Consultancy for an ADSP Impact and Governance Review At Danish Refugee Council

Introduction

The Asia Displacement Solutions Platform (ADSP) is a joint initiative of the Danish Refugee Council, International Rescue Committee and Norwegian Refugee Council, which aims to contribute to the development of comprehensive solutions for displaced populations in Asia. Drawing upon its members’ operational presence in the region, the ADSP engages in constructive dialogue, research, and evidence-based advocacy initiatives, to support improved outcomes for the displaced, with a focus on the development of innovative, transitional solutions to displacement challenges.

In 2017 the Asia Displacement Solutions Platform (formerly the Afghan Displacement Solutions Platform) was established. The Platform was created with a mandate to promote durable solutions, through three core pillars of work i.e. research, advocacy and capacity-building. In its formative years, the ADSP primarily worked to build an evidence base for members and others in the humanitarian community to better understand durable solutions in the context of Afghanistan. The work of the ADSP is coordinated by two full-time staff currently based in Bangladesh.

The key aim of the evaluation is to determine ADSP’s impact, and to determine if the platform as it exists is as it should be. It is also to look at the governance structure of ADSP and to determine if that was/is conducive to achieving our goals, and if the current structure is fit for purpose. Furthermore, the evaluation shall offer recommendations to be considered for ADSP regarding a possible revision to the existing governance structures, funding arrangements, and areas of focus. Finally, the evaluation will evaluate ADSP’s current strategic plan (which was adopted in 2020) and provide recommendations in alignment with the current and proposed structure.

Objectives

ADSP plans to conduct a participatory evaluation with the following objectives:

1. Assess the overall impact and effectiveness of the ADSP. Has the ADSP attained its objectives as set out in the MoU / ToR? Assess the relevance of activities and outputs in the context of the MoU / ToR. This should also include a review of external facing products / outputs i.e. website, newsletters, statements etc.
2. Review and assess the current ADSP governance structure, including ways of working across the 3 tiers, 3 pillars of work, across the 3 organisations, across 5 locations + regional elements of working with partners where members do not have presence. Determine if the current structure is an enabling one, or if changes are required. Critique if the existing ways of working and internal functioning of ADSP are conducive to achieving ADSP’s goals.
3. Assess the efficiency of ADSP’s information systems. For example, is ADSP maximising the use of efficient information systems / internal platforms across ADSP? Are there ways for improved working to support more internal buy-in / use? Please provide recommendations in this area.
4. What changes would need to take place within ADSP’s structure and ways of working so that it is fit for purpose. Provide recommendations for strengthening ADSP’s governance arrangements and processes.
5. Provide 2-3 working models, with resource and governance implications for each
6. Clarify how each model will better suit the current strategic direction and activities
7. Assess how well the current ADSP strategy has been implemented; and how well the current structure enables the implementation of the strategy – why/not i.e. the effectiveness given the current structure; what was/is not being achieved in the strategy – why; therefore what are the gaps.
8. Provide suggestions for future overall strategic direction. Input should be gathered from members, key partners, refugees themselves, international organisations, and other relevant stakeholders.

The primary users of the evaluation will be the ADSP Steering Committee, ADSP Technical Committee, ADSP members in country, and the ADSP Manager.

Evaluation questions

Impact:

• What demonstrable outcomes and impact has ADSP created since its inception, both externally and internally? How did ADSP’s strategies at the national and regional level contribute to these outcomes?
• To what extent were the objectives in ADSP’s most recent strategic plan achieved?
• To what extent have the ADSP Country Working Groups been able to effectively work together to generate strategic and impactful interventions. What level of understanding is there within ADSP Country Working Groups and members around the ADSP strategy, MoU / ToR and associated goals?
• In what ways can the ADSP strengthen its work to become more impactful?
• How has the ADSP interacted with the other regional durable solutions platforms, and to what extent has this strengthened – or can this strengthen – ADSPs own work?
• What has been the contribution of ADSP to durable solutions policy and response discussions – and at what levels?
• What have been the quality and relevance of ADSP activities and outputs to the Strategy and ToR / MoU? What has been the relevance of ADSP projects / activities to all members of the consortium?

Efficiency:

• To what extent did the ADSP staff and responsibilities assigned to the Steering Committee, Technical Committee and Country Working Groups support the achievement of stated goals to date? To what extent has the same structure hindered ADSP’s efficiency?
• How does the consortium model function, both positives and negatives?
• What are the current capacity and gaps in human resources within the ADSP staff (hereafter referenced as ‘the Secretariat’), the Steering Committee, the Technical Committee, and ADSP’s membership more broadly. To what extent did the Secretariat’s responsibilities and ways of working either support or hinder the platform in achieving its stated objectives?
• To what extent does the ADSP’s current hosting arrangements support or detract from the ability of the platform to achieve its stated goals? Are there other models and/or locations of staff that would better serve the objectives of the platform?
• To what degree has the ‘Country Working Group’ structure of ADSP’s members been effective – or conversely – detracted from the ability of ADSP to advance its objectives i.e. the ground up identification of leading priorities and driving ADSP’s direction.
• To date, has the ADSP delivered ‘value for money’ for donors in the work / outcomes it has delivered?
• Has ADSP’s internal communications with members and through the respective governance structures supported ADSP in achieving its outcomes?
• Has ADSP’s external communications assisted or hindered the platform from reaching its stated objectives?
• Are there any other factors that have supported or detracted from the ADSP being able to deliver on its stated objectives?
• Is the ADSP well-placed to bring change and a ‘value-add’ at the regional level, in relation to displacement from both Afghanistan and Myanmar?

Sustainability:

• Is the current ADSP structure, staffing, funding approaches, and ways of working viable for the long-term success and growth of ADSP?
• To what extent does ADSP have the correct and appropriate processes and systems in place for effective coordination and implementation?
• To what extent does ADSP deliver a “value-add” as a formal entity, as opposed to the current members just working together outside of an official umbrella.
• To what extent is there ownership amongst ADSP members, outside of the activities being driven by the ADSP Secretariat?
• What factors are supporting and / or precluding the ADSP from advancing in a sustainable and strategic manner?

Additional areas of focus:

• What suggestions can be offered to strengthen ADSP’s internal organisational systems?
• Has ADSP’s capacity building to date been effective in supporting the organisation’s mandate?
• What suggestions can be offered to support the development of an inclusive strategic planning process for ADSP for 2023-2025?
• What suggestions and analysis can be offered regarding ADSP’s overall TOR? Does our current approach (Afghan and Myanmar displacement), as well as a broad ‘solutions’ focus make sense? Should the ADSP expand / contract / refine any of these areas?
• Does the ADSP have the correct membership composition? Are the current engagements with national partners, regional partners and others correct? What are the positive and negatives for engagement?
• Are ADSP’s existing pillars of work correct? Should they be the same for the Afghan and Myanmar displacement context?

Methods and tools

Applicants should propose their own methodology. However, the following methods can be used to complete the specified tasks and fulfil the purpose as defined by this ToR:

• Intensive desk review of relevant ADSP documents, publications, internal policies, correspondence, guidance and other documents
• Initial “kick-off” detailed discussion with ADSP Technical Committee and ADSP Manager
• Literature review
• Consultative meetings/interviews with – but not limited to – relevant stakeholders such as potential CSO allies, experts, ADSP Technical Committee, ADSP Steering Committee, and ADSP Country Working Group members, ADSP staff, partners, donors, and other durable solutions platforms, and other NGO-led non-registered platform entities perhaps from other sectors or operating environments.
• Detailed anonymous survey to respective ADSP members
• Scoping workshop and / or KII with ADSP Technical Committee, Steering Committee, Country Working Group members, and ADSP Manager.
• Verification workshop with ADSP Technical Committee, Steering Committee, Country Working Group members, and ADSP Manager. To be held in Dubai in April 2022
• Other relevant documentation

Deliverables

The consultant will work closely with the ADSP Manager and ADSP members. All deliverables will be submitted to the ADSP Manager on a date that is mutually agreed during the inception meeting. The report will be reviewed by the ADSP Manager and the ADSP Technical Committee. All draft and final documents will be submitted as soft copies. Within the twenty-two (22) day consultancy period, the applicant will be required to:

• Inception report: Outlining details of activities with proposed methodology and timeline/ delivery dates
• Draft report with research findings that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

o Executive summary with key findings and recommendations.

o Detailed evaluation findings

o Appendices and annexes containing methodology, interviewees etc

• Presentation and validation of findings at a full-day workshop in Dubai for ADSP members in April 2022.
• Workshop report in English
• Final report with research findings that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

o Executive summary with key findings and recommendations.

o Detailed evaluation findings

o Appendices and annexes containing methodology, interviewees etc

It is expected that the consultant will produce a report, and a presentation which addresses each of the elements outlined in section six (6) above. The report should clearly articulate an analysis of ADSP to date (what works, what doesn’t work, what should be changed). The report must outline how this can be achieved, the potential human resources that may be involved, and clear identification of suggested next steps.

The successful applicant will also be required to present the findings to ADSP members at a workshop during which the recommendations will be discussed and validated. During this workshop the applicant will also facilitate ADSP members to develop the beginnings of a strategic direction arising out of the report recommendations.

Research plan

The applicant should propose a research plan which is primarily desk-based, supplemented by key informant interviews. Applicants should be aware that travel in the main part of the research would not be feasible. The consultant should ensure that they can arrange and facilitate all travel to Dubai in April, and that the financial package covers all foreseen costs.

Intended audience

The primary audience for the report is the ADSP and its member agencies, who will use the report to potentially restructure the ADSP, attract new funding sources, and improve ADSP ways of working.

Desired qualifications / profile

• The successful applicant will have extensive experience working on issues of displacement in Asia, with experience across ADSP’s focus countries preferable
• Documented previous experience of engagement with NGOs, INGOs, governments, international organisations and consortia / platforms.
• Solid understanding and demonstrable experience of working in the humanitarian/development nexus
• Academic degrees in law, social sciences or other related fields
• Sound understanding of networks, consortiums, and regional groupings
• Prior experience conducting organisational ‘health checks / reviews’, especially in relation to networks and multi-partner platforms.
• Proficiency in written English is a mandatory requirement.

Timeframe of the assignment

• The consultancy contract should be signed by 5 March 2022
• The consultant should commence work on 14 March 2022
• The inception report should be submitted by 21 March 2022
• The draft report should be submitted by 6 April 2022
• The validation workshop should be held by 18 April 2022
• The final report should be submitted by 30 April 2022

For the award of this project, DRC has established evaluation criteria which govern the selection of offers received. Evaluation is made on a technical and financial basis. The percentage assigned to each component is determined as follows:

The technical offer will be evaluated using inter alia the following criteria, and points will be allocated in the scale from 1 – 10 for each of the criteria stipulated below, whereas the weighting is as follows:

Company/personnel experience (40%)

(Documented with the filled-out Supplier Registration Form and a list of last 5 similar research projects executed, including two samples)

• Capacity of the company and/or key individuals who will be working on the project
• Previous relevant projects executed, by the company (if relevant) and by the key individuals working on the project
• Relevant sector experience and experience working with NGOs

Proposed services (40%)

(Documented in the technical proposal)

• Understanding aims and objectives of the project
• Understanding the context of the target location(s)
• Detailed discussion of the research questions and deliverables indicating a thorough understanding of the problem statement
• Methodology for research & data collection
• Acceptable timeframe for delivery

Interview (20%)

All bidders must obtain an average score of at least 5 for the total technical scoring, in order to proceed to the financial evaluation. The financial offer will then be weighed against the technical offer. The total cost of the financial offer should be mentioned in the DRC Bid Form, while the breakdown of the budget should be attached separately.

Confidentiality

All information presented, obtained and produced is to be treated as DRC’s property and is considered as confidential for all other purposes than what is outlined in the ToR.

The selected consultant is upon signing of the contract required to sign a confidentiality agreement. The material prepared by the consultant cannot be sold, used or reproduced in any manner (partially or in full) by the consultant without prior permission from DRC.