BACKGROUND
The ASALs of Kenya are vulnerable to frequent droughts, climate variability and climate change. This coupled with widespread poverty, water shortages, weak agricultural and livestock productivities, a low technological base, underdeveloped human capital and skills, weak institutions and poor governance has exacerbated the potential impact of climate change and threatens to undo decades of poverty reduction and development interventions.
Since the 2011 drought in the Horn of Africa, Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS) has implemented 24 integrated livelihood projects that seek to enhance the resilience of communities and strengthen community adaptation to climate change. KRCS has adopted a programming framework informed by a resilience approach that focuses on assisting communities to enhance their ability to anticipate, prepare for and recover from shocks such as droughts. While KRCS now has a significant portfolio of DRR and resilience oriented programmes, the work has not benefited from a detailed study that looks at differences in methods, means and impacts.
Through this project, research will be undertaken to increase understanding of what works and doesn’t work within the context of KRCS’s resilience programming. A subset of projects will be selected which will be studied in detail to answer questions about household and community resilience and understand it within the framework of the systems within which people live. The research findings will be used to create more understanding within KRCS, develop a strategy and guidelines for future resilience programming and use the evidence generated to influence Government policy within Kenya and beyond.
The consultancy will be implemented by a consultant assisted by the research manager at the International Centre for Humanitarian Affairs (ICHA), an arm of KRCS. In order to promote research uptake, internal and external stakeholders will be engaged in the process from the outset and research findings will be communicated through multiple media.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The overall purpose is to study KRCS resilience programmes and generate evidence which will be used to inform the development of programme guidelines and policy positions that, in turn, will be used to increase the effectiveness of disaster risk management and resilience work in the ASALs.
The specific objectives are to:
i. Study KRCS resilience programmes and generate evidence of what does and doesn’t work.
ii. Define optimal models for KRCS resilience programming in the ASALs.
iii. Identify key gaps in assumptions in KRCS resilience programming
iv. Develop a clear theory of change for KRCS’s future resilience programming
v. Generate data in an appropriate format which KRCS can use to influence legislative and policy frameworks nationally and regionally
vi. Contribute to the development and implementation of a research uptake strategy which will be developed by KRCS

METHODOLOGY
i. Literature review.The consultant will conduct a review of literature on resilience strengthening, adaptation strategies, early response practices, value for money and scalable/adaptable options basing on ecological zones, livelihood zones, and project approach.
ii. Review, analyse and distil strengths and weaknessesof KRCS integrated resilience and livelihood project documents and available data sets guided by the findings from the literature review in (i) above.
iii. Informed by the literature review (i & ii above)select, interrogate and provide a list of final research questions (with due justification).
iv. Develop selection criteria and use the literature review of KRCS project documents and discussions to select a subset of 5 projects for in-depth study.
v. Use Community Based Resilience Assessment (CoBRA) and / or any other appropriate framework (with due justification) to develop the qualitative tools for Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) in consultation with ICHA team. In addition, develop a list of participants from stakeholders including government, NGOs, programme staff at KRCS, beneficiaries (including men, women, children, elders and people with disabilities).
vi. Pilot the tools;make necessary adjustments, if any, in collaboration and approved by ICHA.
vii. Collect datafrom respondents using Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
To achieve the objectives of the research, the following preliminary questions have been formulated to guide the study.
Vulnerability analysis, political economy and targeting
• Does the community-level approach of the Vulnerable Community Approach (VCA) lead us to miss some reasons why some are vulnerable and some resilient?
• Does it make sense to continue to target the most vulnerable in resilience-strengthening, as opposed to humanitarian response, programmes?
• What would a codified approach to targeting split by intervention type look like for KRCS, and how does this relate to the mandate, values and perceptions of the organisation (as well as the Fundamental Principles of the Movement)?
• Related to this, does the source of funding (particularly humanitarian appeals) determine the targeting approach followed?
• To what extent are we taking account of, and building on, the coping strategies of local people and, by extension, the realities of local systems of production, value creation and resource allocation?
• What tools could enhance assessment and programme design and implementation here while ensuring sensitivity to perceptions of KRCS and staff and volunteer safety and security?
• How is vulnerability currently assessed within different programmes? What are the merits and drawbacks of the different approaches/tools used, and what approaches/tools could improve vulnerability and political economy analysis in order to enhance programme design?
Accountability and engagement with affected communities
• If resilience is defined at community level, what then are the core indicators that should be designed for use at community level to ensure an effective impact?
• How effective is the existing house-hold targeted approach used by KRCS projected against community based options in resilience and early response context?
• Do we understand communities’ own coping strategies well enough before we design our interventions?
Adaptation and adaptive capacity
• What are the different types of resilience strengthening models/options utilized by KRCS disaster management and operations and their adaptability to local context and sustainability level?
• What is the relative effectiveness of approaches to adaptation that promote complementary vs. alternativelivelihoods strategies? And what are the implications for efforts to strengthen “adaptive capacity”?
• Does health, in particular, need to adopt a more risk-focused approach? Or, on the other hand, should other sectors pay greater attention to the extent to which they contribute to health outcomes?
Market systems
• To what extent does existing programme practice incorporate analysis of power in markets relating to relationships (with processors, with marketers etc.) and inputs (e.g. financial, technological etc)-“cluster” concept? How could current market-based programming be strengthened, particularly in relation to value chain development and sustainability? And where is the primary value-added of KRCS?
Integrated programming
• In what ways can integrated programming enhance effectiveness and efficiency, and what are the necessary conditions for effective integrated programmes.
• What is the role of language in inhibiting integration (for example, “vulnerability” (livelihoods and DRR-speak) vs. the “social determinants of health” (health-speak)?
Linking relief, rehabilitation and development
• To what extent do existing development and response programmes exhibit elements of risk management, tracking and surge? How could policy and programme development help to improve outcomes (for example, through greater linkages to social protection, insurance and multi-year humanitarian funding)?
Evidence and innovations including cost benefit analysis
• Are resilience-strengthened interventions more cost effective to implement in comparison to the cost of drought under a relief/response interventions in humanitarian settings?
• Is enhanced community/ household livelihood option a better resilience strengthening strategy in terms of value for money in comparison to introduction of a new livelihood and complementary/alternative livelihood options in communities?
• Are KRCS DRM interventions demand-led, or are they in fact more supply-driven, based on pre-determined programme delivery models?
• To what extent are KRCS approaches and activities in the ASALs evidence based? What innovative approaches and tools are being used?
Partnerships
• Can KRCS work with Government and other actors to ensure innovative and high-impact programmes are scaled-up and replicated?
• Where does KRCS fit within the humanitarian and DRM system in the ASALs? What is its comparative advantage?

DELIVERABLES
• Inception report
§ Approach and proposed methodology, work plan / schedule, expectations from ICHA and deliverables.
• Report of analysis and summary of literature review findings and list of referenced documents / articles.
• Raw data (pictures, recordings etc.), transcripts, grids, field notes and other related findings.
• Draft report and other recurring issues noted during field work.
§ This report shall detail specific observations and findings from each of the 5 projects sampled e.g. what does / doesn’t work.
§ The consolidated report should include a comparison of the projects.
• Final report (in a format to be provided by ICHA). This should be done in accordance with KRCS quality standards for preparing reports. The report should be in English and submitted in 3 hard bound copies and electronic versions to KRCS for review and approval.

EXPECTATIONS OF KRCS / ICHA FROM THE CONSULTANT
• Conduct the two phases of the research (literature review and field study)
• Facilitate agreed meetings and workshops
• Accountable and active participation in validation workshops and meetings
• Incorporate and address comments generated during meetings and workshops
• Work with ICHA team to finalise the report
• Contribute to the design of research uptake strategy
ROLE OF KRCS & ICHA
• Discuss and agree on the ToR in detail with the consultant
• Review and provide input into the inception plan, proposed methodology, resilience assessment framework, data collection instruments and schedule.
• Avail all necessary project documents for desk review.
• Coordinate the research implementation process including access to KRCS program staff and project beneficiaries
• Organise logistics (e.g. travel, accommodation etc.) for the consultant
• Organise theory of change workshops, report validation meetings and dissemination forums as necessary
• Custodian of all data and publications generated from the research

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
i. At least Masters Degree in a relevant discipline with a minimum six (6) years of relevant professional experience in research
ii. Extensive knowledge of, and experience in applying qualitative research methods in resilience work in the Horn of Africa.
iii. Demonstrated ability to assess complex projects/programmes and draw forward looking conclusions and recommendations.
iv. Extensive knowledge and publications on resilience
v. Strong interpersonal, communication and project management skills.
vi. Have strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and prepare quality reports in a timely manner.
vii. Availability for 100 days for a period of 8 months.

TIMEFRAME
The assignment is expected to take an estimated maximum of 100 days over an eight month period for literature review, preparation, implementation, report-writing and presentation.

QUALITY AND ETHICAL STANDARDS
The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the research is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that it is technically accurate and reliable, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner and contributes to organizational learning and accountability.
Therefore, the consultant shall be required to adhere to research standards and applicable practices including:
a. Utility: Research findings must be useful and appropriate.
b. Feasibility: Research process must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
c. Ethics & Legality: Research must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the research.
d. Impartiality & Independence: Research should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased compilation that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
e. Transparency: Research activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
f. Accuracy: Research should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
g. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the research process when feasible and appropriate.
h. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.
It is also expected that the research process will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: i) humanity, ii) impartiality, iii) neutrality, iv) independence, v) voluntary service, vi) unity, and vii) universality.

HOW TO APPLY:
APPLICATION PROCESS
Application materials shall include:
• A written response to the ToR detailing understanding, proposed methodology activities and deliverables, proposed work plans and budget.
•Detailed CV of the consultant. If there is more than one consultant on the proposed research team, please attach a table describing the level of effort (in number of days) of each team member in each of the activities.
•Professional references: provide three referencesfrom previous clients and full contact details of the referees and samples of research reportsundertaken of similar context.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
The Technical Proposal MUSTbe prepared in conformance to the outline provided in Annex 1while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2.Team composition should conform to Annex 3.
Bidders should provide a technical and financial proposal as two separate documents clearly marked “Technical Proposal” and “Financial Proposal” and sent through as one e-mailclearly marked“Consultancy for Resilience Research for Kenya Red Cross Society”
The Proposal should be addressed as below to reach the under signed by Wednesday, May 13, 2015:
Chairperson
Tender Committee
Ke****n****ya Red Cross Society
P.O Box 40712 – 00100
Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: tenders@redcross.or.ke
Any applications after Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 11.45 am will not be considered.
ANNEX 1: RESPONSE PROPOSAL FORMAT
i) Introduction: brief biography of the consultant, qualifications and statutory compliance
ii) Understanding of the requirements for research services
iii) Proposed methodology – explain the methodology, research design and conceptual framework.
iv) Outline of consultant’s experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from Kenya and the region for other major clients
v) References and samples of previous research reports
vi) Work plan / schedule
ANNEX 2: BUDGET TEMPLATE
The consultant shall only quote for the items below as KRCS will manage all other related costs (travel, hotel lodging etc.). Prices to be INCLUSIVE of 15% Value Added Tax (VAT).
ItemUnit # of
Units Unit
Cost Total Cost (Ksh.) Consultancy fee (for the whole baseline period) Per day Office expenses (printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.) Lump sum Grand Total
ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE (Team application)
Name of team member
Highest educational qualification Number of days to be involved Years of experience
related to the task Roles in this assignment
ANNEX 4: TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA
A three stage evaluation procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders. The total number of points which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:
Technical proposal 60% Oral presentation of technical proposal (face-to-face or through Skype) 30% Financial proposal 10% Total 100%
1. Evaluation of the Technical Proposal
The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:
Evaluation CriteriaMaximum Points
Possible Bidders score

(1) Introduction:
• Description of the Consultant and the Consultant’s Qualifications
(2) Understanding of the Requirements for Services:
Demonstrated understanding of the task at hand as well as propose the most suitable approach in responding to the TOR and all other requirements.
(3) Proposed Methodology:The proposed methodology MUST provide anindication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment.
(4) Consultant’s Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and any experience from the geographical area for other major clients
• Provide a summary and supporting information on overall years of experience, and related technical and geographic coverage experience
• Provide official copies of similar contracts in the past three years
(5) References:Provide three official references (on company letter head and
stamped) on previous works done related to the current assignment by major clients in the past three years. All references provided must include name, designation, email and day time telephone contacts.(Unsatisfactory works conducted for KRCS in the past will attract negative 10 score)
(6) Work plan:A detailed weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided.
(7) Overall Compliance to the TOR Requirements:
• Technical and Financial Proposals submitted in separate envelops, within the stipulated time and at the designated place
• Proposals and supporting documents prepared in the prescribed format and templates

TOTAL SCORE 100
Total scores of the technical bid analysis shall be converted to a denominator of 60. The top three consultants will proceed for oral presentation. Thereafter, the top two consultants following the oral presentation will proceed to the financial evaluation stage.
2. Evaluation of the Financial Proposal
The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2.The maximum number of points for the Financial Proposal shall be 10%(10 points). This maximum number of points will be allocated to the lowest Financial Proposal. All other Financial Proposals will receive points in inverse proportion according to the below formula:
Points for the Financial Proposal being evaluated = (Maximum number of points for the financial proposal) x (Lowest price) Price of proposal being evaluated
A total score obtained including both Technical and Financial Proposals is calculated for each proposal. The bid obtaining the overall highest score is the winning bid.
NB: Kindly ensure you refer to the PDF version of the Terms of Reference which is available athttp://www.redcross.or.ke/index.php/tenders