Tenders are invited for Organizational Assessment Consultant. Tender, Israel - 21706208

Procurement Summary

Country : Israel

Summary : Tenders are invited for Organizational Assessment Consultant.

Deadline : 22 Mar 2018

Other Information

Notice Type : Tender

TOT Ref.No.: 21706208

Document Ref. No. :

Competition : ICB

Financier : Other Funding Agencies

Purchaser Ownership : -

Tender Value : Refer Document

Purchaser's Detail

Purchaser : FINN CHURCH AID
Attn: Karin Axelsson-Zaar, Program Officer for the Middle East, Church of Sweden / Hans Heijs, Middle East Representative, ICCO and Kirk en Actie / Bana Husseini, Country Manager
Israel

Tender Details

Tenders are invited for Organizational Assessment Consultant.

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

ORGANIZATIONAL EVALUATION

Location: Israel

Purpose of the evaluation: The evaluation will assess the organisational strengths and weaknesses of an Israeli human rights organization and the extent to which its managerial and administrative competencies contribute to the effectiveness and sustainability of its programs. The evaluation will provide the organization with a vital learning resource for the mid to long term future, ultimately enabling it to improve outcomes for the rights holders it works with.

Objectives:

· To assess the organisational structure and culture to review decision making processes regarding personnel management, financial management and project cycle management (including PME + learning), and their subsequent influence on program quality.

· To develop a clear work plan based on recommendations from the evaluation.

1. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

1.1 Objectives of the evaluation

This is an organizational assessment of the organization, initiated and supported by Finn Chuch Aid (FCA), Church of Sweden (CoS) and Kirk en Actie (KiA), who have been suppoting the organization with varying intervals of bilateral support to the organization. Throughout 2017, FCA conducted an external evaluation of its joint project during which it appeared that some key organizational departments and functions could be strengthened and improved. FCA, CoS and KiA believe that a weak internal structure will negatively affect the programmatic outcomes and will have an adverse effect on rightholders. It has therefore been agreed jointly with the organization that the three donors (FCA, CoS, and KiA) would support this organizational evaluation that would look in detail into the organizational current departments and their functionality, identify areas that could be improved, suggest a work plan to address those needs, and work with the organization and stakeholders to implement the actions identified in the work plan and strengthen the interdepartmental functionality.

This assessment will be composed of two parts, programmatic and financial/administrative. The recruited consultant will conduct the programmatic assessment and Deloitte & Touche (M.E) will carry out the financial assessment.

Total annual support to the organization by donor: €70, 000 FCA, €30, 000 CoS, and €20, 000 KiA

2. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The evaluation will cover the:

a. Programmatic Departments: human rights and education department, legal department, social justice department, occupied Palestinian Territory and field work department, media and advocacy.

b. Finance and Administration Department: Finance, administration, and human resources.

Stakeholders to take part in this evaluation, but not limited to, are: management of the organization, Board of Directors, staff, donors (FCA, CoS, KiA, among others- ongoing and old), rightholders, and the outsourced service providers for finance and other services.

3.EVALUATION ISSUES

In order to deliver on the required objectives, these guiding questions are proposed for the evaluator

to consider. The evaluation will identify how management can improve outcomes under each

theme:

a. Relevance –

· Are projects selected and designed in a way which ensures they are relevant to the local community and its context?

· Who benefits from the organization’s projects? Are they who might be expected? Who is not included? How does gender, age, disability, religion, location, and socio-economic background affect who benefits from the projects?

· To what extent are project objectives continually assessed? Are they as valid now as they were when the project was designed?

b. Effectiveness –

· How are outcomes monitored and evaluated?

How good is the organization at adapting to challenges, and responding to both expected an unexpected project results?

· To what extent are the different governance and implementation bodies of the organization effective at carrying out their defined tasks?

c. Efficiency –

· To what extent is resource expenditure commensurate with results and impact?

· Are projects and their administration implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?

· Are projects adequately supported by management and administration functions?

· Are the organization’s staff capable to carry out the required tasks? What areas are identified as in need of strengthening and improvement?

d. Impact –

· How do the organization’s activities influence the lives of the people involved in its projects?

· What are the indications, direct or indirect that the action has contributed to achieving the programmatic objectives?

· Are the means and indicators used to evlaute the impact of the programs adequate?

· How well is impact assessed and communicated? Have the achievements of the programs been effectively documented and analyzed?

· Is there a way to improve both the impact of the programs and its measurement?

· Are the indicators well adapted, and if not, what are the recommendations for improving them?

· Were the results of the monitoring available in a timely manner in order to effectively inform decision-making and improve programs? If not, what were the constraints faced and how might they be addressed?

· Are there any factors which might be limiting the organization’s impact?

e. Sustainability –

· Are different ideas and behaviours adopted and reproduced by project participants? Do the organization’s different projects lead to long lasting changes?

· What are the opportunities and risks to the organization’s organisational sustainability?

· What effects, positive and negative, do external partnerships have on its sustainability?

The evaluation will be holistic and will cover all projects, departments, the organization’s offices in Jerusalem and other centers.

4. METHODOLOGY

The following background materials will be made available: FCA’s organizational partner assessment tool, project documents, quarterly reports, financial reports, logframe, budgets from all three donors (FCA, CoS and KiA), audits, and the organization’s strategic plan. It is expected that the methodology will involve both desk review, field visits, individual interviews and focus group discussions.

The methodology should clearly outline the following:

Rationale and tools to be used: to fully understand the organizational capacity, and to develop and expand it to meet the programmatic needs of the organization.

Following selection of the evaluators, further planning work will be carried out between the

evaluators, the organization, and the funding donors to agree on deliverables and deadlines.

5. EXPERTISE REQUIRED

Should include, but may not be restricted to:

· Proven experience in organizations evaluations, preferrebly in peace and democracy related programmes

· Experience of the international development sector and practices

· Significant methodological competence

· Sound understanding of organisational development

· Gender diversity and competence

· Familiarity with the context, georgraphical region and/or culture of the focus population

· Fluency in Hebrew and English- REQUIRED

6. REPORTING AND MILESTONES

· Collect the needed information through agreed upon methodology, including field visits and meetings with different stakeholders

· Submit the draft report to the organization, FCA, CoS, and KiA by 15 May 2018 for commenting

· Debriefing workshop with the evaluator, the organization, FCA, CoS, and KiA to discuss the draft report

· Report of the evaluation finalized and sent to FCA by 30 May 2018, highlighting the main issues, needs, lessons learned and recommendations for the future organizational development beyond this initial phase of capacity building following this assessment.

7. INDICATIVE BUDGET

This is contingent on the consultant submitting a budget with justified reasons for a maximum amount of €15, 000.

8. OUTCOME OF EVALUATION/DELIVERABLES

Report (maximum 20-25 pages) with concerete recommendations, work plans, appendices can be included additionally.

9. EXPECTED TIMEFRAME

The duration of the evaluation is to be discussed and agreed upon with the selected evaluator.

10. CONTACT PERSONS

Karin Axelsson-Zaar, Program Officer for the Middle East, Church of Sweden: karin.axelsson-zaar@svenskakyrkan.se **

Hans Heijs, Middle East Representative, ICCO and Kirk en Actie: Hans.Heijs@icco-cooperation.org

Bana Husseini, Country Manager, Finn Church Aid: bana.husseini@kua.fi

HOW TO APPLY:

Please the Consultant will submit the proposal to FCA (by email to procurement.mero@kua.fi under the title: Organizational Assessment Consultant Tender ) latest on 22-3-2018 at 17.00.

Documents

 Tender Notice