DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND … T4 of 2014 PPSP... · DPME T4 of 2014 PPSP Additions...

DPME T4 of 2014 PPSP Additions Special Conditions and ToR FINAL.docx Printed: 29 August 2014

DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE PRESIDENCY

Private Bag X944, Pretoria, 0001 |Union Buildings East Wing, Pretoria |www.thepresidency-dpme.gov.za

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Subject: Appointment of additional Consultants to the DPME Panel of Professional Service Providers for Evaluation and Research Bid reference number: T4 of 2014

Closing Date: 10 October 2014 at 12:00

Briefing Session (not compulsory): 14.00 on 18 September 2014, Union Buildings

1. BID INFORMATION

Information on the format and delivery of bids are contained in the attached bid documents. Please take note of the closing date.

2. PROPOSAL FORMAT

Annexure A contains this terms of reference.

Annexure B must contain an overview of the bidders’ skills, verifiable experience and abridged CVs as indicated in the ToR. The attached format must be followed. Bidders must submit 5 copies of Annexure B, or 5 copies each if bidding for both Evaluation and Research.

All other bid documents as required must be attached as Annexure C.

Please note that huge documents are not welcome.

3. CONDITIONS OF BID

3.1. Administrative compliance

See bid documents

3.2. Functional Evaluation

Only bids / quotes that comply with all administrative requirements (acceptable bids) will be considered during the functional evaluation phase. All bids / quotes will be scored by the Bid Evaluation Committee against the functional criteria indicated in the Terms of Reference.

Minimum functional requirements: Service providers that submitted acceptable bids and that scored at least the minimum for each element as well as the overall minimum score (70%), based on the average of scores awarded by the Bid Evaluation Committee members. The Department reserves the right to call bidders that meet the minimum functional requirements, and who have not been part of the previous panel to present their proposals. The Bid Evaluation Committee may decide to amend the scoring assigned to a particular bid based on the presentation made.

3.3. Price evaluation: The PPPFA

This bid does not have any pricing requirements.

ANNEXURE A – TERMS OF REFERENCE


1. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

1.1 The purpose of this tender is to invite potential professional service providers to submit proposals for inclusion

on the Department’s Panel of Professional Service Providers in the areas of Evaluation and/or Research from 1 January 2015 until 31 December 2017. Membership of this panel will continue until 31 December 2017unless an organisation performs poorly in at least two assignments, or does not submit any bids for 2 years.

1.2 The terms of all existing panel members will expire on 31 December 2014, or on the date of announcement of the successful bidders in terms of this tender, whichever occurs last. All existing panel members must respond to this invitation to bid to be considered for inclusion on the new Panel.

2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Service Provider: Juristic entity appointed to the panel or contracted to deliver a specific product or service to

the Department. 2.2 Product / Service: Used interchangeably to refer to the deliverables required as stipulated by the Department. 3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 This bid and all contracts emanating there from will be subject to the General Conditions of Contract issued in

accordance with Chapter 16A of the Treasury Regulations published in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999).

3.2 Other Special Conditions of Contract contained herein are supplementary to that of the General Conditions of

Contract. Where, however, the Special Conditions of Contract are in conflict with the General Conditions of Contract, the Special Conditions of Contract prevail.

4. REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Prospective service providers (Bidders) must be competent in the areas of evaluation and/or research as

detailed below. It is imperative that bidders offer the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience. The Department will draw on these skills and competencies as and when necessary for evaluation- and research-related assignments.

4.2 The competencies for evaluation and research are provided in tables 1 and 2 respectively. The competencies for evaluation are drawn from the Evaluation Competencies available on the DPME website. Generic research competencies as well as DPME specific criteria are included in table 2 for research under 4.3. Bidders will be guided by the appropriate competencies depending on whether the call is an evaluation or research assignment. In some cases these are for the company, in others staff members (who may have that competency working with other organisations).

Table 1: Summary of evaluation competencies

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to

1 Overarching considerations

1.1 Contextual knowledge and understanding

Have knowledge of relevant sectors and government systems in relation to the 14 priority outcomes and can appropriately relate the evaluation to current political, policy and governance environments

Perform appropriately in cross-cultural roles with cultural sensitivity and attends appropriately to issues of diversity

1.2 Ethical conduct Understand ethical issues relating to evaluation, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/anonymity, and obtaining informed consent and ethical clearance from evaluation participants where necessary.

1.3 Interpersonal skills Lead an evaluation and its processes using facilitation and learning approaches, to promote commitment and ownership of stakeholders

2 Evaluation leadership



Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to

2.1 Project management Lead and manage an evaluation team effectively and efficiently, and manage the project effectively to completion in a way which delivers high quality evaluations and builds trust of stakeholders.

2.2 Composition of the team Strong project manager, evaluation specialist, and sector specialist (not necessarily three people) as well as other relevant team members for the specific assignment

2.3 Involvement of PDIs Provide teams with at least 30% of team Previously Disadvantaged Individuals (PDIs)

1 who play a meaningful role in the evaluation (shown in the activity

table)

2.4 Capacity development Meaningful capacity development to departmental staff as agreed with the relevant departments

3 Evaluation craft

3.1 Evaluative discipline and practice

Use knowledge base of evaluation (theories, models including logic and theory based models, types, methods and tools), critical thinking, analytical and synthesis skills relevant to the evaluation

3.2 Research practice Design specific research methods and tools that address the evaluation’s research needs. This may include qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods.

Systematically gather, analyse, and synthesise relevant evidence, data and information from a range of sources, identifying relevant material, assessing its quality and spotting gaps

4 Implementation of evaluation

4.1 Evaluation planning

Theory of change Develop clear theory of change with quality programme logframes with good programme logic and indicators

Design Design and cost an appropriate and feasible evaluation with appropriate questions and methods, based on the evaluation’s purpose and objectives.

4.2 Managing evaluation Manage evaluation resources to deliver high quality evaluations and related objectives within budget, on time and to appropriate standards

4.3 Report writing and communication

Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible, useful and actionable, address the key evaluation questions, and show the evidence, analysis, synthesis, recommendations and evaluative interpretation and how these build from each other

In addition we will want to know your expertise in relation to the 6 types of evaluation in the National Evaluation Policy Framework:

Diagnostic evaluation (diagnosis of current situation root causes and options)

Design evaluation (testing the robustness of the theory of change and design of an intervention)

Implementation evaluation (evaluating how an intervention is being implemented, and how it can be strengthened)

Impact evaluation (assessing the impact at outcome or impact level of an intervention, and how far changes can be attributed to the intervention)

Economic evaluation (cost benefit, cost effectiveness, PETS)

Evaluation synthesis (undertaking rigorous analysis across evaluations to draw out evidence) 4.3 The competencies for research are:

1 By PDIs we mean people of Black, Indian, and Coloured ethnicity. For example if a team consists of 10 members, 3 of them should

be PDIs.



Table 2: Research competencies

Competence Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to



Have knowledge of relevant sectors and government systems in relation to the 14 priority outcomes and can appropriately relate the research to current political, policy, cultural and governance environments

1.2 Ethical conduct Apply ethical principles relating to research, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/anonymity, and obtaining informed consent from research participants.

1.3 Interpersonal skills Undertake a research project using effective facilitation and participatory approaches.

2 Research leadership

2.1 Project management Demonstrate that research projects undertaken are effectively led and efficiently managed towards completion in a way which delivers high quality findings and analysis.

2.2 Composition of the team Competent research manager and research specialist/s in appropriate content and methodology.

3 Research craft

3.1 Research practice Design specific research methods and tools to address the research questions which include qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods

3.2 Generation of data and information

Systematically gather, document, analyse, and synthesise relevant evidence, data and information from the range of recommended and other identified sources.

4 Implementation of research


Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible and useful with actionable recommendations. Present research findings using simple language and graphics.

4.4 Furthermore, it is important that service providers exhibit the following skills and attributes:

Are team players and analytical and lateral thinkers;

Have excellent communication skills with the ability to listen and learn;

Have good facilitation skills for strategic thinking, problem solving, and stakeholder management in complex situations;

Have the ability to work under consistent and continuous pressure from varied sources, yet be able to maintain a supportive approach;

Have excellent computing skills including detailed knowledge and use of: Word, Excel, Power Point, Microsoft Project or similar compatible software.

EVALUATION OF BIDS

4.5 Step 1: Administrative compliance of bids will be determined in accordance with the conditions listed in the bid documentation. Only those bids that comply 100% with these conditions will be considered for further evaluation. Incomplete and late bids will not be considered. Detailed records will be kept of all bids received and the reasons for rejection where bids are not accepted. These records will be made available to the Bid Evaluation Committee(s).

4.6 Step 2: Functional evaluation of bids will be conducted by Bid Evaluation Committee(s) set up for each specific

competency area or, where possible, for a group of related competency areas. The Bid Evaluation Committee(s) will consist of senior managers in DPME and, where appropriate, external professionals in the various competency areas being evaluated. External professionals engaged for this purpose may not be associated with any of the bidders.

4.6.1 The Bid Evaluation Committee(s) will consider the recommendations by the Administrative Compliance

Evaluation Panel and will record in writing the reasons for any deviation from the Panel’s recommendations. 4.6.2 The Bid Evaluation Committee(s) will consider each bid based on the requirements (as indicated above) and



will score each bid as follows:

Scores: 1 – Does not comply with the requirements 2 – Partial compliance with requirements 3 – Full compliance with requirements 4 – Exceeds requirements

Evaluation Functional Evaluation Part 1 Bidders must demonstrate that they have managed at least five projects (not necessarily evaluations) of at least R500 000 each within the last five years, and a member of their staff has managed five evaluations of at least R500 000 (cv must be provided). Documentation and references will be required as specified below. Bids on evaluation will be screened for this and only bids that meet this minimum requirement will be scored using the functional evaluation schedules indicated below. Bidders must complete the table provided in Annexure B, Part 2 as a summary of past experience.

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to Weight Score Weight x score

Minimum

4.2 Managing evaluation

Manage evaluation resources to deliver high quality evaluations and related objectives within budget, on time and to appropriate standards. The bidding organisation has managed successful projects (which don’t have to be evaluations): 1= <5 projects of more than R500 000 2= 5 projects of R500 000 and above 3= 6+ projects other than evaluations or research

projects of R500 000 and above 4= 6+ evaluation or research projects of R500 000

and above

4 8

2.2 Composition of the team

One staff member at least has been a lead evaluation specialist in: 1= <5 successful evaluations of over R500 000 2= 5-7 successful evaluations of over R500 000 3= 8-10 successful evaluations of over R500 000

(convincing as an evaluator in this type of work)

4= 11+ successful evaluations of over R500 000 and with knowledge of international best practice (convincing internationally as an evaluator in this type of work)

4 8

Functional Evaluation Part 2

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to Weight (out of 4)

Score Weight x score

Minimum

The quality of the proposal

Addressing the TORs effectively. 1= The requirements of the call not addressed 2= Requirements of the call partially addressed

but not convincing. 3= Requirements of the call addressed well and

convincingly. 4= Requirements of the call addressed very

thoroughly with significant insight provided

4 8






Minimum


Understand relevant sectors and government systems as well as political, policy, cultural and governance environments 1= Unconvincing that understand relevant

sectors and government. 2= Some understanding of relevant

sectors/government but not deep 3= Good understanding of relevant

sectors/government and how implementation happens

4= Good understanding of relevant sectors/government nationally and internationally, and can bring international insight

2 4

1.2 Ethical conduct Understand ethical issues relating to evaluation, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/ anonymity, and obtaining informed consent from evaluation participants. 1= Do not demonstrate understanding of ethical

issues 2= Understand when ethical clearance is needed 3= Have obtained clearance from review boards

for research processes once 4= Have obtained clearance from review boards

for research processes at least three times

2 4

1.3 Interpersonal skills

Lead an evaluation and its processes using facilitation and learning approaches, to promote commitment and ownership of stakeholders 1= Do not demonstrate understanding of

empowering clients 2= Demonstrate that stakeholders feel

empowered by working with the consultant 3= In addition, demonstrate significant impact of

evaluations in 1 case 4= In addition, demonstrate significant impact of

evaluations in at least 3 cases

2 4


2.1 Project management

Lead and manage teams effectively and efficiently, and manage projects effectively to completion in a way which delivers high quality and builds trust of stakeholders. For projects which do not have to be evaluations, one staff member (not just the organization) has successfully managed: 1= <5 projects or of more than R500 000 2= 5 projects of R500 000 and above 3= 6+ projects other than evaluations or research

projects of R500 000 and above 4= 6+ evaluation or research projects of R500 000

and above

4 8





Minimum

2.4 Capacity development

Demonstrated meaningful capacity development of government staff: 1= No indication of capacity development 2= Some capacity development included in

projects but not well though through 3= Examples of well thought through strategy of

how to use junior government staff on evaluations

4= Examples of interesting/innovative models for building capacity in evaluation of junior and other government staff

2 4

3 Evaluation craft


Demonstrated experience of undertaking quality evaluations (so using evaluation knowledge) relevant to government evaluations.

See above


4.1 Evaluation planning

Theory of change Develop and use clear theory of change with quality programme logframes with good programme logic and indicators. At least one staff member can demonstrate examples: 1= No examples of TOC or logframe provided 2= No examples of TOC or logframe provided but

demonstrate some understanding of these 3= Examples provided show good examples of

TOCs or logframes and how to use them in evaluations

4= Examples provided show good examples of TOCs and logframes and how to use them in evaluations

2 4


Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible, useful and actionable, address the key evaluation questions, and show the evidence, analysis, synthesis, recommendations and evaluative interpretation and how these build from each other 1= Examples of evaluations show poor writing

skills 2= Examples provided show adequate but not

good writing skills, but use of evidence is not good

3= Examples provided show good reports which demonstrate use of evidence, good logic, and are well-written

4= Well-written and punchy reports with good use of infographics, good summaries, good use of evidence

4 8



Research

Functional Evaluation Part 1 Bidders for research projects must a demonstrate minimum of four years research experience and knowledge of the related sector/ issue under investigation. Documentation and references will be required as specified below. Bids that meet these minimum requirements will be scored using the functional evaluation schedules indicated below. Bidders must complete the table provided in Annexure B, part 2 as a summary of past experience.

Domain/descriptor Demonstrates Weight (out of 4)


Minimum

Research experience The lead research staff member has: 1= Less than 4 years research

experience 2= 4-6 years research experience 3= 7-14 years research experience,

including conducting research for SA government

4= 15+ years of research experience including conducting research for SA government and with relevant research experience at international levels

4 `8

Qualifications

Qualifications of team members relevant to the sector: 1= No post-graduate qualifications 2= Research leader and/or known

team members have Master’s degree

3= Research leader has a PhD and known team members have Master’s and/or PhD

4= Research leader and known team members have PhD

4 8



Functional Evaluation Part 2

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to: Weight (out of 4)


Minimum



Knowledge of relevant sectors and government systems in relation to the 14 priority outcomes and can appropriately relate the research to current political, policy, cultural and governance environments 1= Unconvincing that the service

provider understands relevant sectors/ interventions

2= Some understanding of relevant sectors but not deep

3= Good understanding of relevant sectors and how research contributes to knowledge

4= Good understanding of relevant sectors nationally and internationally, and can bring international insight

3 6

1.2 Ethical conduct Apply ethical principles relating to research, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/ anonymity, and obtaining informed consent from research participants. 1= Ethical issues not demonstrated 2= Basic elements of ethical conduct

demonstrated 3= All necessary components of ethical

conduct for ethical clearance demonstrated including anonymity, confidentiality and privacy

3= Application of ethical conduct exceeds expectations

2 4

1.3 Interpersonal skills Demonstrate undertaking research projects using effective facilitation and participatory approaches. 1= Do not demonstrate understanding

of involving and empowering clients 2= Demonstrate that the research

process involves diverse stakeholders and participation by relevant stakeholders considered

3= Involvement and empowerment of relevant stakeholders in the research process and observance of equity issues

4= High level of interpersonal skills demonstrated in the research process to facilitate effective research use and participation by relevant stakeholders

2 4





Minimum


2.1 Project management Demonstrate that research projects undertaken are effectively led and efficiently managed towards completion in a way which delivers high quality findings and analysis. 1= Managed successfully 1-2 relevant

research projects of over R300 000 2= Managed successfully 3 relevant

research projects at local government and provincial levels of over R300 000

3= Managed successfully 4+ relevant research projects of R300-R499 000 at provincial, national and/or international levels

4= Managed successfully at least one relevant research projects of over R500 000 at provincial, national and international levels involving high level government officials

4 8


Competent research manager and research specialist/s with appropriate content and methodology. Staff are: 1= Lead researcher in 1-2 relevant research

projects of over R300 000 2= Lead researcher in 3 relevant research

projects at local government and provincial levels of over R300 000

3= Lead researcher in relevant research projects of R300 – 499 000 at provincial, national and/or international levels

4= Lead researcher in relevant research projects of over R500 000 at provincial, national and international levels involving high level government officials

3 6

3 Research craft

3.1 Research practice Ability to design specific research methods and tools to address the research questions which include qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods 1= Poor understanding of effective use

of research process and methodology relevant to the TOR

2= Not convincing in understanding effective use of research process and methodology

3= Demonstrate knowledge of range of research methodologies including use of software for analysis

4= Demonstrate knowledge of range of research methodologies, use of software and innovation in approach and methodologies

4 8





Minimum


Systematically gather, document, analyse, and synthesise relevant evidence, data and information from the range of recommended and other identified sources. 1= Poor understanding of data

collection and development of tools 2= Basic understanding of data

collection tools and documentation of data for analysis.

3= Systematic in approach to data collection with effective development and use of instruments for gathering, documenting and synthesising data and information.

4= Systematic and innovative in approach to data collection, documentation, analysis and synthesis of data and information

4 8



Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible and useful with actionable recommendations. Present research findings using simple language and graphics. 1= Can’t demonstrate high quality

research reports in relation to government.

2= Demonstrate adequate research reports in relation to government, with limited use of evidence and logic

3= Demonstrate 2 high quality research reports in relation to government, drawing on international experience, with good use of evidence and logical flow

4= Demonstrate 3+ high quality well-written research reports in relation to government, with excellent use of evidence, drawing on international experience, strong logic and actionable recommendations

3 6

4.6.3 Only service providers that submit acceptable bids and that score at least the indicated minimum for each

element as well as the overall minimum score (70%) can be appointed to the panel. 4.7 Step 3: The Bid Adjudication Committee will review the decisions by the various Bid Evaluation Committee(s)

to ensure compliance with legislation and the procedures and terms of reference determined for the panel. The Bid Adjudication Committee approves the final composition of the Panel.

5. ENGAGEMENT 5.1 The Department will from time to time require specialised skills to supplement existing capacity on a project to

project basis. Panel Members can be approached directly or through a general request for proposals (RFP) to deliver a specific product within a specified time frame (ToR). Where possible the Department will request



costed proposals / quotations from at least three service providers for each project. 5.2 The Department reserves the right not to utilise the PPSP and to approach a wider group of potential service

providers. 5.3 The evaluation committee for a particular project will consist of individuals approved by the Director General or

the CFO. Quotations / proposal received for a particular project will be evaluated as follows:

Administrative and functional evaluation: Each proposal / quotation from service providers on the panel should contain the names and CVs of the individual(s) to participate in the specific project. All proposals / quotations that meet the minimum requirements specified in the terms of reference or project charter will be considered.

Price Evaluation: Quotations from bidders that meet the administrative requirements and minimum functional requirements will be scored in terms of the provisions of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and related regulations, and the project will be awarded to the highest scoring service provider.

5.4 No contract or expectation to provide or receive any service will exist until:

the successful conclusion of a service level agreement, memorandum of understanding or similar contract stipulating the nature and pricing of services to be rendered; and

a purchase order has been issued by the supply chain management unit of the Department; and

any additional requirements to be stipulated on a project-to-project basis have been met. 5.5 All appointments from the panel will be made on a project-to-project basis and inclusion onto the panel does

not guarantee the potential service provider an appointment within the period that the panel will be in existence.

5.6 The DPME reserves the right to negotiate fees for any particular project. 5.7 It will be a requirement, before any appointment of a consultant from the panel, that the service provider

confirms the commitment (availability and willingness) of the nominated consultant(s) to work on a specific project for the period foreseen and at the level required.

5.8 At the end of each project to which a panel member has been assigned the DPME will complete a report on the

performance of the service provider organisation and / or panel member. Should a service provider organisation or a panel member receive an adverse report this will be taken into consideration in the selection process for further contracts. The result of this evaluation will be shared with the service provider and they are also be provided an opportunity to comment on the quality of support provided by the Steering Committee and by DPME.

5.9 The Department may decide to supplement the panel through an open tender process in cases where there are

an insufficient number of consultants in a particular skills or competency area or when the Department needs add to the types of skills or competencies required.

6. PROHIBITED BIDDERS

No employee of the Department or The Presidency may bid. Government employees submitting a bid must include permission from the relevant accounting officer to perform outside remunerative work. Service providers who perform unsatisfactorily on 2 evaluations will be excluded from the panel.

7. VETTING

The Department reserves the right to approach the relevant authorities to verify the following for each bidder when setting up or when engaging panel members:

Citizenship status (individuals)

Company information

Criminal records (individuals)

Previous tender and government contract track records

Government employment status (individuals)



Company / closed corporation ownership / membership status (individuals). 8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 8.1 The bid and all information in connection therewith shall be held in strict confidence by the bidder and the

DPME. All bidders are bound by a confidentiality agreement preventing the unauthorised disclosure of any information regarding the DPME or any of its activities to any other organisation or individual. The bidders may not disclose any information, documents or products to any other party without the explicit written approval of the Department.

8.2 Copyright of all documentation resulting from contracts arising from this bid belongs to the Department as well

as other government departments participating in the evaluation. The intellectual property rights of all work conducted by consultants for the Department remain vested in the Department(s) and may not be distributed, published or disclosed to any third party without the explicit written consent of the Department.

8.3 The awarding of any contract to service providers is subject to the condition that both the contracting firm and

its personnel providing the service must be cleared by the appropriate authorities to the level of CONFIDENTIAL / SECRET / TOP SECRET if required by the nature of the project. If the principle contractor appoints a subcontractor, the same provisions and measures will apply to the subcontractor.

9. NON-COMMITMENT 9.1 The Department is not bound to accept any of the bids submitted and reserves the right to withdraw or amend

these special conditions of contract and terms of reference. 9.2 It is also herewith confirmed that a positive result of the short listing process resulting in inclusion on the DPME

panel, will not necessarily lead to any appointment or assignment for work to be done and therefore does not constitute a commitment or contract for assignments from the DPME or any other government agency.

9.3 Bid documents submitted by bidders shall not be returned and shall remain the property of the DPME. All bids

duly lodged will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria provided in the terms of reference. 10. REASONS FOR REJECTION 10.1 The Department reserves the right to return late bid submissions unopened and reserves the right to reject

bids that are not submitted in the format specified in the bid documentation or if the information presented is illegible, incomplete or ambiguous.

10.2 Bidders shall not contact DPME on any matter pertaining to their bid from the time the bids are submitted to

the time the panel decision has been finalised. Any effort by a bidder to influence the bid evaluation, bid comparisons or bid award decisions in any manner, may result in rejection of the bid concerned.

10.3 DPME shall reject a submission if the bidder has committed a proven corrupt or fraudulent act in competing for

a particular contract. 10.4 DPME may disregard any submission if that bidder, or any of its directors:

a) Have abused the Supply Chain Management (SCM) system of the Department or any other government department.

b) Have committed proven fraud or any other improper conduct in relation to such system. c) Have performed unsatisfactorily on any previous contracts with the DPME. d) Supplied incorrect information in the bid documentation.

11. BID SUBMISSIONS 11.1 Bidders must ensure that all required bid documents are completed in full. A checklist forming part of the bid

documentation will assist in this regard and must be completed and signed by the bidder. 11.2 Bidders should ensure that the names they submit are for individuals who would be willing to carry out DPME

assignments. An organisation’s senior managerial staff, albeit highly qualified individuals, should not be



submitted unless these individuals are prepared to give full commitment to actively carrying out DPME assignments.

11.3 DPME reserves the right to contact references during the evaluation and adjudication process to obtain

information, or during subsequent calls for proposals on specific assignments. 11.4 Bidders must indicate clearly whether they are submitting for evaluation or for research. If they wish to

apply for both they must indicate on their proposal which they are applying for. If they wish to apply for both they should produce separate proposals.

11.5 The Department will publish a list of all bidders on the DPME website after the closing date for bids. Only

successful bidders will be informed in writing. Due to the large volume of bids expected, it will not be practical to publish the list of successful bidders in the Government Tender Bulletin and media. Bidders are therefore requested to consult the DPME website for a list of successful bidders. The successful panel members’ details will be posted on the DPME website.

12. PARTIES NOT AFFECTED BY WAIVER OR BREACHES 12.1 A waiver (whether express or implied) by any Party of any of the terms or conditions of these conditions shall

not prejudice any remedy of the waiving party in respect of any continuing or other breach of the terms and conditions hereof.

13. ACCESS TO PANEL BY THIRD PARTIES 13.1 Bidders acknowledge that the Department may at its own discretion allow other government departments to

make use of the DPME PPSP in terms of National Treasury Regulation 16A6.6. 13.2 All agreements entered into in terms of this provision shall be concluded between panel members and third

parties (other departments) and shall not be binding upon the DPME. 14. TERMINATION 14.1 The DPME, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of contract, by written notices sent to a panel

member, may modify or terminate a contract arising from this bid in whole or in part:

if the panel member fails to deliver any or all of the services within the period(s) specified in a relevant contract, or within any extension thereof granted in writing by the Department;

if the panel member fails to perform any other obligation(s) under the a contract; or

if the panel member, in the judgment of the DPME, has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in qualifying onto the panel executing the contract.

14.2 In the event that the Department terminates a bidders contract in whole or in part, the Department may

procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, services similar to those undelivered, and the panel member shall be liable to the Department for any excess costs for such similar service. However, the panel member shall continue the performance of the contract to the extent that is not terminated.

14.3 On termination of an assignment, the panel member shall hand over to the DPME all documentation provided

as part of the project and all deliverables, etc., without the right of retention.. 15. AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTS

No agreement to amend or vary a contract or the conditions, stipulations or provisions thereof shall be valid and of any force and effect unless such agreement to amend or vary is entered into in writing and signed by the contracting parties.

Bidders may not alter or amend any bid documents, except insofar as information is required to be filled in or supplied in terms of the requirements stipulated in the bid documents.

ANNEXURE B –PROPOSAL


Proposals should be submitted with the following details and should be a maximum of 21 pages, plus examples of evaluations or research reports: Please indicate whether this proposal relates to Evaluation or Research. If bidding for both Evaluation and Research, please complete Annexure B twice (once for Evaluation and once for Research).

Evaluation

Research

Bidders should submit 5 copies of Annexure B (or 5 copies each for Evaluation and Research if bidding for both) PART 1: BACKGROUND TO THE COMPANY – ITS HISTORY AND FOCUS (MAXIMUM 1 PAGE) PART 2: EXPERIENCE (MAXIMUM OF 5 PAGES) Refer to 4.2.2 for minimum requirements in terms of years and project size. Bidders will be screened for this and only those that pass will be scored using the functional evaluation schedules indicated in the ToR. In order to demonstrate this competence bidders are asked to list relevant projects using the table below. EVALUATIONS Please use the table exactly as is so it can be imported into Excel. Please refer in column 5 to the following 6 types of evaluation so we are clear on your experience on different types of evaluation:

Diagnostic evaluation (diagnosis of current situation root causes and options)

Design evaluation (testing the robustness of the theory of change and design of an intervention)

Implementation evaluation (evaluating how an intervention is being implemented, and how it can be strengthened)

Impact evaluation (assessing the impact at outcome or impact level of an intervention, and how far changes can be attributed to the intervention)

Economic evaluation (cost benefit, cost effectiveness, PETS)

Evaluation synthesis (undertaking rigorous analysis across evaluations to draw out evidence)

Evaluation type and name

Client name and contact details (email and telephone)

Project value (Rand)

Period carried out (from-to)

Details of the evaluation project including evaluation type

Role played by bidder in this project

Evaluation 1

Evaluation 2

Evaluation 3

Evaluation 4 etc

Other evaluation-related assignments (eg developing competences…)

Assignment X etc

RESEARCH

For research please use a similar table exactly as is so it can be imported into Excel. For research type indicate the methodologies used. If you are applying for both evaluation and research then do separate tables. PART 3: DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCE (MAXIMUM OF 5 PAGES) Bidders are asked to provide a table as shown belowIn addition they are asked to submit 3 letters from referees that confirm the projects were undertaken as indicated (time, value, nature of project and role of the company), and that the work was satisfactory.



FOR EVALUATION

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to Specific examples which demonstrate the level of competency – if needed for the company they should be from the company – if from a specific member of staff, from that staff member

Part 1

4.2 Managing evaluation

Manage evaluation resources to deliver high quality evaluations and related objectives within budget, on time and to appropriate standards. The bidding organisation has managed successful projects (which don’t have to be evaluations).


One staff member at least has been a lead evaluation specialist.

Part 2



Understand relevant sectors and government systems as well as political, policy, cultural and governance environments

1.2 Ethical conduct Understand ethical issues relating to evaluation, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/ anonymity, and obtaining informed consent from evaluation participants.


Lead an evaluation and its processes using facilitation and learning approaches, to promote commitment and ownership of stakeholders



Lead and manage teams effectively and efficiently, and manage



Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to Specific examples which demonstrate the level of competency – if needed for the company they should be from the company – if from a specific member of staff, from that staff member

projects effectively to completion in a way which delivers high quality and builds trust of stakeholders. For projects which do not have to be evaluations, one staff member has demonstrated capacity.


Strong project managers, evaluation specialists, and sector specialists. One staff member at least has been a lead evaluation specialist.

2.4 Capacity development

Demonstrated meaningful capacity development of departmental staff

3 Evaluation craft


Demonstrated experience of undertaking quality evaluations (so using evaluation knowledge) relevant to government evaluations.


4.1 Evaluation planning Theory of change

Develop and use clear theory of change with quality programme logframes with good programme logic and indicators. At least one staff member can demonstrate examples:


Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible, useful and actionable, address the key evaluation questions, and show the evidence, analysis, synthesis, recommendations and evaluative interpretation and how these build from each other



PART 4: KEY STAFF (MAXIMUM OF 10 PAGES) 1 page CVs for 3-10 key staff only who will be expected to be available for work undertaken for DPME. These should indicate:

Name and contact details

Qualifications

Employment history

Key evaluation (or research) projects carried out – including name of project, client, dates and the role the staff member played

Availability Reference letters



FOR RESEARCH

Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to: Demonstrate the level of competency

Part 1

Research experience Experience of lead research staff member

Qualifications

Qualifications of team members relevant to the sector:

Part 2



Have knowledge of relevant sectors and government systems in relation to the 14 priority outcomes and can appropriately relate the research to current political, policy, cultural and governance environments

1.2 Ethical conduct Apply ethical principles relating to research, including potential or actual conflict of interest, protecting confidentiality/ anonymity, and obtaining informed consent from research participants.


Undertake research projects using effective facilitation and participatory approaches.



Demonstrate that research projects undertaken are effectively led and efficiently managed towards completion in a way which delivers high quality findings and analysis.


Competent research manager and research specialist/s in appropriate content and methodology.

3 Research craft



Domain/descriptor Demonstrated ability to: Demonstrate the level of competency

3.1 Research practice Ability to design specific research methods and tools to address the research questions which include qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods


Systematically gather, document, analyse, and synthesise relevant evidence, data and information from the range of recommended and other identified sources.



Write clear, concise and focused reports that are credible and useful with actionable recommendations. Present research findings using simple language and graphics

PART 4: KEY STAFF (MAXIMUM OF 10 PAGES) 1 page CVs for 3-10 key staff only who will be expected to be available for work undertaken for DPME. These should indicate:

Name and contact details

Qualifications

Employment history

Key evaluation (or research) projects carried out – including name of project, client, dates and the role the staff member played

Availability

3 Reference letters

ANNEXURE C – BID DOCUMENTS


All documentation included in and referred to in the tender documentation pack (SBDs, tax clearance certificate, B-BBEE certificate etc.) must be attached as Annexure C.

DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND … T4 of 2014 PPSP... · DPME T4 of 2014 PPSP Additions...

Documents

Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND … T4 of 2014 PPSP... · DPME T4 of 2014 PPSP Additions...