Terms of Reference for Conducting a Mid-term Review for the Isoko y’Ubuzima project

1. Background information

Isoko y’Ubuzima is a five-year Rwanda Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) activity, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The grant officially began on July 14, 2021, and will be completed by July 13, 2026. The activity is implemented by a consortium of non-governmental organizations led by Water For People, including IRC, CARE International, and VEI.

The Isoko y’Ubuzima WASH activity forms a key part of the U.S. government’s water portfolio in Rwanda. This project builds on partnerships with the national and district governments, as well as private sector actors, to expand and improve WASH services. 

2. Intervention 

The overall goal of Isoko y’Ubuzima is to improve access to and utilization of safe, sustainable WASH services. This goal will be attained through the achievement of three interrelated and mutually reinforcing project components: 

1. Improving Decentralized WASH Governance
2. Improving Rural Drinking Water Services
3. Improving Rural Sanitation and Handwashing Services and Products

The project contributes to improvements in the sustainable access to WASH services by working with key stakeholders at the national level, including the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Economics and Finance, the Water and Sanitation Corporation, and the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency. The project also contributes to improved management and access to WASH services in ten districts: (1) Kayonza, (2) Kirehe, (3) Ngoma, (4) Nyagatare, (5) Rwamagana, (6) Nyamagabe, (7) Nyanza, (8) Ruhango, (9) Ngororero, and (10) Nyabihu.

The project will help an estimated 120,000 people gain access to basic drinking water services; 96,000 people will gain improved drinking water services, and 100,000 will gain basic sanitation and hygiene services as defined by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for the Sustainable Development Goals.

These targets will be reached by increasing national and local capacity to plan and deliver sustainable, high-quality WASH services. Isoko y’Ubuzima works to improve access to and encourage correct, consistent use of household WASH services to decrease diseases related to the lack of proper water, sanitation, and hygiene services by:

• Building the capacity of national and district-level public and private-sector staff and institutions in the WASH Building Blocks.
• Ensuring that WASH policies and practices are implemented in a way that is sensitive to gender and social inclusion factors.
• Rehabilitating non-functioning or partially functional water supply systems and reducing non-revenue water (NRW).
• Improving access to basic sanitation and hygiene by implementing a market-based sanitation and hygiene strategy. 

3. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation 

The purpose of this evaluation is to measure the progress made at the mid-point of the project, identify strengths and challenges, verify the effectiveness of the strategies employed, and inform programming for the second half of the grant.

Mid-Term Evaluation Specifics Objectives: 

1. Assess the progress made to date against each of the strategic objectives and intermediate results and make recommendations for improvement. Performance indicators are outlined in the Performance Indicators Tracking Table (PITT).  
2. Assess the inter-institutional relationships developed to achieve the goals of the project.

• Internal consortium members
• External stakeholders 

Evaluation Use 

The mid-term evaluation will be a valuable tool for assessing progress, learning, and adapting strategies to ensure the overall success and impact of a development project. The evaluation uses will include but not be limited to: 

• Determine if the consortium is meeting targets and outcomes.
• Determine why targets were or were not met.
• Assess the continued relevance of an intervention.
• Assess progress in project implementation.
• Learn from past efforts and experiences.
• Provide lessons learned for the second half of the project. 

Evaluation Questions 

The evaluation will address the following broad evaluation questions. Illustrative evaluation questions are found under each intermediate result:

Strategic Objective 1 

IR1 Strengthen national-level WASH institutions. 

To what extent are project activities strengthening the national-level WASH institutions? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to:

• Have the online WASH Systems Academy modules contributed to a greater understanding of WASH systems and improved the participants’ job performance? If yes, how, and if not, what can be improved?
• Have the Isoko y’Ubuzima project's inputs to the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA) Sector Working Group and Thematic Working Groups contributed to the strengthening of the WASH sector? If yes, how, and if not, what can be improved?
• What specific changes have been observed in the WASH sector as a result of the Isoko y’Ubuzima project interventions? 

IR2 Strengthen district capacity to implement WASH policies and plans. 

To what extent are project activities strengthening district capacity to implement WASH policies and plans? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• Have the project’s interventions with the District WASH Boards (DWASHB) and District WASH Offices improved their ability to monitor and strengthen the implementation of WASH systems/services? If yes, provide examples, and if not, how must the project adjust its strategy to have the desired impact on performance (disaggregated by district)?
• What lessons can we draw from the DWASHB and WASH offices that improved or did not improve their capacity performance as a result of the Isoko y’Ubuzima project interventions? 

IR3 Make national policies more inclusive with better regulation. 

To what extent has the project identified GESI-related gaps and contributed to making national policies, procedures, and practices more inclusive? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• Are there adequate mechanisms in place to adapt, inform, and influence policies and regulations based on feedback and changing circumstances as a result of the Isoko y’Ubuzima interventions?
• Are there lessons to be learned from the variations in GESI inclusion between the different districts? 

Strategic Objective 2 

IR1:  Improve capacity for management of the district water services. 

To what extent have project activities contributed to the improvement of the capacity for management of rural water services? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• To what extent has the project effectively addressed challenges encountered in its efforts to build capacity in district water service management?
• To what extent has the creation of district-wide engineering designs and WASH investment plans empowered the districts to improve their budgeting and resource mobilization? 

IR2: Improve capacity for the provision of reliable water services. 

To what extent have project activities improved the capacity for the provision of reliable water services? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• To what extent is Isoko y’Ubuzima on track to meet its targets for the number of people gaining access to basic water services and the number of people gaining improved water services?
• To what extent do the rehabilitated water supply systems meet the country’s standards of inclusive accessibility? (disaggregated by district) 

IR3: Increase funds available for operations and maintenance. 

To what extent have project activities contributed to the increased funds available for operations and maintenance (O&M)? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the professionalization of the Private Operators, improved their performance, and increased their profitability and ability to invest in O&M?
• To what extent are the project’s interventions to reduce non-revenue water cost-efficient and scalable? 

IR4: Improve accountability of Private Operators 

To what extent have project activities contributed to the improvement of the accountability of Private Operators? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• Do District WASH Boards, service providers (Private Operators), and service users feel that the community scorecard methodology has contributed to improvements in WASH service delivery? 

Strategic Objective 3 

IR1: Increased knowledge and motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products. 

To what extent has the project increased knowledge and motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products? 

• How appropriate was the Isoko y’Ubuzima project’s initial activity design of building capacity and applying market‐based approaches to increase demand for sanitation products and access to sanitation services in the targeted districts and communities?
• To what extent are women and most vulnerable groups (people living with disabilities and the elderly) effectively reached by community mobilization interventions?
• To what extent has the project contributed to the construction of toilets and installation of handwashing facilities as a result of increased motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products?
• Is the project on track to achieving its high-level sanitation and hygiene targets? If not, what adjustments must be made? 

IR2: Increased availability of sanitation services and products 

To what extent has the project increased the availability of sanitation services and products? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to:

• To what extent has the project been successful in strengthening the private sector supply chain of sanitation products?
• To what extent is the sales strategy (district sanitation centers, sanitation showrooms, and sales agents) demonstrating sustainable progress in the sale and installation of household sanitation and hygiene products and services? 

IR3: Increased access to financing for sanitation and hygiene products and services 

To what extent has the project increased access to financing for sanitation and hygiene products and services? 

Illustrative questions include but are not limited to: 

• To what extent has the project effectively improved access to financial resources (through MFIs, SACCOs, VSLAs, etc.) for the purchase of sanitation and hygiene products and services? 

Assess the inter-institutional relationships in achieving the goals of the project. 

• Internal consortium members
• External stakeholders 

Internal consortium members 

• To what extent has the project established and implemented an effective collaboration and communication mechanism to achieve project goals?
• To what extent does the implementation team receive adequate support from their home, regional, or head offices?
• To what extent does the existing Monitoring and Evaluation System support the reporting and management decision-making?
• To what extent does the Learning Agenda and strategies ensure the dissemination of project learning internally? 

External stakeholders 

• To what extent have the project's engagements at national and district levels been effective?
• To what extent are the stakeholders satisfied with the project coordination, communication, and implementation?
• To what extent does the project contribute to stakeholders’ decision-making and performance?
• To what extent does the Learning Agenda and strategies ensure the dissemination of project learning externally?
• To what extent did the project interventions lead to unintended consequences? 

4. Methodology

The evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach. The consulting firm will propose a detailed methodology that will be validated before fieldwork. The proposed evaluation methods will include but not be limited to the following: 

• Document review: gathering and reviewing pertinent documentation such as field trip reports, annual progress reports, etc.
• In-depth individual interviews with project/program managers, technical staff, etc.
• Key informant interviews with program participants, partners, and authorities. 

Water for People will provide the key documents to the consulting firm including:

• Approved proposal which forms part of the cooperative agreement
• Approved MEL Plan
• Approved work plans
• Annual reports
• Other assessment reports
• Access to the Isoko y’Ubuzima MEL database 

Water for People will include the following assistance:

• Office space while in Kigali
• Vehicle with fuel and driver for field visits
• Introduce the consulting firm to stakeholders. 

5. Deliverables

The consulting firm is expected to deliver the following: 

1. Inception report, including methodology and evaluation tools.
2. Draft report
3. Final report
4. Synthesis document
5. Final report deck
6. PowerPoint presentation 

 6. Evaluation Timeline 

The evaluation is expected to start in February 2024 and from the signing of the contract is expected to last for a period of 2-3 months. 

7. Qualifying conditions for the consulting firms 

Bidders must provide evidence of the following:

• A team structure adequate to conduct the evaluation effectively and efficiently per the SOW.
• Minimum of ten years of experience in WASH projects.
• Experience of more than five years in evaluating large-scale WASH projects.
• Demonstrated work experience in Rwanda or similar contexts.
• Experience in evaluating large-scale projects funded by USAID is desirable. 

8. Bid Documents 

Technical Proposal 

The technical proposal to be submitted by the bidder must have the components described in the below sections. International companies are also invited to apply but they should form a joint venture with a local company that complies with all the administrative documents mentioned in the following section:

A. Companies and firms

Company profile and administrative documents

 The company must provide the following administrative documents:

• Full company address in Rwanda indicating Province, District, Sector, Cell, Village, E-mail, Post Office Box
• A copy of the Trade License/Certificate of company registration provided by RDB
• VAT registration certificate
• Valid Certificate of tax clearance by Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA)
• RSSB clearance certificate (when applicable)

Submission of proposals

The application file should contain the following documents:

• Applicants shall present an updated Curriculum Vitae duly signed by the staff him/herself and academic documents with the signed letter of availability during the assignment period. (if a team is envisaged, ensure the repartition of roles and responsibilities is clearly explained). The project manager should submit 3 references with their contacts and addresses.
• Administrative documents:
• The Joint venture consultants: a joint venture duly notarized.
• The companies/firms must provide their full address, Trade registration number (TIN), VAT registration certificate, valid RRA Tax clearance, and RSSB certificate) 

Failure to any of the requirements above-mentioned for either category will lead to immediate disqualification. 

• Technical proposal: a proposal must contain a detailed methodology demonstrating an understanding of ToRs, a clear timeframe detailing how the deliverables will be achieved, team composition, and evidence of the consultant’s experience.
• Financial offer: it should detail the various costs associated with the delivery of the above services (in Rwanda Francs), in PDF format and must be a separate document from the technical proposal and password protected. Please do not include any financial/price in the technical proposal. The inclusion of any price information in the technical proposal shall lead to bid rejection.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

In assessing the proposals submitted, the evaluation panel will use the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS).

Proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria: administrative requirements, clarity of methodology, the profile of team members, understanding of the task, and cost as follows.

Stage I: Administrative documents: Mandatory (Pass/Fail)

Any bid failing at this stage will not go to the next stage. 

Stage II: Technical evaluation

Methodology (50 points)

• Demonstrated understanding of the assignment including awareness of issues in the WASH sector and the relevance of USAID IYU activity (10 points).
• Rationale and the added value of each proposed data collection method (10 points).
• Quality of the sampling strategy (10 points).
• Demonstrated familiarity with local evaluation norms, protocols, and procedures (10 points).
• Quality of workplans, sequencing of evaluation activities and the data collection plan (10 points).

WASH Sector expert and Team leader (20 points)

• At least 8 years of experience in managing WASH programs (5 points)
• Demonstrated experience in evaluating at least 2 large-scale projects in Rwanda or similar geographies (5 points).
• Demonstrated familiarity with USAID programming approaches and methods (5 points).)
• Proven track record of authoring or co-authoring top-quality evaluation reports or other publications (at least three report samples) (5 points).

Senior Evaluation Specialist (15 points)

• Demonstrated experience in conducting at least 3 qualitative evaluations of projects in Rwanda or similar geographies (3 points).
• At least 10 years of M&E experience, half of them as an M&E consultant (3points).
• At least a master’s degree in a related discipline (3 points).
• Proven familiarity with USAID programming experience (3 points).
• To have published at least 2 evaluation reports either as a sole or co-author – to share the links to the reports (3 points).

Other key personnel experiences and rationale (15 points).

• Adequacy of the proposed team structure (5 points).
• Description of the roles and responsibilities of other personnel (5 points).
• Qualifications and experience of other proposed personnel in relation to their proposed roles (5 points).

The technical evaluation will be evaluated at a mark of 80 and the financial evaluation at 20 marks, the evaluation panel will use the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS).

Note: To successfully pass the technical evaluation, bidders must meet the following criteria: Achieve a minimum score of 80% in each of the technical evaluation sections, which encompass:

Methodology (40/50)

WASH Sector Expert and Team leader (16/20)

Senior Evaluation Specialist (12/15)

Other key personnel experiences and rationale (12/15) 

The selected bidder will be contractually required to comply with Water For People’s Vendor Code of Conduct https://www.waterforpeople.org/Vendor-Code-of-Conduct and will be required to deliver a Conflict-of-Interest Certificate prior to the execution of the contract. The Conflict-of-Interest Certificate requires the disclosure of any potential or actual conflicts of interest with Water For People employees or their relatives including past, current, or proposed business transactions, employment or offers of employment, or certain gifts or entertainment. Water For People will evaluate any disclosures of conflicts of interest; if Water For People determines it cannot waive or mitigate the conflict of interest it will result in the disqualification of the selected proposer.  

Copyrights 

Copyright of all material on assignment will be retained by Water For People.

Rights Reserved 

1. Water For People reserves the right to cancel the entire procurement process without incurring any liability whatsoever. 
2. Water For People reserves the right to amend any segment of the RFP prior to the announcement of selected candidates. 
3. Water For People also reserves the right to remove one or more of the services from consideration for this contract should the evaluation show that it is in WFP’s best interest to do so. 
4. Water For People also may, at its discretion, issue a separate contract for any service or groups of services included in this RFP. Water For People may negotiate a compensation package and additional provisions to the contract awarded under this RFP. 
5. Water For People reserves the right to debrief the applicants after the completion of the process due to the expected high volume of applications to avoid the compromise of the process.

How to apply 

If you are qualified and interested in the assignment, please send your technical and financial proposals (separately) to: rwprocurement@waterforpeople.org no later than 13^th February 2024 at 4:59 pm (16:59). Hard copies and late submissions shall be rejected.

Done at Kigali, on 29^th January 2024 

Eugene Dusingizumuremyi

Country Director