1. Summary of the survey

1.1. Purpose: To find out the exact extent to which the conditions identified by the baseline study have changed/been influenced through the implementation of the Urban Resilience Project in Nairobi County. The evaluation will provide a detailed reference to compare project achievements against the situation/baseline at the start of the intervention. At the minimum, it must answer all project indicator as well as provide lessons learnt and recommendations for on-going and future interventions.

1.2. Partners: Kenya Red Cross, Danish Red Cross and Nairobi County government

1.3. Duration: The endline evaluation will be carried out by an independent consultant, and is expected to take 30 calendar days

1.4. Estimated Dates: 15^th November 2021 – 15^th December 2021

1.5. Geographical Location: Mukuru Kayaba, Landi Mawe, Kwa Njenga, Fuata Nyayo, Kwa Rueben, and Lunga Lunga informal settlements of Nairobi County

1.6. Target Population: KRCS project staffs, project volunteers, community members and stakeholders within targeted locations.

1.7. Deliverables: Inception report and data collection tools shared at the initiation of the assignment, presentation of preliminary findings, a draft report for review, and a final version of the report plus all data sets in soft copy. (See detailed timelines under section 8)

1.8. Methodology: This should include but not limited to document review, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with key partners and stakeholders; interviews with community members, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and observations, household surveys and any other approach that the consultant can propose.

1.9. Evaluation Management Team: KRCS M&E and program representatives, and DRC representative

2. Background Information

The Urban resilience project plays a significant role in building target communities’ resilience within the informal settlements by enhancing their skills so as to promptly address the risks facing them. This project seeks to reduce the number, types and impacts of disaster risk and losses of lives and businesses in the larger Mukuru slums (Lunga Lunga, Kayaba, Fuata Nyayo, Landi Mawe, Kwa Njenga and Kwa Rueben) in Nairobi County by tapping and strengthening their local capacities through different initiatives. The project was implemented from 2018-2021 after an inception phase in 2017 with funding from the Danish Red Cross and was set out to test/pilot the IFRC roadmap to URBAN resilience and show how the programme outcomes were set on the characteristics of a resilient community as set out in the IFRC Framework for resilience. A baseline survey was conducted in 2018 that provided benchmark statistics upon which targets for the projects was set.

Project Goal: To improve the overall well-being of urban communities in Kenya by building their resilience against potential disasters. (Definition of well-being including improved livelihoods, security, health etc.)

Immediate Objective/Outcome: Communities in six infromal settlements in Nairobi are resilient towards the risks facing them

Output 1: Communities in six informal settlements in Nairobi have improved knowledge of and skills to address and manage key urban risks facing them

Output 2: Communities are empowered to create a supportive and nurturing environment to enhance well-being, dignity and social cohesiveness of the target population.

Output 3: Communities have increased their capabilities to sustain and build good relationships with external actors to provide a supportive and enabling environment

Output 4: Communities have economic opportunities

Output 5: KRCS has improved capacity to implement urban resilience programs **

3. End line Survey Objectives

Specific Objectives of the Survey are:

1) Establish end line information against the projects log frame indicators at community level which will be used as a threshold for this project to assess outcomes and impact.

2) Review and bring out MHPSS (Mental Health Psychosocial Services) and Sexual Gender Based Violence (SGBV) referral pathways and Mechanisms within the target communities.

3) To document community perception, community involvement in the project and KRCS accountability in the project.

4. Scope of work

End-term evaluations (ETE) aim to assess the performance of the project and capture project achievements, challenges and to draw lessons learnt from the best practices to inform future similar programming. This ETE will also review the recommendations of the project baseline survey to assess the extent to which they were implemented. As well, it will evaluate the quality of Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA) in the project. Also, it will identify key lessons learned, challenges, recommendations for changes and sustainability.

Geographically, the ETE will cover the larger Mukuru slums (Lunga Lunga, Kayaba, Fuata Nyayo, Landi Mawe, Kwa Njenga and Kwa Rueben) in Nairobi County. It will employ both quantitative and qualitative approaches of data collection including document review and analysis of household data and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) which provide in depths details on the project appropriateness, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

4. Key Survey Questions

The following are the key questions to be addressed during the ETE. The evaluator may however suggest changes/additional questions at the inception stage:

4.1 Effectiveness:**

• To what extent were the project expected results achieved (objectives, outputs and outcomes)? How does that compare to the target and the baseline findings?
• What changes as reported by the community/stakeholders can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected and unexpected)?
• What changes could have happened because of other projects in the same area?
• Were all the activities carried out? If not, why?
• What is the level of resilience amongst the targeted community? What resilience protections and capacities do the targeted community possess that have been preserved or further strengthened by the project?

• What vulnerabilities or needs may be present that can be addressed by future programs?

• Have there been any positive or negative unintended outcomes of the work?

4.2 Efficiency

• Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what caused them?
• How did the efficiency affect the effectiveness of the project?
• Was there value for money?
• What has been done in an innovative way?

4.3 Sustainability:

• What sustainability measures and qualities were put in place to ensure continuity –institutional/financial/technical/community?

• To what extent have external factors affected uptake of project interventions? And what measures have been/should be taken to address the same?**

4.4 Relevance

· How satisfied are the community members with the interventions undertaken by the project?

· What do the beneficiaries feel is the effect of the project on their lives in the short term and in the long run?

· The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to communities’ needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.

4.5 Coherence:

• How well has the project’s intervention been compatible with other interventions in the County

4.6 Community Engagement and Accountability:

• To what extend were the KRCS minimum accountability standards integrated?
• How much do the beneficiaries understand the project?
• How much were beneficiaries involved in the project decision making?
• What complaints and feedback mechanism were put in place? What were the common community complaints addressed during the project period? To what extent did the CF mechanisms affect/impact the program design/activities, reviews etc? Sample of resolved matters through the mechanisms
• Do the community members think that the project respected their culture/religion/daily routines/community calendars etc. and how did that affect the project uptake?
• What would be the three preferred means of communicating complaints to and between KRCS and the community?

Key questions will emerge from the program indicators of interest as highlighted in the table below:

Intervention logic

Indicators

Impact/Goal (Overall Objective):
Improve the overall well-being of urban communities in Kenya by building their resilience against potential disasters. (Definition of well-being including improved livelihoods, social cohesion, security and health)

OO1: Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disasters per 100,000 people

OO2: Proportion of population living in households within the target informal settlement with access to basic services

Immediate Objective:
Communities in six informal settlements in Nairobi are resilient towards the risks facing them

IO1 (End line): Percentage of community members who express feeling safer and feel less threatened by community defined insecurities (SBGV, violence/ crime, drug abuse)

IO2(End line): Prevalence of key urban threats in the targeted informal settlements in Nairobi

IO3 (Process): Number of HHs with safe access to basic services

Output 1: Communities in six informal settlements in Nairobi have improved knowledge of and skills to address and manage key urban risks**

End line 1: Percentage of community members that understand appropriate options for reducing threats, their limitations, longer term impacts, and the feasibility of actions in response.

End line 2: Percentage of community members practising healthy behaviours

End line 3: Community has mechanisms/structures to address threats, risks, conflicts

Process 1: Number of community members who have received information on key risks

Process 2: Number of community members reached with health and WASH education

Process 3: Number of referral mechanisms and community groups established

Output 2: Communities are empowered to create a supportive and nurturing environment to enhance well-being, dignity and social cohesiveness of the target population.

End line 1: Percentage of targeted community members reporting an increase in their sense of safety and sense of belonging (at community and personal HH level)

End line 2: Percentage of targeted youth reporting and demonstrating a change in personal and interpersonal well-being

Process 1: Number of reported cases of violence and referrals made
# of community members registered in at least 1 one social protection mechanism/support groups

Process 2: Number of youths provided with life skills relevant to their situation (e.g., conflict resolution, communication and negotiation skills, vocational training, stress

Output 3: Communities have increased their capabilities to sustain and build good relationships with external actors to provide a supportive and enabling environment

End line 1: Number of successful changes in implementation policies at local level and tangible results thereof due to community dialogue with authorities.

End line 2: Number of county level development plans where KRCS through the project had a direct input/influence

Process 1: Number of service providers mapped and engaged by community reached with Humanitarian Diplomacy (addressing key issues identified by the community)

Process 2: Number of people reached as a result of the advocacy in DRR and health

Output 4: Communities have economic opportunities

End line 1: Percentage increase in business engagements

End line 2: Number of innovative community projects designed and funded as a result of business engagement and/or innovation.

Process 1: Number of targeted community members linked to business opportunities

Process 2: Number of community members trained in innovation, design and business engagement models

Output 5: KRCS has improved capacity to implement urban resilience programmes

End line 1: Percentage of national society managers, staff and volunteers aware of the national society self-care and team care policies, procedures and resources (e.g., materials, referrals) for volunteers.

End line 2: National society managers, staff and volunteers express confidence in delivery of urban resilience programme

Process 1: Number of active Urban Resilience project volunteers and staff in the Nairobi sub branch who have received support and relevant training to meet minimum requirements for their role

Process 2: Number of guidance notes, case studies and research reports published and disseminated to partners/stakeholders

5. Survey/Evaluation Methodology

The End Term evaluation shall employ a mixed method study design. For every indicator, every quantitative piece of data must be qualified by its corresponding qualitative and spatial data. The bidder is expected to propose a sample size and the techniques intended to be used that is scientific and that can provide reliable results. Ensure that all indicators have been answered through the tools and questions developed. The bidder can also advise additional proposed approach/methodology that can be used to bring out intended outcome.

6. Evaluation Quality & Ethical Standards

The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team shall be required to adhere to the evaluation standards and applicable practices as recommended by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

• Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
• Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
• Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.

7. Qualifications and Experience for Consultants **

· The lead consultant must have a background in social sciences, disaster management, community development or related field. (At a minimum of Master’s degree level)

· Demonstrable experience in conducting high quality end lines for related projects in the past 3 years (sample reports will be required during the oral stage of bid analysis).

· Experience of conducting field assessments/working in the targeted regions.

· High level of professionalism and an ability to work independently under tight deadlines.

· Strong interpersonal and communication skills

· Firm must have experience in using mobile phone technology for data collection.

· The lead consultant must have strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports.

· Experience conducting and documenting community resilience projects in urban setup will be highly preferred.

Additional requirements/qualifications

· The team must have a statistician/data analyst with experience to develop data collection tools in ODK, design projects and advise on methodology appropriate, analyze quantitative and qualitative data

· Have expertise in the team for the key components of the project

· Availability for the period indicated*.*

8. Management of the evaluation

Duration: The End Term evaluation will begin on 24^th November 2021 and the deliverables will be provided to the KRCS on 25^th December 2021.

Deliverables: **

1. Inception report detailing the end term survey design, sampling methodology & sample frame, survey tools, agreed budget and work plan.

2. 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 together with the report. A simple inventory of material handed over will be part of the record. KRCS & DRC will have sole ownership of all final data and any findings shall only be shared or reproduced with the permission of KRCS.

3. Final End Line Survey Reports.

4. The final report outline should be as proposed:

I. The executive summary to be written in a separate paper providing the bare essentials for decision-makers regarding the background, major conclusions about the survey criteria, recommendations, and lessons learned (total 1-2 pages).

II. The main report (max. 30 pages plus a list of abbreviations) of which a substantial part will be the main conclusions and recommendations. These should be substantiated with more detailed information only to the extent necessary. Detailed findings should be referred to the annexes. Conclusions and recommendations in the main report should have references to the relevant findings in the annexes.

III. The annexes should provide all information necessary to substantiate major conclusions and recommendations in the main report. The Terms of Reference, the teams’ itinerary, list of persons interviewed, and list of documents used should be annexed.

1. A power point presentation highlighting key findings from the end term evaluation will be presented at a feedback meeting to be held after completing the draft report.

Evaluation Management Team: **

The evaluation management team shall consist of KRCS MEA&L Unit Representative, KRCS program representative and Donor representative. They shall ensure that the deliverables agreed upon and approved in the inception report are achieved on time.

Role of KRCS (Project and M&E team)

• Lead the recruitment and survey process

• Coordinate the assessment implementation process through the KRCS M&E unit

• Review of assessment products including tools and reports

• KRCS will organize logistics for the assessment team

• Avail data collectors within agreed criteria

• Avail of all necessary documents for desk review

• KRCS will be the link between the community and the consultant

• Custodian of all data generated from the assessment

• Organize dissemination forums as necessary

Role of Danish Red Cross

• Participate in the TOR development and recruitment process

• Review and give feedback on all the reports submitted

• Fund the activity budget

• Final approval of the report

9. Application Requirements

Application materials shall include:

· A written response to this TOR in terms of a proposal detailing the technical understanding of the task, proposed methodologies of the evaluation, expected activities and deliverables, proposed work plans with schedule, and financial bids. See Annex 1

· Detailed CVs of all professional (s) who will work on the evaluation. If there is more than one contractor on the proposed evaluation team, please attach a table describing the level of effort (in number of days) of each team member in each of the evaluation activities. See Annex 3

Please also note that the people whose names appear in the team composition template MUST be the ones to undertake the assessment. As such, they MUST be the ones to appear in persons if the proposal moves to the interview stage.

· Professional references: please provide at least three references from your previous clients and full contact details of the referees (working and active email & phone number).

· Attach two relevant and related sample reports for cross reference

Failure to adhere to any of these requirements will lead to automatic disqualification or breach of contract if the work has begun.

Kenya Red Cross Society reserves the right to cancel the contract if, convinced that the consultant is in breach of the terms and conditions including those approved in the inception report.

10. Submission of proposal

The Technical Proposal MUST be prepared in conformance to 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 softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked* “Technical Proposal_name of consultant” and “Financial Proposal_name of consultant”. The subject of your email should “Tender No. PRF08521 - “Call for Consultancy for Building Resilience in Urban Informal Settlements Through Innovation and Partnerships in Nairobi County”**

The Proposal MUST be sent on mail to reach: tenders@redcross.or.ke by Wednesday, 24^th November 2021 at 11:00 AM.

ANNEX 1: RESPONSE PROPOSAL FOMART

1) Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications and statutory compliance (1 page)

2) Back ground: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services, Key questions (2 pages)

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. (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-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

The consultant shall only quote for the items below as KRCS will manage all other related costs (Logistics and payment of enumerators)

Item

Unit

# of Units

Unit Cost

Total Cost (Ksh.)

Consultancy Fee (for the whole evaluation period)

Per day

Office expenses (Printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.)

lump sum

Grand Total

**

**

**

**

ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE

Name of Team Member

Highest Level of Qualification

General Years of Experience related to the task at hand

Number of days to be engaged

Roles under this 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 which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:

• Technical Proposal 60 marks
• Oral presentation 30 marks

• Financial Proposal 10 marks

• Evaluation of the Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:

Evaluation Criteria

Maximum Points Possible

Bidder’s score

Remarks

(1) Introduction:

• Description of the Firm and the Firm’s Qualifications

5

(2) Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services

10

(3) Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology MUST provide an indication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment. **

20

(4) 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, and related technical and geographic coverage experience

10

(5) 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**

• Mandatory-statistician**

10

(6) Work Plan: A Detailed logical, weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided.

5

TOTAL SCORE

60

Total scores of the technical bid analysis shall be converted to a denominator of 60. Top three firms will go to the orals stage and top two after the orals will go to the financial evaluation stage

1. Oral presentation

Criteria

Score

Remarks

Understanding of the assignment

(5 Marks)

Clear and scientific methodology

(20 Marks)

Presentation of

• Detailed CVs of team to be involved
• Evidence of legal compliance-Registration, PIN certificate, tax compliance etc.)

• two Sample reports of previous assignments (5 marks)

• Evaluation of the Financial Proposal

The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2. The maximum number of points for the Financial Proposal shall be 10% (10 points). This maximum number of points will be allocated to the lowest Financial Proposal. All other Financial Proposals will receive points in 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

A total score obtained including Technical, Oral and Financial Proposals is calculated for each proposal. The bid obtaining the overall highest score is the winning bid.