Recent Posts

Career Opportunities

Career Opportunities

A career at SEAF offers the opportunity to work as part of an international team that provides alternative sources of capital to entrepreneurs in emerging markets.

Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (“SEAF”) is an impact investing firm that provides growth capital and business assistance to SMEs in emerging and transitioning markets underserved by traditional sources of capital. Its partner organization, Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development (“CEED”), provides entrepreneurs and their executive teams the know-how and networks they need to accelerate the growth of their businesses and to promote the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the broader society. Through its network of investment funds and CEED centers around the world, SEAF invests in high-growth entrepreneurs seeking to build scalable businesses, hoping to realize both returns for investors and strong development impact in the local communities.

We are always looking for talented professionals interested in SEAF and our mission and we welcome you to submit your credentials to careers@seaf.com

CURRENT OPENINGS

SEAF Legal Assistance Intern – Fund Review

Job Summary
SEAF seeks a temporary legal assistant to work directly with its General Counsel for a review of its fund documentation. This is a great opportunity for someone with an interest in not for profit, corporate, or contract law.

Duties and Responsibilities
• Review each Fund file for particular required documents
• Analyze completeness of each file
• Create a report on each Fund
• Work with General Counsel to reach out to the field as necessary

Qualifications 
• 3rd/4th year undergraduate or 1st/2nd year JD candidate preferred
• Attention to detail
• Creative thinking
• Independent working style
• Basic understanding of contract and/or corporate law

A stipend will be provided if the applicant has no funding from their school.

Application
Submit a one-page cover letter and resume, to klahnstein@seaf.com, by May 15, 2019 Applications that do not include this will not be considered. Please note “Legal Assistant – Fund Review” in the subject line of your email.

Tanzania Program Evaluator - Request for Proposal

Request for Proposals

 

SEAF is seeking a qualified consultant to conduct a third-party midterm evaluation for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (Food for Progress) funded project based in Tanzania. Please see application instructions below and full Terms of Reference here.

 

*** Please see full Terms of Reference, linked to bottom of this post***

 

Project Name: KASI Agriventures
Project Location: Tanzania
Funding Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food for Progress
Implementing Partner: Small Enterprise Assistance Funds
Duration: June-August 2019

 

Profile of Evaluation Team

The lead evaluator should have the following skills and qualifications:

  • Master’s in Business Administration, International development, Statistics, Agribusiness or other related field;
  • Experience in evaluating donor-funded international development projects is required;
  • At lease 3 years proven experience in conducting similar Evaluation in SMEs and/or agribusiness related programs;
  • Strong knowledge of USDA rules and regulations regarding evaluation is preferred;
  • Demonstrated ability to ensure gender integration in evaluation design and implementation;
  • Excellent computer skills, with necessary knowledge on analytical software like SPSS is required;
  • Strong technical and analytical capabilities and demonstrated ability to collect, analyze and interpret data;
  • Experience working in multi-cultural settings, including both rural and urban areas;
  • Fluency in English and Swahili language;
  • Knowledge on SMEs in Tanzania is an added advantage.

 

How to Apply

A)   General Instructions

Please use the following as a guideline to format and submit your proposal:

  • Deadline: A completed proposal with all necessary documents is due no later than 5pm (17:00) Eastern Standard Time, on May 28, 2019. Proposals will not be considered if they are incomplete, late and/or contain information other than that which is outlined below.
  • Submission Guidelines: SEAF will only accept applications submitted via email. Please submit your applications to Renalda Swai at rswai@seaf.com. Proposal documents should be attachments in this email (see Guidelines on Documents). Please use subject line: Midterm Evaluation Proposal. If you have any questions prior to submission, please contact Renalda Swai at rswai@seaf.com. All answers provided to submitted questions will be included in our “Frequently Asked Questions” page (coming soon).
  • Guidelines on Documents: The application should consist of four separate documents. (1) Cover Letter, (2) Proposal Narrative, and (3) Proposal Budget (See link for Budget template here.)
  • Language, Font Size & Presentation Style: All proposal documents must be written in English. The font type must be Times New Roman in a 12-point font size. The proposal Narrative must not exceed ten (10) pages. Applications that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered.
  • SEAF will only accept one proposal per service provider. If more than one proposal is submitted, all proposals might be excluded.
  • SEAF reserves the right to review proposals and make an award decision without discussion with the applicants.
  • A person authorized to legally bind the company and/or organization must sign the cover letter of the proposal.
  • SEAF is not obligated to make an award or pay for any costs incurred by the applicant in preparing the proposal in response to this RFP.
  • Code of Conduct:
    1. Applicants submitting their Evaluation proposals are committing to working in a professional, objective and impartial manner, while keeping SEAF and KASI’s best interests in mind at all times. Proposals will not be considered if the applicant is considered to have a conflict of interest, including but not limited to:
      • Conflicts with other assignments or their own interests, and/or act without consideration for future work; and
      • Ownership of and/or involvement in one or more potential project portfolio companies, whether it be full-time or partial.
    2. SEAF has a zero tolerance policy for entities that have engaged in, or are engaging in, illegal or unethical activities, including but not limited to:
      • Any form of fraud, corruption, collusion, and obstruction;
      • Having committed, attempted to commit, advocated, facilitated, or participated in terrorist acts, or plan on committing, advocating, facilitating, or participating in such acts as outline works in adherence to the “USDA FAS Terrorist Financing Certification for Food Aid Grant Agreements,”(See http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fas_food_assistance_programs_guidebook.pdf and http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/instruments.shtml);
      • Having appeared on the master list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, which list is maintained by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (See https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/sdn-list/pages/default.aspx); and
      • Is included in any supplementary information concerning prohibited individuals or entities that may be provided by Commodity Credit Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture or the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Sanctions Committee.

B)   Instruction for Completing Proposal Narrative

The applicant should provide a straightforward, concise delineation of how they intend to carry out and satisfy the requirements of the Midterm Evaluation TOR.  The Proposal Narrative should not include contractual price information in order to allow for evaluation of the proposal strictly on its technical merit. The following sections should be include in the Proposal Narrative:

  • Technical Approach: The Proposal Narrative should outline how the applicant has experience, understanding and the ability to perform the requirements outlined in the attached TOR.
  • Methodologies: The Proposal should outline methodology(ies) to be used in Midterm evaluation including: sampling, data collection, analysis and reporting. This section should include an example of any past consulting project in working with proposed methodologies and results and/or findings of the assessment. This section should be between 3-5 pages in length.
  • Company Credentials and Capabilities: The proposal should include:
    1. General: Include one (1) page on the company’s history, including company location, company size, area(s) of work, and general client project size/location/sector. Please note if the entity has done any relevant evaluation(s) for other USDA Food For Progress (FFPr) Projects, USAID Feed the Future (FtF) projects, and/or other USDA Projects.
    2. Specialties: An explanation of any specialties that would support the requirements of the Terms of Reference.
    3. Team Background and Qualifications: Include the backgrounds and proposed roles/responsibilities of the individual(s) employed by the company who would work to address different tasks under Terms of Reference. Resumes for proposed team member(s) should be included as appendices.
    4. References and Current Work: Provide at least two (2) references from projects that have been completed in the past four (4) years. SEAF will contact references for verification and feedback. A list of ALL current and past contracts and sub-contracts should be included as an Appendix and will not count towards the page limit.

 

C)   Instructions for Completing Proposal Budget

The applicant should follow the format of the Budget Template Sample. Each line item should be carefully considered and reflect in-country prices. The maximum amount should not exceed USD 100,000 but competitive budgets will receive a higher score.

  1. Prices: All prices should be quoted in US Dollars (USD).
  2. Salaries: Include a salary of all anticipated job positions for the project Midterm Evaluation. The employees MUST have a direct function to the project. Additional information includes duration of assignment and daily rate.
  3. Travel and Transportation: Include all anticipated transportation costs, with cost reasoning and anticipated timing of use. Please note, SEAF will only pay for travel/lodging arrangements during data collection exercise.
  4. Per Diem: In line with SEAF’s travel policy, the U.S. Government per diem rates for lodging and M&IE are treated as the maximum amount for which the consultant may be reimbursed. Any reimbursement and/or payment will be based upon actual SEAF may request copies of receipts, boarding passes, and other supporting documentation as proof of expenses. The U.S. Department of State Standardized Regulations may be accessed through (https://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem.asp).
  5. Other Costs: Cost and explanation to any additional anticipated costs.

About the Implementing Organization

A)   Project Description

KASI Agriventures is a five-year program, which commenced on 1 October 2014 and is expected to end on 31 December 2020. The program is implemented in Tanzania by the Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF), with financial support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The program invests in agribusinesses in three key sectors including (i) poultry feed production, (ii) horticulture processing, and (iii) SME (Small and Medium-Size Enterprise) Lending. The program has established a Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development (CEED), through which SEAF provides technical assistance and training to agribusiness SMEs, including investees, and communities where the program operates. Currently, the program covers Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Mbeya, Rukwa and Costal regions of Tanzania.

 

B)   Program Goal

KASI Agriventures’ program goal is to contribute towards achievement of USDA’s Strategic Objectives: (1) Increased Agricultural Productivity and (2) Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (into domestic, regional, and international markets). Specifically, KASI Agriventures works to strengthen the agricultural sector in Tanzania by adding value to agribusiness investees and their supply chain of smallholder farmers in order to increase agricultural productivity and expand the trade of agricultural products. The project aims to help investees’ to access new markets and increase revenues, which in turn creates jobs in their communities.

 

C)   Program Activities

The following are KASI Agriventures project activities:

  1. To increase poultry feed production capacity through an investment into small and medium-sized poultry feed producer;
  2. To increase horticultural processing capacity through an investment into a small and medium-sized fruit, vegetable, and/or spice processing facility;
  3. To enhance agricultural finance using a lease-to-own lending mechanism through an investment in a finance company that provides equipment leasing finance or working capital to agribusiness SMEs, to increase affordability of farm equipment and to increase availability of working capital loans to farmers;
  4. To establish a Center for Entrepreneurship and Executive Development (CEED) to provide technical assistance to poultry feed producers, fruit/vegetable/spice processors, and other agribusiness SMEs as well as their suppliers and/or customers;
  5. To expand trade of agricultural products through a mentorship program between international corporations and fruit/vegetable/spice processor(s), aimed at bringing the fruit/vegetable/spice processor(s) products up to international standards; and thus increase access to international markets.

Criteria for the Review of Applications

SEAF will evaluate all proposals based on the following criteria. The relative weight accorded to each factor is expressed in points, with 100 points possible. Please remember that only complete applications, received by the designated date and time, will be evaluated.

 

Criteria Rate
Technical Approach:

·       Clearly articulated objectives in the proposal expressing an understanding of the evaluation requirements outlined in the Terms of Reference

·       Well-defined roadmap to achieve the evaluation objectives

·       Appropriate staffing, timing, sequencing, and resourcing of the evaluation

30
Methodologies:

·       Alignment of methodologies used for Midterm Evaluation with methodologies used during baseline survey

·       Methodologies effectively address evaluation objectives and evaluation questions as outlined in the Terms of Reference

20
Company Credentials and Capabilities: 3 parts

·       General: company’s history, specifically relevant area(s) of work, and general client project size/location/sector: including client testimonials.

10
·       Specialties: An explanation of any specialties that would support the requirements of the Terms of Reference 10
·       Team Background and Qualifications: Expertise and relevant qualifications of team members 20
Budget and Value: Applicants will be evaluated on the cost efficiency for implementing their proposal 10
Total 100

 

Confidentiality

The proposal review and evaluation will be managed confidentially and will only be circulated internally at SEAF and to the members of the evaluation panel. Proposals not selected for the award will also be notified via email. Proposals selected for further consideration will be contacted accordingly.

Links to More Information

Midterm Evaluation TOR

Budget Template Sample

Frequently Asked Questions (coming soon)

CEED Program Evaluator - Request for Proposal

Background

Founded in 2007, CEED is dedicated to developing entrepreneurial ecosystems to help SMEs grow, scale, and drive impact, especially with the help of timely support and investment. CEED’s mission is to develop and connect entrepreneurs who want to grow as leaders, build their companies and give back to their community. With on-the-ground centers in Albania, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia, Tanzania, and Tunisia, CEED promotes private sector development, assists the growth of SMEs, creates jobs, and contributes to economic stability. CEED transforms entrepreneurs into leaders; connecting, empowering, inspiring, and supporting them by providing access to markets and finance, building capacity, and fostering community. CEED focuses specifically on ‘underserved’ markets, providing entrepreneurs in these geographies unique access to a regional and international community of entrepreneurs that stretches from Silicon Valley to NYC to Tel Aviv — fellow entrepreneurs from whom they can learn and with whom they can do business. CEED has trained more than 20,000 entrepreneurs since its founding and has currently has 3,000 active (paying) members. We are also one of the few programs with a ten-year track record of building financially sustainable local entrepreneur support institutions.

On June 23rd, 2017 the Argidius Foundation and Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF) launched an initiative to set the stage for expansion in East Africa, to develop communities of up to 500 growth-stage entrepreneurs in Uganda and Tanzania; digitalize existing CEED resources on to a Global Platform; launch and implementing a global platform for member and staff interaction; and improve and curating existing training programs for all CEED centers.

In June 2019, the project will have been underway for two years, and CEED will begin to appraise its effectiveness through an external evaluation. This evaluation is happening at a strategic moment for the CEED team. In 2019, CEED hired a global Impact and Learning Manager tasked with revamping and streamlining CEED’s monitoring and evaluation practices. CEED plans to use the evaluation to further its objectives of improving its impact management process and the effectiveness of its centers.

Purpose and Scope

The evaluation will focus on assessing the results of CEED’s support to entrepreneurs between June 2017 and December 31, 2019. The assessment will place emphasis on the contribution of CEED to successful outcomes (revenue, job creation, access to capital); short- and medium-term results; and factors that have positively and negatively influenced results. The evaluation will evaluate all 7 of the 11 CEED centers, with a focus on the centers that implement the CEED membership model currently in place in Tanzania. The evaluation will span between six and nine months.

Key Objectives

CEED hopes to leverage this study to not only learn about the effectiveness of the Tanzania Project, but to use findings from 6 other centers that will contribute to this updated strategy. Specifically, this project aims to:

  • Evaluate the effectiveness of CEED centers
  • Suggest paths through which CEED can improve its model globally
  • Benchmark CEEDs programs against industry standards and peer organizations

Approach

While the ultimate goal of this evaluation is to measure the effectiveness of CEED’s programs, the external evaluator selected will be encouraged to focus on the benchmarking component. CEED has developed internal reporting mechanisms for measuring impact performance, but without the context of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in question, these findings fall short of producing the level of organizational learning that justifies the cost of collecting these data beyond business performance indicators.

For this reason, CEED encourages the evaluator to consider publicly available data sources and to thoroughly document the benchmarking methodology so that this process could be replicated by CEED’s internal team in the future. Data sources to consider are the Global Accelerator Learning Initiative’s (GALI) Entrepreneur database, OECD DAC and CRS databases, and national business registries.

 

Key Questions

The key questions the evaluator will look at will fall into two categories, iterative learning questions and strategic learning questions. Iterative learning questions are the central questions to CEED’s theory of change. After the evaluation, the data for the iterative learning indicators will be collected annually and will be used to make programmatic decisions.

Strategic learning questions will examine the questions that, while not central to CEED’s daily operations, should be examined every five to seven years to ensure that the organization is meeting its long-term impact objectives. These questions involve data that is more difficult to capture, and therefore more challenging for CEED to reproduce annually without external assistance.

 

Iterative Learning Questions

The key questions proposed will align with the four outcomes in CEEDs theory of change:

  • Growth in Revenue
  • Growth in High-Quality Jobs
  • Thriving Community of High-Growth Entrepreneurs
  • Greater Professionalization

CEED will provide the data related to these outcomes that it has collected prior to 2019 in addition to its 2018 year-end data, which will be collected in June 2019. CEED also encourages the evaluator to suggest how the indicators below might be improved upon or changed.

In addition to analyzing the outcomes, the evaluation will use quantitative and qualitative data to answer the questions:

  1. What are the successful aspects of CEED’s programs that lead to successful outcomes?
  2. What is CEED’s contribution to successful outcomes?
  3. What are the least successful aspects of CEED’s programs, and how might they be improved or eliminated?

 

Growth in Revenue

This data will be primarily quantitative. The evaluator is also encouraged to collect qualitative data from entrepreneurs on their greatest challenges in achieving revenue, export sales, outside financing, and their ability to attract new and returning customers.

A key component of CEED’s programming is around encouraging entrepreneurs to make strategic choices about the type of financing they accept, and in some cases whether the enterprise should accept financing at all. For this reason, the evaluation should look at entrepreneur’s ability to access finance, even if they ultimately chose not to accept it.

Indicator Learning Question(s) Factors to consider CEED Data source
Change in revenue

 

How do entrepreneurs in CEED programs compare to local entrepreneurs who:

·       Do not enter technical assistance or peer networking programs

·       Enter other technical assistance or peer networking programs (disaggregate free and paid programs)

Disaggregated by:

·       international/local entrepreneurs

·       CEED center

·       Women Entrepreneurs/Women on founding team/No women on founding team

·       Youth Entrepreneurs (under 25)

·       Sector/Industry

·       Company size at entry to CEED, using the segments delineated in the report Segmenting Enterprises to Better Understand Their Financial Needs.

Baseline/ annual member questionnaire
Percent change in export sales
Access to outside financing
Change in number of customers

 

Growth in High-Quality Jobs

While the evaluator will evaluate this indicator based on quantitative data, we imagine this will be an area for qualitative research as well. Interviews with employees who are not on the leadership team of CEED companies in addition to those of companies that did not enter a capacity building network or chose a different program are encouraged.

Indicator Learning Question(s) Factors to consider CEED Data source
Change in number of employees

 

How do entrepreneurs in CEED programs compare to local entrepreneurs who:

·       Do not enter technical assistance or peer networking programs

·       Enter other technical assistance or peer networking programs (disaggregate free and paid programs)

Disaggregated by:

·       international/local entrepreneurs

·       CEED center

·       Women Entrepreneurs/Women on founding team/No women on founding team

·       Youth Entrepreneurs (under 25)

·       Sector/Industry

·       Company size at entry to CEED, using the segments delineated in the report Segmenting Enterprises to Better Understand Their Financial Needs.

Baseline/ annual member questionnaire
Change in percentage of employees who receive external training paid for by company
Change in company turnover rate

 

Thriving Community of High-Growth Entrepreneurs

This outcome is expected to rely much more heavily on qualitative data. The evaluator should clarify what constitutes a high growth entrepreneur, and how CEED might measure that going forward. At a minimum, in each of CEED’s 7 active centers with networks, the evaluator should interview:

  • active members of CEED’s network
  • members that participate in CEED’s network and another entrepreneur network
  • members that recently deactivated from CEED’s network
  • members of other entrepreneur networks
  • staff at other entrepreneur networks

In addition, as CEED begins testing software for an online community-building platform in the second half of 2018, the evaluator is encouraged to suggest ways in which social network analysis can be incorporated into CEED’s impact management strategy. At a minimum, the consultant should recommend an indicator that measures the ‘thriving’ aspect of the CEED network using data from the online platform. The indicator or indicators suggested should align with industry standards and best practices.

Indicator Learning Question(s) Factors to consider CEED Data source
Change in number of CEED members How does CEED’s membership program compare to other membership programs?

 

How can CEED better capture the effectiveness of the network?

 

How can CEED improve its network services in a way that is cost-effective and self-sustaining?

Disaggregated by:

·       international/local entrepreneurs

·       CEED center

·       Women Entrepreneurs/Women on founding team/No women on founding team

·       Youth Entrepreneurs (under 25)

·       Sector/Industry

·       Company size at entry to CEED, using the segments delineated in the report Segmenting Enterprises to Better Understand Their Financial Needs.

Program data
Change in number of entrepreneurs who presented, participated as a mentor, or shared a ‘CEED’ story
Percentage of members who CEED connected to a peer or mentor who was able to help grow their business Baseline/ annual member questionnaire

 

Greater Professionalization

This outcome will be measured quantitatively and qualitatively. Entrepreneur interviews should include a question about barriers to productivity. This outcome is most directly related to CEED’s recent efforts to support entrepreneur’s ability to recruit, train, and retain talented staff through the CEEDs programs targeted at middle-management.

Indicator Learning Question(s) Factors to consider CEED Data source
Percentage change in productivity

(headcount/total revenue)

How do entrepreneurs in CEED programs compare to local entrepreneurs who:

·       Do not enter technical assistance or peer networking programs

·       Enter other technical assistance or peer networking programs (disaggregate free and paid programs)

Disaggregated by:

·       international/local entrepreneurs

·       CEED center

·       Women Entrepreneurs/Women on founding team/No women on founding team

·       Youth Entrepreneurs (under 25)

·       Sector/Industry

·       Company size at entry to CEED, using the segments delineated in the report Segmenting Enterprises to Better Understand Their Financial Needs.

Baseline/ annual member questionnaire
Number of member companies with a documented company structure with a formal Board of Directors or equivalent oversight, supervisory body.

 

Strategic Learning Questions

The strategic learning questions are designed to address more challenging long-term questions that the CEED team is less likely to have the internal capacity to analyze. The evaluator is asked to examine these questions and to propose a strategy for evaluating CEED’s success in these areas that aligns with CEED’s current monitoring and evaluation systems, capacity, and budget limitations.

Gender Inclusion

The evaluation should incorporate CEED’s effectiveness in achieving gender outcomes. While gender is a component in the iterative learning questions, this evaluation should look at existing research in addition to qualitative data to answer the following questions:

  1. What are the successful aspects of CEED’s programs that lead to successful outcomes for women and gender minority groups?
  2. What is CEEDs contribution to successful outcomes for women and gender minority groups?
  3. What are the least successful aspects of CEED’s programs in achieving gender equity, and how might they be improved or eliminated?

Value for Money

According to a recent GALI report, given the popularity of the technical assistance peer cohort model, understanding a program’s ‘Value for Money’ will be critical as both funders of capacity building networks and managers need a way to compare programs against each other and to alternative forms of entrepreneurial support.

In addition, answering questions like, ‘for every $1 invested into CEED, how many jobs were created?’ would be an invaluable management tool for CEED’s leadership teams, but this question requires data beyond what CEED currently collects. For this reason, CEED is asking the evaluator to consider this question in addition to calculating value for money indicators for other entrepreneur support programs operating within the 7 countries considered in this evaluation.

The indicators should include:

  • Dollar invested per high quality job created
  • Dollar invested per revenue achieved
  • Dollar invested per connection that led to business growth

CEED will supply data related to cost per center.

Sustainability

The goal of every CEED center is that it is self-sustaining, and CEED is working toward achieving sustainability at a global level as well. CEED expects that membership pricing will be a critical aspect of this question. The evaluation should also answer the questions:

  1. What are CEED centers which do not rely on grant funding doing well, and how can they expand or scale that model?
  2. How might centers currently relying on grant funding continue their activities beyond the life of the grant?
  3. How can CEED as a global organization sustainably cover headquarters’ costs without grant funding?

Job Quality

CEED uses whether an enterprise pays for training as a proxy for a ‘high-quality job’ though clearly there are many other dimensions involved in this assessment. The evaluator should consider existing research on job quality in the small and growing business sector and make recommendations for other potential proxies. In addition, the evaluator should analyze CEED’s effectiveness against this pre-existing indicator and see how those results compare to employee and other stakeholder interviews.

This evaluation should look at existing research in addition to qualitative data to answer the following questions:

  1. How do CEED’s indicators compare to qualitative feedback?
  2. What is CEEDs contribution to successful outcomes for recruiting and retaining talented employees?

 

Deliverables

The evaluation for the project should at a minimum include:

Reports

Internal Report

The external evaluator should submit a report to be reviewed by the CEED Global team summarizing the evaluation findings in response to the questions above. The report should include findings at a global level and in-depth center-level analysis. Any benchmarking data should include a source and clear methodology for how the CEED team might replicate this analysis in the future. While there is no minimum length requirement, the report should adequately respond to the learning questions outlined above.

External Brief

In addition to the report for CEED, the evaluator should produce and external facing brief of the report that is no longer that 20 pages. The goal of the report is to highlight the findings of the evaluation and any learnings that could be beneficial to the wider ecosystem of organizations who support entrepreneurs in emerging markets.

Presentation

The evaluator should also prepare a 20-50 slide PowerPoint presentation of the findings of the report. This should include data and visuals that present the findings in an engaging and easily digestible format. The presentation should use CEED templates and color schemes and be framed in a way that any CEED staff member could present the findings to interested donors, partners, or entrepreneurs.

 

How to Apply

Eligibility Criteria

To be eligible for a grant, applicants must:

  • Have as official aim, as evident from previous experience, to support SME development and job creation;
  • Be directly responsible for the preparation and implementation of the proposed actions (no sub-contracting allowed);
  • All stakeholder interviews must be completed by February 28, 2020. All final reports shall be submitted by March 31, 2020.

Cost Considerations

  • The budget cap for this evaluation is US $90,000 and is not flexible.

Application Process

  • Proposals should be submitted to CEED no later than June 5, 2019. 17:00h EDT. No applications will be accepted after this date and time.
  • The proposal must be submitted in English, in MS Word or PDF, and submitted electronically by e-mail to entrepreneurship@ceed-global.org.
  • If you have any questions regarding the application process, please contact Brianna Losoya-Evora at blosoya-evora@ceed-global.org.
  • All answers to submitted to questions will be sent to all persons that have requested this call for proposals document before May 26, 2019, at which point applicants may no longer submit questions.
  • Applicants must submit the following documentation:
  1. Proof of legal registration.
  2. A key contact for the proposal team with a phone number and email address included.
  3. A Project Proposal which clearly defines the design and description of the evaluation that the applicant wishes to conduct, results that will be achieved, and a description of the organizational experience as well as descriptive budget.
  4. All potential recipients are subject to past performance scrutiny. Applicants must supply up to three references of clients from which they have received contracts or grants for similar activities over the past three years. CEED shall contact the named references and use the past performance data, along with other information to determine the applicant’s responsibility.
  5. Timeline of the project activities, including how the team plans to evaluate activities in 7 countries and any proposed travel.
  6. A Curriculum Vitae for each member of the implementation team.

Incomplete submissions that do not include the items required in this call will not be considered. The total number of pages for the proposal and all supporting documents should not exceed 30 pages.

Criteria for the Review of Applications

The most important aspect of the evaluation criteria will be the evaluators ability to demonstrate their understanding of the world of technical support for small and growing businesses in emerging markets and what an effective support organization looks like. The Argidius Foundation, who is funding the evaluation, has provided their Annex A. Six Key Areas Assesment, and the evaluator is highly urged to consider this framework as they craft their methodology.

 

Category Evaluation Questions Weight
1. Clarity

 

1.1 Are objectives clearly articulated?

1.2 Is there a well-defined roadmap to achieve objectives?

1.3 Are expectations the applicant has from CEED clear?

20%
2. Feasibility and Internal

Capacity

2.1 How feasible are the objectives and roadmap?

2.2 Is the timing, sequencing, and resourcing of the effort reasonable?

2.3 Has the applicant demonstrated their ability to achieve the milestones laid out in the proposal?

2.4 Is the team assigned to implementation qualified, of sufficient size, and is enough of each team member’s time allocated to this project to deeply understand project objectives?

2.5 Does the organization have the means to manage the implementation?

25%
3. Cost-effectiveness 3.1 Is the proposed budget is reasonable and cost effective?

3.2 Is there is an appropriate scope of institutional commitment and co-financing?

3.3 Will the recommendations proposed consider CEED’s budget and internal capacity

20%
4. Methodology and project framework 4.1 Are the proposed activities addressing the learning questions appropriately?

4.2 Are the proposed activities addressing the learning questions thoroughly?

4.3 Are the proposed activities coherent with the objectives and expected results?

4.4 Is the involvement of CEED adequate?

4.5 Will the iterative learning questions be addressed in a way that can be replicated by CEED staff?

35%

 

Confidentiality

The proposal review and evaluation will be managed confidentially and will only be circulated internally in CEED and to the members of the evaluation panel. Proposals not selected for the award will also be notified via email. Proposals selected for further consideration will be contacted accordingly.