HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"resource_uri": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"id": 237996,
"site_url": "https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/237996-icmpd-annex-iii/",
"title": "ICMPD annex III",
"slug": "icmpd-annex-iii",
"description": "",
"published_at": null,
"num_pages": 6,
"public": true,
"listed": true,
"allow_annotation": false,
"pending": false,
"file_url": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/icmpd-annex-iii.pdf",
"file_size": 1296140,
"cover_image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p1-small.png",
"page_template": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p{page}-{size}.png",
"outline": "",
"properties": {
"title": null,
"author": "",
"_tables": [],
"creator": "OCR CoDe 2016 3.5868.5868 (c) 2005-2016 European Commission",
"subject": "",
"producer": "OCR CoDe 2016 3.5868.5868 (c) 2005-2016 European Commission; modified using iText® 5.2.0 ©2000-2012 1T3XT BVBA",
"_format_webp": true
},
"uid": "588d7a2e-02ec-48f4-a9b5-c19c83124a0e",
"data": {},
"pages_uri": "/api/v1/page/?document=237996",
"original": null,
"foirequest": null,
"publicbody": null,
"last_modified_at": "2023-05-19 14:35:38.695133+00:00",
"pages": [
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 1,
"content": "Ref. Ares(2016)6517572 - 21/11/2016\n\n\n\n ANNEX III: ORGANISATION & METHODOLOGY\n T05-EUTF-REG-NAFR-02-01\n\n1. Rationale\n\n The following assumptions have to hold true for a successful execution of the contract:\n The description of the EU TF strategy for the North Africa Window can be translated into a\n meaningful, consistent intervention logic for each of the five sub-areas.\n For indicators identified at higher outcome and impact level sources for secondary data can be\n identified.\n\n2. Strategy\n\n • Outline of the approach proposed for contract implementation.\n The approach chosen for this assignment seeks to combine context orientation, theoretical\n foundation and pragmatism. To ensure the first, the analysis of the strategic orientation document of\n the EU TF will be complemented by an analysis of other relevant documents in this area (e.g.\n GAMM, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Instrument (ENI), EU Agenda on Migration,\n etc.) in order to reflect the political embeddedness of the EUTF.\n The findings will inform the design of the intervention logic which will be developed in accordance\n with programme theory, i.e. breaks and gaps in the intervention logic will be highlighted as well as\n underlying hypotheses not backed by current migration theories.\n This notwithstanding, the final M&E framework will put most emphasis on practicality, e.g. the\n main criterion for the selection of indicators will be feasibility of data collection. Also, other\n existing M&E or data collection initiatives will be taken into consideration with a view to ensure\n utmost compatibility and to avoid duplications.\n\n • List of the proposed tasks you consider necessary to achieve the contract objectives.\n Research and analysis of relevant documents\n Development of an intervention logic\n Development of a typology of activities/ interventions and of respective indicators\n Identification of existing indicators for the goals/ outcomes\n Identification of possible data sources for these indicators\n Identification of and contacting of other M&E and data collection initiatives to ensure a\n compatible design of the M&E framework\n Design of an M&E framework\n Collection and analysis of needs of persons responsible for the development and implementation\n of EU TF projects/ Workshop with final users of M&E framework\n Design and production of teaching material corresponding to these needs\n Meetings with DG NEAR\n\n\n\n\n15 January 2016 Page 1 of 5\nAnnexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc",
"width": 2497,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p1-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 2,
"content": "Organisation Sl methodology\n\n • Inputs and outputs.\n\n Inputs:\n - See TOR\n\n Outputs:\n Intervention logic for each of the 5 sub-areas in the form of an outcome diagram\n Logframe for each of the 5 sub-areas\n M&E framework including intervention logic/ logframes as well as modes of data collection\n Guidelines for the implementation of the M&E framework in written form as well as in (a)\n format(s) corresponding to the needs of persons responsible for the development and\n implementation of EU TF projects\n Quiz to test newly acquired skills of persons responsible for the development and\n implementation of EU TF projects\n\n3. Backstopping\n\n N/A\n\n\n4. INVOLVEMENT OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM\n\n N/A\n\n\n5. Timetable of work\n\n • Sequence of the proposed tasks, taking into account travel time.\n Research and analysis of relevant documents\n Development of an intervention logic\n Kick-off meeting\n Discussion of intervention logic with DG NEAR\n Development of a typology of activities/ interventions and of respective indicators\n Identification of existing indicators for the goals/ outcomes\n Identification of possible data sources for these indicators\n Identification of and contacting of other M&E and data collection initiatives to ensure a\n compatible design of the M&E framework\n Design of an M&E framework\n Collection and analysis of needs of persons responsible for the development and\n implementation of EU TF projects: tbd - not later than Dec. 7th\n Design and production of teaching material corresponding to these needs\n Debriefing with DG Near\n • Identification and timing of major milestones in executing the contract, including an indication\n of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports, particularly those stipulated\n in the Terms of Reference.\n Ml: Submission of draft intervention logic\n M2: Submission of revised intervention logic\n M3: Submission of draft M&E framework\n M4: Submission of final M&E framework: Nov. 18th\n M5: Stakeholder workshop\n M6: Submission of concept for guidelines/ webinar, etc.\n M7: Submission of draft guidelines/ webinar, etc.\n15 January 2016 Page 2 of 5\nAnnex III ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc",
"width": 2498,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p2-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 3,
"content": "Organisation & methodology\n\n M8: Submission of final guidelines/ webinar, etc.\n\n\n • The methodologies contained in the offer should include a work plan indicating the envisaged\n resources to be mobilised.\n - See TOR\n\n\n\n Guidance notes on expert inputs:\n\n The tenderer is expected to take into account the implementation period of the contract and\n propose the number of expert days which will accomplish the tasks described in the Terms of\n Reference.\n\n Implementation of the contract (and therefore payment) is based solely on the working days. The\n Contractor will only be paid for days actually worked on the basis of the daily fee rate contained in\n the budget breakdown (Annex V). Tenderers must annex the ‘Estimated number of working days’\n worksheet contained in the spreadsheet for Annex V to the Organisation and Methodology to\n demonstrate the correspondence between the proposed methodology and the expert inputs. Please\n note that the budget breakdown should not be attached to the Organisation and Methodology as no\n financial offer should be disclosed in the technical offer.\n During the technical evaluation, assessment will be made if the number of working days estimated\n for each month for each type of expert proposed in the Organisation and Methodology are\n sufficient for the requirements of the Terms of Reference to be achieved. This is judged on the\n basis of the profiles identified in the Terms of Reference and the Organisation and Methodology.\n The tenderer is expected to include the holiday provision for the experts. The annual leave\n entitlement of the experts employed by the Contractor is determined by their employment contract\n with the Contractor and not by the service contract between the Contracting Authority and the\n Contractor. However, the Contracting Authority can decide when experts take their annual leave\n since this is subject to approval by the Project Manager, who will assess any such request\n according to the needs of the project while the contract is in progress. For obvious reasons, a day\n of annual leave is not considered to be a working day. Please see the General Conditions,\n Articles 21 and 22\n\n The fee rates for all experts must include the remuneration paid to the experts, all the\n administrative costs of employing the relevant experts, such as equipment, relocation and\n repatriation expenses [including flights to and from the partner country upon mobilisation and\n demobilisation as well as leave], accommodation, expatriation allowances, leave, medical\n insurance and any other employment benefits given to the experts by the Contractor. It shall also\n include any security arrangement except when this is exceptionally included under the incidental\n expenditure. Furthermore the fees shall also include the margin, overheads, profit and\n backstopping facilities.\n\n A fee-based/technical assistance contract is, by definition, one in which the actual days worked\n each month for each category of experts may differ from the number of working days estimated for\n each month in the work plan in Annex V. The actual input required for the tasks specified in the\n Terms of Reference and Organisation and Methodology will only be known once the contract\n starts. The Project Manager will use the work plan when monitoring the actual number of working\n days submitted in each invoice to check that the contract is progressing within budget. The\n Contractor may update the estimate during implementation of the project in accordance with\n article 20 of the General Conditions.\n\n\n\n\n15 January 2016 Page 3 of 5\nAnnexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc",
"width": 2502,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p3-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 4,
"content": "Organisation & methodology\n\n6. Log frame\n\nA logical framework reflecting the considerations described in items 1-3 (see the Project Cycle\nManagement Manual available from the PCM Home page:\n\nhttps://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/aid-delivery-methods-proiect-cycle-management-guidelmes-vol-\n1 en ).\n\n Project logic Objectively verifiable Means of verification Assumptions\n indicators\nOverall objective\nTo contribute to an Indicator: - Analysis of monitoring\nincreased effectiveness of - Share of projects which and evaluation reports\nprojects implemented achieve at least 80% of\nunder the North Africa the outputs envisaged\nWindow of the EUTF Target:\n - At least 60% of the\n projects which achieve at\n least 80% of the outputs\n envisaged\n Indicator:\n - Share of projects which\n achieve at least 70% of\n the outcomes envisaged\n Target:\n - At least 50% of the\n projects which achieve at\n least 80% of the outputs\n envisaged\nProject purpose\nImproved Design, Indicator: - Analysis of project Monitoring and\nMonitoring and Evaluation Quality of project proposals and project evaluation results are\nof projects implemented logframes reports being used to inform\nunder the North Africa Target: programme planning/\nWindow of the EUTF - At least 90% of the steering, project\n projects have logframes development and project\n in line with the implementation\n intervention logic of the\n North Africa Window\n Indicator:\n - Share of projects (in%)\n continuously collecting\n and analysing monitoring\n data (inputs, outputs,\n outcomes, impacts) one\n year after the\n establishment of the M&E\n framework as compared\n to baseline\n Target:\n - At least 90% of the\n projects continuously\n collect and analyse\n monitoring data at input\n and output level\n At least 70% of the\n projects collect and\n analyse monitoring data\n at outcome level\n Indicator:\n - Share of projects (in%)\n which foresee an outcome\n evaluation of at least one\n project component\n Target:\n - At least 90% of the\n projects foresee an\n outcome evaluation of at\n15 January 2Ш6 Page 4 of 5\nAnnexIII_ICMPD_DG NEARJóinál, doc",
"width": 2504,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p4-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 5,
"content": "Organisation & methodology\n\n least one project\n component\n Indicator:\n - Quality of evaluations\n Target:\n - All evaluations comply\n with the Program\n Evaluation Standards*\nResults (outcomes)\nR.1 Indicator:\nFunctioning M&E Approval of M&E - M&E framework is being\nframework at both project framework by DG NEAR used\nand programme level Target: - Project implementers\n - All parts/ components of have enough resources to\n the M&E framework establish M&E framework\n approved by DG NEAR by\n February 18th\n indicator:\n - Share of projects (in%)\n continuously using the\n M&E framework\n developed for EU TF\n Target:\n - - At least 90% of the\n projects continuously use\n the M&E framework\n\n\nR.2\nIncreased skills and Perception of - Analysis of standardised People have the\nknowledge of people participants of workshops questionnaires completed willingness to use what\nresponsible for project and webinars and users after workshops and they have learned\ndesign and of written guidelines webinars Working conditions/\nimplementation as Target: At least 75% Analysis of e-mail structures allow using the\nregards project design, perceive an increase of feedback from users of new skills/ knowledge\nmonitoring and evaluation knowledge/ skills the written guidelines\n - Share of participants of - Analysis of results of\n workshops and webinars online quiz\n and users of written\n guidelines who pass\n online quiz\n Target: At least 75% of\n those who complete the\n quiz pass it\n\n\n\n\n*These standards were originally by the US Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation,\nbut have been introduced to numerous other areas. They are summarized here:\n\nhttp://www.icsee.org/program-evaliiation-standards-statements\n\nA discussion about their use in international settings can be found here:\n\nhttp://toce.net/download/reports/ProgEvalS tandards-Intl.pdf\n\n\n\n\n15 January 2016 Page 5 of 5\nAimexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc",
"width": 2497,
"height": 3508,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p5-{size}.png"
},
{
"document": "https://fragdenstaat.de/api/v1/document/237996/?format=api",
"number": 6,
"content": "”\n\n*",
"width": 2483,
"height": 3507,
"image": "https://media.frag-den-staat.de/files/docs/58/8d/7a/588d7a2e02ec48f4a9b5c19c83124a0e/page-p6-{size}.png"
}
]
}
