Basic Services Fund South Sudan 6 th Steering Committee meeting Juba

1. Basic Services Fund South Sudan 6th Steering Committee meeting Juba (Evaluation of second call for proposals)

2. Agenda • Welcome by Chair • Minutes of 5th SC Meeting • Structure of evaluation work • Administrative compliance check • Assessment of full proposal • Composition and Role of Evaluation Team • Results and Recommendations • Discussion and Conclusion

3. Second call statistics • 42 organisations responded with an Expression of Interest • After screening, 24 organisations were invited to submit full proposals • In total, 22 organisations submitted proposals before the deadline • Two organisations declined (HARD + CONCERN)

4. Selection Process – Main Principles • Evaluation Committee comprised of BSF Secretariat and ARCADIS staff members carries out assessment of project proposals. • Evaluation Committee first undertakes Administrative Compliance check. • Evaluation Committee then undertakes Proposal Assessment (based on technical & commercial criteria).

5. Selection Process – Main Principles cont. • BSF Steering Committee makes final decisions of selected organisations on the basis of Secretariat’s recommendations. • Selected organisations are invited for budget negotiations with BSF Secretariat in Juba. • Upon successful conclusion of these negotiations, ARCADIS signs contracts for approved projects with organisations.

6. Selection Process – Flow Chart PROJECT APPLICATIONS ▼ ▼STEP I – COMPLIANCE CHECK ▼ ▼STEP II – TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION ▼ ▼ STEP III – PROJECTS RANKING ▼ ▼ STEP IV – DELIBERATION IN BSF SC ▼ ▼ STEP V – ENDORSEMENT OF GRANT AWARDS ▼ ▼ STEP VI – BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS ▼ ▼ STEP VII – CONTRACT AWARD AND SIGNING

7. Composition of Evaluation Team • Mix of BSF Secretariat staff + ARCADIS HQ staff • Mix of experience working in Sudan + practical experience conducting evaluations and assessments for social funds and EC programs • Mix of generalists + sector experts in education, health and water and sanitation

8. Members of the Evaluation Team • Pieter Feenstra – chair • Marjolein de Bruin – secretary • Piet de Wildt – watsan • Mike Wood – watsan • Gerben van der Molen – education • Ivo Gijsberts – education + health • Anna Vassall – health • Jino Gama – watsan + health + education

9. Role of Assessors All assessors - Signed a standard declaration of impartiality & confidentiality; - Attended a briefing session to aquaint themselves with specific aspects of evaluation & assessment of the BSF; - Assessed a number of proposals following the prescribed Evaluation Grid (with each project assessed by at least 2 assessors working separately & producing their own independent assessment) - Discussed and substantiated their scoring in plenary sessions of the evaluation committee

10. Evaluation Principles • Fair competition (to avoid conflicts of interest) • Transparency & impartiality (must apply to all contract award procedures). • Value for money (administration costs must be kept within limits) • Closely aligned with BSF core principles

11. BSF Core Principles - summary • Conduct needs assessment • Forge partnership with local organisations • Adhere to GOSS policies, plans and guidelines • Plan and implement projects closely with local authorities • Employ Sudanese staff where possible • Limit management and overhead costs to the extent possible

12. Was deadline respected Were both hard copies (5x) as well as 1 soft copy received Was correct application form used Was correct budget form used Was a signed partnership agreement enclosed Were county support letters included Were references for local partners included Was a declaration included for not acquiring funds from alternative sources Was proposal within 10 page structure Was Logframe included Administrative compliance check carried out on 10 points, namely

13. Evaluation Grid - Summary • Context and Problem Analysis 10 pts • Appropriateness of Intervention 20 pts • Sustainability: Quality of Partnership 30 pts • Organisation Capability 20 pts • Cost Effectiveness 20 pts Total 100 pts

14. Evaluation Grid, Evaluation Criteria & Project Scoring • Each project is scored by a minimum of two assessors. • If individual scores deviate more than 10 points, a third assessor is requested to score that proposal. • If a proposal scores less than 50 points, it is rejected • Ranking is then made based on the highest scoring projects. • To control for “mean” assessors and “generous” assessors, weights are accorded to each score

15. Results of the Evaluation Committee • 22 proposals scored • Minimum initial score 45; Maximum initial score 90. • In six cases, scoring between two assessors deviated more than 10 pts • Average score: 74 (based on a total of 50 observations: 2x22 + 6)

16. BREAK Hand-outs of proposal summaries Discussion

17. Ranking based on weighted scores • GOAL – Ireland • TEARFUND – UK • ICCO – Netherlands • Save the Children – UK • MERLIN – UK • CEAS – Sudan • International Medical Corps – UK • World Relief • OVCI - Italy

18. Ranking according to sectors and regions • GOAL H UN • TEARFUND H+E UN • ICCO E UN • SCF – UK E J+WBG+WE • MERLIN W+H EE • CEAS H J+L+UN • IMC H+E J • World Relief E all states • OVCI – Italy H CE UN=Upper Nile; J=Jonglei; WBG=Western Bahr-El Ghazal; L=Lakes WE=Western Equatoria; EE=Eastern Equatoria; CE=Central Equatoria

19. ARCADIS Recommendation • GOAL £ 898,517 • TEARFUND £ 1,815,180 • ICCO £ 1,100,000 • SCF – UK £ 2,058,824 • MERLIN £ 974,051 • CEAS £ 1,845,000 TOTAL£ 8,691,572

20. ARCADIS Recommendation £ 8,691,572 is more than we have available for the second round of BSF (which is approx. £ 7.9 mln. ), but the BSF Secretariat suggests that budget negotiations take place with these organisations to look for mistakes and generate savings.

21. Eligible Costs • These costs must: - Be necessaryfor carrying out the project, be provided for in the budget & comply with the principles of sound financial management (i.e., value for money & cost-effectiveness; - Be incurred in the course of the execution of the project & following signature of the contract; - Be actually incurred, be recorded in project implementer’s accounts, be identifiable & verifiable & be backed by originals of supporting evidence.

22. Eligible Costs continued • Direct costs deemed eligible are: - Cost of staff assigned to the project. - Travel & subsistence costs for participating staff. - Purchase/rental costs for equipment (new or used). - Cost of consumables & supplies. - Expenditure on ‘direct service delivery costs. - Costs derived from the contract (e.g., dissemination, translation, M&E, audit etc).

23. Eligible Costs continued • Indirect costs deemed eligible are: - A lump sum not exceeding 5% of the direct eligible costs may be claimed as contingencies to cover any miscellaneous expenses not foreseen during proposal preparation. - A lump sum expressed as a % of the direct eligible costs may be claimed as administrative overhead.

24. Basic Services Fund South Sudan 6th Steering Committee meeting Juba (Evaluation of second call for proposals)