Request for Quotation No. RFQ/PSB/13/008 UNFPA EVALUATION QUALITY REVIEW SYSTEM

Transcription

1 United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA Procurement Services Branch, PSB Marmorvej 7, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: Website: Date: 8 May 2013 Request for Quotation No. RFQ/PSB/13/008 Dear Sir/Madam, We hereby solicit your quotation for the supply of the following services: UNFPA EVALUATION QUALITY REVIEW SYSTEM

2 1. Background Purpose and Objectives... 3 Purpose of the quality review system... 3 Overall objectives of the quality review system... 3 Specific objectives of the quality review system Methodology Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralized programme-level evaluations Quality assessment of evaluation reports Training Process Submissions for review Coordination Review content The review team Deliverables Individual reviews Assessment of Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralised programme-level evaluations Assessment of CVs Assessment of final evaluation reports Quality assurance Advisory support services Users Indicative time schedule Deliverables and Cost Specifications of tender: QUOTATION SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION... 8 Annex I: Evaluation quality assessment grid EQA Grid Annex II: UNFPA review tool for Programme-Level Evaluation Terms of Reference Annex III: Review tool for Assessment of CVs Annex IV: Quotation Form Annex V: CASE STUDY - Evaluation of UNFPA/Cambodia 3rd country programme, (Attached in a separate pdf file) Annex VI: GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT. DE MINIMIS CONTRACTS. (Attached in a separate pdf file).. 22 Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 2

3 1. Background The UNFPA Evaluation Branch has established in 2011 an evaluation quality assessment system to ensure the quality, credibility and usefulness of evaluations conducted by or on behalf of UNFPA. This system is managed by the Evaluation Branch at UNFPA Headquarters, and quality reviews of evaluation reports are conducted on an annual basis. The system involves the review of final evaluation reports against a set of quality assessment criteria, generating an overall assessment rating for the report and a detailed narrative explaining the reasoning for the assessment rating. 1 The reviews are sent to the respective organisational units responsible for the evaluations (country offices, regional offices, headquarters units) and uploaded to a publicly-available database. The overall results are reported to the UNFPA Executive Board within the UNFPA biennial evaluation report. In response to emerging new needs in terms of evaluation quality assurance, the UNFPA Evaluation Branch is looking for a consultancy firm which will be tasked with implementing its quality review system for evaluations. 2. Purpose and Objectives Purpose of the quality review system The purpose of the quality review system is to: (i) assess the quality of draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for decentralised programme-level evaluations (of country, regional and global programmes) - including CVs of proposed candidates for the evaluation team, and of final evaluation reports; and, (ii) provide practical feedback to, and respond to queries from, the individual organizational units responsible. Overall objectives of the quality review system The overall objectives of the quality review system are: 1. To improve the quality of evaluative evidence for better management of contribution to development results, and; 2. To contribute to corporate lessons to inform reporting by the Evaluation Branch on the quality of decentralized evaluations to the UNFPA Executive Board. Specific objectives of the quality review system The specific objectives of the quality review system are: 1. To assess the quality of draft TOR for decentralised programme-level evaluations and provide practical feedback to the responsible organisational unit on the changes required to improve them; 2. As an accompaniment to the assessment of draft TOR, to assess the quality of CVs of proposed candidates for the evaluation team for decentralised programme-level evaluations; 3. To assess the quality of all final evaluation reports, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the report, and include recommendations for improving the quality of future evaluation reports by the responsible organisational unit; 4. To support an advisory service to organisational units at UNFPA on queries related to the design of decentralised programme-level evaluations. 1 Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 3

4 3. Methodology The UNFPA evaluation quality assurance tools, which have been developed by the Evaluation Branch, will be used for the quality review system. 3.1 Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralized programme-level evaluations Reviews of draft TOR for decentralized programme-level evaluations will use the UNFPA review tool for Programme-level Evaluation Terms of Reference (see Annex 2), which is based on the Handbook on How to Design and conduct a Country Programme Evaluation at UNFPA. 2 Assessment of CVs of proposed candidates for decentralised programme-level evaluations will use the Review Tool for Assessment of CVs (see Annex 3). The CVs will be anonymised prior to review to ensure impartiality. 3.2 Quality assessment of evaluation reports The Evaluation Branch created the UNFPA evaluation quality assessment system in 2011 to bring UNFPA practice in line with the standards applied by other international organizations and, in particular, by other UN agencies. An evaluation quality assessment tool ( the EQA grid ) was developed and has been in use since The evaluation quality assessment tool was updated in 2013 (see Annex 1) and should be used for the reviews of the final evaluation reports. The UNFPA evaluation quality assessment tool consists of eight assessment criteria addressing the key elements of an evaluation report. When reviewing the report, an assessment level is given for each criterion, and a detailed narrative provides reasoning for the assessment level. The narrative must include specific examples from the report and an explanation of how they justify the rating. Each criterion is associated with a multiplying factor out of 100 which is proportionate to, and illustrates, its relative importance as regards the overall quality of the report. The scores for each assessment level are then calculated, and the assessment level that scores the highest number in total determines the overall quality rating for the report. 3.3 Training The review team will be trained by the UNFPA Evaluation Branch on the use of the quality assurance tools prior to the start of the quality review system to establish a clear understanding of the UNFPA evaluation quality assessment system and ensure consistency throughout the review process. The training will be conducted by the Evaluation Branch via videoconference in the month of June. 2 Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 4

5 4. Process 4.1 Submissions for review All documents (draft TOR for decentralised programme-level evaluations, associated CVs of proposed candidates, and final evaluation reports) will be provided to the review team by the Evaluation Branch. 4.2 Coordination The review process will be coordinated by UNFPA Evaluation Branch staff. All queries about the quality review system should be directed to the Evaluation Branch. 4.3 Review content The number of final evaluation reports to be assessed for quality varies on an annual basis and is dependent on the cycles of individual country programmes and the number of evaluations commissioned by individual organizational units. However, it is anticipated that, on average per year, 20 evaluation reports, and a corresponding number of draft TOR for decentralised programme-level evaluations, will be submitted for quality assessment. The anticipated number of CVs of proposed candidates to be assessed is approximately 2-3 per evaluation. Draft TOR for decentralised programme-level evaluations and final evaluation reports will be submitted for review in English, French or Spanish. A small number will be written in Portuguese. 5. The review team The review team for the quality review system should consist of a highly qualified team with knowledge and experience in evaluation in general, and in evaluation quality assessment in particular. Necessary competencies of the review team include: Relevant experience in managing and/or conducting international development and programmelevel evaluations. Good understanding of the principles and practice of evaluation quality assessment. Excellent analytical skills. Excellent written proficiency amongst the team in English, French and Spanish. The review team should also have the capacity to conduct reviews in Portuguese as required, or access to appropriate personnel. Previous experience in the conduct of external evaluation quality assessment systems will be considered an asset. Experience of evaluation in the United Nations system will be considered an asset. Balance in terms of gender is recommended. The review team should consist of a sufficient number of members to ensure that the stated time limits will be met (see 6.1 Individual Reviews). All review team members should be available at the start of the review system for training with the UNFPA Evaluation Branch. The review team will be led by a Review Team Leader, who should be a senior member of staff with significant knowledge and experience of the management and/or conduct of evaluations. The Review Team Leader will have overall supervisory responsibility for the reviews that are conducted. A Review Team Focal Point will also be identified who will deal with the daily administration of the review system. Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 5

6 6. Deliverables 6.1 Individual reviews Assessment of Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralised programme-level evaluations The review team will review draft TOR for decentralized programme-level evaluations using the UNFPA review tool for Programme-level Evaluation Terms of Reference. The reviewer should i) assess whether all required elements have been addressed in a satisfactory manner and ii) provide comments and practical guidance on how to improve the TOR. Using this review tool, an individual TOR review report should be generated. The reviews will be conducted in the same language as the draft TOR. The anticipated length of the TOR review report is 1-2 pages Assessment of CVs The review team will assess the quality of proposed candidates for decentralized programme-level evaluations using the Review Tool for Assessment of CVs, with reference to the requirements stated in the draft TOR. The review team should complete one Review Tool for each CV Assessment of final evaluation reports The review team will assess final evaluation reports using the UNFPA EQA Grid. The reviewer should assess the final evaluation report against each quality assessment criterion, assign an assessment level, and provide a detailed accompanying narrative. The final overall quality rating for the evaluation report must be calculated and clearly indicated. In addition, a short individual summary in English should developed, with a view to highlighting key weaknesses and strengths of the final evaluation report, as well as any good and/or innovative practices that have been identified during the review of the report. The reviews will be conducted in the same language as the final evaluation report. The anticipated length for the EQA grid is 4-6 pages, and the anticipated length of the summary is 1 page Quality assurance A three-step approach will be used to ensure quality throughout the review system: 1. The Review Team Focal Point will ensure that all reviews are completed as required; 2. The Review Team Leader will be responsible for ensuring the quality of all reviews, including addressing any inconsistencies or discrepancies with the review team; 3. The Evaluation Branch reserves the right to reject any submitted review on the basis of technical reasons and request that it is revised and re-submitted. Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 6

7 6.2 Advisory support services The review team will provide advisory support services related to a UNFPA service desk which UNFPA organisational units can contact with queries related to the design of decentralised programme-level evaluations. Queries will be limited to those areas where there is existing UNFPA guidance for evaluation methodology. All communication will take place between the review team and the Evaluation Branch Administrative Assistant. At the end of the each year, the team should analyse the queries received and i) identify areas where additional guidance is required and ii) develop related knowledge products and guidance. 7. Users The main users of the reviews will be i) the individual organizational units responsible for the evaluations reviewed (headquarters, regional offices, country offices), who will use the reviews in order to improve the quality of their future evaluations, and ii) the Evaluation Branch staff who will use the reviews to identify learning needs within the organisation, as well as areas of excellence. The overall results of the quality review system will also be reported to UNFPA senior managers and the UNFPA Executive Board. 8. Indicative time schedule Bidders will ensure delivery of the evaluations within the schedule below: Assessment of Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralised programme-level evaluations Assessment of CVs Assessment of final evaluation reports Deadline for the completion of all reviews and analysis of queries received NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE REQUEST IS COMMUNICATED TO THE VENDOR AND ALL THE DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED Maximum 1 week Maximum 1 week Maximum 1 week 31st December 2013, 31st December 2014 and 31st December Deliverables and Cost A 3-year Long-Term Agreement will be signed with the chosen vendor until June The estimated annual expenditure is USD 20,000 per year The payment schedule is linked to the delivery of the following deliverables: i) Reviews: payment will be made for the number of completed reviews of draft TOR for country programme evaluations ($200-$300 per review), assessment of CVs ($50-$75 per CV reviewed), and final evaluation reports ($500-$600 per review). ii) Other tasks, including management of the quality review system and advisory support services ($ 2,000 - $ 3,500). Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 7

8 Payment schedule: YEAR/Deliverables Payment for total number of completed reviews to date Payment of fixed fee upon completion of management of quality review system December January December January December January 2016 The contract will be awarded to the firm who will provide UNFPA with the most competitive technical and financial proposals. The invoices shall be sent to Evaluation Branch only after the deliverables have been approved. 10. Specifications of tender: QUOTATION SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION Content of proposals You should submit your quotation in two parts. Technical Proposal, including, but not limited to: i) Methodology and approach in providing the deliverables, in line with the methodology and process stated in the RFQ (maximum 2 pages). ii) Presentation of organizational approach to, and quality assurance for, the tasks to be assigned (maximum 2 pages). iii) Case study. Review of a country programme evaluation report (Annex V) and completion of EQA Grid (Annex I), assessing the report against each quality assessment criterion, assigning an assessment level, and providing a detailed accompanying narrative. iv) Composition of the review team (CVs), including the qualifications and competences as well as suitability of the personnel proposed for the assignment. Specific attention will be paid to the overall composition of the team, roles and responsibilities and to the allocation of person/days for each team member. Price Quotation (Annex IV) Quotations will be evaluated based on the technical proposal (technical evaluation) and the cost of the service (financial evaluation), using the criteria outlined below: Instructions & Evaluation Kindly note that the proposal evaluation and selection of the vendor will be based on: the above terms of reference; your proposal; and, if necessary, clarification interviews with the proposed team members. Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 8

9 Technical evaluation Bidders should secure at least 70% from the total technical scores in order to be technically qualified. The technical evaluation will be conducted based on the criteria provided below. Criteria a) b) Methodology and approach in providing the deliverables Presentation of organizational approach to, and quality assurance for, the tasks to be assigned [A] Maximum points [B] Points attained by the Bidder % % [C] Weighting % c) Completed case study % d) Composition of the review team % Grand Total All Criteria % [B] x [C] = [D] Total Points Scoring Scale Evaluated Criteria Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor No Submission Supporting Evidences Excellent evidence of ability to exceed requirements Good evidence of ability to exceed requirements Satisfactory/acceptable evidence of ability to support requirements Marginally acceptable evidence of ability to support requirements Lack of evidence to demonstrate ability to comply with requirements Information has not been submitted or is unacceptable Points out of Financial Evaluation The financial quotations will be evaluated using the formula provided below: Financial Score = Lowest Bid ($) Bid being Scored ($) X 100 (Maximum Score) Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 9

10 Financial proposals must be submitted in Annex IV quotation form template. Please, note that for evaluation purposes: The proposals will be evaluated as per the total cost proposed for an example of 20 evaluation reports, 20 draft TORs, 50 CVs and the annual fee for the management of the quality review system. For LTA usage unit prices quoted per deliverable will be considered. Total Score The total score for each bidder will be the weighted sum of the technical score and financial score. The maximum total score is 100 points. Total Score = 70% Technical Score + 30% Financial Score The contract will be awarded to the proposal submitter who will secure the highest combined score. If you are interested in submitting a quotation for these items, kindly fill in the attached quotation submission form and send by fax or to the address indicated below no later than Wednesday 29th May, 2013 at 17:00PM Copenhagen Time. Contact Person: Nuria Cardalliaguet Amich Procurement Service Branch UNFPA Tel Nº: amich@unfpa.org Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 10

11 Annex I: Evaluation quality assessment grid EQA Grid OVERALL QUALITY RATING: [Insert overall Assessment Level based on highest score] Summary: Insert summary of assessment (maximum 10 lines) Quality Assessment criteria 1. Structure and Clarity of Reporting To ensure report is user-friendly, comprehensive, logically structured and drafted in accordance with international standards. Checklist of minimum content and sequence required for structure: i) Acronyms; ii) Exec Summary; iii) Introduction; iv) Methodology including Approach and Limitations; v) Context; vi) Findings/Analysis; vii) Conclusions; viii) Recommendations; ix) Transferable Lessons Learned (where applicable) Minimum requirements for Annexes: ToRs; Bibliography; List of interviewees; Methodological instruments used. 2. Executive Summary To provide an overview of the evaluation, written as a stand-alone section and presenting main results of the evaluation. Structure (paragraph equates to half page max): i) Purpose, including intended audience(s); ii) Objectives and Brief description of intervention (1 para); iii) Methodology (1 para); iv) Main Conclusions (1 para); v) Recommendations (1 para). Maximum length 3-4 page. 3. Design and Methodology To provide a clear explanation of the following elements/tools Minimum content and sequence: Explanation of methodological choice, including constraints and limitations; Techniques and Tools for data collection provided in a detailed manner; Triangulation systematically applied throughout the evaluation; Details of participatory stakeholders consultation process are provided; Details on how cross-cutting issues (vulnerable groups, youth, gender, Assessment Levels Very good Good Poor Unsatisfactory Please insert assessment level followed by your main comments.

12 equality) were addressed in the design and the conduct of the evaluation. 4. Reliability of Data To clarify data collection processes and data quality Sources of qualitative and quantitative data have been identified; Credibility of primary (e.g. interviews and focus groups) and secondary (e.g. reports) data established and limitations made explicit; Disaggregated data by gender has been utilized where necessary. 5. Findings and Analysis To ensure sound analysis and credible findings Findings Findings stem from rigorous data analysis; Findings are substantiated by evidence; Findings are presented in a clear manner Analysis Interpretations are based on carefully described assumptions; Contextual factors are identified. Cause and effect links between an intervention and its end results (including unintended results) are explained. 6. Conclusions To assess the validity of conclusions Conclusions are based on credible findings; Conclusions are organized in priority order; Conclusions must convey evaluators unbiased judgment of the intervention. 7. Recommendations To assess the usefulness and clarity of recommendations Recommendations flow logically from conclusions; Recommendations must be strategic, targeted and operationally-feasible; Recommendations must take into account stakeholders consultations whilst remaining impartial; Recommendations should be presented in priority order 8. Meeting Needs To ensure that Evaluation Report responds to requirements (scope & evaluation questions/issues/dac criteria) stated in the ToR (ToR must be annexed to the report).in the event that the ToR do not conform with commonly agreed quality standards, assess if evaluators have highlighted the deficiencies with the ToR. Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 12

13 Quality assessment criteria (and Multiplying factor *) Assessment Levels (*) Very good Good Poor Unsatisfactory 5. Findings and analysis (50) 6. Conclusions (12) 7. Recommendations (12) 8. Meeting needs (12) 3. Design and methodology (5) 4. Reliability of data (5) 1. Structure and clarity of reporting (2) 2. Executive summary (2) TOTAL (*) Insert the multiplying factor associated with the criteria in the corresponding column e.g. - if Finding and Analysis has been assessed as good, please enter the number 50 into the Good column. The Assessment level scoring the higher number of points will determine the overall quality of the Report Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 13

14 Annex II: UNFPA review tool for Programme-Level Evaluation Terms of Reference This review tool is based on the template for Terms of Reference from Handbook on How to Design and conduct a Country Programme Evaluation at UNFPA. 3 The Terms of Reference (TOR) lay out the objectives and scope of the evaluation, the methodology to be used, the composition of the evaluation team, the planned deliverables and timeframe, as well as the intended use of the evaluation. The TOR acts as a guide and point of reference throughout the evaluation, and also serves as a basis for the job descriptions of each of the recruited evaluation team members. The TOR are written by the evaluation manager before starting the evaluation, and should be shared with key stakeholders. Although context specific, the TOR should follow the structure outlined below. The reviewer should ensure that a) the TOR contain all the following elements and b) that the content of all elements is appropriate. The reviewer s comments should provide a detailed explanation of what specific aspects of the TOR need to be improved and provide practical indications of how to achieve this. Aspect of the TOR Details Assessment Recommendations for Action Introduction Explains the subject being evaluated in the context of UNFPA s strategic mandate and relevant Executive Board decisions; Presents a short description of the purpose of the evaluation. Context Presents the subject within the relevant national, regional or global context; Outlines UNFPA s role and programmatic activities in terms of its strategic priorities and specific areas of work. Objectives and scope of the States the objectives of the evaluation and its timeframe. evaluation Indicates the subjects/ issues that will be addressed by the evaluation. Evaluation questions States the time period of activities evaluated Introduces the initial evaluation questions addressing the evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. 3 Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 14

15 Methodology and Approach Evaluation Process Describes the evaluation s intended approach and methodology, including the use of desk review, data collection and analysis methods Outlines the phases and steps of the evaluation: preparatory; design; field; reporting and dissemination and follow-up. Expected outputs Lists the planned outputs of the evaluation, including: the design report (maximum 20 pages) the evaluation report (maximum 60 pages plus annexes) Work plan Indicates the specific activities and milestones of the evaluation and their respective target dates for each of the evaluation s phases, as well as the planned submission date of the report Composition of the Evaluation Team Management and conduct of the evaluation Evaluation Audience Indicates the composition and qualifications of the evaluation team members, including the detailed requirements for: - Team Leader, with overall responsibility for providing guidance and leadership, and in coordinating the draft and final report; - Team Specialists (international or national), who will provide the expertise in the core subject area/s of the evaluation, and be responsible for drafting key parts of the report (for example: on reproductive health, gender and on population issues); - Other members as appropriate. Indicates the roles and responsibilities of the evaluation manager and the evaluation team members, as well as of the reference group. Provides a brief outline of the quality assurance process. Indicates the intended audience for the evaluation and its use, including Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 15

16 Bibliography and resources Annexes Budget and duration responsibilities for such use (the primary users of the evaluations are the decisionmakers within UNFPA and the Executive Board. National counterparts in programme countries, and other development partners are also seen as part of the audience of the reports as appropriate). Indicates the initial list of documents and web resources to be consulted by the evaluation team To include but not limited to: Ethical Code of Conduct for UNEG/UNFPA Evaluation List of Atlas Projects for the period under evaluation Information on main stakeholders by areas of intervention Interview/group discussion protocols per type of stakeholder (e.g. final beneficiaries, government partners, implementing partners; UNFPA staff, etc.) Short outlines of the design and final evaluation reports Evaluation quality assessment template Management Response template Indicative budget, deadline and timetable for deliverables included Terms of Reference for UNFPA Evaluation Quality Review System Page 16

17 Annex III: Review tool for Assessment of CVs Age Gender Nationality Category/Name Personal Information Candidate xx Academic Qualifications Languages Assessment Maximum Criteria points Diploma in social sciences with specialization in xxx 10 Experience conducting evaluations in the field of development for UN organizations or other international 10 organizations Experience in conducting complex programme and/or 20 country level evaluations in the area of xxx Experience in/knowledge of the region 10 Excellent drafting and communication skills in English 20 Total Points 70 Reviewers Comments Comments Score Comments UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22

18 Reproductive Health Criteria Points Diploma in social sciences with specialization in health 10 Experience conducting evaluations in the field of development for UN organizations or other international organizations 10 Experience in conducting complex programme and/or country level evaluations in the area of health 20 Experience in/knowledge of the region 10 Excellent drafting and communication skills in English 20 Total points 70 Population and development Criteria Diploma in social sciences 10 Points Experience conducting evaluations in the field of development for UN organizations or other international organizations 10 Experience in population and development related issues 20 Experience in/knowledge of the region 10 Experience in the assessment of M&E systems 20 Excellent drafting and communication skills in English 20 Total points 90 UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22

19 Gender (national expert) Criteria Points Diploma in social sciences with specialization in health 10 Experience conducting evaluations in the field of development for UN organizations or other international organizations 10 Experience in conducting complex programme and/or country level evaluations in the area of gender 20 Experience in/knowledge of the region and country 10 Excellent drafting and communication skills in English 20 Total points 70 UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22

20 Annex IV: Quotation Form Name of Bidder: Date of Bid: Request for Quotation No: Currency of Bid price: RFQ/HQ/13/008 US Dollars Delivery time (weeks from receipt of order till dispatch): Expiration of Validity of Quotation (The quotation shall be valid for a period of at least 3 months after the Closing date.): Item Deliverables Hourly rate USD Daily rate USD Number of days committe d Total USD for each of the assessme nts (Q) 1. Fees I. Assessment of Draft terms of reference (TOR) for decentralised programmelevel evaluations II. Assessment of CVs III. Assessment of final evaluation reports IV. Other tasks, including annual management of the quality review system and advisory service TOTAL professional fees for the EXAMPLE (Q1*20 + Q2*50+ Q3*20 + Q4) Vendor s Comments: I hereby certify that this company, which I am duly authorized to sign for, accepts the terms and conditions of UNFPA and we will abide by this quotation until it expires. UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22

21 Name and title Date and Place UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22

22 Annex V: CASE STUDY - Evaluation of UNFPA/Cambodia 3rd country programme, (Attached in a separate pdf file) Annex VI: GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT. DE MINIMIS CONTRACTS. (Attached in a separate pdf file) UNFPA/PSB/Bids/Request for Quotation/RFQ/13/ of 22