Evaluation Approach. Both the Mid-Term Evaluations and End-Programme Evaluations are expected to use a theory based evaluation approach that elaborates and then tests and re-tests “rich” theories of change for the individual components and the overall programme, as recommended in the Evaluability Assessment (Annex 4). They should seek to answer why a set of interventions produces certain effects, intended as well as unintended, for whom and in which contexts. The evaluations will test hypotheses within the overarching theory of change and for the individual programmes about how programme elements are expected to produce particular changes. The evaluation team should take as a starting point the theory of change for the overall programme presented in the Business Case (Annex 1) and the draft theories of change for individual programme components presented in implementing partners’ Inception Reports (Annex 6). The evaluation team is expected to work with implementing partners and other stakeholders to further elaborate these individual “rich” theories of change, and to use them to further develop the overall programme theory of change, during the inception phase. The evaluations should then seek to establish the extent to which the programme elements have been implemented, the extent to which the expected changes have occurred and the plausibility or otherwise of one having contributed to the other. Bidders should also consider whether there is value in additionally using realistic evaluation approaches to allow for testing of emergent or unpredictable effects, such as synergies between the individual programme components. The choice and balance of planned evaluation approach(es) should be indicated and justified in evaluation bids. The evaluation approach should then be further elaborated, along with the theories of change and a detailed evaluation framework and questions, during the evaluation inception phase.
Evaluation Approach. All proposals deemed complete and in compliance with the RFP shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).
Evaluation Approach. M.1.3.3.1 The Government will conduct proposal evaluations using a Best Value: Trade off approach and will follow FAR 15.101-1, and Section M.1 of this solicitation, Evaluation Factors for Award. The Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR15.101-1.
Evaluation Approach. The GENERA evaluation approach consisted of a concept and design analysis on the one hand (ex- ante evaluation) and an implementation analysis on the other (ex-post evaluation). As described in the evaluation concept (D3.1), the concept and design analysis was outlined to assess whether the defined measures fit the respective goals as they were set by the partner organisations. Yet, in the ex-ante phase it became obvious that this plan could not be realised, because not enough Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) or measures would be fully implemented during the project. This is why we adopted our evaluation approach and became Critical Friend of the implementation managers (IMs). This approach (Xxxxxxxxx 2012, see D3.1) includes facilitating learning by providing timely feedback, advice and (external) expertise in order to establish a trustful relationship which enables learning. The approach applies to the GENERA team as well as the management of ROs. The overall aim of the Critical Friend is to provide support for starters and to learn for additional policy design (for more findings on policy design see also D6.2 GENERA Policy Briefs). Furthermore, we found out that the phase of designing the GEPs is crucial to understand. Why does it take so long? What are the challenges? What resistances can already be found here? Still, the analyses were based on personal interviews with members of the GENERA implementation teams and other policy actors, stakeholders and research staff within each institution as well as the conducted online surveys. Furthermore, the implementation analysis made use of the information provided by the implementation reports produced in WP4 and self-reporting forms filled out by each implementing partner.
Evaluation Approach. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:
Evaluation Approach. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. An overall assessment of the merit of each proposal will be derived from the evaluation of the proposal as it relates to each factor and subfactor in this solicitation. A narrative explanation will be provided to support the adjectival ratings for the Technical Capability/Risk and Past Performance factors. Cost, including Cost Realism Analysis, shall be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable. Results of the source selection process will be documented in accordance with the requirements of the Source Selection Plan (SSP).
Evaluation Approach. The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The evaluation will be accomplished utilizing the listed five (5) evaluation factors: Technical, Experience, Transition Plan, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Below is further discussion of the factors in detail. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive at least an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor and Sub-factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor or Sub-factor will not be eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, Offerors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals contain all necessary information and are complete in ALL respects. The non-cost factors for evaluation are Technical, Experience, Transition Plan, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor is comprised of (3) Sub-factors: 1a) Technical Ability, 1b) Management Approach, and 1c) Recruitment and Retention.
Evaluation Approach. This is a competitive acquisition for multiple award indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery (ID/IQ) task order contracts for analytical support services. Task orders may be firm fixed price (FFP) or cost plus fixed fee (CPFF). The ordering period will be five (5) years. Awards will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) propsal that is determined to be most beneficial to the Government with consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Technical, Management, Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation.
Evaluation Approach. General Approach. Proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Government will evaluate the contractor’s proposal for a) Technical; b) Management; c) Cost; d) Past Performance; and e) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) to determine acceptability. The evaluation team (known as the Source Selection Evaluation Board) will rate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content against the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation, and will not assume that performance includes areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal. Each evaluation factor will be evaluated and determined to be acceptable or unacceptable and will be accompanied by a narrative evaluation. The proposals will be evaluated for the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods and approach in meeting the proposed tasks and requirements provide the Government with an acceptable level of confidence of successful completion in a timely manner. If an offeror is not determined technically acceptable, their cost proposal may not be evaluated. The evaluation, in part, will be based upon use of the following two (2) sample tasks: • Sample Task #1, “Vulnerability Analysis for Combatant Command Ground Mobile Target - Pantsir • Sample Task #2, “Methodology to Predict Damage from Warheads Made from Nonconventional Materials The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:
Evaluation Approach. The mid-term evaluation will be a three-step process. The first, the Evaluator will prepare for her trip to Paraguay by finalizing the evaluation methodology, reviewing documents and organizing the trip’s logistics. During the second step, the Evaluator will travel to Paraguay to conduct a series of interviews, meetings and site visits as well as analyze data, statistics, reports and documents. During this phase, the Evaluator will be joined by other team members and will together, finalize the evaluation methodology and organization of site visits, design and elaboration of interview instruments, and collection of necessary data. In the third step, the Evaluation Team will debrief key stakeholders, solicit their input on and document the findings and conclusions. Below is a more in-depth description of the evaluation process. Step One: Preparation for the Paraguay Mid-term Evaluation • Conduct telephone interviews with CIRD staff to formulate the scope of the mid-term evaluation, including confirmation of evaluation’s objectives, list of questions to guide interview, schedule of interviews, meetings and site visits. • Review relevant Paraguay program documents such as work plans, trip reports, presentations, evaluations, etc. • Coordinate with the CIRD Project Director to organize logistics of Paraguay visit. Step Two: Field Trip to Paraguay Evaluator will travel to Asuncion and • Finalize evaluation methodology with CIRD management and USAID. • Debrief CIRD staff of goals and objectives of mid-term evaluation to provide information and solicit their input on evaluation methodology. • Conduct interviews of CIRD staff located in Asuncion. • Collect and analyze additional local technical reports, documents, statistics, data, etc. • Assess overall M&E plan, process and tools for CIRD activities • Meet with major stakeholders of CIRD program, including USAID, Alianza members, members of CIRD Board of Director. • Visit site(s) of CIRD activities in the field. Also interview CIRD field staff in the regions. • Document findings and preliminary conclusions to be included in mid-term evaluation report. • Conduct intermittent meetings with CIRD President and Project Director to review and solicit feedback on initial findings. • Conduct exit meeting with CIRD staff to present preliminary findings and to solicit their feedback on findings. • Conduct debriefing with USAID to share preliminary findings of mid-term evaluation. Step Three: Document findings in a mid-term...
