FCA Evaluation Terms of Reference

Date of issue:

10 January 2022

Deadline for submission of offers:

2 Feb 2022 – 11:00 AM Finland time (GMT +2)

Contracting authority:

Finn Church Aid (FCA) Foundation – Finland

Link for obtaining tender documents

https://tarjouspalvelu.fi/kirkonulkomaanapu?id=376738&tpk=5b961a4e-4626-4ec5-bc88-ddf7d25d948d

1. Background of the evaluation

About Finn Church Aid

Finn Church Aid (FCA) is the largest Finnish organization for development cooperation and the second largest provider of humanitarian assistance. FCA operates in more than a dozen countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and has over 70 years of experience. FCA specializes in supporting local communities in three priority areas: Right to Livelihood (R2L), Right to Quality Education (R2QE) and Right to Peace (R2P). Our operations include long-term development cooperation, humanitarian assistance and advocacy.

Uganda’s Country Context

With a total population of 47.2 million (2020) Uganda has one of the youngest and fastest growing populations in the world. Fifty-seven per cent of its citizens are under the age of 18 and this is expected to double by 2040. Despite the economic growth over the years, Uganda remains among the least developed countries. Rapid population growth, urbanization and the refugee influx continue to put pressures on the country’s social service delivery.

Uganda is the largest refugee hosting country in Africa and third largest in the world with 1,482,101 refugees and asylum seekers as of April 2021. A majority of them (over 70 %) are women and children and mostly from South Sudan (62%) and Democratic Republic of Congo (29%). Refugee hosting districts in Uganda were already part of the most poor and marginalized parts of the country. The additional populations in form of refugees have worsened the service delivery in those districts, and it is in these locations that Finn Church Aid first started its activities in Uganda to address the problem. However, as the situation protracts, donor funding for the refugee response is anticipated to decrease despite the continuous influx of new displaced persons, hence posing also a challenge for FCA’s activities.

In education, Uganda has made significant gains with regard to pupil and student enrolment growth and making education services accessible to all learners of school going age. Improvements in educational outcomes have however been challenged by continuing high rates of population growth, low quality education and low level of investment in education, which has declined from 15 per cent to 10 per cent of the total budget between 2012 and 2020. Quality of education is low: 51 per cent of children in grade 6 meet required literacy levels and 53 per cent meets required numeracy levels. Only 9 per cent of children with disabilities are enrolled in primary school and only 6 per cent complete it. Transition to secondary school is limited to the few. Dropout rates escalate for children over 14 years due to high levels of violence at school, inadequate sanitary facilities, work pressures to contribute to household incomes, teenage pregnancy and early marriage. Opportunities provided to support adolescents to develop their life and livelihood skills are also limited.

According to World Bank Report 2020, about 700,000 young people reach working age every year in Uganda; whilst only 75,000 jobs are created each year. This therefore generates high levels of unemployment among young people currently. Although more than 70% of Ugandans are employed in agriculture, mainly on a subsistence basis, the sector remains underfunded and unattractive for the young despite its enormous potential to provide the much much-needed employment; leaving the sector mainly to the adults and the very old. World Bank further estimates that on average, one million young people in Uganda are expected to reach working age between 2030-2040.

During 2020 Uganda’s economy has experienced a slowdown in growth due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic crisis, a locust invasion and flooding caused by heavy rains. Uganda’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 is projected to be between 0.4 and 1.7% compared to 5.6% in 2019. This will have a significant effect on the purchasing power especially in rural areas where 80% of the population live.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had far reaching negative impacts on Uganda´s economy and other sectors as well. In the social services sector, government announced the closure of schools in March 2020, and again in June 2021 due to the second wave. Keeping children out of schools for almost a full year does not only affect the learning outcomes when schools resume; but also affects the security and protection aspects of the children. Reports indicate that over 20% of the learners may not return to school owing to early pregnancies and economic pressures as children drop out of school to complement the already strained family incomes bases.

Overview of the FCA Country Programme in Uganda

The Uganda Country Office (UGACO) was established in early 2014 in Kampala and for a few months had only one employee, who is the current Country Director. Within seven years, UGACO has grown from being a one person’s office working through partners, into one employing over 260 persons in Kampala’s Country Office and in 7 field offices (in Kyaka, Rwamwanja, Arua, Yumbe, Obongi/Moyo, Mityana and Adjumani), becoming FCA’s largest country office. Additionally, close to 2,000 teachers working in the schools supported by the country programme are on the payroll of UGACO.

UGACO’s programme is nowadays mostly self-implemented. As of August 2021, it consisted of 15 self-implemented (including two consortia projects) and five partner-implemented projects. FCA’s operations take place in the districts of Koboko, Adjumani, Yumbe, Obongi, Kamwenge, Kyegegwa, Mubende, Mityana, Wakiso and Kampala and are likely to be expanded the districts of Lamwo, Isinikö, Terogo and Madiokollo during 2021 and to the Karamoja region in the North-East later on. In terms of funding, the country program has grown significantly over the past few years; in 2015, the realized budget of the country program was approximately 1,5 million euros, whereas in 2020 the realization was nearly 14 million euros.

65%% of the country program’s projects focus on access to R2QE for the most vulnerable, in both development and humanitarian contexts, and are being implemented in most of its areas of operations, in cooperation with UNICEF, UNHCR, ECHO, ENABEL, ECW, PRM and the Finnish MFA amongst others. The Uganda country program strives to ensure that the educational needs of children, youth and people with disabilities in refugee and host communities in particular, are met to provide equitable and increased quality of and access to both formal and non-formal education. From an initial focus on primary education, the R2QE portfolio has developed into a whole-child approach programme, covering ECD, Primary, Secondary and Vocational skills, as well as Accelerated Education Programme (AEP), and looking into scaling up interventions in secondary and vocational education and ECD. FCA operates as UNHCR’s main implementing partner in the education sector in Bidibidi, Kyaka II and Rwamwanja refugee settlements focusing on ECD, primary and secondary education, and as the main implementing partner in secondary and vocational education in Palorinya, Kyaka and Rwamwanja refugee settlements.

The country program aims at facilitating vulnerable youth’s smooth transition from education at different levels to employment and self-employment so that they can enjoy a more self-reliant future, and together with women, play a more active role in their local communities and economies. The country program works towards strengthening the capacity of communities to transform livelihood systems through effective natural resource management and environmental sustainability. In terms of volume, the R2L portfolio makes up 35% of it with interventions built around skills development and entrepreneurship of youth and women and Linking Learning to Earning (LL2E) approaches, and involving different forms of collaboration with the private sector. R2L have so far been implemented by local partners in Kampala/Wakiso, Rwamwanja, Bibidi and Yumbe and funded by Women’s Bank.

However, for the first time in 2020-2021, the country program initiated two self-implemented livelihood projects, one with support from EU Horizon in Rwamwanja and one in Mityana with funding from the Women’s Bank. The focus on direct implementation of livelihood projects is likely to increase in future and fundraising efforts are intensifying in that sector.

R2P constitutes the smallest component of the country program with a share of 5% of the total volume. Under R2P, peaceful coexistence is promoted through inclusive peacebuilding activities with a specific focus on supporting leadership and participation of youth (including both young women and men) and on peace education. The only actual peace project is implemented in Kampala and West Nile region by the local partner organization UMYDF with funding from the Finnish Foreign Ministry and focus on countering violent extremism, but peace-building is an important component of most education interventions, especially in the refugee settings. A key priority of the country program is effective promotion and implementation of the “triple nexus”, to ensure that humanitarian, development and peace interventions are mutually reinforcing and that new refugees will be provided with the necessary lifesaving support to transit into recovery and later to a more sustainable development pathway leading to resilience, self-sustenance and lasting peace.

With a strong presence in the field, FCA has established itself as an actor particularly in Uganda’s education sector, working to promote especially EiE and vocational education. UGACO’s co-leadership in the EiE Sector Working Group with the Ministry of Education and UNHCR, and its recent selection as INGO representative for the Education Response Plan (ERP) Secretariat, constitute a key part of its profile in this domain. Furthermore, FCA has a MoU with Government of Uganda through the Office of the Prime Minister and is a member of various other networks and coordination groups. UGACO uses this position to influence and promote the active participation of communities through targeted advocacy efforts in all three thematic areas. Engagement in coordination mechanisms serves as a lever to the country program extensive advocacy work towards the Ugandan government, but also towards the local governments, communities and the private sector to ensure the realization of R2QE, R2L and R2P. The country program strives to ensure that capacity building of local civil society as agents of change in their communities is at the centre of all its interventions.

An external evaluation of the country programme was last conducted in 2015. A conflict assessment focusing on radicalisation and violent extremism in Uganda was conducted in 2016. An impact evaluation of the inclusive education interventions for children with disabilities in Adjumani district was also undertaken in 2019. During the period in review (2016-mid-2021), 12 end of project evaluations were conducted, as well as project level internal impact assessments for LEARN & SCORE projects. In addition, several studies and needs assessments were conducted, including Rwamwanja BTVET Case study in 2018, which documented 20 success stories, a Rwamwanja BTVET Modelling study and a feasibility study for a poultry project in 2019, a tracer study “*Enhancing youth employability and entrepreneurship through skills training and small business development*”.

2. Rational, purpose and priorities of the evaluation

FCA is yearly commissioning evaluations of 1-2 of its country programmes. The Uganda Country Office has been implementing projects since 2014. The country programme has evolved in many ways (see the above section) and grown significantly in the last few years. Given the size, growth, varied programming (humanitarian aid, development co-operation, advocacy, all FCA themes and thematic linkages, donor portfolio), current weight of the CP within the global FCA programme, and the time passed since the last external evaluation, this constitutes a favourable moment to undertake a new external evaluation of the country progamme.

The main purpose of this evaluation is to provide an understanding of the country programme’s evolution from 2016 to what it is today and to help FCA to learn from it. More specifically, the evaluation is expected to

1) analyse FCA’s work in Uganda in term of programming, operations, structures and systems

2) extract lessons learnt and formulate concrete recommendations;

3) hence support UGACO in planning of its future work.

The evaluation will focus on the following priority issues:

1. Internal and external coherence and relevance of the Uganda country programme

2. Growth of the Uganda country programme until now, what has enabled the growth and what have been the consequences both programmatically and organizationally

3. Planned growth of the Uganda country programme in the future, its estimated opportunities and anticipated consequences both programmatically and organisationally

4. Successes, challenges and learnings to improve UGACO’s operations and programming

The results of the evaluation will serve both internal and external audiences. Internally, FCA will use the report for further development of its Uganda country programme, while applying lessons learnt also in other country programmes and the Global Programme when relevant. Results will also be shared with relevant partners, beneficiaries and donors.

3. Scope of the evaluation

The scope of this external evaluation will cover all of UGACO’s[1] operations and programming during 2016 – 2022 (present day). The external evaluation will hence cover two FCA’s programming periods of FCA, 2015-2017 and 2018 onwards with total realized budget of over 38 million euros between 2016 and 2020[2]. The evaluation entails

· all three thematic focus areas (right to quality education, right to livelihood and right to peace)

· the implementation of rights-based approach and cross-cutting issues (gender equality and social inclusion, in particular disability inclusion, conflict sensitivity, climate change and DRR),

· all the modalities of UGACO’s work (humanitarian aid, development and advocacy),

· the main partnerships (implementation and co-implementation partners, main education partners, donors, consortia partners, collaborations with private sector, ACT Forum)

· evolvement of the organizational and management structures of the country program

4. Evaluation questions

The evaluation will concentrate on the following OECD/DAC criteria: 1) relevance 2) coherence 3) efficiency 4) financial sustainability. Impact and effectiveness will not be included in the criteria of this evaluation but they may be referred to based on secondary data when relevant. Since the priority issues in this evaluation relate to the enablers of growth in the country program and the consequences of growth of/on the country program, most of the evaluation questions have this focus.

Relevance and Coherence

1. Based on the existing evaluations and other studies, to what extent have the thematic priorities chosen by UGACO been relevant for needs in targeted communities?

2. By which means and to what extent has UGACO ensured external coherence and avoided duplication (with other actors in the same context), coordinated its work, ensured complementarity and relevance with others including partners, with Government of Uganda in its programming and operations.

3. By which means and to what extent has UGACO ensured its internal coherence in programming and operations (incl. synergies and interlinkages within UGACO and the rest of FCA; consistency of UGACO’s work with FCA’s strategy and Global Programme (incl. selected SDGs)?

Efficiency and financial sustainability

1. Which internal and external operational and programmatic factors (both intended and unintended) have contributed (positively or negatively) to the growth of UGACO and its programme?

Operational and organizational factors can include, but are not limited to:

· trends and sustainability of the financial growth of the country program (funding sources, volume, thematic and geographical focus of the growth)

· fundraising, grants management, donor portfolio management

· development of admin/support costs, cost recovery and UGACO’s reliance on FCA’s funds

· country office structure (Kampala head office and field offices) financial management and internal control mechanisms;

· the evolvement of the country office’s overall management and structure

· people management incl. ensuring relevant technical expertise;

· knowledge management, staff capacity building;

· internal co-ordination and collaboration;

· partnership management and consortia management

· realization of the cross-cutting principles in the operations.

Programmatic factors can include, but are not limited to:

· programming processes;

· thematic selection and synergies

· selection of FCA’s work modalities (incl. also advocacy) and types of implementation (partner versus self-implementation, work under consortia, joint implementation);

· bridging humanitarian to development work and evolvement towards nexus thinking;

· partner capacity building and its potential to support localization;

· specific methodologies and innovative approaches;

· unintended spillover effects of projects and other initiatives;

· UGACO specific knowhow;

· realization of the cross-cutting principles in the program.

1. What are the replicable success factors and how might they be replicated, even scaled-up? What might have been negatively impacting factors and how might they be avoided?

2. How have risks related to the growth of the CP at both programmatic and organizational levels been taken into account as part of UGACO’s risk management?

3. Given the current context (COVID-19, humanitarian situation, aid architecture), what (and by which means) needs to be done/left undone to a) sustain the current level of funding in the longer term (until 2030) b) pursue further growth in the longer term (until 2023)? Consider also other external factors with potential impact on this as relevant.

5. Methodology required & available data

The evaluation will be conducted by an external evaluator in collaboration with the Service and Accountability Center (SAC) in Finland and UGACO. The evaluation manager for this evaluation in SAC will be in the lead from FCA’s side.

The evaluation will be conducted in a participatory manner and following the rights-based approach. Data collection will happen using mixed methods including also participatory approaches, with special attention to be paid to ensuring the inclusion of women, girls, persons with disabilities and refugees. The evaluator will define in his/her offer a more detailed methodology for undertaking the evaluation. The methodology will be finalised in the inception report. The methodology should clearly outline the following:

· An outline of the approach proposed for contract implementation;

· A list of the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the contract objectives;

· The related inputs and outputs

The following documentation will be made available for the evaluator on FCA strategy and policies, on global programme level, on country programme as well as on project level:

• FCA Strategy 2013-2016 and 2017 onwards

• FCA’s thematic policy guidances and thematic strategies

• Relevant organisational and programmatic FCA policies

• FCA’s global programme plans and annual reports for the programme periods 2015-2017 and 2018-2023

• Country Strategies and multi-annual results frameworks

• Context Analysis (2017)

• Country Programme Annual Plans

• Country Programme Annual Reports

• Relevant project-level financial plan and reports

• Relevant thematic assessments and evaluation reports related to the country programme

• Relevant documentation related to the Uganda context (acts, policies, development plan, strategies …)

• Relevant needs assessment reports

• Relevant donor proposals

• End of project evaluations as well as studies’ final reports

• Other project documentation upon request

• UGACO CHS self-assessment and Accountability Improvement Plan

• Advocacy Strategy 2018-2023

• UGACO HR Staff Manual

• Relevant UGACO management documents

Travel to/in Kampala and the selected field offices in Uganda is highly desirable for data collection, but may be restricted by COVID-19. Therefore, the evaluator is expected to propose alternative ways for data collection in a COVID-19 lockdown/restricted travel situation. The proposed methodology has to also be able to be adapted to a changing situation in country at short notice.

Possible limitations:

· Lack of face-to-face interaction with stakeholders in data collection situations

· Staff turnover and the consequent lack of institutional memory in FCA

6. Evaluation process

Key Steps of the Process

The evaluation process is expected to include the following steps:

• Kick off meeting with the evaluator, SAC and UGACO

• Desk review of relevant documentation; interviews of key FCA staff in SAC and UGACO

• Submission, commenting and approval of the Inception report including work plan (FCA template);

• Data collection and analysis. It is foreseen that the following groups will be included in the data collection process: selected FCA staff in SAC/Helsinki, selected UGACO staff in Kampala and field offices, UGACO’s implementing partners and selected funding partners and selected rights-holders and duty-bearers. Data collection includes also a debriefing session with UGACO.

• Submission, commenting and approval of the draft report;

• A validation session held at UGACO with relevant staff members after the submission of the draft report;

• A validation session via Teams with relevant SAC staff after the submission of the draft report;[3]

• Submission, commenting and approval of the final report.

After the actual evaluation process, FCA will also organise an internal knowledge sharing session within FCA to share the learnings from this evaluation. UGACO will share the learnings from this evaluation with its relevant stakeholders.

Division of Responsibilities

FCA is responsible for facilitating the setup of logistics and appointments both in Kampala and in the field locations, as well with SAC in Helsinki, in co-ordination with the evaluator.

An advisory team (2-3 SAC FCA staff) will be set up in SAC to support the SAC evaluation manager in the management of this evaluation.

The evaluator will take care of organising needed support services e.g. in translation, the costs of logistics, support services, etc. are the sole responsibility of the evaluator

7. Timetable

The evaluation will commence with a kick-off meeting after the evaluator has signed the contract. The commencing of the evaluation is foreseen to happen in early March 2022. The evaluation has to be concluded and the Final Report has to be received and approved by mid-June 2022.

Time

Activity

Deliverable

First half of March

Kick-off meeting 1/2 day

Inception report

First half of March

Desk review

First half of March

Inception report writing

Second half of March

FCA comments and approval for inception report

April

Data collection in UGACO (+ 1/2 day for debriefing with UGACO) and in SAC

Draft report

First half of May

Preparation of the draft report

Second half of May

FCA comments for the draft report

Final report

Second half of May

Validation session with UGAGO 1/2 day

Second half of May

Validation session with SAC 1/2 day

Second half of May

Finalising the evaluation report

Early June

Submission and approval of the final report

8. Deliverables & Payments

· The evaluator will produce an inception report, a draft evaluation Report and a final evaluation report, each of the on the template provided by FCA. All reports are to be submitted to FCA for comments that need to be sufficiently addressed by the consultant within an agreed timeframe.

· Each deliverable will be separately approved by FCA if found being of acceptable quality in terms of **

• containing all the sections specified in FCA’s templates (please see the more detailed requirements in the attached templates); **

• being written in clear and comprehensible English; **

• reflecting the chosen evaluation methodology (see the section 3 in the technical proposal template and the inception report template as well as the section 2 in the evaluation report template for more details). **

· FCA reserves the right to end the evaluation in the inception phase if the inception report is unsatisfactory.**

· The maximum length of the draft and final report can be 30 pages each without annexes. The annexes include but are not limited to the ToR for the evaluation, list of consulted documents, list of people interviewed, by affiliation, and contact details, evaluation matrix, data collection and analysis tools.

Deliverables

Payment %

Upon approval of the Inception report

20%

Upon approval of draft report

40%

Upon Approval of final report

40%

TOTAL

100%

9. Eligibility Criteria (Skills and qualifications required)

If the Tenderer is a single person, he/she must fulfill the following minimum criteria, which will be checked from the CV and three recommendation letters and ToRs from previous contract providers.

• Master’s degree in a field relevant to the assignment such as development studies, public policy or social development.

• Demonstrable experience at least from the past eight (8) years in conducting evaluations at programmatic level as sole evaluator or team leader some of which preferably in humanitarian contexts with references of at least three (3) relevant evaluations as sole evaluator or Team Leader in a humanitarian context Strong experience in dealing with several different stakeholders (LNGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, Local Authorities, Funding Agencies)

• Proven experience in financial analysis (minimum one (1) year)

• Studies in people management or proven experience in assessing people management

• Proven work experience in Uganda (minimum one year)

• Proven work experience in East Africa in humanitarian contexts (minimum three years);

• Demonstrated experience from triple nexus and principles of humanitarian aid in the previous work;

• Experience in least two of the following in fragile contexts: peace, education and livelihoods work as well as advocacy work;

• Proven data analysis skills (minimum five (5) years);

• Fluency in spoken and written English.

If the Tenderer is composed of a team of multiple persons, the criteria above must be fulfilled as follows:

The following minimum criteria must be fulfilled by the named Team Leader (Please provide

the name of the team leader in the technical proposal):

• Master’s degree in a field relevant to the assignment such as development studies, public policy or social development

• Demonstrable experience from at least from the past eight (8) years in conducting evaluations at programmatic level as sole evaluator or team leader some of which preferably in humanitarian contexts with references of at least three (3) relevant evaluations as sole evaluator or Team Leader in a humanitarian context

• Proven work experience in Uganda (minimum one (1) year)

• Proven work experience in East Africa in humanitarian contexts (minimum three (3) years)

• Fluency in spoken and written English

The following minimum criteria must be fulfilled either by the named team leader or at least

one of the team members (Please provide the name of the team member, who is the most competent

to each part in the technical proposal):

• Strong experience in dealing with several different stakeholders (LNGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, Local Authorities, Funding Agencies)

• Proven experience in conducting financial analysis (minimum one (1) year)

• Studies in people management or proven experience in assessing people management

• Understanding of triple nexus and principles of humanitarian aid

• Understanding of peace, education and livelihoods work as well as advocacy work in fragile contexts

• Proven data analysis skills (minimum five (5) years)

These criteria will also be used as comparison criteria concerning the skills and expertise.

11. Contract Award Criteria

The bids will be assessed according to the following criteria.

Qualitative award criteria & percentages

Means of verification & scoring

Weight

Skills / expertise of the evaluation team **

CV and ToRs from previous work

Criteria 1: Evaluation experience

1 point above 8 years of minimum experience, 1 point for each additional year, up to 5 points total

Criteria 2: Financial analysis

1 point above 1 year of minimum experience, 1 point for each additional year, up to 5 points total

Criteria 3: Work experience from Uganda

1 point above 1 year of minimum experience, 1 point for each additional year, up to 5 points total

Criteria 4: Hum. work experience from East Africa

1 point above 3 years of minimum experience, 1 point for each additional year, up to 5 points total

Criteria 5: Experience of peace, education and livelihoods work as well as advocacy work in fragile contexts

2,5 point for experience in each additional topic above the minimum requirement of experience in two topics, (total 5 points)

Criteria 6: Data analysis skills

1 point above 5 years of minimum experience, 1 point for each additional year, up to 5 points total

30%

Methodology **

Technical proposal

Criteria 7: Rational

3 points for a demonstrated understanding of the country program, 3 points for the demonstrated understanding of the goals of the evaluation (total 6 points)

Criteria 8 Evaluation questions

3 points for a demonstrated understanding of the questions, 3 points for their successful further elaboration (total 6 points)**

Criteria 10: Proposed methodology

3 points for a clear approach with a list of relevant activities, 3 points for diversity of suggested data collection methods (total 6 points)

Criteria 11: Cross-cutting themes

2 points for gender & social inclusion, 2 points for climate change & DRR, 2 points for conflict sensitivity (total 6 points) **

Criteria 12: Adaptability of the work plan and methodology to the requirements of COVID-19 situation

3 points for partial adaptability, 6 points for full adaptability (total 6 points)

30%

Organization of tasks and timetable **

Criteria 13: Timetable (work plan) in the technical proposal

10 points for a timetable matching with the presented in the section 7.

Scores of other offers will be calculated proportionally.

10%

Financial Score: submit your Financial Proposal **

Criteria 14 Financial proposal

Lowest price receives highest score. Scores of other offers are calculated proportionally.

30%

To assess and compare the skills/expertise, the CV(s) and the recommendation letters will be used. The team leader’s role in the previous work illustrated by the ToRs must be relevant to this ToR.

To assess and compare the methodology, the technical proposal (without the work plan) incl. realism of budget will be used.

To assess and compare the organization of tasks and timetable, the timetable (work plan) will be used.

To assess the financial score, the financial proposal will be used.

10. Budget

The maximum price for proposals considered in this tender is 35 000 euros. Bids exceeding this amount will not be eligible for evaluation. The proposed budget and its detailed break-down with VAT 0 is to be presented in euros on the budget format included in the Technical Proposal Template.

The budget is to be based on the all-inclusive fee of the consultant that covers travel, insurance, incidentals, accommodation, materials etc. FCA will not make reimbursements and expects the consultant to factor in all costs required for this proposal. The consultant is also responsible for paying the VAT.

12. Terms of contract

· The consultant will keep confidential all commercial and/or technical and/or other information in whatever form relating inter alia to business, facilities, products, techniques and processes received from FCA or its partners or learned in connection with and/or as a result of performing the services and after the service has been delivered.

· The Consultant is responsible for payment of all social costs, other employment related costs and insurance contributions and for all other liabilities of a statutory nature.

· The selected consultant will sign FCA’s Code of Conduct for Service Providers and Child Safeguarding policy to confirm his/her accordance.

· Copyright for the report will remain with FCA.

· See tender dossier for more information.

13. Submission requirements

· CV – including a short summary of relevant competences and previous evaluation work conducted

· Technical Proposal (using FCA’s technical proposal template)

· Financial proposal (Budget) excluding VAT

· Max. 3 examples of reports from previous similar consultancies (from recent evaluation work)

· Max. 3 recommendations from previous contract providers

· Please download the complete tender dossier and annexes from the electronic supplier portal using the link below. The submission of the offer will be made to the same location. Candidates must register themselves to obtain the tender documents and eventually submit their proposals.

https://tarjouspalvelu.fi/kirkonulkomaanapu?id=376738&tpk=5b961a4e-4626-4ec5-bc88-ddf7d25d948d

If you have technical difficulties using the link above, please contact procurement@kua.fi for support.

Late, incomplete or partial bids will be disqualified.

[1] Although active in Uganda, the investment company FCA Investments Ltd (FCAI) has been excluded from the scope of this evaluation to focus it strictly on FCA’s country program.

[2] The realized budget figures of 2021 will be made available for the evaluation depending on the schedule of the evaluation consultancy.

[3] These validation sessions can be combined together if possible.