TOR for Evaluation of a pilot project: Uptake of an innovative wáter testing kit in Kenya

NB: To get the full clear tender document please request through [email protected]

Introduction

Background of the organization

Action Against Hunger-USA is a global humanitarian organization that takes decisive action against the causes and effects of hunger. We save the lives of malnourished children and we enable entire communities to be free from hunger. Action Against Hunger has been operational in Kenya (West Pokot) responding to both chronic and acute needs through a multi-sectoral strategy where nutrition, Food Security and Livelihoods, WASH, and Mental Health and Psychosocial Support activities are integrated to have a meaningful impact on people’s resilience.

Background of the project

Action Against Hunger has been implementing humanitarian WASH programs to address poor access to safe water, including water trucking, constructing and rehabilitating water points, and providing water treatment chemicals. Water quality is tested at distribution points, before and after water points constructed or rehabilitated. However, limited availability of reliable wáter quality testing kits, consumables and trained do not allow for periodic wáter quality testing. As a result, the extent to which our wáter facilities are contaminated at the source and point of use is unknown. Consequently, continuous safe water provision cannot be guaranteed.

Due to the above-mentioned challenges, ACF is piloting Water quality monitoring equipment called Waterscope. Waterscope was founded in 2015, a “spin-in” social impact start-up based at the University of Cambridge. Waterscope provides a rapid, robust test for the presence of E. coli in water sources; the product is highly affordable and performs to the internationally recognized ISO standard. The project is titled “Uptake of an innovative water testing system in humanitarian settings in Ethiopia and Kenya”, a one year project which stated in April 2023.

Action Against Hunger and local partners are piloting a project to adopt WaterScope’s innovative water testing system in Ethiopia and Kenya. In Ethiopia, the innovation is being piloted in Sekota woreda, Waghimra zone in Amhara region in partnership with ORDA, a local partner NGO. Similarly, Action Against Hunger has been piloting the project in in West-Pokot County of Kenya with Yangat, a community-based organisation with experience in WASH and emergency relief.

The project aims that Action Against Hunger and local partners will evaluate the adoption of WaterScope’s bacterial testing system for drinking water integrating into ongoing humanitarian responses or programmes in Ethiopia and Kenya.

The project aims to test hypotheses and to draw key learning objectives while conducting water quality testing and monitoring using WaterScope WQ testing kits. The project has three hypothesis:

1. Hypothesis-1WaterScope can be easily adopted by field staff and local partners, allowing them to conduct water testing at regular intervals.
2. Hypothesis-2 is the more frequent water quality testing leads to improved decision-making to ensure water is safe for consumption. And
3. Hypothesis-3 is that WaterScope is more cost-effective than locally available testing options.

The project also set three learning objectives (LOs):

1. To assess the potential for collaboration and partnerships between water Scope developers and local stakeholders, to enhance the technology’s effectiveness and reach.
2. To measure the performance and comparative advantage of the water Scope water testing system against conventional water quality testing kits in emergency contexts.
3. To learn about the factors regularly affecting the application of water testing practices throughout the water supply chain in emergency contexts among water offices and humanitarian organization

Objectives of the evaluation

The objective of this evaluation is to test & verify the hyphothessis’ and evaluate key learning objectives to generate evidences and draw lessons that enable us to use the WaterScope kit sustainably in the humanitarian setting,

Specifically,

1. To asses ease of use by field staff of waterscope water quality testing kit in terms of its bacteriological analysis accurately (effectiveness), how quickly users can perform the analysis process (efficiency), how appropriate users feel the system is (engagement), how often and when users make mistakes (error tolerance) by using blanks and Duplicates, and whether testing improves over time (ease of learning), transportation (portability), sample handling, on-site accomplishment, and sterilization with other existing kits.

• How familiar are field staff and local partners with the WaterScope technology?
• Have they received adequate training on how to use WaterScope for water testing?
• What challenges, if any, have they encountered in adopting WaterScope in their regular routines?

1. Are there any specific features or aspects of WaterScope that they find difficult to use or understand?To Asses how frequent water quality testing leads to improved decision-making to ensure water is safe for consumption

• How often are water quality tests currently conducted?
• In what ways do frequent water quality tests contribute to better decision-making?
• Have there been instances where more frequent testing has identified potential water safety issues?
• What specific decisions or actions have been taken based on the results of water quality tests?
• Is there a change in frequency of water quality testing after WaterScope?

1. To assess cost effectiveness of waterscope testing kit in terms of its initial cost, consumable, cost per sample in comparison with other testing kit and the potential for scalablity of the WaterScope technology. Some of the questions to be addressed include:

• What are the current costs associated with locally available water testing options?
• How much does it cost to acquire and maintain WaterScope equipment?
• Are there any hidden costs or ongoing expenses associated with using WaterScope?
• In what ways can the cost-effectiveness of WaterScope be measured against traditional testing methods?

1. Compare the WaterScope kit based on the above tools with another water quality test kit based on the data generated by the project
2. Draw lessons for the three learning objectives (the potential for collaboration and partnerships between Water-Scope developers and local stakeholders, the performance and comparative advantage of the Water-Scope water testing system against conventional water quality testing kits in emergency contexts; the factors regularly affecting the application of water testing practices throughout the water supply chain in emergency contexts)
3. Based on findings, generate evidences, identify result dissemination platforms and methods to the wider WASH sector, produce suitable pieces of the findings for dissemination purpose, and estimate costs needed for the identified result dissemination and sharing activities

Scope of the evaluation

Geographically, the evaluation will be conducted in North Pokot subcounty of West Pokot County where ACF and Yangat are implementing ElRHA Project. .

• Assessment of cost for existing water quality kits and consumables , Aquasafe, ) , in terms of initial investement cost (to buy kit itself) and waterscope kit, and if there are any hidden costs as well cost of testing at existing water quality laboratories
• Assessment of availability of existing water quality kits (DelAgua, Aquasafe),waterscope kit and consumables, and reputatable water quality laboratory including government laboratories
• Comparative assessment of cost per sample for the existing water quality kits,testing at the government laboratory(Aquasafe and waterscope kit)
• Comparative assessments and analysis of the effectiveness, efficiency, engagement, error tolerance, ease of learning, portability sample handling, on-site accomplishment, and Sterilization of testing water quality testing kit
• Compare the waterscope testing kit with other testing kit, at the existing water quality laboratory based on the above assessment.
• Based on findings, generate key evidences that waterscope can be used sustainablyor not.
• Finding dissemination plan, budget plan and material production
• Inception report and final report

Methodology

Methods of data collection

The assessment team will entirely rely on the primary and secondary information source and methods to compile both quantitative and qualitative data for the assessment.

Primary data

Primary data sources will include mixed methodologies, using multiple means of collecting information. This will include;

1. Key Informant Interviews (KII):

• KII with Importers/Suppliers and local private sectors, Ministry of wáter, WaterScope, national standard Agencies – to assess the potential for collaboration and partnerships between Water-Scope developers and local stakeholders, to enhance the technology’s effectiveness and reach
• KII with relevant line ministries in West Pokot County and ACF and Yangat staff who participated in the testing process – to measure the performance and comparative advantage of the WaterScope water testing system against conventional water quality testing kits in emergency contexts and to test hypothesis that WaterScope can be easily adopted by field staff and local partners, allowing them to conduct water testing at regular intervals
• KII with Water Resource Authority officers(WRA) Public Health Officers, County/Sub county WASH Cordinators, WASH actors in West Pokot and regional level WRA/Water quality officers(Nakuru/Kakamega), – to learn about the factors regularly affecting the application of water testing practices throughout the water supply chain in emergency contexts among water offices and humanitarian organizations.
• KII with HHs targeted during the testing, with water committees, Community Health Volunteers, Water companies- to test hypothesis that more frequent water quality testing leads to improved decision-making to ensure water is safe for consumption.

1. Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Structured group discussions will be conducted, with small homogenous groups of people who will be identified by the preselection criteria.

• FGD with ACF staff, Yangat staff and water office staff, Public Health officers/WASH cordinator – to test hypothesis that WaterScope can be easily adopted by field staff and local partners, allowing them to conduct water testing at regular intervals
• FGD with ACF staff, partner staff and water office staff, with Water committees,CHVS– to test hypothesis that more frequent water quality testing leads to improved decision-making to ensure water is safe for consumption

1. Water quality test data analysis:

Comparative analysis and visualization of the water sample test data collected by the project by using different available water testing kits – To measure the performance and comparative advantage of the Water-Scope water testing system against conventional water quality testing kits in emergency contexts

Secondary data

• Review of literatures and similar pilot Project reports on WaterScope and similar water testing systems mainly those under consideration under this Project
• The pre-pilot experiences baseline report on water quality testing for the Project
• Review meeting reports and Project progress reports
  1. Get Government approvals

Sampling

Purposive sampling for the Key Informants Interview (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) in the qualitative and quantitative phase

Sample size

Meaningful and justifiable numbers and sizes for KIIs and FGDs (this will be clearly determined by the lead consultant during the inception phase/inception report)

Time Table and deliverables

PHASE

SPECIFIC TASKS

DURATION (2024)

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1

Preparation

1.1

Introductory meeting with AAH

1.2

Literature review

1.3

Development of inception report.

1.4

Inception meeting with AAH.

Deliverable Milestone 1.

1. Inception Report

2

Data Collection

2.1

Training on the data collection’ tools and processes incl. pretesting of tools.

2.2

Data collection including conducting KIIs, FGDs
and supervising field surveys

3

Data Analysis

3.1

Quality control, analysis, triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data, cleaning of research findings.

4

Reporting and Dissemination

4.1

Development of the Draft Project Evaluation Report

4.2

Debrief meeting with key AAH staff and relevant stakeholders.

4.3

Learning workshop with key stakeholders.

4.4

Development of the Final Project Evaluation Report.

Deliverable Milestone 2.

2. Draft Project Evaluation Report
3. Final Project Evaluation Report
4. Learning Workshop
5. Debrief meeting with ACF and Key Stakeholders
6. Soft copy of all data sets

Roles and Responsibilities

ACF Field offices

1. Coordinate the fieldwork
2. Participate in the feedback meetings
3. Supervise data collection

ACF Capital WASH /& MEAL

1. Soliciting resources
2. Provide projected related documents and reports
3. Review inception report and assessment Tools
4. Review of the Data sets
5. Supervise Data collection
6. Support data analysis and review final deliverables
7. Review the draft reports upon receipt
8. Validate and approve the final report and delivaerables

Consultant

• Develops and submits the inception report and data collection tools and should get validation.
• submits the first draft report (s) in accordance with the report format given below to Action Against Hunger not later than 14 calender days after the completion of data collection.
• An innception report: this report should incorporate understanding the work, objectives, methods, tools, work plan, conclusions, dissemination
• A draft report: this report should incorporate findings in line with the objective and scope of the work, suggestions and recommendations, result dissmenination plans and budget
• Final report: the second round of revision may be required before the final version of the final report can be prepared. The final report should be submitted in accordance with the Action Agaist Hunger format.
• Debriefing: the lead consultant will present the results of the assessment and will document the discussion, which will form part of the final report.
• Validation meeting: The lead consultant will be requested to present findings and recommendations to Action Against Hunegr and stakeholders at capital and base level.

Qualifications of the Consultant(s)

The consultant(s) should have the following qualifications and experience:

• The lead consultant should have a minimum Master’s degree WASH/humanitarian/economics/statistics/public health with very good knowledge of WASH, water quality, water quality testing kits. WASH background, particularly water quality monitoring, is mandatory and to be demonistrated within the consulting firm.
• Professional experience in monitoring and evaluation of water quality and safety
• Excellent research experience, including conceptual and analytical skills; evaluating water quality programs and projects, reports and presentation
• Knowledge and/or proven expertise in participatory approaches in conducting assessments and facilitating project result-harvesting meetings
• Legally registered firm with renewed license in related field of business, VAT registration and Pin Number
• Experience in working with INGOs and in similar projects is an asset

Ethical guidelines

It is expected that the evaluation will adhere to ethical guidelines as such as ensuring confidentiality data and as outlined in the American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators. A summary of these guidelines is provided below.

1. Informed Consent: All participants are expected to provide informed consent following standard and pre-agreed upon consent protocols. Coincide
2. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries.
3. Competence: Evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders.
4. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluators display honesty and integrity in their own behavior, and attempt to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process.
5. Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, program participants, clients, and other evaluation stakeholders. It is expected that the evaluator will obtain the informed consent of participants to ensure that they can decide in a conscious, deliberate way whether they want to participate.
6. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to the evaluation.

Proposed Budgeting

This assignment supports costs proposed by the consultant that are related to personnel costs for relevant experts directly contributing to the assessment, travel & accomodation costs for the assignment, data coolection and Reporting. ACF will not accerpt any other costs other than those listed above and that are not justified to contribute to this speccif assignment. Please refer to Annex 2 for simple Budget template. The costs related to validation workshop (as needed) and dissmination will be directly covered by ACF.

Annexes

Annex 1: Instruction to bidders

Preparation and contents of expression of interest

To be considered, prospective consultants must submit all the information herein requested and any bidder who does not meet all the relevant mandatory requirements will be disqualified.

Each application should consist of:

• The company profile (firms) and proof of relevant projects and testimonials including reference undertaken in the last 3 years
• Must submit a copy of certificate of Incorporation under the Company’s Act
• Must submit valid and certified copy of CR 12 form indicating directorship of company CR12. This may be verified with the Registrar of Companies
• Must submit a copy of Valid Tax Compliance Certificate issued by the Kenya Revenue Authority (Will be verified on the KRA TCC Checker)
• Must submit copy of KRA pin/VAT Certificate
• Proposed detailed program for consultancy and completion period
• CVs of self or personnel who possess relevant qualifications and experience to carry out work in the above-listed categories.
• Team members should have a background / demonstrated knowledge in the area of water quality monitoring and surveillance
• Demonstrable experience in conducting qualitative and quantitative research methodology
• clearly state their unit price, number, and total price including VAT

Bid Content

The bid submitted by the bidder has to fully comply with the Terms of Reference and must contain a brief technical and a financial part. The technical and financial proposal must be sealed separately. The complete bid document shall be submitted in hard copy.

Technical Proposal

a) Organization and methodology

b) Description of the scope of services in accordance with the Terms of Reference

c) Technical Approach and Methodology.

d) Work Plan and Staffing

e) Reporting schedules, etc.

Financial proposal

The price list is to be worked out as per the attached Sample (Annex… ) and should contain the costs of personnel and inputs. Costs for unforeseen expenses should not be included in the calculation. Taxes will be borne by the consultant and ACF will withhold 2% if the firm has got valid TIN number and 30% for those with no TIN. Prices shall be quoted in ETB, and payment shall be done in the same currency.

Bid Validity

All the bids submitted, and the prices quoted there in, must be valid for hundred twenty (120) days after the closing of this tender invitation

Bid Opening

The financial and technical proposals shall be opened by ACF bid opening panel. Bidders whose proposal were not found to be the winner or did not fulfil the minimum requirements after the evaluation of the technical and financial proposals will be informed.

Selection procedure and rating criteria

The evaluation takes place in two stages after adminstrative pre-qualification. The admisnsitative evaluation qualifies (pass or fail) based on submission of legal trade registration, renewed license in related field of business, VAT registration, and Tin Number. Finacial and Technical proposals should be submitted separately.

During the first stage, the technical part of the bid will be evaluated and rated. The determination of the final ranking of bidders will be made by rating the technical part of the bid with 70% and the financial part with 30%.

Bidders scoring less than 50% for the technical evaluation will not be considered for further financial evaluation. During the evaluation of the technical proposal, the following points

• Understanding the assignment (5%)
• Adequacy & quality of the proposed approach and methodology (20 %)
• The qualification and competency of proposed team members and required equipment proposed for the assignment (15 %)
• The firm experience in similar assignments (20%)
• Logistic capacity of the firm (5%)
• Work plan/time schedule (5%)

The financial part will be evaluated in accordance with price quoted for the services, provided that:

• The total fee offered is within the range of the budget allocated for the program.

The 30 per cent merit points accorded to the financial criteria will be given to the bidder whose adjusted price is the lowest compared to other bidders. The other bidders will be given merit points inversely proportional to the lowest financial bidder in accordance to the formula: “Y” = X/Y * 30, where X is the lowest adjusted price, Y is the evaluated price of the bidder under consideration.

The bidder with the highest merit points (technical and financial added together) will be considered for further negotiations.

Award of contract and validity period

• The Client (ACF) is not obliged to either accept the lowest offer or award the contract.
• Bids shall remain valid for a period of 40 days after the date of bid opening specified for bid

Termination

If the Client finds that the CONSULTANT is not discharging its duties according to this terms of reference; it may at any time unilaterally terminate the contract and holds the consultants liable for all damages, financial and otherwise including advance payments.

Reimbursement and support for bid preparation

The cost of preparation of the financial and technical proposals is not reimbursable. Neither can it be considered as a direct cost of the project.

Resources provided by ACF

• ACF will not cover vehicle, transport, accommodation, and peridiem, stationary and other related costs.
• ACF will give training for only waterscope testing kit if needed.

Annex 2: Cost Calculation (Sample)

1.1. Cost of Personnel

Name of expert

Position

No of Days

Daily Rate

Total Cost

Total Personnel Cost

1.2. Cost of Travel and accommodation

Unit Rate (KES)

No of Days

Cost

Vehicle

Flight ticket

Per diem

Accommodation

Total Travel Costs

Other Costs:

Description

Quantity

Daily Rate

Total Cost

Stationery

Total personnel and other input costs (1.1+1.2+1.3)

Tax (including VAT)

Total Cost

How to apply

Qualified contractors are invited to submit their valid documents as stated above, submitted as PDF document stamped with the company’s logo/letter head and current postal address on each of the page submitted and received on or before Monday, 26th February 2024 at 1700 hours to the following email address: [email protected]

Please quote TOR for Evaluation of a pilot Project: Uptake of an innovative wáter testing kit in Kenya as the email subject line