Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru - Evaluation of EURO-SOLAR

Lot:7 - Governance and Home Affairs - EuropeAid FWC Beneficiaries 127054

The composition of the team of experts should be balanced to enable complete coverage of
the different aspects of project evaluation (evaluation methods and techniques) as set out in
these terms of reference, including cross-cutting issues.
The evaluation team will be composed of three experts with the following profiles and
qualifications.

6.1 Expert 1: Team leader (senior)
Qualifications and skills:
§ At minimum a Masters Degree Academic level in the field of social sciences,
economic sciences, or engineering.
o A post-degree specialisation in thematic issues related to development
cooperation, renewable energy in development countries, institutional
relations, capacity building in basic services (education, health, and productive
activities), and community-based development would be an asset.
§ Full command (excellent working knowledge and report writing) of Spanish and
English or French.
General and specific professional experience:
§ At least 15 years of experience in the field of development cooperation projects in
particular sound experience in preparation, management and evaluation of projects.
o Proved experience in renewable energy in development countries, institutional
relations, capacity building in basic services (education, health, and productive
activities), and community-based development projects would be an asset.
§ At least 5 years of experience as team leader / project manager in Latin American
countries.
o Specific working experience in the EURO-SOLAR programme beneficiary
countries would be an asset.
§ Solid and proved practical work experience with principles and working methods of
EC aid delivery methods and cycle of operations, in particular evaluation
methodology.
6.2 Experts 2 and 3 (senior)
Qualifications and skills:
§ At minimum a Masters Degree Academic level in the field of social sciences,
economic sciences, or engineering.
o A post-degree specialisation in thematic issues related to development
cooperation, renewable energy in development countries, institutional
relations, capacity building in basic services (education, health, and productive
activities), and community-based development would be an asset.
§ Full command (excellent working knowledge and report writing) of Spanish and
English or French.
General and specific professional experience:
§ At least 10 years of experience in the field of development cooperation projects
including sound experience in preparation, management and evaluation of projects.
o Proved experience in renewable energy in development countries, institutional
relations, capacity building in basic services (education, health, and productive
activities), or community-based development projects would be an asset.
§ At least 3 years of experience working in Latin America.
o Specific working experience in the EURO-SOLAR programme beneficiary
countries would be an asset.

§ Solid and proved practical work experience with principles and working methods of
EC aid delivery methods and cycle of operations, in particular evaluation
methodology.

2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
The evaluation, which has been foreseen in the Technical and Administrative Provisions of
the project’s Financing Agreement, will provide the decision-makers of the beneficiary
countries, the relevant external co-operation services of the European Commission and the
wider public with sufficient information to:
a. make an overall independent assessment about the past performance of the project/
programme, paying particularly attention to the impact of the project actions against
its objectives;
b. identify key lessons and to propose practical recommendations for follow-up actions.
3. ISSUES TO BE STUDIED
The evaluation study responds to the requirements of the last phase of the project cycle. The
consultants shall verify, analyse and assess in detail the issues outlined in Annexe 2 "Layout,
structure of the Final Report". The list of issues is not intended to be exhaustive. The issues
refer to the five evaluation criteria endorsed by the OECD-DAC (relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, sustainability and impact), and to the EC-specific evaluation criteria (EC added
value and coherence).
The consultants are requested to verify, analyse and assess the integration and impact of cross
cutting issue in the project. The consultants are required to use their professional judgement
and experience to review all relevant factors and to bring these to the attention of the
Government and European Commission.
4. METHODOLOGY
For methodological guidance refer to the EuropeAid's Evaluation methodology website
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/evaluation/intro_pages/methods.htm
where guidance is available for both evaluation managers (Commission staff) and evaluation
teams (consultants) as well as to ‘’Aid Delivery Methods’, Volume 1 ‘Project Cycle
Management Guidelines (EuropeAid, March 2004)
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/reports/pcm_guidelines_2004_en.pdf

This evaluation is managed by EuropeAid/B/2 Centralised Operations for Latin America.
The evaluation approach should be developed and implemented as presented below (for
further details consult the evaluation methodology website above mentioned). Once the
external evaluation team has been contractually engaged, the evaluation process will be
carried out through three phases: a Desk Phase, a Field Phase and a Synthesis Phase, as
described below:
4.1 Desk Phase
In the inception stage of the Desk Phase, the relevant programming documents should be
reviewed, as well as documents shaping the wider strategy/policy framework. The evaluation
team will then analyse the logical framework as set up at the beginning of the programme
cycle. The relevant programming documents should also be reviewed, as well as documents
shaping the wider strategy/policy framework. On the basis of the information collected the
evaluation team should:
· Describe the development co-operation context.
· Comment on the logical framework.
· Comment on the issues / evaluation questions suggested (see annexe 2; section3) or,
when relevant, propose an alternative or complementary set of evaluation questions
justifying their relevance. Develop the evaluation into sub-questions identify
provisional indicators and their verification means, and describe the analysis strategy.
· Propose the work plan for the finalisation of the first phase.
· Confirm the final time schedule.
In the finalisation stage of the Desk Phase, the evaluation team should carry out the following
tasks:
· Review systematically the relevant available documents (see Annex 2);
· Present an indicative methodology to the overall assessment of the
project/programme.
· Interview the programme management, EC services and key partners in the concerned
countries when relevant.
· Present each evaluation question stating the information already gathered and their
limitations provide a first partial answer to the question, identify the issues still to be
covered and the assumptions still to be tested, and describe a full method to answer the
question.
· Identify and present the list of tools to be applied in the Field Phase.
· List all preparatory steps already taken for the Field Phase.
At the end of the desk phase a desk report shall be prepared (see section 5).

4.2. Field phase
The Field Phase should start upon approval of the Desk Phase report by the evaluation
manager. The evaluation team should:
· Submit its detailed work plan with an indicative list of people to be interviewed,
surveys to be undertaken, dates of visit, itinerary, and name of team members in
charge. This plan has to be applied in a way that is flexible enough to accommodate
for any last-minute difficulties in the field. If any significant deviation from the agreed
work plan or schedule is perceived as creating a risk for the quality of the evaluation,
these should be immediately discussed with the evaluation manager.
· Hold a briefing meeting with programme management and Delegation in the first days
of the field phase.
· Ensure adequate contact and consultation with, and involvement of, the different
stakeholders; working closely with the relevant government authorities and agencies
during their entire assignment. Use the most reliable and appropriate sources of
information and will harmonise data from different sources to allow ready
interpretation.
· Summarise its field works at the end of the field phase, discuss the reliability and
coverage of data collection, and present its preliminary findings in a meeting with the
programme management and the EU Delegation.
4.3 Synthesis phase
This phase is mainly devoted to the preparation of the draft final report. The consultants will
make sure that:
· Their assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable,
and recommendations realistic.
· When drafting the report, they will acknowledge clearly where changes in the desired
direction are known to be already taking place, in order to avoid misleading readers
and causing unnecessary irritation or offence.
If the evaluation manager considers the draft report of sufficient quality, it will be circulated
for comments to the focal points in the EU Delegations.
On the basis of comments expressed and collected by the evaluation manager, the evaluation
team has to amend and revise the draft report. Comments requesting methodological quality
improvements should be taken into account, except where there is a demonstrated
impossibility, in which case full justification should be provided by the evaluation team.
Comments on the substance of the report may be either accepted or rejected. In the latter
instance, the evaluation team is to motivate and explain the reasons in writing.
4.4 Discussion meeting
The evaluation team has to present the revised draft final report at a meeting in Brussels. The
purpose of the meeting is to present the draft final report, to check the factual basis of the
evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions and recommendations.
On the basis of comments made by participants, and collected by the evaluation manager, the
evaluation team has to write the final version of the report, in which the rules applying to the
integration of comments are those stated in the previous section.

PLEASE NOTE: ONLY SELECTED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONTACTED