South Sudan (Republic of): Request for Proposals (RFP) Water for Recovery and Peace Program (WRAPP) Evaluation

Dear Offerors,

This document is a request for proposals (RFP) for the external evaluation of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) projects implemented under Pact’s Water for Recovery and Peace Programme (WRAPP). Pact, Inc. (“Pact”), through WRAPP, seeks proposals from a competent contractor for the execution of this evaluation.

This evaluation will focus only on Pact’s recent projects funded by the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID-OFDA) implemented in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria between 2008 and 2013. The evaluation marks an important opportunity to take stock of Pact’s WASH programme to date, and will provide constructive recommendations on the type and nature of WASH initiatives that will need to exist in South Sudan in the next few years.

This is a full and open competition pursuant to Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), with more information on this found under the instructions. Offerors should read the entire solicitations, which includes all pertinent technical sections and the terms, conditions, instructions required for submitting a proposal.

• Location: Jonglei, Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria State

• Type of Award: Firm Fixed Price Purchase Order

• Period of Performance: May 6 – June 7, 2013. Offerors are asked to suggest an appropriate amount of LOE around these dates.

• Submission of Questions: Pact will answer questions and provide assistance in understanding the requirements of this RFP that are sent to tenderssouthsudan@pactworld.org. No questions will be answered by phone.

• Submission of Proposals: Submitted proposals must be written in English. The proposal must be submitted in two parts: 1) Technical Proposal and 2) Cost Proposal. Proposals can be submitted electronically at tenderssouthsudan@pactworld.org or in hard copy & digital copy (on CD-Rom) to the address below. The deadline for submission is May 1, 2013.

• Pact Sudan Juba Office: Susan Doru, Hai Malakal, Plot 64, Juba, South Sudan

Section 1: Instructions

This is a full and open competition pursuant to Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR Chapter 1) Any type of organization, large or small commercial (for profit) firms, faith based and on-profit organizations in partnership or consortia including interested organizations from geographic code 935 are eligible to compete.
All proposals must be submitted in two packages, 1) Technical Proposal and 2) Cost Proposal. If submitted in hard copy, you must have them separated and also include a digital copy (on a CD-ROM). If submitting electronically only, please ensure they are in separate files.

For the technical proposal, Offerors must submit all the required documentation mentioned below, with the different documents being separate and clearly labeled.

Cost Proposal: • The Offeror’s price for the work to be proposed under this RFP will be fixed and expressed in United States Dollars inclusive of all costs, taxes, and profit. The offeror must confirm that it has financial resources to complete the scope of work (SOW). No advances will be made on labor.

Technical Proposal: The technical proposal should include the following information listed below. Please note that there is an added requirement for companies- please see the last requirement.

• Evaluation Methodology and Work Plan: The Offeror must provide a work plan which shall specify clearly how the Offeror will carry out the acitivty with a detailed methodology and work plan.

• Past Performance: Maximum of three (3) pages describing similar work completed in the past three (3) years. This can either be found in a list or CV format.

• References: At least two (2) references should be supplied, including the name of the client and name of the client’s individual contact, including phone number, email, and address.

• For Companies Only: Registration and Audit Reports: If this is a company that is choosing to apply, please ensure to include registration details and audit reports. Individuals are not required to do so.

Cost Proposal: • The Offeror’s price for the work to be proposed under this RFP will be fixed and expressed in United States Dollars inclusive of all costs, taxes, and profit. The offeror must confirm that it has financial resources to complete the scope of work (SOW). No advances will be made on labor.

Section 2: Terms and Conditions A. General Conditions a. Proposals must be in strict accordance with the technical specifications contained herein. b. The prices proposed by the Offeror will be considered fixed regardless of currency fluctuations and differentials in construction material prices. c. Successful Offerors will be presented with a contract containing Pact’s standard terms and conditions, including provisions concerning warranties, suitability of work and materials, and assurances and representations. No work will be authorized in absentia for a fully signed contract between Pact and the successful Offeror. All awarded contracts will also contain terms and conditions applicable to awards from OFDA/USAID. d. Any attempt by an Offeror to influence Pact, outside of the instructions set forth in this RFP, in the process of examination, clarification, evaluation and comparison of proposals, or to obtain information on how the procedure is progressing, or to influence Pact in its decision concerning the award of a Contract hereunder, will result in the immediate rejection of that Offeror’s proposal. e. Pact reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time or to make no award under it or to amend the terms and conditions applicable to it. All proposals are submitted at the sole cost and expense of the Offeror. Neither Pact nor OFDA/USAID has any liability of any kind whatsoever with regard to this RFP or the making or failure to make an award hereunder. f. This solicitation in no way obligates Pact to award a contract , nor does it commit Pact to pay any costs incurred in preparation and submission of a proposal in response hereto.
g. At its discretion, PACT reserves the right to request Offerors to revise their proposals. h. While tier subcontracting is generally discouraged, if an Offeror chooses to do so, they must present their plan in their technical proposal when responding to this RFP. Any sub-tier contracting must be approved by OFDA/USAID and PACT. i. In reference to ADS 202.3.9.1 and 202.3.9.3, it is PACT’s responsibility to ensure that this procurement process is conducted in an ethical manner and that no conflict of interest situations jeopardize that. If an Offeror identifies a potential COI situation, they should report it immediately to PACT. Any potential COI not reported and discovered by PACT or any ethical breach of the procurement process as outlined in this RFP, will result in a disqualification of a partner.

B. Paying Office All requests for payments, technical guidance from PACT, and receipt of submission of deliverables will be done through the PACT Juba Office.

Section 3: Requirement, Evaluation, and Basis for the Award

Proposals will be reviewed in two stages, first a technical review and then a cost review.

A. Technical Evaluation:

The Offerors’ proposal shall be evaluated to determine overall technical capability to effectively implement the project. Proposals will be evaluated according to the criteria stated herein. The relative importance of each individual criterion is indicated by the number of points assigned and a total of 100 points are the maximum possible score for each proposal. The evaluation criterion is listed below, with a description of how each will be assessed.

1. • Criteria o Responsiveness to the RFP • Description o Has demonstrated understanding of the SOW and is responsive to the key evaluation questions in the RFP. • Points o 20
2. • Criteria o Experience in conducting evaluations. • Description o Demonstrated experience in the execution evaluations of at least 2 projects of similar nature and complexity during the last 5 years. Has work experience in the African context particularly experience in Sudan • Points o 25
3. • Criteria o Evaluation Methodology and Work Plan • Description o Quality and appropriateness of the methodology and work-plan demonstrated • Points o 40
4. • Criteria o References • Description o Reference of past performance from clients served by the firm/ consultant • Points o 15

A. Cost Evaluation Evaluation of cost proposals will consider, but not be limited to, the following: Cost realism, and completeness of cost proposal and supporting documentation, and total price. Cost data will be evaluated on the basis of cost reasonableness, allowability, and realism based on the following considerations: 1) Are the proposed costs and overall price consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal? 2) Are the proposed costs and overall price realistic for the work to be performed under this purchase order? 3) Do the proposed costs and overall price reflect a clear understanding of the work requirements?

B. Basis of Award: Pact will make the award to the Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable (has passed all of the criteria listed above at a score of 70 and above) and presents lowest price. If the situation arises whereby no suitably qualified Offeror is found, Pact reserves the rights to re-advertise the solicitation.

Section 4: Scope of Work

1. WRAPP Background The genesis of the Water for Peace and Recovery Program (WRAPP) is closely linked to the USAID funded Sudan Peace Fund (SPF) program implemented by Pact between October 2002 and December 2005. The SPF provided a strategic framework and funding for people-to-people peace building. Among its activities was the provision of water, especially in areas where water was identified as a source of conflict.

In July 2004, Pact responded to the release of the USAID/OFDA Annual Program Statement (APS) FY05 Conflict Response Initiative in Sudan, which among other initiatives recommended multi-sectoral program intervention with an emphasis on individuals displaced by the conflict and the provision of basic services in traditionally underserved areas. A proposal by Pact was accepted by OFDA and this led to the birth of WRAPP whose initial funding was around US$4.5 million. With subsequent modifications between 2004 and 2010, the project budget portfolio increased more than five times to over $24.5 million. Since November 2004, WRAPP has implemented additional water projects through funding from a range of other donors.

The WRAPP approach seeks to provide sustainable new water and sanitation infrastructure that enhances community management of public water and sanitation infrastructure, contributes to the reduction of conflict and the promotion of stability and peace, and is environmentally friendly and gender sensitive.

The Pact WRAPP water program, which is a major contributor to the water supply and sanitation development of South Sudan works in close collaboration with the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI), local governments, UN agencies, INGOs and CBOs, as well as with local Peace Committees in order to maximize its results. Water point and sanitation facility sites are selected through communication and planning with the Government of South Sudan (GoSS), local authorities and other stakeholders in the program areas. The Pact program management team also prioritizes the needs of those affected by recent conflicts.

The WRAPP approach focuses on high impact interventions that have high barriers to entry such as technically complicated borehole drilling, which requires large capital investments. To complement these initiatives, WRAPP includes a ‘soft’ component that focuses on community hygiene promotion, public sanitation and community-based operation and maintenance (O&M) for improved sustainability of water points.

1. Focus of the Evaluation This evaluation will focus only on Pact’s recent projects funded by the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID-OFDA) and the US Department of State Bureau for Population Refugees and Migration (BPRM) implemented in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria between 2008 and 2011 and excludes OFDA or PRM funding before or after this period.

2. Objectives of the Projects to be Evaluated The stated objective of the USAID-OFDA project was to “Reduce WASH related morbidity and mortality amongst IDPs and host communities in Jonglei and Upper Nile States ”, whereas for the BPRM project, the aim was to “Increase locally sustainable access to potable water and sanitation in communities with large numbers of returned refugees and other vulnerable communities.

3. Purpose of this Evaluation The evaluation has a dual purpose. The first is to assess the outcomes and impact of the OFDA and BPRM projects for learning purposes so as to inform the design of future WASH initiatives in South Sudan. This is driven by the need to demonstrate change since there is a growing demand from donors, beneficiaries and implementers to be able to provide evidence beyond outputs and processes. This is not only for accountability purposes, but also to promote learning and provide credible data for program adaptation purposes using tangible evidence on what works and what needs to be modified or dropped for the program to yield maximum benefits.

The WRAPP program funded by OFDA and BPRM has been running for a number of years but until 2011, the project has not been able to collect outcome/impact related indicator data through its routine data collection process, given the nature of the data to be collected. In 2011, an internal evaluation was conducted, but there is now a critical need for an external evaluation to capture outcome and impact related evidence as a consequence of the program and to be able to demonstrate change as well as to propose new ways of adapting the project post the emergency period in South Sudan.

The evaluation therefore seeks to:

1. Determine the extent to which WRAPP program objectives and outcomes were met
2. Establish plausible links between programme inputs and results (outputs, outcomes, and impacts) and draw lessons for improvement of future Pact programmes
3. Assess which features of the WRAPP strategy and implementation approach enhanced or prohibited the successful implementation and achievement of the key program objectives in relation to the dynamic context in South Sudan

4. Identify what key elements of Pact’s management and administrative structure and systems contributed to the achievement or failure to achieve program results during the program implementation period (Indicate adjustments and changes that need to be made to ensure success).

5. Evaluation Approach Indicative Evaluation Questions In order to allow for the evaluation to provide concrete learning , apart from addressing the WASH-related areas identified above, the evaluation will seek to answer the following questions (Pact will be amenable to changes and additions as the evaluator recommends).

6. To what extent have the program objectives been met?
7. What are the intended and unintended consequences/results of the program?
8. How relevant was the program interventions in the context of social, economic and political environments?
9. What are beneficiaries’ perceptions about the programme in terms of bringing meaningful change in their lives? What has been the tangible benefit of the WASH activities?
10. To what extent have the projects contributed to a reduction in water related illness in the host and IDP communities?
11. What programmatic changes are necessary to design a responsive and to enhance the successful implementation of WASH programs in the South Sudan Context?
12. To what extent has the program demonstrated the sustainability of results?
13. To what extent has the management and administration of these projects contributed toward its success?
14. Are there any technical or programmatic areas that Pact should reconsider?

Evaluation Design The Offeror is expected to develop the evaluation design based on the program’s conceptual framework, the purpose and key evaluation questions. Pact also anticipates the evaluation will be conducted in a participatory manner through constructive open dialogue that promotes a learning environment.

Evaluation Period & Fieldwork A tentative schedule for the evaluation is 6th May – 7th June 2013. Dates will be finalized with the successful Offeror. The evaluation period includes the desk review, field research, presentation of initial findings and production of a draft report. A timeline for the draft and final report is indicated in section 18: Deliverables.

Composition of the Evaluation Team The successful Offeror will be responsible for drawing a team together to support the evaluation. It is recommended that this process be as participatory as possible. Pact programme staff and key members of the Technical Team will be available to provide operational and logistical support.

Pact seeks proposals from professional individual(s) with the following competencies: a) strong knowledge of the South Sudan context; b) strong knowledge of WASH programming; c) understanding of Monitoring and Evaluation of WASH; sound analytical skills and d) experience of conducting programme evaluations.

1. Roles and Responsibilities

• Develop a realistic evaluation plan, including tools and outline of the evaluation methodology and analysis plan and share with Pact; • Conduct the evaluation data collection, analysis, and report writing; • Provide regular updates to Pact on progress, learning & challenges; • Conduct a workshop to disseminate findings, share lessons learnt and provide concrete recommendations on moving forward; and • Produce a comprehensive evaluation report detailing the evaluation process/experience based on the stated work-plan, key findings, conclusions and critically, recommendations.

1. Statement of Work Phase I: Develop an Evaluation Plan In response to the RFP, the Offeror will propose to Pact the best evaluation design, taking into consideration the needs of the evaluation, the context in which the project is operating and the short timeframe.

The proposed evaluation design should address the following elements and be suited to the context:

i) Evaluation design ii) Evaluation process iii) Data collection procedures iv) Data analysis v) Reporting and dissemination

Phase II: Pre-Fieldwork: Desk Review and Analysis

• Meet with Pact staff to gain an understanding of WRAPP and review major programme documentation • Prepare a time-line for the evaluation activities i.e. data collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination and work with project management to finalize budget • Work with Pact staff to plan the fieldwork logistics • Finalise roles and responsibilities

Phase III: Design Evaluation Tools The consultant will be held responsible to: • Design data collection tools • Agree on the sample size and sampling procedure • Identify and cluster respondents • Design an analysis plan • Pre-test data collection tools • Review and print data collection tools

Phase IV: Fieldwork  Collect primary data from project sites. It is recommended that an attempt be made to visit at least three project sites in each of the three States of Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei and Upper Nile. The sites will be selected in consultation with the successful Offeror.

Phase V: Data processing and analysis • The successful Offeror will be responsible for overseeing the processing of data and providing analysis of it.

Phase VI: Findings and Dissemination • Findings should be presented in a workshop in Pact’s Juba office. • The successful Offeror will be responsible for producing the final report and ensuring that it is appropriately submitted to Pact.

1. Evaluation Deliverables The successful Offeror will prepare the following:

2. Technical proposal to be submitted to Pact. The proposal should include: • An evaluation work plan outlining key evaluation steps and timelines. • Within one week following receipt of Pact's comments on the draft design, the successful Offeror will produce a final evaluation design.

3. Data collection tools: The consultant will design tools to be used in data collection and share with Pact for final approval before collecting data

4. Analysis plan: The consultant will develop an analysis plan to be shared with Pact before data collection begins

5. Conduct a workshop for Pact Management and WRAPP staff of initial findings.

6. The successful Offeror will submit a draft evaluation report for review by Pact within fifteen (15) working days after the workshop.

7. Within five (5) days of receiving comments on the draft report from Pact, the successful Offeror shall be required to submit a final report both in hard and soft copy. The final evaluation report shall meet the following specifications: • The report shall be written in English • The report should not exceed a maximum of 35 pages excluding annexes • The evaluator should prepare a PowerPoint presentation on the same of a maximum of 15 slides on the results • Annexes, at minimum, should include: i. Terms of Reference ii. Data collection tools, cases studies, key evaluation questions or hypotheses, operationalization of key concepts, photos etc. iii. Data presentation and analysis iv. Findings emanating from the workshop v. Recommendations for future programming

8. Raw data: Upon completion of work, the successful Offeror will provide Pact with both hard and soft copies of the both quantitative and qualitative data.

9. WRAPP Evaluation Areas

The WRAPP projects to be evaluated are located in the following areas:

Jonglei State: • Akobo County • Nyirol

Upper Nile State • Nasir County • Longechuk County

Eastern Equatoria State • Torit County • Kapoeta County

Submission of Proposals: Submitted proposals must be written in English. The proposal must be submitted in two parts: 1) Technical Proposal and 2) Cost Proposal. Proposals can be submitted electronically at tenderssouthsudan@pactworld.org or in hard copy & digital copy (on CD-Rom) to the address below. The deadline for submission is May 1, 2013.