Attechment_1_Task_Order_1.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1: TASK ORDER 1

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C1. INTRODUCTION

The Advancing Kosovo Together (AKT) project is composed of two separate but interrelated activities – AKT/Prime, implemented by a U.S. Contractor, and AKT/Local Solutions, implemented as a USAID/Forward initiative through a Cooperative Agreement with a local Kosovar NGO.

Activity 1 Activity 2 Award Title Advancing Kosovo Together/Prime Advancing Kosovo Together/Local

Solutions Award Number AID-167-C-14-00003 AID-167-A-14-00008 Award Dates April 16, 2014 – April 17, 2017 October 1, 2014–September 30, 2017 Funding $7,587,654 $6,999,706 Implementing Partner

Chemonics International Community Development Fund

COR/AOR Jeton Cana Perihane Ymeri-Ustaibo

C.2 BACKGROUND

C.2.1 Development Context

Problem Addressed Kosovo has a number of non-majority ethnic groups, including Ashkali, Bosniaks, Egyptians, Gorani, Roma, Serbs and Turks. Many of these populations, including Kosovo-Serbs living south of the Ibar River, have generally accepted the presence of Kosovo institutions within their communities and have shown their willingness to participate in them. Despite this integration, challenges remain that need to be addressed in order to consolidate the progress made thus far. These challenges include the lack of economic opportunities, inconsistent use of the language policy, lack of employment in the public sector, and financial and psychological reliance on Serb parallel structures/institutions in Kosovo.

Of these minority groups, Kosovo-Serbs are the least integrated into Kosovo’s society and institutions.

Kosovo- Serb cooperation and social and economic connection in Kosovo is critical, as inter-ethnic relations cannot be maintained or improved without it.

Since the declaration of Kosovo’s independence in February 2008, the occurrence of several incidents increased inter-ethnic tension between the Government of Kosovo (GoK) and Kosovo Serbs, and between the Kosovo Albanian majority and Kosovo Serb minority populations. One such incident occurred in July 2011, when the GoK attempted to reestablish customs border controls at two border crossings in north Kosovo. Kosovo Serbs in the North, supported by Serbia-backed parallel municipal structures, responded by setting up roadside barricades to limit the GoK’s presence in the North and limit freedom of movement between north and south Kosovo as well as between Kosovo and Serbia. While tensions somewhat subsided, inter-ethnic relations remain an issue, in both the south and north of Kosovo.

To lower tensions and maintain peace in the North, the Governments of Kosovo and Serbia entered into normalization negotiations led by High Representative Catherine Ashton, the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief.

After ten rounds of mediated talks, the two sides reached an agreement on the Principles Governing the Normalization of Relations (subsequently referred to as the Agreement) on Friday, April 19, 2013. Both countries’ parliaments have ratified the Agreement, which outlines 15 points on the principles governing the normalization of relations between the two countries. The points cover administration of local governance, including the police, the judiciary, municipal elections, and energy and telecommunications.

To implement the agreement, the two sides were to establish an implementation committee, facilitated by the EU. Since the Agreement was signed, the implementation has been uneven, with some progress being made, such as the Justice Sector Agreement, reduction in the costs of travel, civil protection corps, and partial closure on the Association of Serb Municipalities. However, there remains much work to be done with municipalities, especially those with large non-majority groups, to ensure they have the capacities to deliver essential services to the communities they serve while meeting their commitments under GoK law.

USAID/Kosovo’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) FY 2014 – FY 2018 1 was designed to support the achievement of the United States Government’s central foreign policy objective of peace and stability in the Balkans. Under the CDCS, integration of minorities, especially Kosovo Serbs, into Kosovo society is treated as both an independent Intermediate Result (IR), as well as a concern addressed across the entire portfolio. More specifically, under the USAID/Kosovo Mission’s 2014-2018 CDCS, Development Objective #1, the project will directly contribute to IR 3: Improved Integration of Ethnic Minorities and IR 2: Strengthened Effectiveness and Accountability of Assemblies, Administrations, and Election Processes.

When the AKT project was designed, research indicated that to advance inter-ethnic integration and the momentum of the decentralization process, targeted assistance to Serb-majority municipalities (the majority of which were created within the previous three-to-four years) as well as Serb enclaves in Kosovo- Albanian majority municipalities was warranted.

Extensive consultation with a wide variety of relevant stakeholders on the successes and challenges of non-majority integration in Kosovo indicated that while the process of decentralization was moving forward in the South, the GoK has been reluctant to build bridges between itself and non-majority communities north of the Ibar River.

At this juncture, the level of mutual trust was low, and needed enhancing in order to improve inter-ethnic relations and cooperation. There remained a lack of confidence in one another among all parties—the GoK, Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians. This resulted in isolated enclaves of Kosovo Serb communities, and a lack of interaction between Serbs and Albanians. Opportunities that foster inter-ethnic interaction did not exist or were not maximized. For example, in many of the target areas, no spaces for community gatherings existed—spaces that could foster inter-ethnic interaction.

In many Kosovo Serb majority municipalities, a large proportion of the population remained reliant on employment through a bloated public sector, financed through the Government of Serbia (GoS), while the private sector was critically underdeveloped. Thus, a need emerged to encourage economic growth and job creation in the private sector. Since the economic advantage of each community appeared different, the types of economic initiatives across the 16 target municipalities varied.

In addition the relative youth of Serb-majority municipalities meant that good governance structures were emergent. Much more work was needed to ensure that they became independent, efficient and effectively functioning organizations. But still, many of them have low capacity for ensuring adequate provision of basic services. A weak Municipal Assembly, weak civil society, and only one Serb political party translates into little oversight and low accountability to the citizens they serve.

Target Areas and Groups

1 CDCS http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/CDCS_Kosovo.pdf

AKT implements activities in 16 partner Kosovo municipalities, including four municipalities in northern Kosovo. These include communities in six (6) Serb majority municipalities in the south:

Gračanica/Graçanicë, Klokot/Kllokot, Novo Brdo/Novobërdë, Parteš/Partesh, Ranilug/Ranillug, and Štrpce/Shtërpcë; and six (6) Albanian majority municipalities: Gjilan/Gnjilane, Istog/Istok, Klinë/Klina, Obiliq/Obilić, Pejë/Peć, and Vushtrri/Vučitrn 2 including four (4) municipalities in the north: North Mitrovica/Mitrovica e Veriut, Leposavić/Leposaviq, Zubin Potok/Zubin Potok, and Zvečan/Zveçan.

2 The first name is Serbian; the second is Albanian. The selection criteria for the six Albanian majority municipalities includes the size of the local Serb population, the political will of the Mayor and other municipal leaders, the level of influence the municipality has among other Kosovo Serb populations, the proportionality of other minorities living within the municipality and how well returnees have been integrated back into the local community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra%C4%8Danica%2C_Kosovo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Brdo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parte%C5%A1%2C_Kosovo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0trpce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnjilane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obili%C4%87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C4%87 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vu%C4%8Ditrn

C2.2 Intended Results

The Project aims to remove barriers that prevent the creation of avenues for cooperation and connection between the Government of Kosovo (GOK) and Kosovo-Serb communities. The AKT Project with both mechanisms fall under Development Objective 1, more specifically they fall under Intermediate Result 1.3 as it is shown in the diagram above, and they all contribute toward the same IR and DO.

C.3 Description of Activities to be Evaluated

Advancing Kosovo Together/US Prime This program is designed to increase constructive inter-ethnic cooperation and interaction between the Kosovo majority and non- majority population, which is vital to the security and stability of the Balkans.

This is done through a holistic approach towards the integration of non-majority populations into Kosovo’s institutions and society. The first three program objectives correspond to social, economic, and political engagement. The fourth objective seeks to increase the capacity of the local partner (i.e. AKT-

LS):

Objective 1: Improve autonomous, horizontal communication between: (a) Kosovo Albanian and non-majority communities; and (b) the GoK and non-majority communities;

Objective 2: Improve economic opportunities in target municipalities;

Objective 3: Increase the efficiency and capacity of target municipal administrations to respond to the needs of all their citizens; and Objective 4: Build the capacity of host country organizations by leveraging local, cross-ethnic leadership to implement program objectives 1, 2 and 3.

It is essential that Kosovo Serbs and other non-majority communities engage with and participate in Kosovo’s institutions and society constructively, particularly the Serb-majority municipalities, as mandated by the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and the Ahtisaari Plan, or Comprehensive Status Proposal (CSP). It is necessary to create conditions that enable Kosovo Serbs and other minorities to: 1) preserve, protect, and develop their identities, including language, religious and cultural heritage; 2) be actively engaged in the work force; and 3) increase their interaction with Government of Kosovo (GoK) institutions at the local level.

The AKT program fosters a positive and constructive inter-ethnic communication that can reach a broad mass of people who have never engaged with the other, centered on common problems and needs. AKT- US Prime focuses on opportunities to get people thinking, talking and engaging with members of other communities. These include grassroots community exchanges, opportunities to better integrate non-majority and majority markets, including improved overall value chains to encourage long-term economic viability of businesses, and increased responsiveness of local administrations to the service needs of minority communities.

An integral part of this program is the empowerment of youth and women. Purposeful engagement of youth in all program areas is vital to the overall success of this program. Gender-specific activities are incorporated into the three program objectives in order to ensure that gender issues, particularly women’s needs, are addressed. This includes women and youth participation in grassroots community and local economic development activities, including female and youth employment, as well as enhancing their engagement with local authorities.

The AKT-US prime Contractor works jointly with the local awardee (AKT-Local Solutions) to implement the Advancing Kosovo Together program objectives. The AKT U.S. Prime contractor, besides working in a collaborative manner with the local awardee, is tasked, through Objective Four, to assist in building the capacity of the local organization to effectively implement USAID programs.

Advancing Kosovo Together/Local Solutions Advancing Kosovo Together - Local Solutions (AKT-LS) shares the same purpose and the first three objectives of the program mentioned above under the AKT-US Prime.

Rationale for Splitting of AKT-US and AKT-LS into Two Mechanisms USAID Forward3 is a cross-cutting initiative that changes the way USAID does business, particularly with new partnerships focusing on sustainable results at the local level. USAID Forward is a comprehensive package of reform initiatives in seven key areas, including Local Solutions which focuses on contracting and providing grants to more and varied local partners and creating partnerships with local contractors and grantees. USAID is streamlining its processes, increasing the use of small businesses and

3 For more on USAID Forward, see http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/progress-data/usaid-forward.

local civil society organizations, building metrics into its implementation agreements to achieve capacity-building objectives, and using host country systems where feasible, while simultaneously ensuring the successful implementation of its activities.

Local Solutions is woven into USAID/Kosovo’s CDCS. To this end, the USAID/Kosovo Mission set ambitious targets for Local Solutions of 30 percent of awards. Thus, Advancing Kosovo Together-Local Solutions (AKT-LS) was split off from the US Contractor as it usually would have been awarded. In order to contribute toward Agency’s new way of doing business – USAID Forward, USAID/Kosovo decided to use two implementing mechanisms and partner the US Contractor and the Local awardee to jointly implement the AKT program. It was intended that during the program implementation, AKT-US Prime would provide a capacity building to AKT-LS that would increase capacities of the local awardee to implement USAID-funded activities.

A. Relevant Information Sources

USAID [and the AKT implementing partners] will provide the evaluation team with a package of briefing materials, including:

• The SOW for both AKT/Prime and AKT/Local Solutions.

• Project quarterly and annual reports, Performance Monitoring Plans and annual reports and work plans.

• Project developed reports, assessments and survey.

• Other reports: Public Pulse report, MOSAIC Survey Report, Annual Municipal Service

Performance Reports developed by the Ministry of Local Government Administration, reports from past evaluations from similar programs

C.4 EVALUATION RATIONALE

C.4.1 Evaluation Purpose

The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to:

1) Evaluate the programmatic progress of the AKT program and its two separate implementing mechanisms - AKT-US Prime and AKT-LS.;

2) Identify strengths and weaknesses; and describe the effectiveness of the project;

3) Learn how efficient the separation of AKT into two implementing mechanisms was (e.g,.

Contract and Cooperative Agreement, U.S. and local implementers) in terms of management time, resources, communication, and overall benefit) and what the benefits in the development activities were within the 16 Municipalities;

4) Provide key findings; conclusions and recommendations for the two AKT activities; and,

5) Provide recommendations for future activities

The evaluation will provide USAID/Kosovo information on the effectiveness and achievements of the current Advancing Kosovo Together project. Most of the stakeholders to be interviewed during the evaluation period will be able to discuss the progress and challenges of both activities.

It was recognized from the start that close coordination, communication and a strong partnership between AKT-Prime and AKT-LS would be essential if the program was to succeed. The results of the evaluation will provide feedback to USAID/Kosovo, to the implementers for possible corrections for the remaining term of the awards, which are scheduled to end in April 2017 and September 2017 respectively. And finally, the Evaluation Team should provide recommendations to USAID/Kosovo for future integration follow-on activities. USAID/Kosovo requests specific recommendations for future assistance to Northern Kosovo municipalities in particular.

C.4.2 Audience and Intended Users

The primary audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Kosovo Mission, specifically the Democracy and Governance team, the AKT implementing partners, and the Europe and Eurasia Bureau.

Other interested parties include the U.S. Government organizations and other international donors in Kosovo working in the area of ethnic minority integration. USAID will use the report to make adjustments to its current implementation strategy and will share lessons learned with other stakeholders.

The implementing partners will learn about their strengths and weaknesses and, together with USAID, adjust their activities accordingly, especially in the area of constructive inter-ethnic cooperation and interaction. USAID/Kosovo will use the evaluation report to inform future programming in the sector.

C.5 Evaluation Questions (the contractor can add additional questions)

Evaluation questions for AKT Project (for both mechanisms separately):

• Has the program achieved its intended results under Objective 1, 2, 3 and 4 (for AKT US Prime)?

(Ask for different groups/stakeholders.) Why or why not? What could make it better?

• What are AKT achievements in north Kosovo to date? What worked and what did not?

• How has the support provided to the partnering GOK institutions (including 16 municipalities), CSOs, business sector been received and how has it made a difference?

• How has the sustainability of USAID investments been addressed?

• What is the value added to AKT project having two implementing mechanisms (AKT US and

AKT LS) on addressing minority integration?

Additional questions that are valid only for AKT LS as a mechanism:

• What have been AKT LS progress toward achieving USAID Forward requirements based on pre-assessment, financial review and as per AKT US objective (4) four?

• What are AKT LS achievements to date in regard the capacity building provided by AKT US under objective 4?

• Which were AKT LS challenges cooperating with USAID in order to meet the agreement requirements?

• What is the cost/benefit analysis of the time, effort, resources spent by USAID team for managing the LS mechanism?

Subordinate Questions for AKT Program:

1. Are there a different groundwork needs known after five years when AKT was designed, example: development challenges in Kosovo, political challenges, community needs, business sector needs?

2. Should there be any programmatic shifts to the AKT Program to achieve better results? Are there new opportunities for minority integration for the remaining time that the program could address?

Are there any recommendations in terms of other relevant areas of support to be included in the program?

3. Which would be the best follow on activities and recommendations?

4. Is there a potential for greater AKT Program collaboration with other USAID programs and/or other donors?

C.6 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY-SCOPE OF WORK

C.6.1 Evaluation Design

The Contractor shall develop and adopt an approach that elicits and analyzes information, and provides key findings, conclusions, and recommendations on the evaluation questions presented. The Contractor shall draw on project documentation and reports to prepare and follow-up with structured interviews and surveys with project participants and partners.

To address the issue of the split versus united implementing mechanisms question, the Contractor must prepare a set of questions for the program managers and support staff for to determine how much time, in terms of management and oversight of the programs, has been invested. This should include not only management of the active program, but also retrospective analysis of the preparation and award of the mechanism, review of reports, correction of any issues, and efforts to bring together both AKT-US and AKT-LS to work on the same topics jointly.

The Contractor shall evaluate the impact of the project in K-Serb majority municipalities in the South and in the North and compare the results. This analysis will look at the differential inputs between the 12 municipalities in the South and the four in the North based on: resources (including manpower and financial inputs from each program); in-kind inputs from each municipality (grouped by S/N); in-kind inputs from communities (grouped by S/N) and broken out in the analysis by these groupings (e.g..

resources contributed and percentage level of participation from the municipalities in the South versus perceived impacts by South region; and North resources contributed and percentage level of participation versus perceived impacts by North region.)

The Contractor shall conduct the evaluation in 10 out of 16 AKT program partner municipalities, as follows: four northern municipalities, three Albanian majority municipalities and three southern non-majority municipalities. The Contractor must complete the following tasks as part of this evaluation:

1. Conduct field work by examining the use of implementing mechanisms, interviewing internal (USAID) and external stakeholders, as well as examining resources expended in management and oversight.

2. Examine the overall implementation of the activities based on the objectives of the project in regards to its work with non-majority communities, municipalities and target institutions.

3. Validate and observe the progress made in achieving the results and the four objectives as specified in the Contract and within the Cooperative Agreement (listed in I.C. above).

4. Review the progress made in attaining the anticipated results.

5. Identify and analyze challenges and obstacles that affected implementation of both activities, and document lessons learned.

C.6.2 Data Collection and Analysis Methods

The Contractor shall start its work with a review of all the documents cited in the “Relevant Information Sources” section above. The Contractor shall use to the maximum extent possible the best available social science methods and tools that will deliver an unbiased, relevant and transparent evaluation. The Contractor shall test all tools prior to rolling them out to respondents. This should include all available and relevant quantitative instruments, as well as qualitative instruments. At a minimum, the Contractor’s team shall carry out on-sight research and data collection (via Key Informant Interviews, focus groups, and/or other methods) in Kosovo.

The Mission is looking for new, creative suggestions regarding this evaluation, and it is anticipated that the contractor within the work plan will provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed methodology for carrying out both the data collection and analysis.

C.7 EVALUATION PRODUCTS

C.7.1 Deliverables

1. Develop Work Plan: The Contractor shall complete a Work Plan within five working days of the award of the contract and present to the COR for approval prior to starting any data collection. The work plan shall include the anticipated schedule, milestones by week, logistics, and delineation of the roles and responsibilities of members of the contractor’s team.

2. Conduct Desk Review: The contractor’s team will review relevant reports in Kosovo regarding minority integration and USAID Forward requirements and develop a bibliography and a Situational Analysis to serve as background for the Evaluation Report. Additionally, upon contractor’s request, the COR will provide relevant studies and documents from USAID/Kosovo that are relevant to this evaluation. Upon contractor request, the COR will also provide an initial suggested list of organizations and people to include in interviews and focus groups. The contractor’s team shall also work closely to interview USAID staff to gather information on implementing mechanisms and how these have worked in practice.

3. Hold Initial Briefings: The contractor’s team shall coordinate with the COR for a briefing with USAID/Kosovo staff as managed by the COR upon arrival in Pristina to review the objectives of the evaluation as outlined in the SOW and the Work Plan.

4. Weekly Meetings: The Contractor’s team shall hold weekly meetings with the COR to discuss the progress of the evaluation.

5. Conduct Field Study: The contractor’s team shall carry out a series of interviews with the following including but not limited to communities, government officials, businesses, NGOs, and other international organizations. In some cases the interviews will be one-on-one, while in other cases they may take the form of group discussions or focus groups. The purpose of these interviews will be to gather information as described in the SOW for the evaluations. Consequently the interviews are not expected to follow a strict questionnaire format, but rather will be open and wide-ranging as determined by the Contractor in collaboration with the COR.

• Draft Evaluation Report: The Contractor will present a draft report in English of its findings and recommendations to the COR at least two working days before the USAID/Kosovo Mission debriefing.

6. Debriefing with USAID: The Contractor’s team shall present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID/Kosovo COR after submission of the draft report and before departure from country. At a minimum the debriefing must include a discussion of findings, conclusions, and issues as well as the Contractor’s priority recommendations.

• Agenda and Power Point Presentation: The Contractor must present an agenda and a copy of the power point presentation to the COR at least two (2) working days before the USAID/Kosovo Mission debriefing. The Contractor must provide the COR with the completed sign-in sheet at the conclusion of the debriefing.

7. Draft Evaluation Report Version Two: The Contractor shall have ten (10) working days starting from the end of the debriefings to incorporate and submit to COR for review the Draft evaluation Report Version Two. This report shall incorporate feedback including but not be limited to COR comments, debriefing comments from USAID, stakeholders and any other feedback reports and information collected throughout the evaluation process. If the Contractor does not receive comments within ten

(10) working days of their submission, the Contractor shall proceed with preparation of the final report.

8. Final Report: The Contractor shall submit the Final Report to the COR in electronic format within ten

(10) working days following receipt of comments, if any, from the COR. (See Reporting Guidelines below.)

C.8 Reporting Guidelines

The Final Report will not exceed thirty (30) pages (excluding annexes), will follow the format suggested below, and will be prepared in English and follow USAID branding procedures. The Final Report will include but not be limited to the incorporation of COR comments, debriefing comments from USAID, stakeholders and any other feedback reports and information collected throughout the evaluation. The final report shall take into consideration comments and clarifications received from any and all debriefings. While it is understood that one contractor team member may have the lead responsibility for writing the final report, all contractor team members shall provide input and clearance for the final report submitted. Any edits to the final report as requested by the COR must be incorporated into final report within set dates as mentioned above.

All quantitative data collected by the team must be provided in an electronic file in easily readable format that is acceptable to the COR. The data must be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed.

While the Contractor may include sections and information that it considers will add to the value and utility of the report, the basic format for the evaluation report is as follows:

1. Title Page – see USAID Branding and Marking Guidelines (http://ww.usaid.gov/branding/) for logo and other specifics

2. Table of Contents – Should list all the sections that follow, including Annexes. List (with page numbers) all figures, tables, boxes, and other titled graphics.

3. Executive Summary – Should serve as a standalone abbreviated version of the entire report, with emphasis on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations (3-5 pages).

4. Acronyms and Abbreviations – Include only those acronyms that are actually used in the report.

5. Introduction – (3-6 pages)

a. Description of the Project – Describe the context in which the project took place, specific development problem addressed, USAID project strategy and activities.

b. Evaluation Purpose and Methodology – Describe the purpose of the evaluation and its intended use; describe evaluation methodology, including constraints and gaps; provide specific evaluation questions addressed. (Note: this section can refer to an Annex that would provide fuller details).

6. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations- Although this section may be organized in different ways and divided into several chapters, the report should clearly differentiate between Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, and should be organized in such a way that it is clear which evaluation questions are being addressed (20-30 pages).

7. Lessons Learned – Identify lessons learned and/or best practices that would provide pertinent information that could be used in the design and implementation of similar projects.

8. Annexes - The appendices to the report shall include at a minimum:

• The Statement of Work;

• Evaluation Design and Methodology – Provide a more complete description of the evaluation questions, design, and methods used. Also includes copies of data collection instruments, such as http://ww.usaid.gov/branding/ questionnaires, checklists, discussion/interview guides, survey instruments, etc., and describes the sampling and analysis procedures that were used.

• Dissenting Views – (If applicable) any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the Evaluation Team;

• List of Persons Interviewed

• List of Documents Reviewed – Includes written and electronic documents reviewed, background literature, secondary data sources, citations of websites consulted

• Recommendations? Why?

Per USAID Evaluation Policy and ADS 203, acceptable draft and final evaluation reports will meet the requirements set forth in the Table below:

USAID Evaluation Policy Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report

• The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project(s), what did not and why.

• Evaluation reports should address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.

• The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline shall be agreed upon in writing by the evaluation COR.

• Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex to the final report.

• Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact of males and females.

• Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).

• Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.

• Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.

• Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.

• Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.

C.9 TEAM COMPOSITION

The evaluation team will consist of five (5) technical experts, including the team leader.

1. Evaluation Team Leader (International): The International Team Leader shall have expertise on minority integration concepts. At least 10 years of experience in minority, community and municipal development concepts and development work in developing countries. The team leader shall also have experience in evaluating democracy and governance activities. The individual shall have excellent written and oral communication skills, as well as exceptional organizational and analytical abilities. Knowledge of USAID development concepts is encouraged, and experience in the Europe and Eurasia region is a plus. The Team Leader will take specific leadership for the team, finalize the evaluation design, coordinate activities, arrange periodic meetings, consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendation into a high quality document.

2. Evaluation Specialist (International/Senior): The team member that has a strong experience on post conflict concepts and politically sensitive government development concepts. This team member will be concentrated to cover the northern Kosovo municipalities.

3. Evaluation Specialist (Local Specialist): The Local Evaluation Team Senior Specialist shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience in development concepts, ethnic-post conflict areas, community development and civil society concepts.

4. Evaluation Specialist (Local Specialist): The Local Specialist shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience in regard to business sector engagement and job creation concepts.

5. Evaluation Specialist (Local Specialist): The local Team specialist shall have a minimum 5 years of experience in working with municipalities on community and ethnic integration concepts in Kosovo.

The team members shall have at least two translators (Albanian and Serbian translator) as team members.

All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest with USAID Implementing Partners. The contractor’s team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s Evaluation Policy and guidance included in the USAID ADS Chapter 200.

C.10 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT

C.10.1 Logistics

USAID/Kosovo will provide overall direction to the contractor’s team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. The contractor’s team is responsible for arranging meetings as identified during the course of this evaluation, although they may request an introduction from USAID if deemed necessary and/or advisable. The contractor’s team is also responsible for arranging transportation as needed, and shall also be responsible for procuring its own work/office space, computers, internet access, printing, and photocopying. USAID/Kosovo personnel will be made available to the team for consultations regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process.

C.10.2 Scheduling

Work is to be carried out over a period of approximately five weeks, beginning immediately after the contract is awarded.

C.10. 3 Period of Performance and Duty Station

It is anticipated that the Team will spend 3 days of preparation work in the US, reviewing documents and becoming familiar with the sector including the meeting with the Chemonics, Home Office Mr. Agnus Olson (1717 H ST NW STE 1 WASHINGTON DC 20006-3900) and two days in Pristina preparation work, reviewing documents and becoming familiar with the sector including the meeting with the Community Development Fund (CDF), Executive Director (str. Sejdi Kryeziu, No.16, 10000 Pristina, Kosovo). A six day workweek is authorized while performing the fieldwork in Kosovo.

The Team members will initiate work in Kosovo on/about November, 2016. The evaluation process will be managed by USAID/Kosovo Program Office (contact person: Melita Cacaj, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist).