United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Tender document for the consultancy of Independent (Third party) evaluation of IR Syria and its programme, April 2019

Islamic Relief Worldwide

Islamic Relief is an international aid and development charity, which aims to alleviate the suffering of the world's poorest people. It is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) founded in the UK in 1984.

As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, Islamic Relief promotes sustainable economic and social development by working with local communities - regardless of race, religion or gender.

Our vision:

Inspired by our Islamic faith and guided by our values, we envisage a caring world where communities are empowered, social obligations are fulfilled and people respond as one to the suffering of others.

Our mission:

Exemplifying our Islamic values, we will mobilise resources, build partnerships, and develop local capacity, as we work to:

Enable communities to mitigate the effect of disasters, prepare for their occurrence and respond by providing relief, protection and recovery.

Promote integrated development and environmental custodianship with a focus on sustainable livelihoods.

Support the marginalised and vulnerable to voice their needs and address root causes of poverty.

We allocate these resources regardless of race, political affiliation, gender or belief, and without expecting anything in return.

At the international level, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through raising awareness of the issues that affect poor communities and through its work on the ground. Islamic Relief are one of only 13 charities that have fulfilled the criteria and have become members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (www.dec.org.uk)

IRW endeavours to work closely with local communities, focusing on capacity-building and empowerment to help them achieve development without dependency.

Please see our website for more information http://www.islamic-relief.org/

Project background

Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is an international relief and development agency that enjoys a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the world’s poorest people through promoting social and economic development in over 30 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters.

After eight years of conflict, Syria is continuing to suffer from the worst humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world. Approximately 400,000 people have been killed and more than half of the population — 11 million people — have been displaced from their homes. Over a third of the population are living in abject poverty, malnutrition is rife, and families’ abilities to cope are being stretched to the limit.

Islamic Relief has been providing food, shelter, warm clothing, water and sanitation and health care to over four million people in the country, including in besieged and hard to reach areas. We have also providing support to enable medical centres, ambulances and bakeries to continue to operate. Outside of Syria, Islamic Relief is supporting more than half a million Syrian refugees who have fled to neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

Objectives of the evaluation

This third party evaluation is being commissioned by Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) to assess the performance IRW’s operations in Idlib, Syria, against the key industry standards; especially the OECD/DAC and Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS), Sphere Standards. The primary audience for this evaluation will be internal. The successful consultant/consultancy would need to have access inside, and be able to gather primary data within the country, either directly or through a team of enumerators.

The specific objectives of this evaluation are:

· To assess the design, planning, delivery, management and monitoring of the programme by Islamic Relief and its partners in accordance with the humanitarian principles, Islamic Relief’s inclusivity standards, and other relevant codes, principles and standards.

· To draw key lessons and good practices from the programme and make recommendations that will help inform Islamic Relief’s design and implementation of future interventions in Syria and elsewhere.

· To provide an assessment of the relevance and effectiveness of the interventions to-date, using the DAC criteria. Under each of these DAC criteria, the requirements of the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) will also be assessed:

· Relevance

· Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

· Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback

· Effectiveness

· Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

· Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

· Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

· Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.

· Efficiency

· Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

· Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

· Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

· Impact

· Sustainability

· To assess IR Syria’s work inside the country in relation to its distribution activities, and systems associated with this.

· To identify and assess key internal and external factors (positive and negative) that have contributed to the success of, affected, or impeded the programme’s achievements, and how IR Syria has managed these factors;

· To review and provide recommendations on the country/humanitarian strategy.

Methodology

Due to the conflict in Syria, if the evaluator/ team cannot travel into the country to carry out data collection, it is expected that they will manage the data collection process remotely, an aspect that will require robust planning and management systems to provide quality assurance and to maintain the external nature of this evaluation. If necessary, the evaluator/ team will co-operate with Islamic Relief Worldwide’s country team to identify appropriate enumerators to carry out the work on the ground.

The methodologies will include (but not be limited to):

1. A desk review of programme information including project proposals and reports.

2. Meetings with the M&E team at IRW, the leadership and programmes teams in both Turkey and Syria, and the Regional Desk Co-ordinator for the country.

3. The methodologies chosen should result in data which is triangulated and validated; and as far as possible, gender, age and disability disaggregated.

4. Organisation of initial workshops to train evaluation teams in evaluation methodology (if relevant).

5. Interviews/surveys with local implementing partners and appropriate development actors.

6. Project site visits, Interviews (1 to 1), HH surveys, and FGDs with the sample beneficiaries, as appropriate, ensuring that the samples are as appropriate and representative as possible.

7. A participatory workshop with the Islamic Relief team to share, discuss and validate preliminary findings.

8. Submission of the draft evaluation report to IRW prior to the finalisation of the report.

9. The consultant would need to ensure that the evaluation, as much as possible, conforms to BOND’s evidence principles, and against which the quality of the evaluation will be reviewed by IRW.

Expected outputs of this consultancy

The consultant is expected to produce:

1. A detailed work plan developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the field visits.

2. A full report with the following sections:

a) Project title and country

b) Organisation and partner names

c) Name of person who compiled the evaluation report including summary of role/contribution of others in the team

d) Period during which the evaluation was undertaken

e) Acknowledgements

f) Abbreviations

g) Table of contents

h) Executive summary (setting out key achievements, lessons learned, and recommendations against the log frame; and also a summary of the judgement about the achievements of the project against the Core Humanitarian Standards.)

i) Introduction/background

j) Methodology

k) Context analysis

l) For each key intervention, a section in the form of:

· Findings (effectiveness of the intervention including any under-achievement issues with reasons), as measured against the stated goals, outcomes, and outputs of the project. Case study examples should be given throughout the report to illustrate evaluation findings.

· Judgment about the accountability of the country office to the affected-groups using the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) as a framework, with examples for each of the nine commitments. The accountability of the intervention should be evaluated against all nine commitments of the CHS.

· An assessment of organisational preparedness / contingency planning for spikes in emergencies

· To review and provide recommendations on the country/humanitarian strategy

· Conclusions

· Assessment

m) Annexes

· Terms of reference for the evaluation

· Profile of the evaluation team

· Evaluation schedule

· Documents consulted during the evaluation

· Persons participating in the evaluation

· Field data used during the evaluation including baselines

· Bibliography

1. The consultant would be required to provide feedback on both the preliminary findings in an online call after the data has been collected, and then again after the submission of the final report.

2. The final report must be submitted in English and within the requested time period after completing the field work. The reports, both draft and final, will be for an internal audience only and all data relating to the evaluation will need to be handed to IRW prior to the conclusion of the consultancy.

Required inputs

The following are the key inputs to the evaluation:

a) Stakeholders to be involved include:

· IRW and IRW-partner staff

· Community leaders and relevant local officials, where appropriate.

· Project beneficiaries, ensuring an appropriate balance of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities.

· Other NGOs/INGOs working in the area

· Implementing partners

b) Relevant IRW and partner reports/documentation

c) External secondary information and data as appropriate to the evaluation

Responsibilities of IRW/IRW partners

a) Develop and manage activity budgets (both itemised and summary) for the project evaluation.

b) Provide copies of proposals, baselines, progress reports and other relevant documents.

c) Give timely sign-off to the consultant at relevant stages of the surveys and assessments, particularly when developing tools, work plans and final reports.

d) At appropriate junctures, technical M&E advisory from Islamic Relief Worldwide.

Islamic Relief Worldwide is not specifying logistical support at this stage as this will depend on the capacities of the selected bidder. However, it is expected the selected bidder will be self-sufficient, including visa application, throughout the region.

person specification

Successful consultant (individual/organisation) will meet the following requirements:

· Familiarity with, and ability to conduct an evaluation inside Idlib, Syria, is preferred.

· Demonstrated experience of working in the field within the humanitarian sector, including experience of working in conflict areas, either directly or remotely

· Excellent and proven quantitative and qualitative research skills, and familiarity with different methodologies for evaluation, especially within conflict areas.

· Ability to recruit and train enumerators, if necessary, to conduct data collection.

· In-depth understanding of the humanitarian principles and their application.

· Specific experience and expertise in the evaluation of distribution activities in humanitarian settings..

· Experience and knowledge of complaints and feedback handling mechanisms within an NGO context.

· Good knowledge of current sector trends in relation to protection mainstreaming in the context of INGOs.

· Strong experience in writing and communicating learning effectively and clearly in English. Knowledge of Arabic would be an advantage.

Timetable and reporting information

Total duration of the consultancy/contract = 26 working days between January and March 2017 (including field visit and all deliverables)

Action

Timelines

Responsibility

Tender live date and invitation to tender

26^th April 2019

IRW

Final date for submission of expression of interest

13^th May 2019 (5pm)

Consultant

Proposals considered, short-listing and follow up enquiries completed

14^th May 2019

IRW

Consultant interview and final selection

By 17^th May 2019

IRW

Review of all project documents, reports, and relevant secondary data.

By 24^th May 2019 (1 working day)

Consultant

Meeting with the consultant and agree on an evaluation methodology, plan of action, working schedule

By 24^th May 2019 (1 working day)

Consultant/IRW

Submission of Inception Report (at least 7 days before commencing the evaluation)

By 29^th May 2019 (3 working days)

Consultant

Evaluation/Data collection (including training of enumerators if necessary)

By 21^st June 2019 (10 working days)

Consultant

Online meeting with IRW management to discuss preliminary findings.

By 28^th June 2019

Consultant/IRW

Collation and analysis of evaluation data, and submission of the first draft to IR Syria/IRW for comments

By 5^th July 2019 (7 working days))

Consultant

IRW/IR Syria responses to draft report

12^th July 2019

IR Syria/IRW

Final report submitted to IRW

17^th July 2019 (3 working days)

Consultant

Presentation and Q&A on evaluation findings and recommendations at IRW (can be done remotely via Skype/Zoom)

1.5 hours (Date to be agreed – 1 working day)

Consultant

Proposal to tender and costing:

Consultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:

a) Submit an expression of interest, including the following

i. Cover letter outlining a methodology and approach briefing note

ii. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant who will be carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the project

iii. Example(s) of relevant work

iv. The consultancy daily rate

v. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signed

b) Be able to complete the project within the time frame stated above

c) Be able to demonstrate significant experience of evaluation approaches for similar work

Payment schedule

Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows:

· 25% of the total amount – submission of the inception report

· 25% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report

· 50% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all outputs and attachments mentioned above

The above payment terms are preferred and are negotiable the vendor is advised to propose their payment terms if they happen to disagree with the above.

Invoices are paid on net payment terms of 30 days from invoice date (but we can be flexible).

Terms and conditions

a. The ToR document is between_the consultant and Islamic Relief Worldwide

b. Islamic Relief Worldwide is a legally registered charity under the laws of the United Kingdom charity registration number 328158

c. This document covers the research project identified and described in this document and related correspondence and may not be expended for any other purposes without the prior written approval of Islamic Relief Worldwide, Programme Quality Unit.

d. The project will be carried out under the auspices of the Islamic Relief Worldwide, Programme Quality. The lead researcher will be working in the capacity of a freelance consultant.

e. Collected data, information, reports and reference documents should be submitted, along with any audio files and transcripts collected.

f. Intellectual Property Rights to all research, and data, conducted and collected and the final report belongs solely to Islamic Relief Worldwide, and must be submitted to the organisation prior to the completion of the contract.

g. In case of contraventions or breach of any of the terms of the agreement, any outstanding payments to the Lead Researcher will be withheld.

Additional information and conditions of contract

IRW will cover:

· The costs associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team

· International and local travel for the consultant and the local team

· Accommodation while in the field

· Training venues

· Consultancy fees

IRW will not cover:

· Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax

· Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant

· Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by the consultant.

TO DOWNLOAD THE TENDER DOCUMENTS PLEASE REFER TO OUR WEBSITE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

https://www.islamic-relief.org/tenders/category/open-tenders/

Consultancy contract

This will be for an initial period that is to be specified by the consultant commencing from May 2019 (exact date to be mutually agreed). The selected candidate is expected to work from their home/office and be reporting into the Programme Impact & Learning Manager.

The terms upon which the consultant will be engaged are as per the consultancy agreement. The invoice is to be submitted at the end of the month and will be paid on net payment terms 28 days though we can be flexible.

All potential applicants must fill in the table beneath in Appendix 3 to help collate key data pertaining to this tender. The applicant must be clear about other expenses being claimed in relation to this consultancy and these must be specified clearly.

For this consultancy all applicants are required to submit a covering letter with a company profile(s) and CV’s of all consultants including the lead consultant(s).

A proposal including, planned activities, methodology, deliverables, timeline, and cost proposal (including expenses) are expected.

Other relevant supporting documents should be included as the consultants sees fit.

All applicants must have a valid visa or a permit to work in the UK (if travel is required to the UK). A valid visa/work permit is also required for those areas required to be visited as part of this consultancy.

GDPR and personal information

All applicants are advised to provide us with a CV that contains information which is only necessary for us to examine, assess and process the application, personal data beneath is not a requirement.

· Full personal residential address (supply country of residence only)

· DOB (date of birth)

· Hobbies and interests

· Age

· Gender

· Phone numbers

· Marital status

· Other personal information

If however, personal data has been submitted your application will be processed and will not be disregarded.

The information beneath will be an essential requirement for us to process your application.

a) Name

b) Profile

c) Country of residence

d) Employment and work experience history

e) Education

f) Achievements and accomplishments

g) Responsibilities, memberships, representative and voluntary roles

h) Training received and delivered

i) Written papers, journals, research, books and publications

j) Essential educational and training certificates

k) Languages spoken and proficiency

l) Skills competency

m) Referees

TENDER DATES AND CONTACT DETAILS

All proposals are required to be submitted by Monday 13^th May 2019 1.00pm UK time pursuant to the attached guidelines for submitting a quotation and these be returned to tendering@irworldwide.org

For any issues relating to the tender or its contents please email directly to tendering@irworldwide.org

Following submission, IRW may engage in further discussion with applicants concerning tenders in order to ensure mutual understanding and an optimal agreement.

Quotations must include the following information for assessment purposes.

1. Timescales

2. Full break down of costs including taxes, expenses and any VAT

3. References (two are preferred)

4. Technical competency for this role

5. Demonstrable experience in a similar project

Note: The criterias are subject to change

Appendix 1: Core Humanitarian Standards Questionnaire (for reference only)

Below is a suggested questionnaire, for reference, for the consultant to frame their questionnaire for this evaluation. The consultant should use this and any extra questions they feel necessary, to provide an overall judgement about the performance of IR Syria, and the implementation of this project, against the quality criteria set out by the CHS.

Please see the following link to learn more about the CHS:

1) https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20Standard%20-%20English.pdf

2) https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/CHS-Guidance-Notes-and-Indicators.pdf

1. Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

· Has a comprehensive needs assessment been conducted and used to inform response planning?

· Are multiple sources of information, including affected people and communities, local institutions and other stakeholders consulted when assessing needs, risks, capacities, vulnerabilities and context?

· Are assessment data and other monitoring data disaggregated by sex, age and ability?

· Does the response include different types of assistance and/or protection for different demographic groups?

· Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Was the assistance culturally appropriate?

· Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated?

· Has the assistance provided by IR Syria met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men and women, children, the elderly, the disabled?

· What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and relevant?

2. Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

· Are constraints and risks identified and analysed?

· Does planning consider optimal times for activities?

· Are contingency plans used?

· Are globally recognised technical standards used and achieved?

· Are unmet needs identified and addressed?

· How timely was IR Syria’s response in meeting the needs of the affected people, especially vulnerable people?

· Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely completion of the project activities? If yes, were any changes made to the project as a result and if not, should changes have been made to be more appropriate?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response?

3.Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

· What local capacities for resilience (structures, organisations, leadership, and support networks) exist and how can these be strengthened?

· Is existing information on risks, hazards, vulnerabilities and related plans considered

· In what ways are local leaders (formal and informal) and/or authorities consulted to ensure strategies are in line with local and/or national priorities?

· Are there equitable opportunities for participation of all groups in the affected population?

· Does the response facilitate early recovery?

· What mechanisms exist for prompt detection and mitigation of unintended negative effects?

4. Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback.

· Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to affected communities and people?

· Are people, especially vulnerable and marginalised groups, accessing and understanding the information provided?

· Are crisis-affected people’s views, including those of the most vulnerable and marginalised, sought and used to guide programme design and implementation?

· To what extent longer-term and interconnected problems were taken into account?

· What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local government policies and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation?

· To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported and developed?

· Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?

5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

· Is information provided to and understood by all demographic groups about how complaints mechanisms work and what kind of complaints can be made through them?

· Are complaints about sexual exploitation and abuse investigated immediately by staff with relevant competencies and an appropriate level of authority?

· Was there a written complaints system developed (preferably in local language) involving the communities?

· Did the complaint system clearly and effectively communicated to staff and partners?

· Was there any complaint received?

· How were they dealt with?

6. Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

· Is information about the organisation’s competences, resources, areas and sectors of work shared with others responding to the crisis?

· Is information about the competences, resources, areas and sectors of work of other organisations, including local and national authorities, accessed?

· Have existing coordination structures been identified and supported?

· Are the programmes of other organisations and authorities taken into account when designing, planning and implementing programmes?

· What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most vulnerable areas where the needs were highest?

· How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people affected? What criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?

· Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled, and the poor?

· Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?

7. Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

· Are evaluations and reviews of responses of similar crises consulted during programme design?

· Are monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints-handling processes leading to changes and/or innovations in programme design and implementation?

· Is learning systematically documented?

· What kind of actions and systems are used to share learning with relevant stakeholders?

· To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader humanitarian community and the government?

· What have been the biggest successes in coordination? What were the biggest gaps?

· Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships with local CBOs, CSO organisations been built-up?

· What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country offices and between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?

8. Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.

· Does staff sign a code of conduct?

· If so, do they receive orientation on this and other relevant policies?

· Are complaints received about staff? How are they handled?

· Is all staff provided with an induction and appropriate and ongoing training to help them to effectively do their jobs?

· Was staff working as per the agreed IRW values?

· Does the office have all appropriate and up to date policies and procedures, including the IR Handbook, available to them for reference should they be required?

9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

· To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame?

· To what extent have agreed humanitarian standards, principles and behaviours including the Code of Conduct standards been respected?

· What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing their resilience capacity?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response?

· Are services and goods procured using a rapid competitive bidding process?

· Are potential impacts on the environment monitored, and actions taken to mitigate them?

· Is a safe whistle blowing procedure in place and is known to staff, communities, people and other stakeholders?

· How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-going or completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation?

· Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources, logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?

· How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?

· Were the funds used as stated?

· How does the project demonstrate value for money?

· Were small scale mitigation activities cost-efficient?

· To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response been explored and exploited to reduce costs and maximise results?

· What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response?

· How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate vulnerability over time and is there evidence of this?

· To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met?

· Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the perceptions of key stakeholders? How do you know?

· What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the intervention?

· What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost effective?

· Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How are you adjusting your programme with the unforeseen risks?

Cross cutting issues

· How well did the response mainstream/ensured the inclusion of gender, age and disability?

· How did you ensure protection of children from abuse?

· How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural sensitivities integrated in the project?

· How well this project include ethnic people/ socially excluded

· What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in IR Syria’s response?

· What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future response?

Sustainability:

· To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

· What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?

Appendix 2: Sex, Age, Disability, Disaggregated data

Further to the cross cutting issues mentioned in Appendix 1, the below will need to be considered when designing a questionnaire to ensure that they are covered and reported in the final report. Further documentation will also be shared with the successful candidate, for this purpose.

Collection and disaggregation of data throughout the project by sex, age and disability.

1. Has the project met the differentiated needs of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities including older people and people with disabilities?

2. Did the project reflect direct and meaningful participation of all groups?

3. Did the project implementing partners had proper referral systems in place and what was it for?

4. Did the implementing partners used differentiated communication tools to reach ALL vulnerable groups to ensure participation in needs assessment, consultation and feedback mechanisms?

Appendix 3

Please fill in the table below. It is essential all sections be completed and where relevant additional expenses be specified in detail. In case of questions about how to complete the table below, please contact tendering@irworldwide.org

Cost evaluation for consultancy of independent (third party) evaluation of IR Syria and it’s programme, April 2019

Applicants/lead consultants name

Full company trading name

No of proposed hours per week

No. of proposed days

Preferred days

Earliest available start date

Expected project finish date

Non preferred days

Hourly rate

£

Total per week

£

Total cost for consultancy in GBP (less taxes and expenses

Expenses (flights)

£

Expenses (accommodation)

£

Expenses (transfers)

£

Expenses (in country travel)

£

Expenses (visa)

£

Expenses (security)

£

Expenses other (please specify)

£

Total expenses

£

Total VAT or taxes

£

Total cost for consultancy in GBP (inclusive of taxes and expenses)

£

Note

The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.