Opportunity now Closed
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION SERVICES FOR THE EVALUATION OF EQIE 2.0
Oxford MeasurEd is the monitoring, evaluation and learning partner for Enhancing Quality and Inclusive Education (EQIE) 2.0, a primary education programme delivered by Right to Play. This role includes delivering an external evaluation of the programme in Oromia, Ethiopia (Bishoftu Town and Lume District).
The evaluation will include a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to estimate the impact of the programme on targeted learning outcomes, along with a mixed-methods implementation and process evaluation to test the programme Theory of Change, including exploring change at teacher- and classroom-level. The evaluation will take place from 2025-2029.
Oxford MeasurEd is soliciting proposals from qualified agencies to support data collection for the evaluation. The details of the requirements can be found in the request for proposals below.
PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO info@oxfordmeasured.co.uk.
THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS IS MONDAY 17TH MARCH 2025, 5PM EAT.
Information on what to include in your proposal is provided in the requests for proposals above.
Responses to questions received from offerors
Published Thursday 13th March.
Sampling and Data Collection Methodologies:
QUESTION: Under the data collection activities for Wave 1 (Table 2, Activities #5,6 &7), are the 15 schools selected for teacher qualitative interviews and headteacher interviews chosen from the pool of 30 schools sampled for classroom observations, or are these separate samples—30 schools for classroom observations and an additional 15 schools for qualitative interviews, making a total of 45 schools? The same applies to wave #3 and #4
ANSWER: They will be from the same schools as the classroom observations
QUESTION: Wave 2 (Table 3, Activity #3): We understand that the schools sampled here are new/ fresh, is that correct?
ANSWER: Correct
QUESTION: Wave 3 (Table 4, activity #3): Are the schools a new sample or the same as those in Wave 1? If they are the same, will the classrooms be the same or a fresh sample?
ANSWER: Fresh sample, does not need to be the same schools
QUESTION: Wave 4 (Table 5, Activity # 8): Are these group discussions from treatment or control groups?
ANSWER: Treatment schools
QUESTION: Are the G3 Literacy assessment and G3 Life Skills/SEL assessment planned to be conducted on the same day, one after the other, or at different times?
ANSWER: On the same, one after another. So, the total assessment time will be 35 minutes per child, plus set up time.
QUESTION: In the mentioned study locations, school is mainly in the morning. Considering this, is it possible to conduct learner interviews at their homes, or should we assume all learner surveys will be completed at school only, which operates only half day and 5 days per week?
ANSWER: All data collection with learners will need to happen at school only.
QUESTION: Do you have an estimate of the average number of pages for the instruments (surveys and interview guides)?
ANSWER: A rough estimate would be 5 pages per survey or interview guide.
QUESTION: Please confirm that the 88 school that are the focus of the project and evaluation are TREATMENT schools and that CONTROL schools to be included in waves 2-4 are additional
ANSWER: There are 88 schools in total, including treatment and control schools.
Proposal content and format:
QUESTION: Could you kindly confirm that the specified page limits for both the technical and financial proposals exclude the cover pages, cover letters, potential consortium agreements, and table of contents?
ANSWER: We would expect consortium arrangements to be covered under Company Profile and Staffing. Cover pages, cover letters and table contents are not included in the page limits.
QUESTION: Should the technical and financial proposals be submitted as separate documents, or are they to be combined into a single submission?
ANSWER: A 1-page financial proposal should be included in your proposal document, but the detailed budget should be annexed in .csv or .xls format.
QUESTION: May bidders include 2–3 exemplary CVs of enumerators in addition to the CVs for key personnel, or should we provide only the latter?
ANSWER: Yes, we are happy for enumerators to be included as key personnel and will review their CVs with interest.
QUESTION: The ToR states that bidders must include at least two references in their technical proposal, specifying the name, role, relevant contract, and contact details. Could you confirm that, in order to illustrate relevant experiences, bidders may include relevant project references in the Annex section, along with the corresponding contact persons, to satisfy this requirement?
ANSWER: As long as you provide the details requested, you are welcome to provide further information – for example project references – in an Annex.
QUESTION: The ToR requires bidders to include a financial summary within the proposal and attach a detailed budget in .csv or .xls format. Given the challenge of merging Word/PDF files (i.e., cover page, cover letter, and the financial summary) with .xls files, could bidders submit both the financial summary and the detailed budget in PDF format? If this is not acceptable, would it be permissible to submit the FP in two documents, i.e., the cover page, cover letter, and the financial summary in PDF and the detailed budget in .xls format?
ANSWER: The budget should be in .csv or .xls format and can be attached as a separate document.
QUESTION: May bidders include their company organogram as part of the Annex section?
ANSWER: Yes but the project team organogram should be included in your proposal as requested.
QUESTION: Could you please confirm if the 1-page summary of our financial proposal can be included in the main technical proposal or should be sent as a separate document?
ANSWER: It can be included in the same document.
Procurement and Compliance Requirements:
QUESTION: Under Section 3, it is stated that preferred offerors will be subject to due diligence. Does this mean we need to provide proof that we meet these requirements when submitting the proposal, or is this a step that will be taken after the selection is made?
ANSWER: This will take place after selection is made. You do not need to provide any further documentation along with your proposal, CVs and budget.
QUESTION: Please could you advise if you are seeking a national partner only or is the RFP open to international firms also?
ANSWER: We are open to proposals from international firms with a presence in Ethiopia, as long as they can meet the requirements set out in the RFP including mobilising quickly.
Budgeting and Financial Considerations:
QUESTION: As this is a long-term project, is there a possibility to renegotiate prices in the event of significant economic shifts, such as inflation?
ANSWER: Your budget should account for inflation. There may be scope to renegotiate with our funder in exceptional circumstances, but we cannot guarantee this.
QUESTION: From the ToR, we understand that we will assist Oxford MeasurEd and Right to Play in securing the necessary data collection approvals at the national and local levels. Can you confirm if the costs for IRB approval will be borne by the client or if they are to be covered by us?
ANSWER: IRB fees will be paid by Oxford MeasurEd.
QUESTION: The footnote on page 4 of the RFP regarding training states: "At each wave, please cost for 1 day for all data collectors (introduction to project, safeguarding) plus 2 days to cover each learning assessment, 4 days to cover the classroom observation, 1 day per survey, and 2 days per qualitative tool." Could you confirm whether the specified days refer to the total number of training days per wave? Based on this, the introduction (1 day), learning assessments (2 days), and classroom observation (4 days) alone add up to 7 days. However, it is unclear whether the "1 day per survey" and "2 days per qualitative tool" are additional to these 7 days. For example, for wave 1, should we plan an additional 4 days for the 4 surveys (1 per survey), 4 days for 2 qualitative tools ( 2 per qualitative tools) making the total 13 days? Or are these survey and qualitative tool days included within the previously mentioned 7 days?
ANSWER: The total is more than 7 days. We would expect that you might have different enumerators working on different activities – for example some conducting qualitative interviews and others conducting surveys. This is why we specify the number of days for each element, rather than a total number of days.
QUESTION: Is the assumption that all enumerators will be trained to implement any of the activities, or should we consider and plan for the case that certain specialized enumerators will do e.g., the G3 Literacy assessment, and others do the G1 bespoke school readiness assessment, and so on. This can have an impact on team composition and time required to complete all activities in a school.
ANSWER: We ask you to propose what you believe will work best.
QUESTION: Please confirm that footnote 1 -- which states “At each wave, please cost for 1 day for all data collectors (introduction to project, safeguarding) plus 2 days to cover each learning assessments, 4 days to cover the classroom observation, 1 day per survey and 2 days per qualitative tool” –- refers only to training of data collectors.
ANSWER: That is correct.
Timeline and tracking students:
QUESTION: The RFP states that "the data collection partner will assist Oxford MeasurEd and Right to Play in securing the necessary data collection approvals at the national and local levels". The obtaining of approvals in Ethiopia usually takes 4-5 weeks. Has this been factored into the project timeline, considering the pilot is estimated to begin in April?
ANSWER: Yes, approvals are already underway for the pilot.
QUESTION: According to the ToR, data collection Waves 1 and 2 are scheduled for 2025, Wave 3 for 2026, Wave 4 for 2028, and Wave 5 for 2029. By the time Wave 4 is conducted in 2028, the students who were assessed in Grade 3 during Waves 1 and 2 will have progressed to at least Grade 5. Given this progression, would we continue administering the Grade 3 Literacy Assessments and Grade 3 Life Skills/SEL assessments to these students once they reach Grade 5? If so, this raises an important consideration: does this approach assume that the sampled schools also offer Grade 5 classes? If not, what implications does this have for the study’s methodology and the continuity of data collection?
ANSWER: Only Grade 3 students will be assessed in 2028. Only the cohort that are in Grade 1 in 2025 will be tracked longitudinally.
QUESTION: Page 5 of the RFP states that there are five waves, but then states that "The schools will be the same for each wave of mainstage fieldwork. Learners will need to be tracked from Wave 1 to Wave 4". Is this a typo or are we recruiting a different sample of learners in wave 5?
ANSWER: Wave 5 does not include learning assessments.
QUESTION: Please confirm that footnote 2: “All learners who remain enrolled at the same school will be tested. If there is any learner attrition, replacement students will be recruited” refers only to waves that occur in the same academic year.
ANSWER: This refers to tracking learners from Grade 1 in 2025 to Grade 3 in 2028.
Quality Assurance and Technology:
QUESTION: Regarding back translation of qualitative interviews: We believe back translating all English transcriptions to Afan Oromo requires significant resources in terms of both budget and time. Instead, would it be possible to maintain quality assurance through alternative methods such as:
Cross-checking randomly selected timestamps of audio recordings with transcriptions
Back translating only randomly selected parts of the transcriptions
Or a combination of these methods for quality assurance?
ANSWER: We are open to your proposal about how to best assure the quality of transcripts. We would welcome costed options if you wish to provide a cost for back translation and a cost for an alternative method of quality assurance.
QUESTION: Do you have a preferred CAPI software platform, or should the data collection partner propose their recommended solution?
ANSWER: Please propose your recommended solution.