- Kenya Red Cross
1.0 About Kenya Red Cross Society, KRCS
Kenya Red Cross Society was created by an Act of Parliament in 1965. It is auxiliary to Central and County governments, but maintains an autonomous status which allows it to act at all times in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Red Cross Red Crescent Movement (RCM). The vision of KRCS is to be a leading humanitarian organization sustainably promoting the well-being, health, and resilience of communities. Within the auxiliary to the National and County Governments, the mission of Kenya Red Cross Society is to facilitate communities to respond to humanitarian emergencies to alleviate human suffering and work with partners to implement innovative community driven programmes that transform lives and enhance resilience.
The mission statement indicates that KRCS will focus its collective capabilities in working with partners to implement innovative community driven programmes that promote their resilience. Innovation and community centered approaches are also part of the core values of KRCS among others like service to humanity, accountability, and inclusivity.
1.1 Project Background The project under evaluation is one of KRCS interventions to support early livelihoods recovery among most vulnerable communities from the socio-economic effects of COVID-19 pandemic. Kenya reported its COVID-19 index case on 13th march, 2020 and subsequently the Ministry of Health put into place various containment measures including curfew hours, ban on large meetings/gatherings, closure of large market places, closure of learning institutions, wearing of masks in all public places, hygiene practices, a ban on foreign flights, lock down of areas/counties and restriction of movement of people among others to contain the spread of Corona virus in Kenya. Some of the measures have been lifted gradually such as ban on foreign flights and some locked down areas/counties or adjusted for example curfew times. These restrictions led to close down of some companies, factories, hotel industry, eateries and workforce reduction by many organizations and individual employers as well as collapse of micro and small scale traders and subsequent loss of livelihood sources.
The restrictions imposed by the Government through the Ministry of Health in line with WHO guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have had negative impacts on social and economic well-being of many Kenyans with more effects being felt by the vulnerable populations in urban informal settlements. In most areas of the country, particularly the major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu, which have been hit the hardest by COVID-19, people are concerned about having enough money to buy food, which has become hard to get due to reduced earnings or source of livelihoods.
The containment measures have therefore resulted in far-reaching effects on way of life, loss of business, job losses with an increase in cases of domestic violence out of frustration and loss of jobs, and women bearing the huge burden. Youth, women, children have not been spared and the government line ministries have reported increased teenage pregnancies attributed to stay at home measures. The impact on food security, livelihoods and the ability to meet basic needs for an already vulnerable population is widespread. A survey conducted by Geopoll showed that 36% of Kenyans are accessing credit and loans to soften the economic impact of COVID-19, while 26% are having to tap into their savings. The significant decline in household income calls for an urgent need to address to accelerate the crisis recovery. These shocks and disruptions are likely to be felt both in the short and medium term and Kenya’s urban poor living in informal settlements, which make up about 56% of Kenya’s urban population. Situational analysis showed that approximately 82.7% of Kenyans work in the informal sector with small scale businesses, and low-income households do not have adequate cash flows and savings to sustain loss of income in the coming months.
1.1.1 Project Description
The Government of Kenya supports the use of cash and voucher assistance in helping communities affected by shock and has a well-established social protection and safety nets programs that also use cash transfers. Since the Government’s social protection and safety nets are already far constrained, humanitarian actors are encouraged to use existing systems in a bid to support and complement its efforts. The Kenya Red Cross Society has been implementing several COVID-19 response projects through cash transfers reaching to 38,215 households (approximately 191,075 people) majorly in Nairobi and Mombasa informal settlements and few in the ASAL rural areas through MPESA mobile money cash transfers mechanism. The post distribution monitoring reports indicate positive feedback from the communities appreciating the use of cash that has empowered them to make choices on needs and meet most of their basic needs at the peak of difficult times of COVID-19 and its effects.
In November 2019 before COVID-19 outbreak, KRCS in partnership with Danish Red Cross, Norwegian Red Cross and Grassroots Economic Foundation started a vouchers assistance pilot project using Community Inclusion Currencies (CIC) e-vouchers to strengthen resilience of people affected by disaster through increasing trade amongst the community.
In the face of COVID-19, KRCS cascaded its cash and vouchers assistance integrating both mobile money cash transfers and community inclusion currencies as part of improved phase of piloting the use of CICs in shock to support early livelihoods recovery among affected community. The project is implemented in Kisauni informal settlements in Mombasa to support early livelihoods recovery from the impacts of COVID-19. The Danish RC has provided funding for this project and supporting in the management of the project while Grassroots Economics Foundation is managing the e-platform that supports CICs as well as providing technical advice on implementation and KRCS team are implementing the project at the community level.
Livelihoods are protected, and negative coping strategies reduced among vulnerable HHs affected by COVID-19.
Indicator: Percent of target households who increased access to basic needs (food, water, sanitation items, education, transport, health)
Output 1: Vulnerable households affected by COVID-19 have been included into the Community Inclusion Currencies (CiC) to cover their livelihood related needs.
Indicators for output 1:
i) Number of CiC in circulation by the end of the project – Target 450,000 CICs
ii) Percent of people having used CiC two times or more against the enrolled community members (7200 transactions) – Target 80%
iii) Percent of target communities reporting clear understanding of CIC technology – Target 80%
iv) Percent of transactions by the vulnerable HHs targeted with CTP have registered 5 transactions or more – Target 50%
Output 2: Vulnerable households have received cash assistance to cover their basic needs.
Indicators for output 2:
i) Number of vulnerable households (disaggregated by sex, age and diversity) who have received cash assistance. – Target 1,500
ii) Percent of cash recipients satisfied with the cash transfer process – Target 90%
iii) Percent of people in target areas not included in the project cash transfers who report understanding of the selection process – Target 80%
Output 3: Effective individual, organizational and system capacity building on community inclusion currency
Indicators for output 3:
i) Number of KRCS staff and volunteers trained on CIC – Target 15
ii) Number of KRCS staff and volunteers sensitized on CIC – Target 200
iii) CIC program quality tool box developed – Target Toolbox developed
1.2. Evaluation Purpose and Scope
The main purpose of this evaluation is to assess project’s achievements/successes, identify lessons learned, and recommendations for future actions. This shall be done through determining the extent to which the project was relevant, efficient, effective and sustainable.
The specific objectives of the evaluation are:
1) To investigate how the project operates with a view to identifying what aspects of the project are working well or poorly and why with a view to suggest necessary adjustments.
2) To investigate project effects, in terms of outcomes and impacts, both positive and negative and planned and unplanned on the target population.
3) To document lessons learnt through the project cycle to inform future programme design in similar crises and contexts.
1.3. Evaluation Criteria and Key questions
The Evaluation will be based on the questions below. The consultants may expound on each of the components and activities of the programme in order to carry out the objectives of the evaluation.
a. To what extent was the project relevant to the needs of beneficiaries and county and national government priorities?
· To what extent are the programme activities aligned to the real needs of the intended beneficiaries?
· Were cash transfers and CiCs relevant in meeting the project objectives?
· Were any of the activities modified to improve their relevance in meeting the project objectives and what was the effect?
· Were external stakeholders sufficiently involved in the design of activities?
· Were there any areas that could be improved in identifying and implementing the activities better?
· To what extent is the programme relevant to the policies and priorities of the government?
· To what extent did the project promote accountability to the communities we work with?
b. To what extent was the project conducted in an efficient and timely manner?
· Were findings available on a timeline that allowed them to be utilised for decision-making and improvement of the project?
· Were there any significant delays that could have been foreseen and mitigated?
· Did any changes in project design result in changes in how efficiently the project achieved its objectives?
· To what extent were implementation arrangements adequate in terms of management, coordination and human resources?
· What type of administrative, financial or managerial challenges did the programme face and to what extent has it affected planning and delivery?
· To what extent were the resources made available sufficient for the planned interventions for the programme?
· Were activities done within the budget allocations? If there were any significant variances (over/under expenditure), what caused them?
c. To what extent has the project achieved its objectives? (the intended impact).
· Are any changes needed in the logic of the project to achieve the impact?
· Was cash delivered safely and spent safely?
· Were any security issues reported as a result of the distribution itself or increased cash on the market?
· Were any recipients disadvantaged by the transfer mechanisms used? Mobile money and CICs?
· Was targeting effective?
· Was airdropping of CICs effective? Are there any necessary changes or improvements?
· What were recipients ‘views on the use of cash, and CICs in this project?
· What were the views of non-recipients and general community on cash and CiCs?
· What complaints and feedback mechanisms were utilized during the project period? How effective were they?
· Did this action meet the objectives and results set out in the project (as outlined in the logical framework)?
· How was the community engaged in the project?
· How can data be used to improve quality programming in CVA using CICs?
To what extent has the project impacted the lives of the targeted project beneficiaries?
· What is the extent to which the project contributed to the intended results?
· What is the extent to which the project contributed to unintended results among beneficiaries and community?
· To what extent have prices changed in the market attributed to the project?
· Have women or marginalized groups been empowered as a result of the CVA project?
· How has the CVA project affected traditional systems of community self-help?
· How has the project influenced local debt and credit markets?
· Which changes are regarded as most significant?
· What measures have been put in place to ensure project sustainability?
· To what extent did socio-cultural factors affect uptake of project interventions? What measures were taken to address the same?
f. Lessons learnt and recommendations
1.4 Evaluation Methodology
The consultant will propose a methodology as part of the inception report. It is expected that lead consultant will outline in detail proposed evaluation design and potential risks and challenges for the evaluation and how these will be managed. The Evaluation Management team recommend a mix of both primary and secondary data collection methods.
Kenya Red Cross Society in collaboration with its partners has consistently monitor the project progress through a rapid survey to gather some baseline information, post distribution monitoring, project management meetings, and project visits. As such some amount of data will be available for the evaluation, and should be utilized as appropriate.
The key methods should include, but are not limited to:
Review of key program and partners’ documents including rapid survey report, routine Post Distribution Monitoring and program progress reports.
Interviews with beneficiary and non-beneficiary communities, Interviews with key stakeholders at county and national levels, Key market actors including traders, delivery mechanisms including CIC operators, county and national government officials involved in the program and interviews with key staff members from Kenya Red Cross Society, Danish Red Cross and GE Foundation.
Online survey may be used to solicit anonymous feedback from stakeholders.
The consultant will be expected to provide the following;
At an agreed inception period
· Inception report not more than 15 pages
· Evaluation plan and methodology
· Data collection tools
· Train data collection team, field test the tools
At the end of the evaluation
· Copies of original and cleaned data sets with codebook. The raw data, the database which has been cleaned (both qualitative and quantitative, including original field notes for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, as well as recorded audio material), should be submitted in soft copy together with the report.
· Evaluation report for Kenya Red Cross Society and other external audience, not more than 30 pages (excluding annexes).
· Condensed version of the evaluation report (2 pages) for dissemination.
· A PowerPoint presentation for dissemination of the findings, recommendations
Of note is that the latter two products will be shared with internal KRCS stakeholders and their funding agencies (Danish RC, GE Foundation) as well as published for external use (CaLP, RCRC Movement etc).
1.6 Accountability and Technical Support
Members comprising of key staff from Kenya Red Cross Society and Danish Red Cross will form an Evaluation Management Team (EMT) whose main role will be oversight of the evaluation work from inception to approval of the report and payment of the consultant.
Detailed information regarding responsibilities of all involved parties and other finer details on reporting will be included in the contract for this work.
1.7 Work Schedule
The evaluation will be conducted over the period of 20 working days spread continuously, including the desk review, from July to August 2021. The Evaluation Team is expected to prepare an inception work with a work plan that will operationalize the evaluation. In the inception report, understanding of the evaluation questions, methods to be used, limitations or constraints to the evaluation as well as schedules and delivery dates to guide the execution of the evaluation should be detailed. The draft will be reviewed and comments provided by the EMT. The comments received will be considered by the evaluators, who will be expected to submit a revised report, after incorporating all the comments on the draft report. The consultant is expected to provide oral presentation of the final evaluation report to relevant stakeholders organized by Kenya Red Cross Society for feedback and critiquing.
The final evaluation ideally should be shared with all comments incorporated and considered for approval on agreed dates. This work is expected to take not more than 15 working days are as follows;
i) Inception report – 3 days after signing of contract
ii) Field work – 7 days maximum
iii) 1st draft report – 5 days before end of evaluation
iv) Final report – 2 days before end of evaluation period
This is a desk and field assignment. An initial period of desk based secondary data review will be followed by field visits to Kisauni informal settlements focusing in Mjambere, Manyani and Majaoni villages. The field work might go hand in hand with stakeholder’s interviews at national level.
1.9. Consultant Profile(s)
· The consultant(s) should have significant experience in cash and voucher assistance programming in emergencies and developmental contexts (above 5 years).
· Advanced academic degree in development, economics or similar relevant fields.
· He/She should have experience in leading evaluations or studies and demonstrable evidence of producing high quality written publications. For this the consultant should have ability to present credible findings derived from evidence and putting conclusions and recommendations supported by the findings. Examples of at least two evaluation reports should be submitted during the face to face interviews.
· Knowledge of humanitarian evaluation methods and techniques with good understanding of data collection, date analysis evaluation methodologies and design and strong qualitative and quantitative research skills is essential.
· Excellent verbal and writing skills (English Language is mandatory).
· Experience working in urban informal/slums settlements in major cities in Kenya is an added value.
· The composition of the consultancy team should be balanced to enable complete coverage of the different aspects of consultancy as set out in the terms of reference, including cross cutting issues.
· Both the lead consultant and his/her team members must have excellent inter personal skills.
NB. The Lead team should be available during the field work and all meetings that will be called by KRCS
2.0 Intellectual property rights
All documentation related to the assignment will remain the sole and exclusive property of the Kenya Red Cross Society.
2.1. Submission of proposal
The technical and financial proposals should be submitted by 28th July, 2021 at 12noon through email to [email protected]
The Technical Proposal MUST comply with the outline provided in Annex 1 while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2. Team composition should conform to Annex 3
*Bidders should provide a technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal” and “Financial Proposal” and the subject of the email clearly marked “Tender No. PRF08174 “**Call for Consultancy for Evaluative Case Study for CVA project in Mombasa**”*
ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOMART
1) Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications and statutory compliance (1 page)
2) Background: Understanding of the TOR (1 page)
3) Proposed methodology: Indicate methods to be used for each indicator and highlight any areas where indicators may need adjustment. The targeted respondents should be indicated for each indicator. Proposed detailed questions should be indicated. Detailed sampling procedure needs to be indicated. (Not more than 5 pages)
4) Firms experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from the geographical area for other major clients (Table with: Name of organization, name of assignment, duration of assignment (Dates), reference person contacts- Not more than 2 pages
5) Proposed team composition (As per annex 3)-1 page
6) Work plan (Gantt chart of activity and week of implementation)-1 page
ANNEX 2: BUDGET TEMPLATE
No of Units
Total Cost (Ksh)
Office expenses (printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc)
The consultant shall only quote for the items above. Prices should be inclusive of 16% Value Added Tax (VAT). KRCS will cater for field expenses.
ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE (Team application)
Highest educational qualification
No of days to be involved
Years of experience relevant to the task
Roles in the assignment
ANNEX 4: TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA
A three stage Evaluation procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders. The total number of points that each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:
· Technical Proposal 60 marks
· Oral presentation 30 marks
· Financial Proposal 10 marks
ANNEX 5: TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA
A three-stage evaluation procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders that meet the Administrative compliance. The total number of points which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:
· Mandatory Requirements Pass
· Technical Evaluation 60 marks
· Oral presentation 30 marks
· Financial Evaluation 10 marks
- Mandatory Requirements
The proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its adherence to the following compulsory requirements, this applies to both local and international firms or individuals.
Applicants will have to be a legal entity registered in Kenya with the right to enter a contractual agreement with KRCS. The applicant must have no history of legal proceedings related to fraud or corruption. The applicant must be a qualified entity (firm/company) with the following documents:
1. Valid Registration,
2. PIN certificate,
3. Tax compliance,
4. Two reports of previous assignments (Soft/PDF copies).
Note: Only applications meeting all the above eligibility requirement will move to the tender evaluation.
- Evaluation of the Technical Proposal
The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the Terms of Reference. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:
Introduction: Compliance to the Terms of Reference, clear description of the firm and its qualifications.
Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services
Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology MUST provide an indication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment. Review the previous reports submitted
Firms Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from related geographical area for other major clients: Provide a summary and supporting information on overall years of experience, relevant technical expertise, previous experience in ethical clearance and working with disadvantaged population/communities.
Proposed Team Composition:
- Tabulate the team composition to include the general qualifications, suitability for the specific task to be assigned and overall years of relevant experience to the proposed assignment.
The proposed team composition should balance effectively with the necessary skills and competencies required to undertake the proposed assignment.
Lead Consultant Qualifications – should be as per the TOR
Work Plan: A Detailed logical, weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided.
Any firm with at least a score of 42 (70%) from the technical evaluation, will proceed and invited for the second stage – oral presentation.
- Oral presentation
Understanding of the assignment and clarity on the proposed methodology
Roadmap is realistic and aligned to the methodology
Presentation of: detailed CVs of team to be involved, evidence of legal Compliance (Registration, PIN certificate, tax compliance etc.) and two Sample reports of previous assignments.
For the firm to proceed to the last stage – financial proposal opening and evaluation, the minimum score must be 63 (70%) of the combined technical proposal and the oral presentation.
- Financial Proposal Evaluation
The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2. The maximum number of points (10 points) will be allocated to the lowest financial quotation and the other Financial Proposals will receive points in an inverse proportion according to the below formula:
Points for the Financial Proposal being evaluated
(Maximum number of points for the financial proposal) x (Lowest price)
Price of proposal being evaluated
The total financial score will be aggregated from the scores for the realistic and justified financial proposal and the score of the financial quotation.
- Final Scores and Recommendation
A total score will be aggregated for ONLY the bids that go through the three stages above (Technical, Oral and Financial evaluations). The tender evaluation team shall make a recommendation to award the bidder with the highest total score.
 The Financial Impact of Coronavirus in Sub Saharan Africa, Geopoll (2020)
How to apply
Bids should reach [email protected] on or before 28th July at 11.00 am. Bids received after the above-specified date and time shall not be considered.
Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected.
Bidders should provide a technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly Marked “Technical Proposal + Name of consultant” and “Financial Proposal + Name of consultant” both of which should then be sent to [email protected] with the subject reading “Tender No. PRF08174: Call for Consultancy for Evaluative Case Study for CVA project in Mombasa”.**
The Proposal should be addressed as indicated above to reach [email protected] by 28th July 2021 at 11.00 a.m. for the tender to be opened at 12.00 noon:
Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected.
All those tenderers who download the document will be required to send a mail to [email protected] for the purpose of receiving any amendments or additional information and log in details for the tender opening meeting.
To help us track our recruitment effort, please indicate in your email/cover letter where (ngotenders.net) you saw this job posting.