RFP 9131322 – Quality WASH Impact Evaluation

Clarifications / Responses to queries received from bidders

Please note that the submission deadline for this bid has been extended to May 29th 2017, 14.00

1) Could you please provide details on the number of households, schools and health centres that were targeted by the WASH programme in each province ?This information is crucial at this stage of the bidding process as it will determine the size of the samples, and thus the amount of work required as per the data collection.

The state level targets are available but require some processing. They will be provided to the selected bidder. Provided in the interim are the overall targets for the programme that could guide the bidders.

Target Year / Target
No. of people gaining access to improved sanitation / 2017 / 1.5 million
Proportion of the population using an improved source of drinking water / 2017 / 4,000,000
"Number of pupils with access to basic WASH service in schools in the reporting year only, with UNICEF direct support" / 2017 / 300000
No. of Schools in UNICEF supported States provided with WASH facilities that meet the national standards / 2017 / 1780
No. of Health facilities in UNICEF assisted States with WASH facilities that meet the national standards / 2017 / 470

*Source: RAM – As of 9th may 2017.

**Note: Average number of people per household is 6

2) The RFP suggests that the Evaluation design should include approaches such as randomized control trial or matched comparison group. This will only be possible if control groups can be identified in each province. In each province, did the programme target every households/communities or only a fraction?

These are the preferred design, should data and condition be available (such as ethic approval, etc). This is why we request an evaluability assessment. Your proposal might be built on realistic assumptions, hence the options of design. Should you proposed alternative design (PSM, RDD, Theory based Evaluation, etc) whether for a counterfactual or contribution analysis (i.e. INUS type of causality), the proposal would need to demonstrate how the proposed approache(s) and methodology meet the quality expectations expressed in the proposal.

3) The RFP mentions that the proposal be submitted using the "attached proposal form" (page 1) but there is no other attached document than the RFP. Could you please indicate how we can obtain the proposal form mentioned ?

We decided to remove the form requirement for the proposal. HOWEVER this does not affect the required format for responding against the criteria defined in the RFP.

4) The RFP states that "the impact evaluation methodology (...) will include costing options (up to 3) for considerations from the most rigourous to least (...)." Does this mean that the proposal should include several alternative methodologies, each one being linked to a specific budget ? If yes, could you provide details on how the proposals will be evaluated in this regard ?

The proposals will be evaluated using the technical and financial criteria which is already provided in the RFP. If the bidder want to proposed one option, that is also acceptable. By using s mix of assumptions and different scoping, this will necessary affect the quality and costing. Allowing bidders to go up to 3 options of design, will help us to get best quality for value.

5) The RFP states that "the consultant will also be responsible to arrange for two Steering committee meetings, logistic and transport of member". Could you please indicate the number of persons that are concerned ? Could you please also confirm that transport has be arranged within Abuja only ?

Under the project authority, the contract will be responsible to arrange and support (secretariat services) for one person per organisation identified in the RFP. Should it be more, it will be supported by contracting authority. Abuja can be considered as the default destination for costing calculation.

6) Considering the impact that the answers (to the questions listed above) may have on the elaboration of a proposal, it would seem desirable to extend the submission deadline. This is with a view to elaborate a consistent proposal that meets quality requirements as per Unicef's standards.

This is considered, for an additional week. However, bidders should do their best to respond in a timely manner as this evaluation is expected for 2017.

7)Could you give us some further information regarding the KAP survey, which is referred to in the RFP. What was its coverage and how much did it cost? Would it maybe be possible to get the dataset from that survey so we could have a look at it?

The Pre-Intervention Knowledge, Attitude and Practices Survey (KAP) was conducted only for the SHAWN project and not the whole WASH programme and was therefore only conducted in Benue, Bauchi, Jigawa, Katsina, Kaduna and Zamfara States. UNICEF does not have the dataset currently but the actual KAP report can be accessed here

by the bidders for their use .