ATTACHMENT_J-7.pdf

RFP 294-17-000003 ATTACHMENT J-7

ATTACHMENT J-7

Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) for the Palestinian Municipal Development Project

(PMDP)

Project Information

Project Name: Palestinian Municipal Development Project (PMDP)1

Contractor: CORE Organization2

Estimated Cost of the Project: $30,000,000

Period of Performance: September 30, 2013 through September 29,2017

Requested Services: Final Performance Evaluation Plan of the PMDP (See instructions in Section L.7.4 of the RFP)

1. Activity Description: The goal of PMDP is to improve the capacity of 35 local governance units (LGUs) in the West Bank to deliver better services, become more sustainable, and to improve the citizens’ quality of life. This goal will be achieved by meeting the following objectives:

o Strengthen LGUs capacity to deliver quality services through building 20 Citizen Service Centers thereby improving services for permits, licenses, regulatory oversight, tax processing and land management.

o Completing small-scale infrastructure and building improvements at the LGUs;

o Reengineering/modernizing LGU operation, providing LGU staff training, systems and tools;

o Engaging citizens at the intervention planning, roll-out and assessment stages so they value the improvements in their quality of life and local government services.

Approximately 200 local government staff will take part in the capacity building, skills development and participatory planning workshops, and approximately 6,000 community members will participate in the planning and implementation of program activities. 20 citizen service centers will be developed. Financial sustainability of several LGUs will be improved.

2. Development Hypothesis and its Implementation: by enhancing the capacity of municipal employees in best practices of service delivery, establishing citizen service centers and improving basic LGU infrastructure; engaging citizens in LGU planning and decision making; citizens will be more engaged in their local government, more apt to participate in local democratic processes and more willing to trust local democratic institutions with their livelihoods, safety and security.

1 This is a mock evaluation. This organization and project do not exist

2 Ibid.

3. Existing Performance Information Sources: The project has an approved monitoring and evaluation plan and the partner is reporting across all indicators. Quarterly performance reports as well as annual reports are available at USAID office, as well as at the implementer office. In addition, the mission can use its GIS system to generate project lists of activities by location and LGU. Finally for more social and economic indicators, the contactor may visit the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) website as well as the World Bank website. For security challenges, (such as roads and walls), the Contractor may visit the OCHA website http://www.ochaopt.org/theme/west-bank-barrier.

4. Evaluation Purpose, Audience and Intended Uses: The project is in its final year of performance, and prior to designing a new municipal governance project, USAID would like to conduct a final performance evaluation to determine if the project has achieved its objectives, what other outcomes and impact that were not captured; gaps and implementation issues, unmet needs in this sector that can be addressed in future programming. The report will be used internally by USAID WBG Mission management, and may be shared within USAID, and also shared with the US State Department, with PA Ministry of Local Government, other donors, as well as the benefiting LGUs.

5. Sample Evaluation Questions: USAID has drafted the following evaluation questions. The

Contractor will propose additional questions and/or propose revisions to the following sample evaluation questions in its Evaluation Plan.

1) To what extent did the LGU infrastructure activities improve quality of life and citizen satisfaction in the targeted areas?

2) How has citizen engagement improved as a result of the projects?

3) To what extent did the systems support and capacity building bring municipalities closer to financial sustainability?

4) Based on the findings, what are the unmet needs or challenges that could be addressed in future programming?

The Contractor may suggest alternative questions and must explain the rationale behind revising the questions.

6. Mission Requirements: The Offeror must submit an evaluation plan that will include the followings:

A. Proposed Design/Methods.

The Offeror must identify evaluation method(s) that will generate the highest quality and most credible evidence on each evaluation question, taking time, budget, and other practical considerations into account and specify methods with sufficient detail. Be transparent about which methods are associated with each question. Include any expectations about specific methods or the scale of data collection efforts, including sampling procedures, where appropriate, e.g., random sample, quota or criteria sample.

The evaluation design must include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan;

(2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan.

Offerors must include timeframe and schedule for conducting the evaluation, logistics and any security issues or procedures that may apply.

The Offeror must include a Data Analyses Plan that will include quantitate and qualitative collection and analysis tools. The Offeror will describe how data collected on evaluation questions will be analyzed. Consider what types of descriptive statistics or analysis of narrative data are desired. Be clear about which analysis techniques are associated with each method and question.

B. Proposed Evaluation Team: Offerors must clarify expectations about the methodological and subject matter expertise and composition of the evaluation team, including expectations concerning the involvement of local evaluation team members.

C. Summary Budget including direct costs only (LOE, hourly rates, travel and other direct costs).

D. Deliverables and Briefings: Specify the evaluation deliverable(s) and their timelines and logistics, including requirements for the transfer of data to USAID and expectations concerning evaluation team involvement in the dissemination of evaluation results.

Notify teams about USAID’s expectations for the delivery of study data, code books, transcripts, and how each should be transmitted, e.g., flash drive, CDs.

[END OF ATTACHMENT J-7]