RfP: Thematic assessment of interventions against antimicrobial resistance through OCB (2015-2024)

Thematic evaluation of interventions against antimicrobial resistance OCB (2015-2024)

Start date: September 2024 (exact date to be announced)

Duration: September 2024 to mid-March 2025 (final report must be submitted by 17 March 2025 at the latest)

Requirements: Interested applicants should submit 1) a technical proposal, 2) a financial proposal, 3) a resume, and 4) a previous (relevant) work sample.

Deadline: No later than 09:00 (CEST) on 16 September 2024

Send to: Evaluations@stockholm.msf.org with the note “AMREV”

Note: By submitting only the requested and required documentation, you should demonstrate your interest, capacity and competence in the best possible way. Quality is more important to us than quantity. The evaluation requires visits to some project sites for on-site data collection. These need to be proposed, confirmed and further planned during the initial phase, through discussions with the SEU Evaluation Manager, the Evaluation Advisory Group and other key stakeholders (taking into account the relevance and feasibility of project visits).

For BACKGROUND INFORMATION on MSF’s approach and work with AMR, please read the full Service description (ToR) on our jobs page. Please download the ToR and read it thoroughly before applying.

_______________-

PURPOSE. In line with MSF’s institutional commitment to address AMR, the MSF-OCB Medical Department aims to conduct this evaluation to better understand the status of implementation of AMR activities (basic and full package) in OCB projects. The evaluation is expected to provide an overview of how AMR is implemented in the OCB projects, the successes and challenges of these activities, and recommendations to improve AMR activities in existing and future OCB health interventions.

PURPOSE OF USE. This evaluation will help to advance the development of MSF-OCB’s overall AMR programming and, among other things, facilitate discussions on strategic objectives and necessary investments to advance this goal.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVES. The assessment should:

1. Description of MSF-OCB’s current AMR portfolio (e.g. site types, package, personnel management and monitoring modalities, financial investments);
2. Examine the rationale for site selection and the package implemented, paying particular attention to sites that implement the full package.
3. Assess the overall value of the portfolio and its trends and patterns, highlighting challenges and bottlenecks as well as best practices and successes;
4. Identify recommendations for improving and implementing AMR activities in existing and future OCB projects.

We expect the evaluation team to propose relevant evaluation criteria and/or questions, as well as possible additional areas of investigation, in line with the relevant evaluation frameworks they have identified. These should be included in the proposals submitted by all applicants and confirmed during the inception phase.

EXPECTED DELIVERIES

Note: The SEU involves a Advisory Group (CG) in all evaluation processes with the aim of increasing understanding, acceptance, learning effects during the process and the quality of the results. The CG is chaired by a Commissioner. They have contributed to the completion of this ToR.

The main outputs (initial report, draft/final report) are processed in a feedback loop, collecting input from the Advisory Group. Each output is reviewed by the SEU and endorsed by the Evaluation Officer.

1. Initial report

In accordance with SEU standards, after conducting an initial document review and preliminary interviews, a detailed evaluation proposal including methodology is prepared.

1. Draft evaluation report

According to SEU standards. It contains answers to the assessment questions as well as conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations.

1. Working session

In the presence of the client and members of the advisory group. As part of the report preparation process, the evaluator will present the results, collect feedback from those present and moderate the discussion on the findings.

1. Final evaluation report

After processing the feedback and written submissions received during the working session.

1. Further dissemination results to be defined

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

We expect the evaluation team to propose, at its discretion, the relevant framework and/or criteria for this thematic evaluation, together with the associated evaluation questions. These should be included in the proposals submitted by all applicants and confirmed during the inception phase.

Taking into account the nature of a thematic evaluation and the stated objective and intended use, the following methodology is proposed.

• Desk audit of all sites where AMR interventions are carried out (basic and full package)
• Case studies on some of these sites, including project visits, interviews with key people, in-depth analysis of quantitative data, including routinely collected data (raw data). The size and criteria for selection of the case study sites will be proposed and confirmed during the initial phase.
• Interviews with key people across the portfolio (in addition to qualitative data collection for case studies).

In addition to the initial evaluation proposal submitted as part of the application (see chapter “Requirements”), the evaluators should prepare a detailed evaluation protocol during the induction phase. It contains a detailed explanation of the proposed methods and their justification based on validated theories. It will be reviewed and validated during the induction phase in coordination with the SEU.

RECOMMENDED SECONDARY SOURCES

• Routinely collected medical data (raw data from project medical databases)
• Project documents and technical documents (e.g. logframes and narrative reports, strategies, project visit and mission completion reports, organizational charts, budgets, evaluation reports, AMR plans)
• MSF and OCB strategic documents, including strategic orientations, operational perspectives, medical department strategy, guiding principles
• National, regional and global documentation and guidelines
• External literature and documentation

This list is incomplete.

PROFILE REQUIREMENTS.

Necessary

• Proven assessment skills
• University degree in public health (Master or PhD level)
• Experience working with and implementing AMR programs, particularly in LMIC settings
• Experience in global health programming and project management, particularly in the delivery of health services at primary and secondary levels
• Fluent English and French (oral and written)
• Excellent interpersonal and communication skills

financial assets

• Experience and/or understanding of humanitarian interventions
• Knowledge of some of the contexts covered by this evaluation
• Additional languages ​​that could serve the evaluation process (e.g. documentation, interviews), such as Portuguese or Arabic.