ICMPD annex III
Ref. Ares(2016)6517572 - 21/11/2016
ANNEX III: ORGANISATION & METHODOLOGY
T05-EUTF-REG-NAFR-02-01
1. Rationale
The following assumptions have to hold true for a successful execution of the contract:
The description of the EU TF strategy for the North Africa Window can be translated into a
meaningful, consistent intervention logic for each of the five sub-areas.
For indicators identified at higher outcome and impact level sources for secondary data can be
identified.
2. Strategy
• Outline of the approach proposed for contract implementation.
The approach chosen for this assignment seeks to combine context orientation, theoretical
foundation and pragmatism. To ensure the first, the analysis of the strategic orientation document of
the EU TF will be complemented by an analysis of other relevant documents in this area (e.g.
GAMM, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and Instrument (ENI), EU Agenda on Migration,
etc.) in order to reflect the political embeddedness of the EUTF.
The findings will inform the design of the intervention logic which will be developed in accordance
with programme theory, i.e. breaks and gaps in the intervention logic will be highlighted as well as
underlying hypotheses not backed by current migration theories.
This notwithstanding, the final M&E framework will put most emphasis on practicality, e.g. the
main criterion for the selection of indicators will be feasibility of data collection. Also, other
existing M&E or data collection initiatives will be taken into consideration with a view to ensure
utmost compatibility and to avoid duplications.
• List of the proposed tasks you consider necessary to achieve the contract objectives.
Research and analysis of relevant documents
Development of an intervention logic
Development of a typology of activities/ interventions and of respective indicators
Identification of existing indicators for the goals/ outcomes
Identification of possible data sources for these indicators
Identification of and contacting of other M&E and data collection initiatives to ensure a
compatible design of the M&E framework
Design of an M&E framework
Collection and analysis of needs of persons responsible for the development and implementation
of EU TF projects/ Workshop with final users of M&E framework
Design and production of teaching material corresponding to these needs
Meetings with DG NEAR
15 January 2016 Page 1 of 5
AnnexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc
Organisation Sl methodology
• Inputs and outputs.
Inputs:
- See TOR
Outputs:
Intervention logic for each of the 5 sub-areas in the form of an outcome diagram
Logframe for each of the 5 sub-areas
M&E framework including intervention logic/ logframes as well as modes of data collection
Guidelines for the implementation of the M&E framework in written form as well as in (a)
format(s) corresponding to the needs of persons responsible for the development and
implementation of EU TF projects
Quiz to test newly acquired skills of persons responsible for the development and
implementation of EU TF projects
3. Backstopping
N/A
4. INVOLVEMENT OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM
N/A
5. Timetable of work
• Sequence of the proposed tasks, taking into account travel time.
Research and analysis of relevant documents
Development of an intervention logic
Kick-off meeting
Discussion of intervention logic with DG NEAR
Development of a typology of activities/ interventions and of respective indicators
Identification of existing indicators for the goals/ outcomes
Identification of possible data sources for these indicators
Identification of and contacting of other M&E and data collection initiatives to ensure a
compatible design of the M&E framework
Design of an M&E framework
Collection and analysis of needs of persons responsible for the development and
implementation of EU TF projects: tbd - not later than Dec. 7th
Design and production of teaching material corresponding to these needs
Debriefing with DG Near
• Identification and timing of major milestones in executing the contract, including an indication
of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports, particularly those stipulated
in the Terms of Reference.
Ml: Submission of draft intervention logic
M2: Submission of revised intervention logic
M3: Submission of draft M&E framework
M4: Submission of final M&E framework: Nov. 18th
M5: Stakeholder workshop
M6: Submission of concept for guidelines/ webinar, etc.
M7: Submission of draft guidelines/ webinar, etc.
15 January 2016 Page 2 of 5
Annex III ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc
Organisation & methodology
M8: Submission of final guidelines/ webinar, etc.
• The methodologies contained in the offer should include a work plan indicating the envisaged
resources to be mobilised.
- See TOR
Guidance notes on expert inputs:
The tenderer is expected to take into account the implementation period of the contract and
propose the number of expert days which will accomplish the tasks described in the Terms of
Reference.
Implementation of the contract (and therefore payment) is based solely on the working days. The
Contractor will only be paid for days actually worked on the basis of the daily fee rate contained in
the budget breakdown (Annex V). Tenderers must annex the ‘Estimated number of working days’
worksheet contained in the spreadsheet for Annex V to the Organisation and Methodology to
demonstrate the correspondence between the proposed methodology and the expert inputs. Please
note that the budget breakdown should not be attached to the Organisation and Methodology as no
financial offer should be disclosed in the technical offer.
During the technical evaluation, assessment will be made if the number of working days estimated
for each month for each type of expert proposed in the Organisation and Methodology are
sufficient for the requirements of the Terms of Reference to be achieved. This is judged on the
basis of the profiles identified in the Terms of Reference and the Organisation and Methodology.
The tenderer is expected to include the holiday provision for the experts. The annual leave
entitlement of the experts employed by the Contractor is determined by their employment contract
with the Contractor and not by the service contract between the Contracting Authority and the
Contractor. However, the Contracting Authority can decide when experts take their annual leave
since this is subject to approval by the Project Manager, who will assess any such request
according to the needs of the project while the contract is in progress. For obvious reasons, a day
of annual leave is not considered to be a working day. Please see the General Conditions,
Articles 21 and 22
The fee rates for all experts must include the remuneration paid to the experts, all the
administrative costs of employing the relevant experts, such as equipment, relocation and
repatriation expenses [including flights to and from the partner country upon mobilisation and
demobilisation as well as leave], accommodation, expatriation allowances, leave, medical
insurance and any other employment benefits given to the experts by the Contractor. It shall also
include any security arrangement except when this is exceptionally included under the incidental
expenditure. Furthermore the fees shall also include the margin, overheads, profit and
backstopping facilities.
A fee-based/technical assistance contract is, by definition, one in which the actual days worked
each month for each category of experts may differ from the number of working days estimated for
each month in the work plan in Annex V. The actual input required for the tasks specified in the
Terms of Reference and Organisation and Methodology will only be known once the contract
starts. The Project Manager will use the work plan when monitoring the actual number of working
days submitted in each invoice to check that the contract is progressing within budget. The
Contractor may update the estimate during implementation of the project in accordance with
article 20 of the General Conditions.
15 January 2016 Page 3 of 5
AnnexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc
Organisation & methodology
6. Log frame
A logical framework reflecting the considerations described in items 1-3 (see the Project Cycle
Management Manual available from the PCM Home page:
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/aid-delivery-methods-proiect-cycle-management-guidelmes-vol-
1 en ).
Project logic Objectively verifiable Means of verification Assumptions
indicators
Overall objective
To contribute to an Indicator: - Analysis of monitoring
increased effectiveness of - Share of projects which and evaluation reports
projects implemented achieve at least 80% of
under the North Africa the outputs envisaged
Window of the EUTF Target:
- At least 60% of the
projects which achieve at
least 80% of the outputs
envisaged
Indicator:
- Share of projects which
achieve at least 70% of
the outcomes envisaged
Target:
- At least 50% of the
projects which achieve at
least 80% of the outputs
envisaged
Project purpose
Improved Design, Indicator: - Analysis of project Monitoring and
Monitoring and Evaluation Quality of project proposals and project evaluation results are
of projects implemented logframes reports being used to inform
under the North Africa Target: programme planning/
Window of the EUTF - At least 90% of the steering, project
projects have logframes development and project
in line with the implementation
intervention logic of the
North Africa Window
Indicator:
- Share of projects (in%)
continuously collecting
and analysing monitoring
data (inputs, outputs,
outcomes, impacts) one
year after the
establishment of the M&E
framework as compared
to baseline
Target:
- At least 90% of the
projects continuously
collect and analyse
monitoring data at input
and output level
At least 70% of the
projects collect and
analyse monitoring data
at outcome level
Indicator:
- Share of projects (in%)
which foresee an outcome
evaluation of at least one
project component
Target:
- At least 90% of the
projects foresee an
outcome evaluation of at
15 January 2Ш6 Page 4 of 5
AnnexIII_ICMPD_DG NEARJóinál, doc
Organisation & methodology
least one project
component
Indicator:
- Quality of evaluations
Target:
- All evaluations comply
with the Program
Evaluation Standards*
Results (outcomes)
R.1 Indicator:
Functioning M&E Approval of M&E - M&E framework is being
framework at both project framework by DG NEAR used
and programme level Target: - Project implementers
- All parts/ components of have enough resources to
the M&E framework establish M&E framework
approved by DG NEAR by
February 18th
indicator:
- Share of projects (in%)
continuously using the
M&E framework
developed for EU TF
Target:
- - At least 90% of the
projects continuously use
the M&E framework
R.2
Increased skills and Perception of - Analysis of standardised People have the
knowledge of people participants of workshops questionnaires completed willingness to use what
responsible for project and webinars and users after workshops and they have learned
design and of written guidelines webinars Working conditions/
implementation as Target: At least 75% Analysis of e-mail structures allow using the
regards project design, perceive an increase of feedback from users of new skills/ knowledge
monitoring and evaluation knowledge/ skills the written guidelines
- Share of participants of - Analysis of results of
workshops and webinars online quiz
and users of written
guidelines who pass
online quiz
Target: At least 75% of
those who complete the
quiz pass it
*These standards were originally by the US Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation,
but have been introduced to numerous other areas. They are summarized here:
http://www.icsee.org/program-evaliiation-standards-statements
A discussion about their use in international settings can be found here:
http://toce.net/download/reports/ProgEvalS tandards-Intl.pdf
15 January 2016 Page 5 of 5
AimexIII ICMPD DG NEAR Final.doc
” *
