Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020
Cross-Border Cooperation Programme under the
European Territorial Cooperation Objective
Terms of Reference
Ex-ante Evaluation
1
Contents
1. Call for Tender ............................................................................................ 3
2. Background ................................................................................................ 3
3. Regulatory Framework, Additional Guidance and Information .................................... 4
4. Objectives and Scope of the ex-ante evaluation .................................................... 5
4.1. Objectives of the ex-ante evaluation ............................................................ 5
4.2. Scope/Components of the ex-ante evaluation .................................................. 5
5. Evaluation Questions ..................................................................................... 7
5.1. Questions regarding the programme strategy ................................................... 7
5.1.1. Consistency of the programme objectives (Article 48 (3d) of draft CPR) .............. 7
5.1.2. Coherence (Article 48 (3b) of draft CPR) ................................................... 7
5.1.3. Linkage between supported actions, expected outputs and results: (Article 48 (3f),
Article 48 (3h) of draft CPR) .......................................................................... 7
5.1.4. Horizontal principles, Article 48 (l), Article 48 (m) of draft CPR ....................... 8
5.2. Questions regarding indicators, monitoring and evaluation ................................... 8
5.2.1. Relevance of proposed programme indicators, Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR .......... 8
5.2.2.
Clarity of proposed programme indicators, Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR ............ 9
5.2.3. Quantified baseline and target values, Article 48 (3g) of the draft CPR ............... 9
5.2.4. Suitability of milestones, Article 48 (3k) of draft CPR .................................. 10
5.2.5. Administrative capacity, data collection procedure and evaluation, Article 48 (3)(i)
and (j) of draft CPR .................................................................................. 10
5.3. Questions regarding consistency of financial allocations .................................... 11
5.4. Questions to the contribution to Europe 2020 strategy ...................................... 11
5.5. Questions regarding to the contribution to macro-regional and sea basin strategies ... 12
5.6. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) .................................................... 12
5.6. Question regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ........................ 12
6. Stakeholders............................................................................................. 13
7. Main Methods or Techniques .......................................................................... 13
8. Time Schedule and Reporting......................................................................... 14
9. Budget.................................................................................................... 16
10. Required Qualifications .............................................................................. 16
11. Structure of the Proposal, Submission Rules and Assessment Criteria ........................ 17
11.1. Structure of the Proposal ....................................................................... 17
11.2. Submission rules.................................................................................. 17
2
11.3. Selection & Award Criteria ..................................................................... 17
11.4. Contracting ....................................................................................... 18
11.5. Terms of Payment ............................................................................... 19
11.6. Copyright .......................................................................................... 19
Annex1 ...................................................................................................... 20
1. Call for Tender
The Regional Council of Southwest Finland in its function as designated Managing
Autority invites interested parties to submit a written proposal for performing the exante evaluation of the 2014-2020 programming period of the cross-border cooperation
programme Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020.
This Terms of Reference (ToR) aims to set the framework for the ex-ante evaluation of
the above mentioned programme in accordance with the Regulatory Framework (see
below Section 3. Regulatory Framework, Additional Guidance and Information). In
addition, this ToR will be part of the contractual relationship between the contracting
authority and the selected contractor responsible for carrying out the evaluation.
Evaluators are invited to apply in accordance with the provisions of this ToR.
2. Background
The objective of the European Territorial Cooperation goal of the EU cohesion policy is
to reinforce economic, social and territorial cohesion of the European Union by
promoting cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as well as
balanced and sustainable development of the programme area.
The Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020 is a cross-border cooperation programme,
that was established for the programming period 2007-2013. The programme area
covers regions from Estonia, Finland (including Åland islands), Latvia and Sweden. The
programme is divided into geographically limited sub-programmes. The content of the
programme, i.e. the thematic objectives, will be defined in the course of
programming.
The Regional Council of Southwest Finland is the region's statutory joint municipal
authority and thus a public organisation. Its main functions are laid down by law and
they are regional development and regional land use planning. The councils are the
regions' key international actors and they are largely responsible for the EU's
3
Structural Fund programmes and their implementation. This role will continue in the
upcoming programme period.
3. Regulatory Framework, Additional Guidance and Information
The ex-ante evaluation should comply with the following legal framework and
documents:
 Draft Common Provision Regulation (CPR) 1, especially Article 47 (EvaluationGeneral Provisions), Article 48 (Ex-ante evaluation);
 Draft ETC regulation2, including Article 7 (Content of the cooperation
programmes) and Article 15 (Indicators for the European Territorial Cooperation
goal);
 Draft ERDF Regulation;
 Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation, June 20123;
 Guidance document on Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy,
Draft November 2011;
 Commission’s Guidance on the implementation of Directive 2001/42/EC on the
assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment;
 Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
 Action Plans of Macro-regional Strategies (where applicable).
In addition following information should be considered for the ex-ante evaluation:
 Evalsed:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/evalsed/index_en.htm




INTERACT Handbook: Practical Handbook for Ongoing Evaluation of Territorial
Cooperation Programmes. Final Draft. October 2009: http://wiki.interacteu.net/display/pc/Practical+Handbook+for+Ongoing+Evaluation
The draft report of the follow-up exercise to the ex post evaluation of
INTERREG III4
The mid-term evaluation reports of the Mid-term Evaluation of the Central
Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013
The Programme documents of 2007-2014: Operational Programme, Programme
Manual or any other of relevance
1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social
Fund and the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for rural development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic
Framework and laying down the general provision on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council
Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006;( Draft Common Provision Regulation)
2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the
European territorial cooperation goal (Draft ETC Regulation)
3 The Programming Period 2014-2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund.
Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation. June 2012.
4 http://groupspaces.com/INTERACTProgrammeManagement/pages/1.2-capturing-exercise
4
4. Objectives and Scope of the ex-ante evaluation
4.1. Objectives of the ex-ante evaluation
The objective of the ex-ante evaluation for the Central Baltic programme for the
period 20014-2020 is to:
1) Ensure that the OP clearly articulates the programme’s intervention logic and
that it contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy and the Baltic Sea Region
macro-regional strategy. 5
2) Improve the programme’s quality of design.6
4.2. Scope/Components of the ex-ante evaluation
According to Article 48(3) of the draft Common Provision Regulation, ex-ante
evaluations shall appraise:
a) the contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,
having regard to the selected thematic objectives and priorities, taking into account
national and regional needs;
b) the internal coherence of the proposed programme or activity and its relation with
other relevant instruments;
c) the consistency of the allocation of budgetary resources with the objectives of the
programme;
d) the consistency of the selected thematic objectives, the priorities and
corresponding objectives of the programmes with the Common Strategic Framework,
the Partnership Contract and the country-specific recommendations under Article
121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4)
of the Treaty;
e) the relevance and clarity of the proposed programme indicators;
f) how the expected outputs will contribute to results;
g) whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to
the support from the CSF Funds envisaged;
h) the rationale for the form of support proposed;
i) the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of
the programme;
5 “Cohesion policy for the period 2014-2020 must be strongly oriented towards results in order to contribute to the Unions strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth.” See The Programming Period 2014-2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. European Regional Development Fund. European Social Fund.
Cohesion Fund. Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation. June 2012, p.3
6 Article 48(1) of draft Common Provision Regulation (CPR)6 states: ‘each programme requires an ex-ante evaluation in order to improve the quality of its design’.
5
j) the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the programme and for collecting
the data necessary to carry out evaluations;
k) the suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework;
l) the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men
and women and to prevent discrimination;
m) the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development.
According to Article 48 (4) of the draft CPR, the ex-ante evaluation shall also
incorporate the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment set out in
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001
on the assessment of effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.
Components of the ex-ante evaluation
The Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation provides further details on the
different elements of an ex-ante evaluation stated in Article 48(3) and gives
recommendations on how to address these elements.
The ex-ante evaluation of the Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020 should be grouped
into five components:
1. Programme strategy: Consistency of the programme objectives (Article 48 (3d)
of draft CPR); Coherence (Article 48 (3b) of draft CPR); Linkage between
supported actions, expected outputs and results (Article 48 (3f), Article 48 (3h)
of draft CPR); Horizontal principles (Article 48 (l), Article 48 (m) of draft CPR)
2. Indicators, monitoring and evaluation: Relevance and clarity of proposed
programme indicators (Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR); Quantified baseline and
target values (Article 48 (3g) of the draft CPR); Suitability of milestones (Article
48 (3k) of draft CPR); Administrative capacity, data collection procedures and
evaluation (Article 48 (3i and j) of draft CPR)
3. Consistency of financial allocations (Article 48 (3c) of draft CPR)
4. Contribution to Europe 2020 strategy (Article 48 (3a) of draft CPR)
5. Strategic Environmental Assessment (Article 48 (4) of the draft CPR)
For detailed evaluation questions see Section 5 Evaluation Questions.
6
5. Evaluation Questions
5.1. Questions regarding the programme strategy
5.1.1. Consistency of the programme objectives (Article 48 (3d) of draft CPR)
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
•
Are the identified national or regional challenges and needs in line with the Europe
2020 objectives and targets, the Council recommendations and the National
Reform Programmes?
•
Do the programme priorities and their specific objectives consistently reflect these
challenges and needs?
•
Were the key territorial challenges analysed and taken into account in the
programme strategy?
The programme is divided into sub-programmes. Has it been done in a way that is )
coherent and is the intervention logic in the whole Operational Programme intact?
Are the identified challenges and needs consistently translated into the objectives
of the OP (ie the thematic objectives, the investment priorities and corresponding
specific objectives)?
•
•
5.1.2. Coherence (Article 48 (3b) of draft CPR)
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
• Internal coherence: Have complementarities and potential synergies been
identified between the specific objectives of each priority axis and between the
specific objectives of the different priority axis?
• The programme is divided into sub-programmes. Is the set-up internally coherent
as defined above?
• External coherence: Is the programme coherent with other relevant instruments at
regional, national and EU level, specifically Partnership Agreement and EUSBSR?
5.1.3. Linkage between supported actions, expected outputs and results: (Article
48 (3f), Article 48 (3h) of draft CPR)
Actions to be supported (based on Article 7 (2)(b)(iii)7 of the Draft ETC regulation):
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
7 In the guidance note this refers to mainstream 87(2)(b)(iii). For ETC the relevant article is Article 7 (2)(b)(iii)
7
o
Are the proposed actions to be supported in each priority axis, including the
main target groups identified, the specific territories targeted and the types of
beneficiaries sufficiently described?
o
Do the proposed actions take into account the (non-exhaustive) list of key
actions provided in the Common Strategic Framework?
Expected results (relates to Article 48 (3f) of the draft CPR):
o Will the proposed actions lead to the expected outputs and intended results?
o Were external factors that could influence the intended results identified (eg
national policy, economic trend, change in regional competitiveness, etc)?
o Are the policy assumptions underpinning the programme logic backed up by
evidence (eg from previous experiences, evaluations or studies)?
o Do other possible action or outputs exist that would be more conducive to the
intended results?
The rationale for the form of support proposed (relates to Article 48 (3f)):
o Is the proposed form of support suitable for the types of beneficiaries and the
specific objectives of the programme?
5.1.4. Horizontal principles, Article 48 (l), Article 48 (m) of draft CPR
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
•
•
Has the principle of equality been taken into account? Are the planned measures
adequate to promote equal opportunities and non-discrimination?
Are the planned measures adequate to promote sustainable development?
5.2. Questions regarding indicators, monitoring and evaluation
With increased focus on results, the identification of indicators and arrangements for
monitoring and data collection gain an increased importance.
According to Article 7(b)(ii) of the draft ETC regulation the OP shall outline for each
priority axis the common and specific output and result indicators, with where
appropriate a baseline value and a quantified target value, in line with the fund
specific rules.
According to Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR: The ex-ante evaluation should appraise the
relevance and clarity of the proposed programme indicators.
5.2.1. Relevance of proposed programme indicators, Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
8
Result indicators8:
 Does each priority axis include at least one but no more than two result indicator?
 Do(es) the result indicator(s) reflect the operations and objectives of the priority
axes?
 Is (Are) the result indicator(s) relevant (e.g. Do they cover the most important
intended change? Is their value influenced as directly as possible by the actions
funded under the priority axis?)
Output indicators9:
 Are the output indicators relevant to the actions supported?
 Are the intended outputs likely to contribute to the change in result indicators?
Common indicators
 Are the Common indicators used where relevant to the content of the investment
priorities and specific objectives?
5.2.2. Clarity of proposed programme indicators, Article 48 (3e) of draft CPR
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:

Do programme-specific indicators have a clear title and an unequivocal and easy to
understand definition?

Do the indicators have an accepted normative interpretation (eg Is there a common
understanding that a change in the value of the indicator is positive or negative?) 10

Are the indicators robust (eg their values cannot unduly be influenced by outliers
or extreme values)?

Are data sources for result indicators identified and available?
5.2.3. Quantified baseline and target values, Article 48 (3g) of the draft CPR
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
•
Where a quantified baseline has been set for a programme-specific result
indicator: Does the baseline use the latest available data? If not, what is the
baseline based on most recent and appropriate data?
•
Where no quantified baseline has been set for a programme-specific result
indicator: Is it possible to set a quantified baseline? What is the quantified baseline
based on most recent and appropriate data?
8 Result indicators provide information on the process towards the change that the programme brings.
9 Output indicators should measure what is directly produced/supplied through the implementation of the supported operations
10 In general it is recommended to use only indicators with a positive normative value.
9
•
Where a quantified target value has been set for common and programme-specific
indicators: Is the targeted value realistic taking into account the actions and forms
of support as well as the financial allocation to priority axes and the indicative
allocation at the level of categories of interventions/investment priorities?
5.2.4. Suitability of milestones, Article 48 (3k) of draft CPR
According to Article 48 (3)(k) of draft CPR, the evaluators should assess “the
suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework”.
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
Are the milestones relevant (eg Do they capture essential information on the
progress of a priority)?
• Can they be realistically achieved by 2016, 2018 and 2022, considering also the
rhythm of implementation of the current programme and available resources?
• Is the availability of data for informing the milestones at the key review points
(progress reports 2017 and 2019) plausible?
• In case milestones for 2018 also include result indicators: Could result indicators
for 2018 be influenced by external factors out of the control of the MA, putting the
programme at risk of not meeting its milestones and targets?
The evaluator is expected to suggest amendments to milestones and targets, if
applicable.
•
5.2.5. Administrative capacity, data collection procedure and evaluation, Article
48 (3)(i) and (j) of draft CPR
According to Article 48 (3)(i) and (j) of the draft CPR, the evaluators should assess
“the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of
the programme”, as well as “the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the
programme and collecting the data necessary to carry out evaluations”.
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
• Are there any possible bottlenecks which might impede management, monitoring
and evaluation of the programme based on previous experience? If yes, are there
any preventative measures such as awareness raising or training that could be
recommended?
• Is the monitoring procedure likely to provide data in order to feed into decision
making, reporting and evaluation based on an assessment of the sources of
information and how the data will be collected?
• Are the monitoring procedures likely to provide data in time to inform result
indicators?
10
• Are adequate procedures in place to ensure the quality of data (eg a precise
definition of the content and source of each indicator)?
The evaluator is expected to suggest amendments to inconsistencies and errors
experienced in the current period, if applicable.
The evaluator is also expected to help in assessing possible data needs for conducting
ongoing evaluations, including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and
impact for each programme, and in particular for the impact evaluations that should
assess the programme contribution to the objectives of each priority axis at least once
during the programming period as required by Article 49 of the draft CPR.
The evaluator should also advise on the main evaluations to be undertaken, including
timing of these evaluations, their methods and data needs and possible training
activities if deemed necessary.
Furthermore, the ex-ante evaluator should advise on the methods to be applied to the
planned impact evaluations and verify the availability of the related necessary data
through the monitoring system, existing administrative data or national or regional
statistics. If these data are not available, the evaluator should help to define the
sources, procedures and timing to collect them.
5.3. Questions regarding consistency of financial allocations
According to Article 48 (3)(c) of draft CPR, the evaluators should assess “the
consistency of the allocation of budgetary resources with the objectives of the
programme”.
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
•
Do the financial allocations concentrate on the most important objectives in line
with the identified challenges and needs and with the concentration requirements
set out in the Regulations (Article 16 of the CPR)?
•
Are the financial allocations to each priority axis and to categories of interventions
consistent regarding the identified challenges and needs that informed the
objectives as well as at the planned actions?
5.4. Questions to the contribution to Europe 2020 strategy
According to Article 48 (3)(a) of draft CPR, the evaluators should assess “the
contribution to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, having
regard to the selected thematic objectives and priorities, taking into account
national and regional needs.”
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:
11

Based on the evaluator’s knowledge of the national and regional situation and
taking into account the size of the programme, what is the potential contribution
to/benefit from the programme to Europe 2020 objectives and targets?
Evaluators should link the expected results of the programme to the European and
national targets by using, eg, a logical framework.
5.5. Questions regarding to the contribution to macro-regional and sea basin
strategies
The ex-ante evaluation should answer the following questions:

Based on the evaluator’s knowledge of the national and regional situation and
taking into account the size of the programme, what is the potential contribution
to/benefit from the programme to the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy?
Evaluators should link the expected results of the programme to the targets of the EU
Baltic Sea Region Strategy by using, eg, a logical framework.
Evaluators should assess the planned procedures and give recommendations where
applicable.
5.6. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 11
Before drafting an environmental report the ex-ante evaluator has to consult the
environmental authorities of the participating countries on the scope and level of
detail of the information which needs to be included as well as the timeline.
Depending on that, the ex-ante evaluator will decide on the choice of consultation
techniques.
The SEA report should consist of
 A non-technical summary of the information provided in the environmental
report, as foreseen by Annex I(j) of the Directive;
 The description of the measures decided concerning monitoring foreseen in
Article 9 (1)(c) and 10 (monitoring) of the Directive;
 Information on the consultations with the public and the environmental
authorities concerned (Article 6 of the Directive)
The ex-ante evaluator is expected to summarise the SEA process and outline how it
was taken into account in the programme design.
Question regarding the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 12
11 Information about the SEA can be found in The Programming Period 2014-2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. European Regional Development
Fund. European Social Fund. Cohesion Fund. Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation. June 2012. Annex 1 Ex-ante Evaluation and Strategic Environmental Assessment. 5.3.
SEA for transnational and CBC programmes. p.28
12
The ex-ante evaluator should provide a summary of how the environmental
considerations and the opinions expressed in the SEA have been taken into account.13
6. Stakeholders
Article 48(2) draft Common Provision Regulation foresees that the evaluations shall be
carried out under the responsibility of the authority responsible for the preparation of
the programme.
Article 47(2) draft Common Provision Regulation “Member States shall provide the
resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, and shall ensure that procedures are
in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data
related to common and where appropriate programme-specific indicators.”
Stakeholder involvement will be ensured in the process. Stakeholders will to some
extent be nominated as members of the Joint Programming Committee. Stakeholders
will also be members of the Working Group to discuss the content of the Programme.
Where relevant, stakeholders may be approached directly to get input for the
Operational Programme or its priorities. Finally, public hearings will be organised in
all Member States (including Åland).
7. Main Methods or Techniques
The Evaluator should propose the methodology that is considered as the most
appropriate for the assessment of the questions and themes stated in Section
5. Evaluation Questions. The proposal should include a clear description of a mix of
methods and tools to be used, such as literature review, interviews, focus groups,
peer reviews, workshops, and participative approaches.
However, the ex-ante evaluation should be seen as an interactive process between the
evaluator and Regional Council of Southwest Finland during the time of the evaluation
assignment.
12 Information about the SEA can be found in The Programming Period 2014-2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. European Regional Development
Fund. European Social Fund. Cohesion Fund. Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation. June 2012. Annex 1 Ex-ante Evaluation and Strategic Environmental Assessment. 5.3.
SEA for transnational and CBC programmes. p.28
13 The Programming Period 2014-2020. Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Policy. European Regional Development Fund. European Social Fund. Cohesion Fund.
Guidance document on ex-ante evaluation. June 2012, p. 22-23
13
8. Time Schedule and Reporting
Overall the ex-ante should be imbedded in the design of the programmes, such as
the selection of thematic objectives and the setup of the monitoring and evaluation
system.
The indicative timing for the deliverable is as follows:
Milestones
Call for tenders
Assessment of proposals
Contracting
Kick off meeting
Meeting with programming team
Desk Research
Proposal for a concept paper and a work
plan for the ex-ante evaluation
Interviews
Desk research
Draft report
Final report
Modification of the report due to the
inputs from the tendering organization,
stakeholders, as well as after public
consultation has been completed
Modification of the report based on the
possible Commission’s inputs after
programme submission
Completion Date
NovemberJanuary
Early February
Early February
Early February
February-April
April
April-November
April-November
September
November
According to need
According to need
The evaluation shall be finalised by 31 December 2013. The ex-ante evaluator is
obliged to work in close cooperation with the Regional Council of Southwest Finland.
The timetable can be adjusted to the needs of the Regional Council of Southwest
Finland and is to be seen as flexible.
Reporting
The result of the ex-ante evaluation will be the final report in English. This final
report should:
• Bring together all elements of the evaluation
• Reflect main method used
• Outline results of SEA
14
•
•
Describe how the SEA was taken into account in the programme design. Mention
changes and improvements to the programme made through the evaluation
process
Include an Executive Summary
15
9. Budget
Volume of the contract
The maximum budget for the ex-ante evaluation is 75.000 EUR (excluding VAT)
including necessary travel costs to meetings. If the ceiling is exceeded, the offer will
be rejected. Please note that even a finalised ex-ante evaluation may need various
corrections and modifications and therefore some budget should also be calculated to
this.
The indicative budget should be broken down into the following categories:
a.) Estimation of working time in days per expert
b.) Daily rate(s) per expert
c.) Travel costs per expert and trip OR a lump sum for travelling (covering all
trips). The number of travels, the experts travelling and the destinations should
be indicated as well.
d.) Total cost
The names of the experts should be clearly outlined in the proposal and CV(s) should
be included.
10. Required Qualifications
The ex-ante evaluator has to meet the following requirements:
• Be functionally independent, Article 47 (3) of draft CPR regulation.
• Have an understanding of the countries/regions participating in the programme,
including knowledge and experience in the geographical area and thematic
fields of intervention of the programme;
• Have a solid knowledge of cohesion policy and ETC-related EU regulatory and
policy framework;
• Proven experience of evaluation (ex ante evaluations, mid-term evaluations,
etc) of EU or EEC support programmes or operations of a similar scope and
nature. The tenderer (or joint tenderers together) shall have evaluated at least
four support programmes during the last 36 months (backwards from the date
of submission of tenders) of which at least two on an territory of Central Baltic
(Estonia, Finland, Latvia or Sweden) The experience in evaluation of ETC
programmes will be considered an advantage. The tenderer shall submit a list
on evaluations on support programmes, stating the name of the programme,
date of completion of the evaluation, recipient countries of the supporting
programme, names and contact information of the contracting entities. If the
16
•
•
•
evaluation results are publicly available, links to websites shall be added to the
list, or digital copies of the evaluation reports added to the tender.
Have a solid knowledge of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive;
Have the ability to judge the quality and appropriateness of indicators (appraise
the relevance of the indicators within the intervention logic, consider the
impact of the programme);
If possible, have evidence of past experience in impact evaluations, using either
statistical or qualitative methods.
11. Structure of the Proposal, Submission Rules and Assessment
Criteria
11.1. Structure of the Proposal
The evaluator must be able to carry out the ex-ante evaluation in the whole
programme territory. In case the offer is handed in by a consortium the following
information must be clearly stated: name and address of different evaluators, division
of tasks.
The programme language is English. Therefore all tender documents as well as the
evaluation reports and presentations must be in English.
11.2. Submission rules
The proposal has to be submitted by e-mail or post to [email protected] or
P.O. box 273, 20101 Turku, Finland at the latest by 17 January 2013, marked with the
reference “Ex ante”. The tender received after the deadline will not be considered.
The submitted offer has to be valid until 11 March 2013.
11.3. Selection & Award Criteria
The information provided will be carefully assessed against the selection and award
criteria, including the overall approach to the evaluation, outputs foreseen, the
working time foreseen for the delivery of the service and the financial offer. Based on
the assessment of the offers the one with the highest score will be awarded the
contract.
17
The following selecting and award criteria will be applied:
Points
max.
QUALITY ELEMENT
Selection Criteria
Background Information on the company or
companies (in case of a consortium)
Experience in Evaluation (selection
criteria)
Field of expertise and
financial and technical
capacity
Number of years of
INTERREG/ETC experience
(of all experts involved in
the evaluation)
Relevance of the
experience, including
relevant publications
10
10
10
Award Criteria (1st Part)
Proposal for the evaluation
approach and focus
Types and relevance of the
expected outputs
Estimation of days close to
average number (all bidders)
Quality of the proposal
Total Quality Element
FINANCIAL ELEMENT (Award Criteria 2nd
part)
Total price
Total financial element
TOTAL (technical element=70%, financial
element=30%)
TOTAL
20
10
10
70
Best price = 30
30
30
100
Financial Element (30 points):
The assignment of points is based on the cheapest offer (30 points) and the relation of
all other offers to the cheapest offer.
11.4. Contracting
After approval of the proposal, a contract will be signed between the Regional Council
of Southwest Finland and the ex-ante evaluator, in which the specific conditions for
18
the evaluation procedure are set according to the selected offer. The evaluation
procedure cannot be started before both parties have signed the contract.
In case of a consortium or subcontracting, the contract must include the division of
tasks and related responsibilities of each involved party.
The information provided by the Regional Council of Southwest Finland has to be
treated confidentially. A breach of confidentiality will be a reason to terminate the
contract without compensation.
11.5. Terms of Payment
Payments will be done as follow:
1. The first payment will be made upon the handing over of the first draft report,
however no later than 31 October 2013
2. The second and final payment will be made upon the handing over of the final
Ex ante report, however no later than 31 January 2014
11.6. Copyright
The copyright of the approved reports will be transferred to the Regional Council of
Southwest Finland and can be published on the programme’s website as well as be
made available to programme stakeholders and to the wider public.
19
Annex1
Proposal Template
Evaluator (name,
organisation)
Registration Number
VAT registry Number
Account information
Contact details of the
evaluator organisation:
(postal, email, telephone,
website)
If consortium/ subevaluators: name,
organisation, address
CVs of personnel assigned
for evaluation
List of working experience:
 relevant information on
former evaluation
(including impact
evaluation and
experience with
indicators)
 knowledge of the
national and regional
situation, meaning
knowledge and
experience of the
geographical area and
fields of intervention of
the programme,
 former ETC experience
List of information
referring to Knowledge
Strategic environmental
Assessment (SEA) Directive
List of relevant
20
publications
Detailed work plan
(including time schedule,
tasks)
Description of the
methodology and information
sources
Additional information
Price without VAT
VAT
Total Price
21