaluation team will:
- Study the basis documents relevant to the RISP and listed in the ToR
- Interview RISP actors at ROs and at the EU (Brussels: EEAS, DEVCO,
DGTRADE and other relevant EU services including EUROSTAT and EU
Delegations in the various countries to be visited on field missions)
- Interview stakeholders in the selected Member States and RO Secretariats
countries
- Analyse data collected and present preliminary findings, conclusions and
recommendations
- Validate findings, conclusions and recommendations during a regional
workshop for Member States and RO officials and EU officials
- Finalise findings, conclusions and recommendations, incorporating the
feedback received at the validation workshop
The FE and MTR of RISP 1 and 2 will consist of:
- Home base desk research and preparation of Inception Report
- Travel for interviews in Brussels
- Travel for several field missions to various East and Southern Africa (ESA)
countries, to include consultations with the EU Delegations, COMESA, EAC,
IGAD and IOC Secretariats and a wide range of public and private sector and
civil society representatives in those countries. The targeted countries are six
(6): Zambia, Tanzania, Djibouti, Mauritius, Ethiopia, and Kenya
- Travel for regional Validation Workshop to be held in Lusaka, Zambia, prior to
the completion of the FE and MTR Draft Report
- Home base preparation of a Draft Report to be presented at the Validation
Workshop and to be commented on by participants. This Draft Report serves as
the basis for the input and recommendations to be used in preparing the Final
Report
- Home base preparation of Final Report based on inputs and feedback from the
concerned RO‟s
The consultants‟ approach should comprise a strong organizational dimension related to
change management and dealt with knowledge management processes in complex
organisations. A combined approach should be used based on both evaluation procedures,
e.g. in accordance with the OECD/DAC3, and on a participatory process approach
integrating other stakeholders throughout the work, as described in the work plan. This
participatory approach will allow for timely step-by-step validation and inclusion of
considerations during the evaluation.
The following five (5) Methodological Components should be incorporated into the
proposed work plan:
- Structuring of the evaluation
- Data collection
- Analysis
- Conclusion and recommendations
- Dissemination and feedback
The proposed work plan needs to include:
- List of interviewees and stakeholders during the field missions to the countries
and the RO‟s (to be coordinated with the RO‟s and EC)
- List of questions to be used in the interviews to assess the impact of the RISP‟s
and to serve as tools for critical assessment of progress made during the
implementation of the programme
- Outline/structure of validation workshop
3 Guidelines for evaluations in the EC external co-operation programmes:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/evaluation/methodology/index_en.htm
- Proposed timeframe/calendar of the evaluation
The overall methodology to review the RISP is to be based on the Project Cycle
Management (PCM) methodology as used by the EU.
For methodological guidance refer to the DG DEVCO:
- Evaluation methodology website:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/methodology/index_en.htm
-„‟Aid Delivery Methods‟, Volume 1 „Project Cycle Management Guidelines (EuropeAid,
March 2004)
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/practical_guide/index_en.ht
m
- Environmental integration handbook for EC Development Co-operation:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/4a_en.htm
- Toolkit on mainstreaming gender equality in EC development cooperation:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sp/gender-toolkit/index.htm
1. Desk Phase – Inception
In the inception stage of the Desk Phase, the relevant programming documents should be
reviewed, as well as documents shaping the wider strategy/policy framework. The
evaluation team will then analyse the logical framework as set up at the beginning of the
project/programme cycle. The relevant programming documents should also be reviewed,
as well as documents shaping the wider strategy/policy framework. On the basis of the
information collected the evaluation team should:
Review systematically the relevant available documents.
Present an indicative methodology to the overall assessment of the
project/programme.
Present the COMESA management team as RAO with evaluation questions stating
the information already gathered and their limitations, provide a first partial answer
to the question, identify the issues still to be covered and the assumptions still to be
tested, and describe a full method to answer the question.
Propose the work plan and confirm the final calendar schedule.
Identify and present the list of tools to be applied in the Field Phase;
List all preparatory steps already taken for the Field Phase.
Prepare an Inception Report
2. Field Phase – Travel Missions to Brussels, Zambia, and ESA-IO Member States
The Field Phase should start upon approval of the Desk Phase report by COMESA. The
evaluation team should:
Submit its detailed work plan with an indicative list of people to be interviewed,
surveys to be undertaken, dates of visit, itinerary, and name of team members in
charge. This plan has to be applied in a way that is flexible enough to accommodate
for any last-minute difficulties in the field. If any significant deviation from the
agreed work plan or schedule is perceived as creating a risk for the quality of the
evaluation, these should be immediately discussed with the evaluation manager.
Interview the COMESA management team as RAO, the EC services in Brussels,
the EEAS and the EU Delegation in Zambia.
Hold a briefing meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, with COMESA as RAO of the project
and the EU Zambia Delegation in the first days of the field phase.
Ensure adequate contact and consultation with, and involvement of, the different
stakeholders; working closely with the relevant regional organisations during their
entire assignment. Use the most reliable and appropriate sources of information and
harmonise data from different sources to allow ready interpretation.
Summarise its field works at the end of the field phase, discuss the reliability and
coverage of data collection, and present its preliminary findings in a meeting with
COMESA as RAO of the project and the EU Zambia Delegation. This preliminary
finding meeting should be followed by a consultation meeting with IGAD, IOC,
EAC and the EU Delegations in Tanzania, Djibouti and Mauritius through a video-
conference facilitated by the EU Delegation to Zambia.
3. Validation Workshop
After home base time for preparing the Draft Report, the evaluation team will make its
presentation during a regional validation workshop in the ESA/IO region (COMESA to
determine location). The purpose of the Workshop is to present the Draft Report to the
main stakeholders (RO's and EU Regional Delegations), to check the factual basis of the
evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions and recommendations.
On the basis of comments and discussions, inputs, and recommendations made by
participants at the workshop, the evaluation team will return to home base to write the
Final Report incorporating comments and suggestions from all stakeholders and
counterparts.
4. Report Phase
This phase is mainly devoted to the preparation of the Draft Report after the Field Phase
and the Final Report after the Validation Workshop. The consultants will make sure that:
Their assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable,
and recommendations realistic.
When drafting the report, they will acknowledge clearly where changes in the
desired direction are known to be already taking place, in order to avoid misleading
readers and causing unnecessary irritation or offence.
After the Validation Workshop and on the basis of comments and inputs from the RO and
EU counterparts and stakeholders the evaluation team has to amend and revise the Draft
Report and prepare a Final Report for submission. Comments requesting methodological
quality improvements should be taken into account, except where there is a demonstrated
impossibility, in which case full justification should be provided by the evaluation team.
Comments on the substance of the report may be either accepted or rejected. In the latter
instance, the evaluation team is to motivate and explain the reasons in writing.
5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The reports must match quality standards. The text of the report should be illustrated, as
appropriate, with maps, graphs and tables.. The quality of the final report will be assessed
by COMESA as Contracting Authority and RAO. The consultant team will submit the
following reports in English:
1. Inception Report (of maximum 10 pages) to be produced after two (2) calendar weeks
from the start of the consultant services. In the report the consultant shall describe the
detailed work plan and methodology, first findings based on preliminary readings of
programme documentation and preparatory communications and contacts with
counterparts and stakeholders, the foreseen difficulties in collecting data, other
encountered and/or foreseen difficulties in addition to the programme of work and
mobilization plans/calendar. This report will serve as a guideline for the initial briefings
with the RO‟s and the respective EU Delegations.
2. Draft Report (of maximum 50 pages excluding annexes) to be prepared after the Field
Missions and before the Validation Workshop. Besides answering the evaluation questions,
the Draft Report should summarise main findings, conclusions and recommendations into
an overall assessment of the project/programme. The Draft Report should be presented
three (3) calendar weeks after the Field Missions and at least two (2) weeks before the
Validation Workshop.
3. Final Report (of maximum 50 pages excluding annexes) building on the Draft Report
and incorporating all inputs, comments, suggestions, revisions, etc. from the Validation
Workshop and all counterparts and stakeholders. The Final Report should be presented
within two (2) calendar weeks from the Validation Workshop and the receipt of comments
and inputs. If no comments are received within three (3) weeks, the draft Final Report will
be deemed to have been accepted as the Final Report. COMESA as RAO will coordinate
the collection of comments and liaison with the evaluation team.
Distribution of all three (3) reports in each phase to be in paper and electronic version to
COMESA as RAO for subsequent distribution to all other parties.
6. EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation team will be composed of three (3) experts:
One (1) Key Expert/Team Leader : 68 work days + 13 travel days
Two (2) Support Experts : 136 work days + 26 travel days
The composition of the team of experts should be balanced to enable complete coverage of
the different aspects of project evaluation (evaluation methods and techniques) as set out in
these terms of reference, including cross-cutting issues.
Expert 1 - Team leader, Regional Integration Expert
Advanced degree in Economics, Political Sciences, Law, or related fields
Recent experience (past 10 years) in regional economic integration policies and
issues
Demonstrated and recent experience (past five year) as a team leader in programme
and project Evaluation and Monitoring
Demonstrated knowledge of the Cotonou Agreement and EDF implementation
Demonstrated knowledge of the EC Project Cycle Management
Experience in the design, implementation or evaluation of regional strategies and
programmes
At least ten (10) years experience in the ESA-IO region
Expert 2 – Programme Management expert
Advanced degree in Economics, Political Sciences, Law, or related fields
Recent experience (past 10 years) in regional economic integration policies and
issues
Recent experience (past 10 years) in programme and project Design, Evaluation
and Monitoring
Demonstrated knowledge of the Cotonou Agreement and EDF implementation
Demonstrated knowledge of the EC Project Cycle Management
Experience in the design, implementation or evaluation of regional strategies and
programmes
At least five (5) years experience in the ESA-IO region
Expert 3 – Institutional assessment, system and processes analysis
Advanced degree in Administration, Political Sciences, Law, or related fields
Recent experience (past 10 years) in institutional and organisational assessment of
intergovernmental organisations
Experience in different aspects Evaluation and Monitoring of Programmes
Contract and finance management knowledge and experience
Demonstrated knowledge of the EC Project Cycle Management
At least five (5) years experience in the ESA-IO region
Common features: All three (3) experts will have excellent analytical, conceptual, and
reporting skills, as well as perfect command of English, the working language of the
assignment. Knowledge of French will be an added advantage.
Specific features: One of the experts will have knowledge and experience in
mainstreaming and monitoring gender, HIV AIDS and environment in complex
programmes.
7. Work plan and timetable
The dates mentioned in the table may be changed with the agreement of all parties
concerned.
The indicative starting date of the assignment is 01 February 2012. The foreseen duration
of the assignment is a total of five (5) calendar months (approx. 22 weeks) and 243 person-
days (204 work days and 39 travel days). The table below describes the activities, location
and duration of the assignment. The deadline for submission of the Final Report is 30 June
2012.
- Starting period: Performance should start no later than two (2) calendar weeks after the
signature of the contract.
- Duration: The total duration of the contract will be carried out over a period estimated at
twenty-two (22) calendar weeks from the start date.
- Planning and locations: The consultant team will, in their proposal, submit a detailed
work plan and proposed list of countries and institutions to visit. COMESA and the other
RO‟s and national governments will, before the start of the mission, assist the team with
the provision of detailed contact names and addresses and support/coordination of
meetings.
Activity Location Expert 1 –
Team Leader
(Working
days)
Expert 2
(Working days)
Expert 3
(Working days)
Desk research and analysis of all
documentation, preparation of
Inception Report, workplan and
calendar timetable, and submit to
COMESA
Home Base 10 10 10
Travel to Brussels 1 1 1
EC debrief meetings with
counterparts and stakeholders, e.g.
DEVCO, EEAS, DG TRADE, etc.
Brussels 3 3 3
Travel to Lusaka, Zambia 2 2 2
Briefings and Interviews @
COMESA, EU Delegation and
National Authorities and
organizations
Lusaka 5 5 5
Travel to Arusha, Tanzania 1 1 1
Briefings and Interviews @ EAC,
EU Delegation and National
Authorities and organizations
Arusha 5 5 5
Travel to Djibouti 1 1 1
Briefings and Interviews @
IGAD, EU Delegation and
National Authorities and
organizations
Djibouti 2 2 2
Travel to Mauritius 1 1 1
Briefings and Interviews @ IOC,
EU Delegation and National
Authorities and organizations
Mauritius 2 2 2
Travel to Nairobi, Kenya 1 1 1
Briefings and Interviews EC
Delegation and National
Authorities and organizations
Nairobi 5 5 5
Travel to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 1 1 1
Briefings and Interviews @ EU
Delegation and National
Authorities and organizations
Addis Ababa 4 4 4
Travel to Home Base 1 1 1
Preparation of Draft Report based
on field missions for presentation
to Validation Workshop; submit to
COMESA
Home Base 15 15 15
Travel to Lusaka 1 1 1
Validation Workshop with RO
and EU counterparts from region
Lusaka 2 2 2
Travel to Home Base 1 1 1
Preparation of Final Report based
on inputs, comments and
recommendations from Validation
Workshop and others from
counterparts and stakeholders in
region
Home Base 10 10 10
Submission of Final Report to
COMESA for review and
comments by ROs and EU
Home Base - - -
Implementation of final edits,
adjustments, corrections to Final
Report as requested by ROs and
EU, as required
Home Base 3 3 3
TOTAL (Work/Travel)
204/39 = 243
68/13
68/13
68/13
APPENDIX I: RISP 1 RESULT AREAS
1. Regional Integration
- Implementation of the COMESA Customs Union Roadmap, the other ROs Customs
Unions, and consolidation and expansion of the COMESA Free Trade Area
- Implementation of CET, CMA, RoO, set up/strengthen administrative systems for CU at
Secretariat and member state levels, consolidation of the FTA, and harmonisation of ROs
CET and RoO instruments
- Implementation and harmonisation of competition policies and instruments
- Design and implementation of instruments for joint RO monitoring of regional
integration performance
- Strengthening involvement of private sectors in regional integration processes
2. Trade Negotiations
- Improved trade negotiating capacities in ESA member States; the negotiation of a pro-
ESA EPA being implemented by the end of the project period
- Development and implementation of trade related negotiation capacity building
programmes in RO Secretariats and in their Member States
- Progress towards joint RO negotiations positions in EPA, WTO, other trade arrangements
3. Standards and SPS
- Development of capacities to develop standards and meet SPS requirements
- Establishment and harmonisation standards (SQMT) among RO member States
- Development of capacities in member states to monitor and implement WTO and other
international obligations on TB and SPS obligations
4. Statistics
- Improved and harmonised production of statistical data and improved capacities at the
national statistical bureaux and in the regional organisations; improved capacity in Member
States to undertake trade policy impact analysis
- Harmonisation of RO statistical programmes
5. National structures for trade and integration
- A system of harmonising and co-ordinating regional programmes and policies at the
national level put in place, improving effectiveness of regional programmes and reducing
duplication
- Strengthening or establishment and support to national structures in RO Member States
responsible for trade negotiations and regional integration
6. Monetary and Fiscal
- Strengthening of monetary and fiscal policy co-operation
- Harmonisation of monetary and fiscal policies
- Establishment of regional payment settlement systems
7. Tax policies
- Improved tax policy and capital market harmonisation
- Lay policy ground for better fiscal performance in RO Member States
8. Institutions
- Co-ordination of RISP implementation and Institutional Capacity Building for the RO
Secretariats
- Implementation of recommendations of RO institutional diagnostics in bringing about
process changes on planning, programming, financial management, procurement etc.
- Management capacity building for RO staff
- RISP implementation structures, management and monitoring
- Effectiveness in coordination of all stakeholders (ROs, donor community, etc.)
9. Transport strategy
- Develop and implement a Transport and Communication Strategy, a Priority Investment
Programme and Programme Finance Facility
- Progress in preparation of TCS, PIP and PFF
APPENDIX II: RISP 2 RESULT AREAS
1. Regional policies and regulations for the implementation of the regional integration
mandates and agenda are designed and/or adjusted
- Design and adjust policies and regulations which govern the COMESA Free Trade
Area; COMESA Customs Union; COMESA Common Market (by 2014) and
Monetary Union (by 2018)
- Design and adjust policies and regulations which govern EAC Customs Union;
EAC Common Market (by 2010) and Monetary Union (by 2015)
- Through the IOC, support the inclusion of the Islands States‟ specificities in the
COMESA agenda
- Support to the initiatives of the Tripartite process to harmonise and rationalise the
regional integration agenda of the ESA-IO region
2. Trade development, trade facilitation instruments and strategic, regulatory and
technical preparatory works of trade related infrastructure designed and/or adjusted
- Support the ROs in designing, adjusting, and facilitating the implementation,
harmonisation and rationalisation of trade development policies and instrument
- Facilitate the design and implementation of harmonised trade related infrastructures
in transport, ICT and energy
- Develop regional sector strategies aimed at building capacities to promote
investments in prioritised sectors
3. Regional institutions established and strengthened to implement and monitor
regional policies and regulations, including institutions that service private sector
at regional level
- Establishment and/or strengthening of regional institutions and public sector
institutions related to the implementation of the regional integration agenda of the
regional organisations (FTA, CU, CM, MU)
- Strengthen the capacities of private sector organisations to formulate, implement
and monitor private sector interests in relation to the regional integration agenda of
the ESA-IO region
- Support the establishment of the institutional framework under the Tripartite
process
4. Management capacities of the ROs improved to meet international recognised
standards of governance.
- To provide support for capacity building in business processes of COMESA, EAC,
IGAD and IOC Secretariats to achieve and maintain internationally recognised
standards of corporate governance. In particular the programme will identify the
capacity building needs in the business process of the RECs and will focus on
Human Resource Development, planning and programming, monitoring, legal
services, IT as well as finance and budgeting and administration, including
procurement and recruitment.
5. Member/Partner States capacity to address trade related issues and to implement
their trade liberalisation and regional integration commitments is enhanced
- Support national initiatives to improve policy coherence at national and regional
levels
- Support Member/Partner States in implementing their regional integration and
global trade arrangement commitments
- Support to enhance regional dimension in national initiatives on donor coordination
in respect of trade liberalisation and integration
- Support national stakeholders fora to identify and maximise opportunities under
multilateral trading arrangements (EPA, WTO)
6. Capacity of the region to negotiate and implement multilateral trade agreements is
enhanced
- Facilitate preparation of common positions on multilateral and bilateral trade
negotiations (WTO/DDA, AGOA, etc.)
- An ESA-IO Negotiating Mechanism for trade and economic relations with all third
countries will be established to assist in building the capacity of Member/Partner
States in the preparation of common positions on multilateral and bilateral trade
negotiations.
7. Management, Coordination and Monitoring of the programme
- A regional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework will be established under
this result area and will be used to monitor the impact of the various trade agreements
ANNEX III: INDICATIVE EVALUATIONS QUESTIONS
1. Relevance a. Were the problems correctly identified in the design of the RISP?
b. Were the beneficiaries correctly identified during the design of the programme?
c. Are the beneficiaries still relevant?
d. Did the stated objectives provide an appropriate framework for the guidance of
the programme objectives?
e. What was the contribution of COMESA and other ROs in the design of the
RISP?
f. What impact did the contribution of COMESA and ROs have on the contents of
the RISP contents and implementation?
g. Were the problems identified during the design of the programme still relevant?
h. Have the RISP activities as planned in the successive annual work plans been
responsive to the evolving needs of the beneficiaries?
i. Has the RISP been coherent with the overall strategy and AWPs of COMESA
and ROs?
j. How has the programme complimented the activities of other actors? (e.g.
Check to what extent Result 3 has been implemented through AMPRIP
programme rather than through RISP)
k. How have other programmes supported by the EC such as SQAM with SADC
complimented RISP?
l. Are the assumptions given in the CA as well as successive AWP still valid and
how did the programme monitor the assumptions?
m. Has the programme remained responsive to changes in the economic and social
environment? (e.g. recent developments in the context of EPA negotiation
processes in the ESA, other RO‟S and IOC region, introduction of Aid for
Trade initiatives, importance of donor coordination and increasing urgency of
deeper inter-RO-coordination)
n. Has the original LFM been revised and been regularly updated?
o. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
2. Effectiveness a. What has been the progress made on other ROs of the nine key result areas in
RISP1 and the seven in RISP2? (Other ROs result area and the associated
activities to be reviewed in terms of progress made so far.)
b. Has the RISP been an effective contributor to the advancement of economic
integration and cooperation within the Southern and Eastern African and Indian
Ocean region and should any remedial action be taken?
c. Have COMESA and other ROs established the required RISP implementation
monitoring mechanism as provided for in the CA?
d. How could the joint monitoring of RISP implementation at COMESA and other
RO‟S be institutionalized?
e. How have the ROs and COMESA relationship worked in the context of
implementation of the MoU between the organisations?
f. Has usage of the COMESA rules been effective in the implementation of the
CA and how do they compare with other rules?
g. What role has the IRCC played and how effective has it been?
h. To what extent are national players aware of RISP and taking advantage of the
benefits of the programme?
i. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
3. Efficiency a. Were resources by all the cooperating partners to implement the programme
provided on a timely manner?
b. Have the programme‟s objectives been achieved without using more
financial, human resources than necessary?
c. Have the financial resources that were budgeted for in the AWP been used
if there was a variance what was the reason?
d. How can results be achieved more cost effectively in the future?
e. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken
into consideration during implementation of the programme?
4. Impact a. What are the unplanned positive and negative effects of the programme?
b. To what extent did the RISP and in particular the CA initiate change processes
in the overall capacity of COMESA and other RO‟S especially related to
enhancement of strategic planning and programming, results based management,
financial management and control systems, procurement, internal audit?
c. Has the programme made any contribution to other areas, which were not
specifically covered during the design stage such as (donor coordination, aid for
trade, inter RO coordination, EDF programming, operationalisation of the
COMESA Fund Adjustment Facility)?
d. How does the RISP feed into the regional integration forum?
e. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
5. Sustainability a. What is the likelihood that the achievements of the programme will be sustained
long after the end of the programme?
b. To what extent has there been complementarity between external resources (9th
and
10th
EDF) with the RECs own budget resources?
c. What is the potential sustainability of the Human Resources Development Plans of
both COMESA and other ROs in the personnel recruited through the RISP?
d. Do the beneficiaries now possess institutional and management capacities to assure
long-term benefits of the programme?
e. To what extent have COMESA and ROs implemented the recommendations of the
institutional diagnostics that were undertaken to assess CA-eligibility?
f. How effective and sustainable is the COMESA-RO coordination?
g. How sustainable is the current RISP management structure especially in the light of
the fact that other ROs might be declared to be CA-eligible?
h. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
6. RISP contribution to aid effectiveness (Paris Declaration) a. Has the RISP contributed to increased donors‟ (EC and others especially EU
Member States) use of COMESA and other ROs own development strategies as the
reference framework for planning and programming external assistance?
b. Has RISP contributed to assistance programming being more aligned with
COMESA and ROs internal budget cycle?
c. Has RISP contributed to assistance being provided in a more predictable way and
has it been timely disbursed?
d. Has support been delivered using COMESA and ROs systems and procedures?
e. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
7. Cross Cutting Issues a. How has the programme addressed cross cutting issues like gender equity,
appropriate technology, and environment, HIV/AIDS?
b. Has the RISP responded to global developments including the changing attitude
towards development aid?
c. Have the reports of previous evaluations or internal monitoring been taken into
consideration during implementation of the programme?
8. Assessment of the CA a. To what extent has the CA promoted the issue of ownership?
b. Has the CA contributed to the overall efficiency of implementation of donor
programmes?
c. Has effectiveness been enhanced through the implementation of the CA?
d. Has accountability and sustainability been addressed through the CA?
e. Has the CA resolved the involvement/perception of the EC Delegation in the
micromanagement of programmes/projects?
f. What are the overall lessons learnt in the implementation of the CA?
ANNEX IV: LAYOUT, STRUCTURE OF THE FINAL REPORT
The final report should not be longer than approximately 50 pages. Additional information
on overall context, programme or aspects of methodology and analysis should be confined
to annexes.
The cover page of the report shall carry the following text:
„‟ This evaluation is supported and guided by the European Commission and presented by
[name of consulting firm]. The report does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of
the European Commission‟‟.
The main sections of the evaluation report are as follows:
1. Executive Summary A tightly-drafted, to-the-point and free-standing Executive Summary is an essential
component. It should be short, no more than five pages. It should focus mainly on the key
purpose or issues of the evaluation, outline the main analytical points, and clearly indicate
the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Cross-references
should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that
follows.
2. Introduction/Methodology A description of the project/programme and the evaluation, providing the reader with
sufficient methodological explanations to gauge the credibility of the conclusions and to
acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant.
3. Analysis & Findings A chapter presenting the evaluation questions and conclusive answers, together with
evidence and reasoning.
The organization of the report should be made around the responses to the Evaluation
questions which are systematically covering the DAC evaluation criteria: relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, plus coherence and added value
specific to the Commission. In such an approach, the criteria will be translated into specific
questions. These questions are intended to give a more precise and accessible form to the
evaluation criteria and to articulate the key issues of concern to stakeholders, thus
optimising the focus and utility of the evaluation.
3.1 Problems and needs (Relevance) The extent to which the objectives of the development intervention (projects/ programme)
are consistent with beneficiaries' requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners'
and EC's policies.
The analysis of relevance will focus on the following questions in relation to the design of
the project:
the extent to which the project has been consistent with, and supportive of, the
policy and programme framework within which the project is placed, in particular the
EC‟s Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme, and the ROs
development policy and sector policies
the quality of the analyses of lessons learnt from past experience, and of
sustainability issues;
the project's coherence with current/on going initiatives;
the quality of the problem analysis and the project's intervention logic and logical
framework matrix, appropriateness of the objectively verifiable indicators of
achievement;
the extent to which stated objectives correctly address the identified problems and
social needs, clarity and internal consistency of the stated objectives;
the extent to which the nature of the problems originally identified have changed
the extent to which objectives have been updated in order to adapt to changes in the
context;
the degree of flexibility and adaptability to facilitate rapid responses to changes in
circumstances;
the quality of the identification of key stakeholders and target groups (including
gender analysis and analysis of vulnerable groups) and of institutional capacity
issues;
the stakeholder participation in the design and in the management/implementation of
the project, the level of local ownership, absorption and implementation capacity;
the quality of the analysis of strategic options, of the justification of the
recommended implementation strategy, and of management and coordination
arrangements;
the realism in the choice and quantity of inputs (financial, human and
administrative resources)
the analysis of assumptions and risks;
the appropriateness of the recommended monitoring and evaluation arrangements ;
3.2 Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness) The effectiveness criteria, concerns how far the project‟s results were attained, and the
project‟s specific objective(s) achieved, or are expected to be achieved.
The analysis of Effectiveness will therefore focus on such issues as:
whether the planned benefits have been delivered and received, as perceived by all
key stakeholders (including women and men and specific vulnerable groups);
whether intended beneficiaries participated in the intervention
if the assumptions and risk assessments at results level turned out to be inadequate or
invalid, or unforeseen external factors intervened, how flexibly management has
adapted to ensure that the results would still achieve the purpose; and how well has it
been supported in this by key stakeholders including ROs, EC (HQ and locally), etc.;
whether the balance of responsibilities between the various stakeholders was
appropriate, which accompanying measures have been taken by the partner
authorities;
how unintended results have affected the benefits received positively or negatively
could have been foreseen and managed.;
whether any shortcomings were due to a failure to take account of cross-cutting or
over-arching issues such as gender, environment and poverty during implementation;
3.3 Sound management and value for money (Efficiency) The efficiency criteria concerns how well the various activities transformed the available
resources into the intended results (sometimes referred to as outputs), in terms of quantity,
quality and timeliness. Comparison should be made against what was planned.
The assessment of Efficiency will therefore focus on such issues as:
the quality of day-to-day management, for example in:
a. operational work planning and implementation (input delivery, activity
management and delivery of outputs),and management of the budget (including
cost control and whether an inadequate budget was a factor);
b. management of personnel, information, property, etc,
c. whether management of risk has been adequate, i.e. whether flexibility has been
demonstrated in response to changes in circumstances;
d. relations/coordination with local authorities, institutions, beneficiaries, other
donors;
e. the quality of information management and reporting, and the extent to which
key stakeholders have been kept adequately informed of project activities
(including beneficiaries/target groups);
f. respect for deadlines;
Extent to which the costs of the project have been justified by the benefits whether or
not expressed in monetary terms in comparison with similar projects or known
alternative approaches, taking account of contextual differences and eliminating
market distortions.
ROs contributions (e.g offices, experts, reports, tax exemption, as set out in the Log
Frame resource schedule), target beneficiaries and other local parties: have they been
provided as planned?
Commission HQ/Delegation inputs (e.g. procurement, training, contracting, either
direct or via consultants/bureaux): have they been provided as planned?;
Technical assistance: how well did it help to provide appropriate solutions and
develop local capacities to define and produce results?
Quality of monitoring: its existence (or not), accuracy and flexibility, and the use
made of it; adequacy of baseline information;
Did any unplanned outputs arise from the activities so far?
3.4 Achievement of wider effects (Impact) The term impact denotes the relationship between the project‟s specific and overall
objectives.
At Impact level the final or ex-post evaluation will make an analysis of the following
aspects:
Extent to which the objectives of the project have been achieved as intended in
particular the project planned overall objective.
whether the effects of the project:
a) have been facilitated/constrained by external factors
b) have produced any unintended or unexpected impacts, and if so how have these
affected the overall impact.
c) have been facilitated/constrained by project management, by co-ordination
arrangements, by the participation of relevant stakeholders
d) have contributed to economic and social development
e) have contributed to poverty reduction
f) have made a difference in terms of cross-cutting issues like gender equality,
environment, good governance, conflict prevention etc.
g) were spread between economic growth, salaries and wages, foreign exchange,
and budget.
3.5 Likely continuation of achieved results (Sustainability) The sustainability criteria relates to whether the positive outcomes of the project and the
flow of benefits are likely to continue after external funding ends or non funding support
interventions (such as: policy dialogue, coordination).
The final evaluation will make an assessment of the prospects for the sustainability of
benefits on basis of the following issues:
the ownership of objectives and achievements, e.g. how far all stakeholders were
consulted on the objectives from the outset, and whether they agreed with them and
continue to remain in agreement;
policy support and the responsibility of the beneficiary institutions, e.g. how far
donor policy and national policy are corresponding, the potential effects of any
policy changes; how far the relevant national, sectoral and budgetary policies and
priorities are affecting the project positively or adversely; and the level of support
from governmental, public, business and civil society organizations.
institutional capacity, e.g. of the ROs (e.g. through policy and budgetary support) and
counterpart institutions; the extent to which the project is embedded in local
institutional structures; if it involved creating a new institution, how far good
relations with existing institutions have been established; whether the institution
appears likely to be capable of continuing the flow of benefits after the project ends
(is it well-led, with adequate and trained staff, sufficient budget and equipment?);
whether counterparts have been properly prepared for taking over, technically,
financially and managerially;
the adequacy of the project budget for its purpose particularly phasing out prospects;
socio-cultural factors, e.g. whether the project is in tune with local perceptions of
needs and of ways of producing and sharing benefits; whether it respects local power-
structures, status systems and beliefs, and if it sought to change any of those, how
well-accepted are the changes both by the target group and by others; how well it is
based on an analysis of such factors, including target group/ beneficiary participation
in design and implementation; and the quality of relations between the external
project staff and local communities.
financial sustainability, e.g. whether the products or services being provided are
affordable for the intended beneficiaries and are likely to remained so after funding
will end; whether enough funds are available to cover all costs (including recurrent
costs), and continued to do so after funding will end; and economic sustainability, i.e.
how well do the benefits (returns) compare to those on similar undertakings once
market distortions are eliminated.
technical and technology issues, e.g. whether (i) the technology, knowledge, process
or service introduced or provided fits in with existing needs, culture, traditions, skills
or knowledge; (ii) alternative technologies are being considered, where possible; and
(iii) the degree in which the beneficiaries have been able to adapt to and maintain the
technology acquired without further assistance.
Wherever relevant, cross-cutting issues such as gender equity, environmental impact
and good governance; were appropriately accounted for and managed from the outset
of the project.
3.6 Mutual reinforcement (coherence) The extent to which activities undertaken allow the European Commission to achieve its
development policy objectives without internal contradiction or without contradiction with
other Community policies. Extent to which they complement partner country's policies and
other donors' interventions.
Considering other related activities undertaken by ROs or other donors, at the same level or
at a higher level:
likeliness that results and impacts will mutually reinforce one another
likeliness that results and impacts will duplicate or conflict with one another
Connection to higher level policies (coherence)
Extent to which the project/programme (its objectives, targeted beneficiaries, timing, etc.):
is likely to contribute to/contradict other EC policies
is in line with evolving strategies of the EC and its partners
3.7 EC value added Connection to the interventions of Member States. Extent to which the project/programme
(its objectives, targeted beneficiaries, timing, etc .)
is complementary to the intervention of EU Member States in the ESA/IO region
is co-ordinated with the intervention of EU Member States in the ESA/IO region
is creating actual synergy (or duplication) with the intervention of EU Member
States
involves concerted efforts by EU Member States and the EC to optimise synergies
and avoid duplication.
4. Overall assessment A chapter synthesising all answers to evaluation questions into an overall assessment of the
project/programme. The detailed structure of the overall assessment should be refined
during the evaluation process. The relevant chapter has to articulate all the findings,
conclusions and lessons in a way that reflects their importance and facilitates the reading.
The structure should not follow the evaluation questions, the logical framework or the
seven evaluation criteria.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions
This chapter introduces the conclusions relative to each question. The conclusions should
be organised in clusters in the chapter in order to provide an overview of the assessed
subject.
Note: The chapter need not follow the order of the questions or that of the evaluation
criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, etc.)
It should features references to the findings (responses to the evaluation questions) or to
annexes showing how the conclusions derive from data, interpretations, and analysis and
judgement criteria.
The report should include a self-assessment of the methodological limits that may restrain
the range or use of certain conclusions.
The conclusion chapter features not only the successes observed but also the issues
requiring further thought on modifications or a different course of action.
The evaluation team presents its conclusions in a balanced way, without systematically
favouring the negative or the positive conclusions.
A paragraph or sub-chapter should pick up the 3 or 4 major conclusions organised by order
of importance, while avoiding being repetitive. This practice allows better communicating
the evaluation messages that are addressed to the Commission.
If possible, the evaluation report identifies one or more transferable lessons, which are
highlighted in the executive summary and presented in appropriate seminars or meetings so
that they can be capitalised on and transferred.
Recommendations They are intended to improve or reform the project/ programme in the framework of the
cycle under way, or to prepare the design of a new intervention for the next cycle.
Note: The recommendations must be related to the conclusions without replicating them. A
recommendation derives directly from one or more conclusions.
The ultimate value of an evaluation depends on the quality and credibility of the
recommendations offered. Recommendations should therefore be as realistic, operational
and pragmatic as possible; that is, they should take careful account of the circumstances
currently prevailing in the context of the project, and of the resources available to
implement them both locally and in the Commission.
They could concern policy, organisational and operational aspects for both the national
implementing partners and for the Commission; the pre-conditions that might be attached
to decisions on the financing of similar projects; and general issues arising from the
evaluation in relation to, for example, policies, technologies, instruments, institutional
development, and regional, country or sectoral strategies.
Recommendations must be clustered and prioritised, carefully targeted to the appropriate
audiences at all levels, especially within the Commission structure (the project/programme
task manager and the evaluation manager will often be able to advise here).
6. Annexes to the report The report should include the following annexes:
The Terms of Reference of the evaluation
The names of the consultants in the evaluation team and their companies (CVs
should be shown, but summarised and limited to one page per person)
Detailed evaluation method including: options taken, difficulties encountered and
limitations. Detail of tools and analyses.
Revised logframe of RISP 2, if relevant
Map of project area, if relevant
List of persons/organisations consulted
Literature and documentation consulted
Other technical annexes (e.g. statistical analyses, tables of contents and figures)
ANNEX V – QUALITY ASSESSMENT GRID
*This grid is annexed to the ToR for information to the consultants
The quality of the final report will be assessed by COMESA using the following quality
assessment grid where the rates have the following meaning:
1 = unacceptable = criteria mostly not fulfilled or totally absent
2 = weak = criteria partially fulfilled
3 = good = criteria mostly fulfilled
4 = very good = criteria entirely fulfilled
5 = excellent = criteria entirely fulfilled in a clear and original way
Concerning the criteria and sub-criteria below, the
evaluation report is rated: 1 2 3 4 5
1. Meeting needs:
a) Does the report precisely describe what is evaluated,
including the intervention logic in the form of a logical
framework?
b) Does the report clearly cover the requested period of time,
as well as the target groups and socio-geographical areas
linked to the project / programme?
c) Has the evolution of the project / programme been taken
into account in the evaluation process?
d) Does the evaluation deal with and respond to all ToR
requests. If not, are justifications given?
2. Appropriate design
a) Does the report explain how the evaluation design takes
stock of the rationale of the project / programme, cause-effect
relationships, impacts, policy context, stakeholders' interests,
etc.?
b) Is the evaluation method clearly and adequately described
in enough detail?
c) Are there well-defined indicators selected in order to
provide evidence about the project / programme and its
context?
d) Does the report point out the limitations, risks and potential
biases associated with the evaluation method?
3. Reliable data
a) Is the data collection approach explained and is it coherent
with the overall evaluation design?
b) Are the sources of information clearly identified in the
report?
c) Are the data collection tools (samples, focus groups, etc.)
applied in accordance with standards?
d) Have the collected data been cross-checked?
e) Have data collection limitations and biases been explained
and discussed?
4. Sound analysis
Concerning the criteria and sub-criteria below, the
evaluation report is rated: 1 2 3 4 5
a) Is the analysis based on the collected data?
b) Is the analysis clearly focused on the most relevant
cause/effect assumptions underlying the intervention logic?
c) Is the context adequately taken into account in the analysis?
d) Are inputs from the most important stakeholders used in a
balanced way?
e) Are the limitations of the analysis identified, discussed and
presented in the report, as well as the contradictions with
available knowledge, if there are any?
5. Credible findings
a) Are the findings derived from the data and analyses?
b) Is the generalisation of findings discussed?
c) Are interpretations and extrapolations justified and
supported by sound arguments?
6. Valid conclusions
a) Are the conclusions coherent and logically linked to the
findings?
b) Does the report reach overall conclusions on each of the
five DAC criteria?
c) Are conclusions free of personal or partisan considerations?
7.Useful recommendations
a) Are recommendations coherent with conclusions?
b) Are recommendations operational, realistic and sufficiently
explicit to provide guidance for taking action?
c) Do the recommendations cater for the different target
stakeholders of the evaluation?
d) Where necessary, have the recommendations been
clustered and prioritised?
8.Clear report
a) Does the report include a relevant and concise executive
summary?
b) Is the report well structured and adapted to its various
audiences?
c) Are specialised concepts clearly defined and not used more
than necessary? Is there a list of acronyms?
d) Is the length of the various chapters and annexes well
balanced?
Considering the 8 previous criteria, what is the overall
quality of the report?
GLOSSARY
AUC African Union Commission
AWP Annual Work Plan
CA Contribution Agreement
COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
EAC East African Community
EEAS European External Action Service
EC European Commission
EDF European Development Fund
EPA Economic Partnership Agreement
ESA Eastern and Southern Africa (region)
FE Final Evaluation
IGAD Inter-governmental Authority on Development
IOC Indian Ocean Commission
IRCC Inter Regional Co-ordinating Committee
LFM Log Frame Matrix
MTR Mid-Term Review
PE Programme Estimate
RAO Regional Authorising Officer
RO Regional Organisation
RIP Regional Indicative Programme
RISP Regional Integration Support Programme
RPTF Regional Preparatory Task Force (EPA)
RSP Regional Strategy Paper
SADC Southern African Development Community
TA Technical Assistance
ToR Terms of Reference
ANNEX 2 - TENDER SUBMISSION SHEET
[This Submission Sheet should be on the letterhead of the tenderer and should be signed by a person with the proper authority to sign documents that are binding on the tenderer. ]
Date: [insert date (as day, month and year) of submission]
Reference No: [insert Reference number]
To: Secretary General of COMESA
We, the undersigned, declare that:
(a) We have examined and have no reservations to the Request for Proposals on the Final Evaluation of RISP;
(b) We offer to provide the services in conformity with the RFP for the [insert a brief description of the Services];
(c) We hereby submit our technical and financial proposals which includes the following (to state the documents included)
(d) Our proposals shall be valid for a period of [specify the number of months ] days from the date fixed for the submission deadline in accordance with the RFP, and it shall remain binding upon us and may be accepted at any time before the expiration of that period;
(e) We are not participating in more than one bid in this bidding process;
(f) We do not have any conflict of interest and have not participated in the preparation of the project document for the COMESA Secretariat ;
(g) Our Proposal is binding upon us, subject to modifications agreed during any contract negotiations, and we undertake to negotiate on the basis of the staff proposed in our proposals;
(h) We understand that this RFP, together with your written acceptance thereof included in your Letter of Acceptance, shall not constitute a binding contract between us, until a formal letter of engagement is prepared and executed; and
(i) We understand that you are not bound to accept the lowest bid or any other bid that you may receive.
Name: [insert complete name of person signing the Tender]
In the capacity of [insert legal capacity of person signing the tender]
Signed: [signature of person whose name and capacity are shown above]
Duly authorized to sign the bid for and on behalf of: [insert complete name of Tenderer]
Dated on ____________ day of __________________, _______ [insert date of signing]
ANNEX 3 – FORMAT FOR CV OF EXPERTS
CURRICULUM VITAE (maximum 5 pages) Proposed role in the project: 1. Family name: 2. First name(s): 3. Date of birth: 4. Nationality: 5. Civil status: 6. Education:
INSTITUTION PERIOD DEGREE\DIPLOMA
7. Language skills: (Competence level 1 to 5 – Excellent=1)
LANGUAGE READING SPEAKING WRITING
8. Memberships: 9. Other skills: 10. Present position: 11. Key qualifications relevant to tender:
12. Specific professional experience relevant to the tender :
COUNTRY Date from – Date to
42
13. Professional experience
Dates Location Company Position Description
13. Referee’s (three referees relevant to the tender with contact addresses, phone and e-mail):
43
ANNEX 4 - BIDDER’S REFERENCES
Relevant Services Carried Out in the Last Five Years That Best Illustrate Experience
Using the format below, provide information on each assignment for which the Bidder, either individually as a corporate entity or as one of the major firms within an association, was legally contracted.
Bidder’s Name:
Assignment Name:
Country:
Location within Country:
Professional Staff Provided by Bidder (profiles):
Name of Client:
No of Staff:
Address:
No of Staff-Months; Duration of Assignment:
Start Date (Month/Year):
Completion Date (Month/Year): Approx. Value of Services (in Current US$):
Name of Associated Consultants, If Any:
No of Months of Professional Staff Provided by Associated Consultants:
Name of Senior Staff (Project Director/Coordinator, Team Leader) Involved and Functions Performed:
Narrative Description of Project:
Description of Actual Services Provided by the Staff:
44
ANNEX 5 - FINANCIAL PROPOSAL FORM
Unit Price (USD)
Quantity Total (USD)
A. Fees (all inclusive)
Team leader
Support expert 1
Support expert 2
Total A (*)
B. Reimbursables
B.1 Air travel Specify number of intercontinental and of regional trips separately
Team Leader
Intercontinental travel
Regional travel
Support Expert1
Intercontinental travel
Regional travel
Support Expert 2
Intercontinental travel
Regional travel
B.2 DSA
Team Leader
Support Expert 1
Support Expert 2
Total B1+B2
Contract amount TOTAL A+B
(*) tenderers are reminded that only Total A (Fee’s) will be taken into consideration in the financial evaluation Amount in words:__________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________ Submitted by: Name :___________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________________________________
45
ANNEX 6 - FORMAT OF COMESA CONTRACT This CONTRACT (herein called the “contract”) is made the …………… between, on one hand, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA Secretariat) (herein called the “client"), and on the other hand, ……………………………………………(herein called “the Company”) WHEREAS:
(a) the Client has requested the Consultant to perform the Final Evaluation of Regional Integration Support Programme - RISP (hereinafter called the “Services”);
(b) the Consultant, having represented to the Client that it has the required professional skills, and personnel and technical resources, has agreed to provide the Services on the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract;
NOW THEREFORE the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. The following documents attached hereto shall be deemed to form an integral part of this
Contract: (a) The Contract Agreement (b) The Conditions of Contract (b) The following Appendices:
Appendix A: Terms of Reference Appendix B: Remuneration and Payment Schedule Appendix C: Summary Budget Appendix D: Duties of the Client Appendix E: The clients technical and financial proposal
2. The mutual rights and obligations of the Client and the Consultant shall be as set forth in the
Contract, in particular: (a) the Consultant shall perform in accordance with the provisions of the Contract; and (b) the Client shall make payments to the Consultant in accordance with the provisions of
the Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Contract to be signed in their respective names as of the day and year first above written. For and on behalf of COMESA [Authorized Representative] For and on behalf of the Company [ Insert Name of Company] [Authorized Representative]
46
Article 1
Interpretations
The following words and expressions shall have the meaning assigned to them except where the context indicates otherwise:
“Client” means the Party named in this Contract, who employs the Consultant, and legal successors to the Client and permitted assignees; “Consultant” means the Party named in the Contract, who is employed as an independent
professional firm by the Client to perform the Services, and legal successors to the Consultant and
permitted assignees;
“Contract” means this Consultancy Contract together with the appendices, schedules and attachments
hereto;
“day” means the period between any one midnight and the next;
“month” means a period of one month according to the Gregorian calendar commencing with any day
of the month;
“Party” and “Parties” means the Client and the Consultant and “third party” means any other person or
entity, as the context requires;
“Services” means the services to be performed by the Consultant in accordance with the Contract . Article 2
Language
The contract as well as all correspondence and documents relating to the contract exchanged by the
Client and the Consultant shall be written in the English language.
Article 3
Scope of Services
The Consultant shall provide the services to the Client under this Contract for the Final Evaluation of RISP.
47
Article 4
Obligations of the Consultant
In carrying out the services under this Contract, the Consultant shall: (a) exercise reasonable skill and care (b) exercise diligence in the performance of the Services. (c ) adhere to reasonable specifications of the Client falling within the ambit of this Contract (d) comply with all legal requirements applicable to the execution of the said Services. Article 5
Obligations of the Client
The Client shall adhere to the following obligations:
(a) Provision of information at its disposal in relation to the execution of the Contract, in timely
manner and free of cost
(b) Assist the Consultant in obtaining information related to the execution of the services under the
Contract from COMESA Secretariat.
(c) Give directions to the Consultant on issues referred to it in writing through the Steering
Committee formed by the Client
(d) The Client shall give his decision on all matters properly referred to him in writing by the
Consultant within a reasonable time so as not to delay the performance of the Services
(e) Pay the Consultant in accordance after satisfactory performance of services under this
Contract.
(f) Cooperate with the Consultant in the execution of the Services under this Contract.
(g) Designate in writing a person to act as representative of the Client who shall have complete
authority to receive instructions and to give information to the Client from the Consultant.
48
Article 6
Personnel
6.1 The personnel supplied by the Consultant shall be acceptable to the Client and shall have the necessary competence and qualifications to carry out the Services. 6.2 The Consultant shall ensure that all the personnel involved with the Services to the Client comply with all relevant legal requirements. 6.3 If it is necessary to replace any person involved with this Contract and/or the Services, the Consultant shall arrange for replacement by a person of comparable competence or better upon written acceptance from the Client. Article 7
Payment
6.1 The Client shall pay the Consultant the fixed amount of US$ ……….. for performing the Services under this Contract, on a payment schedule as indicated in Annexure B. 6.2 Payment of the contract price shall be in accordance with the schedule for payment based on
the attainment of key milestones as contained in Appendix B to this Contract.
6.3 The Consultant will submit his invoice to the Client as per the payment schedule in Annexure
B. The invoice will be reviewed and certified for payment by the relevant persons authorised by the
Client.
6.4 If any item or part of an item in an invoice submitted by the Consultant is disputed by the Client, the Client shall give notice before the due date of payment with reasons and withhold payment for that specific item until the dispute is resolved, but shall not delay payment on the remainder of the invoice.
49
Article 8
Duration of Contract
The duration of this Contract shall be [to be specified].
Article 9
Entry into Force
This Contract shall enter into force on the date of signature.
Article 10
Termination
9.1 A party shall have the right to terminate this Contract if the other party is in material breach of any term and condition of this Contract and fails to rectify such breach within fourteen (14) days of receiving a written notice to that effect. 9.2 Termination of the Contract shall not act as a waiver to rights and obligations of the parties that accrued during the operation of the Contract. Article 11
Breach of Obligation
10.1 The Consultant shall only be liable to pay compensation to the Client arising out of or in connection with the Contract if a breach of any obligations in terms of this Contract is established against him. 10.2 The Client shall be liable to the Consultant arising out of or in connection with this Contract if a breach of an obligation in terms of this Contract is established. The Consultant shall have no separate delictual right of action against the Client.
10.3 Neither the Client nor the Consultant shall be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from any occurrence unless a claim is made within a period of three years from the date of termination or completion of this Contract.
50
Article 12
Insurance for liability and Limit of Liability
The Consultant agrees to arrange and keep in force professional indemnity insurance cover in respect of the Services provided under this Contract to the extent of the liabilities up to the contract price herein. The extent of the Consultant’s liability under this Contract is limited to an amount equal to the contract price payable to the Consultant in accordance with Appendix B. Article 13
Governing law
This Contract shall be governed by internationally accepted principles of law governing service contracts.
Article 14
Amendments
Any amendment to this Contract shall be agreed upon by both parties to this Contract in writing.
Article 15
Assignments and Subcontracting
Neither Party shall assign, sublet or transfer any right or obligation under this Contract without the
written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Unless
specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment shall release
or discharge the assignor from any obligation under this Contract.
51
Article 16
Domicilium and Notices
16.1 The Parties choose the following addresses as their domicilia citandi et executandi:
The Client: (Insert name and Address)
The Consultant: (Insert name and Address)
16.2 Notices under the Contract shall be in writing and will take effect from receipt at the address stated in Clause 16.1. Delivery may be by registered letter or by hand against written confirmation of receipt or by facsimile.
Article 17
Publicity and Publication
Unless otherwise specified in this Contract the Consultant shall not release public or media statements or publish material related to the Services in this Contract without the written approval of the Client. Article 18 Intellectual Property Rights
The Client shall after payment of the full Contract price retain all Intellectual Property Rights such as copyright of all documents prepared under this Contract and the Consultant shall not be entitled to use them without the written authority of the Client.
Article 19
Confidentiality
Except as provided in this Contract, each Party undertakes not to disclose to any person any information in relation to the other Party’s affairs, its business or method of carrying on its business, the Services or the contents of this Contract without the prior written consent of the other Party, and further undertakes to ensure that its employees, agents and representatives (to whom such information were disclosed) comply with this clause during or after the term of this Contract.
52
Article 20
Force Majeure
20.1 If circumstances such as acts of God like earthquakes or man made like civil war arise, for
which either of the Parties is not responsible and which make it impossible for it to perform in whole or
in part in accordance with this Contract, the Consultant shall promptly notify the Client in writing of such
condition and the cause thereof. Unless otherwise directed by the Client in writing, the Consultant shall
continue to perform its obligations under the contract as far as it is reasonable practical and shall seek
all reasonable alternative means for performance not prevented by the force majeure.
Article 21
Dispute Settlement
21.1 In the event of any dispute between the Parties arising from this Contract, the Party wishing to
declare the dispute shall deliver to the other Party a written notice setting out the dispute.
21.2 The Client and the Consultant shall make every effort to resolve amicably by direct informal
consultation any disagreement or dispute arising between them under or in connection with the
contract.
21.3 If, after 30 (thirty) day period, or such longer period as they may agree, the parties have failed
to resolve their dispute or differences by any mutual consultation, the dispute shall be referred to
arbitration by a single arbitrator and shall be conducted in accordance with the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law ( UNCITRAL) Rules.
21.4 The arbitration shall be held in Lusaka, Zambia.
21.5 Any award, including an award for costs, made by the arbitrator shall be final and binding
upon the Parties and shall be carried into effect by them and made an order of any competent court.
21.6 Notwithstanding any reference to arbitration herein,
a) the parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under the contract unless
they otherwise agree, and
53
b) the Client shall pay the Consultant any monies due to the Consultant.
54
ANNEX 7 – declaration of availability and exclusivity
55
STATEMENT OF EXCLUSIVITY AND AVAILABILITY FOR THE TENDER “FINAL EVALUATION OF RISP’ ISSUED BY COMESA ( .... GIVE RFP REFERENCE...)
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I agree to participate exclusively with the tenderer < tenderer name > in the above-mentioned tender procedure. I further declare that I am able and willing to work for the period(s) foreseen for the position for which my CV has been included in the event that this tender is successful, namely:
From To
< start of period 1 > < end of period 1 >
< start of period 2 > < end of period 2 >
< etc >
I confirm that I am not engaged in another assignment in a position for which my services are required during the above periods. By making this declaration, I understand that I will be excluded from this tender procedure, the tenders may be rejected, and I may also be subject to exclusion from other tender procedures and contracts funded by COMESA. Furthermore, should this tender be successful, I am fully aware that if I am not available at the expected start date of my services for reasons other than ill-health or force majeure, the notification of award of contract to the tenderer may be rendered null and void.
Name
Signature
Date
56
57
ANNEX 8: ORGANISATION & METHODOLOGY
Indicative list of issues to be addressed by the tenderer in the technical proposal
Rationale
Any comments on the Terms of reference of importance for the successful execution of activities, in particular its objectives and expected results, thus demonstrating the degree of understanding of the contract. Any comments contradicting the Terms of reference or falling outside their scope will not form part of the final contract
An opinion on the key issues related to the achievement of the contract objectives and expected results
An explanation of the risks and assumptions affecting the execution of the assignment
Strategy
An outline of the approach proposed for implementation
A list of the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the objectives of the assignment
The related inputs and outputs
A description of the support facilities (back-stopping) that the team of experts will have from the contractor during the execution of the contract
Timetable of activities
The timing, sequence and duration of the proposed activities, taking into account mobilisation time
The identification and timing of major milestones in execution of the contract, including an indication of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports, particularly those stipulated in the Terms of reference
