1. Context and Background:
The Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) is a private, not-for-profit, non-denominational, international development agency established in 1967. It seeks sustainable solutions to long-term problems of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and ill-health with a special emphasis on rural communities in mountainous and other resource poor regions, primarily in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Its main areas of focus are education, health, rural development, environment and strengthening civil society.
Accelerate Prosperity (AP) is an initiative of the AKDN in Central and South Asia, offering a formal structure to support and catalyze sustainable small and growing businesses and startups. Started in 2016 as a joint initiative of the AKF and the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development’s Industrial Promotion Services (AKFED’s IPS), AP aims to inspire entrepreneurship, facilitate innovative business models, coach promising entrepreneurs, create networks and mentorship opportunities and accelerate business growth. Accelerate Prosperity implements various projects across Central and South Asia from multiple donors.
AKF Pakistan would like to conduct an endline assessment of the Accelerate Prosperity Central and South Asia (AP Asia) project funded by the European Union (EU). The assessment will study the performance of the project from its inception in 2020 and gather insights into results achieved to date. The assessment will be wrapped up towards the end of January 2025.


2. Project Background | EU Funded Accelerate Prosperity in Central & South Asia (AP Asia)
The AP Asia project is a 60-month project funded by European Union, and implemented by AKF, providing support to the development of startups and SGBs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, to contribute toward enhancing equitable economic well-being of women and men in the rural settings to enable self-employment, especially for women and youth in supported enterprises.
The overall objective of this Action was to contribute to the enhanced equitable economic wellbeing of women and men in rural Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.
The specific objective of this Action was to improve self-employment and employment of women and men in supported enterprises. The Action intended to achieve this through two intermediate outcomes:
i Oc1) Increased growth of supported enterprises.
i Oc2) Increased trade between supported enterprises, producers and clients in targeted areas. The creation of new start-up enterprises, the growth of small businesses, and a focus on youth and women led ventures will be critical.

3. Objectives and Scope
The purpose of the endline evaluation/final project evaluation is to collect and analyze data that will establish the recommendations/impact/outcome and endline values of outcome level indicators of the project.
The assessment will:


4. Methodology
The consulting firm is recommended to conduct the Endline Evaluation using the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria. The evaluation should be structured around the five key criteria: Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability. The firm should apply these criteria to comprehensively evaluate the outcomes and merit of the AP Asia project, ensuring alignment with international best practices in evaluation. Read more about the OECD DAC evaluation criteria here.
The contracted firm must submit a set of proposed key questions during the inception phase. These questions should be in line with the AP Asia Description of Action (Do A) and objectives of the intervention. A set of questions has been attached in Annex A for further clarity.
The consulting firm is expected to propose a viable assessment approach, design and methodology, along with a detailed justification for recommending the said methodology in their proposal. AKF suggest using a mix of quantitative and qualitative primary data collected from key stakeholders, incubates, entrepreneurs and graduated companies. The assessment should involve self-completed questionnaires (SCQs), on-site face-to-face interviews, and group discussions with project recipients and non-recipients of AP Asia services.
AKF is preempting some key aspects of the methodology that the selected firm will be expected to carry out, which are as follows:
i. KIIs with key stakeholders: The consultant should conduct KIIs with key program stakeholders including the Executive Director, Country Directors, Partner Agencies, project teams, and others.
ii. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Considering the fairly short timeline of the assignment, it is advised that the firm conducts FGDs in each country of implementation to gain insights from the entrepreneurs and businesses the project worked with, other entrepreneurship support organizations who may have benefitted from the project, lead firms, investors and any other relevant key stakeholders.
iii. Case studies: The consultant should document/extract case studies highlighting the impact of AP Asia, highlighting best practices, and lessons learned.
iv. Impact Assessment Results: Cross-reference findings from the previous impact assessment with project-specific outcomes.

5. Deliverables
Below is the list of deliverables to be submitted by the consultant(s).
Upon the review of available documents and an initial discussion with the project team, the consultant should submit an inception report - along with a detailed methodology and work plan - and deliver a presentation to the Project Management Unit (PMU). The inception report and presentation will:

• Describe the conceptual framework that will be used to undertake this study.
• Explain the methodology proposed with changes as required.
• Set out in detail the data required to answer the key questions, data sources by a specific question, data collection methods, sampling, and selection criteria of respondents for interviews, surveys, and FGDs.
  • Detail the work plan for the assessment, indicating its phases, key deliverables, and milestones.
  • List the key stakeholders to be interviewed and the tools to be used for interviews and discussions.
    • Present a detailed and tentative outline / table of contents for the final Endline Assessment report.
    • Prior to the formulation of a first draft of the Endline Assessment Report, the consultant should provide a briefing document and formal presentation of initial findings of the Assessment to the AP Asia team. This presentation should provide the AP Asia Team with an understanding of the results of the Key Questions posed under the Assessment and provide an opportunity for the AP Asia team to provide feedback on the parameters of the assessment prior to report drafting stage. The firm will be required to share a detailed outline of the report to showcase the expected structure and flow of its content prior to commencing work on the actual draft.
    • The consultant should provide the first draft of the Endline Assessment Report to the AP Asia team following the agreed schedule. The draft will be improved by incorporating AP Asia’s management team’s comments and input. The AP Asia’s management team holds the responsibility of providing the first round of approval on this draft. This updated draft report will be shared with relevant stakeholders including the European Union (EU) and the firm will be obligated to incorporate their feedback into the final draft, which will then be approved by the EU.
    • The consultant(s) will submit the final report, incorporating and responding to all comments from AP, EU and other key stakeholders.
    • The consultant should also hand over the complete dataset including filled questionnaires and transcripts of the interviews, survey results, to AP at the end of the assignment.
    • The consultant will prepare a Power Point of the findings from the final Report and present the findings to AP leadership (including the Executive Committee).

6. Duration, Implementation Arrangements, and Work plan
The Endline Assessment must be carried out by a consultant within 60 days, preferably starting no later than Monday, November 18th, 2024, and handing over the final AP and EU approved Endline Assessment report and slide deck by Friday, January 31st, 2025. The first draft of the report must be submitted to AP by Monday, January 6th, 2025, the exact schedule/plan of the consultancy will be agreed upon with the consultant before the signing of the contract. However, the most suitable firm for this assessment MUST have the capacity to run these assessment activities simultaneously including HR capacity to assign people to data collection, translation, analysis, report writing, and such.


The consulting firm will be working in close collaboration with the AP Asia Project Management Unit (PMU) including the PMU Manager and the Regional MERL Manager under the Project Management Unit (PMU). The PMU will progressively provide feedback on the assessment to ensure it’s in line with donor expectations and ensures the key objectives of the assessment.

7. Budget and Payment
AP is open to discussing with the consultants the tasks that could be completed within the given budget. Payment to the consultant will be made based on the following schedule.


8. Consultant(s)/Firms Experience and Qualification
The Endline Assessment is open to consulting firms only. The firms must meet the following criteria.

• Over 10 years’ experience in conducting Endline Assessments and Evaluations in Central and South Asia, preferably with experience conducting these types of evaluations for the EU.
• Proven experience in assessing entrepreneurship programs in Central and South Asia.
• Should consist of team members who are subject matter experts with a postgraduate degree in business, research, economics, or other relevant fields.
• Extensive conceptual and methodological skills and experience in quantitative and qualitative assessments, including evaluation designs, participatory and theory-based approaches, and quantitative and qualitative methods.
• Prior work experience in Central and South Asia with proven understanding of the entrepreneurship context in the region.
• Should have excellent facilitation, coordination, negotiation, and English writing skills especially report writing.
• Fluency in regional languages where AP Asia is working will be an advantage (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). Alternatively, the firm must have translators onboard to readily support it with interviews, FGDs, and such where communication skills in the local language will be required. The firm should also have access to reliable technological tools or human resources for translations of the survey tool, interview and FGD instrument, and later the qualitative primary data from the interviews and FGDs, as needed.
• The firm must also have HR capacity to run different research activities for the assessment simultaneously.

9. Selection Criteria
The proposal will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Conceptual framework and methodology proposed in the proposal and responsiveness of the proposal to the Terms of Reference (To Rs).
• Evaluation questions as per the DOA of AP Asia Project
  • Relevant professional experience of the consulting firm demonstrated through CVs of the team.
  • Organizational profile with 10 years or more of relevant experience
  • Quality and relevance of sample evaluation reports (at least two reports from the last five years)
  • Financial Quote

Note: On-ground presence in Central & South Asia will be considered an advantage.

Annex A
Key Objectives and Key Evaluation questions
Coherence: (Coherence is the measure of the compatibility of the project with other interventions in the targeted location and sector.)
Objectives
Questions:

• How well does the AP Asia project align with and support national development strategies and policies in the four target countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan) aimed at promoting rural economic growth, enterprise development, and gender equality?

• To what extent does the project coordinate with and complement other donor-funded programs and initiatives implemented by AKF focused on economic development, employment generation, and gender equity in the region and beyond? Are there any overlaps or synergies?

• To what extent did the project support or align with local and regional trade policies or initiatives aimed at fostering cross-border trade and economic collaboration among enterprises in the target countries?

• Does the project’s implementation avoid conflicts or contradictions with other ongoing programs in the region, particularly those aimed at economic development, rural enterprise growth, and employment creation?

• How effectively did the project build partnerships and leverage existing networks of private sector, governmental, and non-governmental organizations to ensure coherent and unified efforts toward enterprise growth and self-employment in rural areas?

• Were there any coordination challenges between the AP Asia project and other initiatives in the region? If so, how were these challenges addressed to maintain coherence across the different programs?

• How does the project align with broader international initiatives or policies?

• What measures were taken to avoid overlap or duplication with other projects in the same sector?

• How effectively has the donor’s role and contribution been communicated to stakeholders associated with the action?

Relevance/Appropriateness: Relevance/ appropriateness: (The extent to which the project objectives and design respond to the beneficiaries’, country needs, policies, and priorities and continue to do so if circumstances change).
Objectives:
Questions:

• Does the program’s logic and theory of change effectively support the project’s objectives, such as promoting equitable economic well-being and increasing employment opportunities for women and youth in rural areas?
• Were the targets set by the AP Asia project, such as the growth of supported enterprises and increased trade, realistic given the socio-economic conditions in the four target countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan)?
• Do the project’s objectives reflect the actual economic needs of the target groups, including women, youth, and rural communities, in the host countries? How well do they align with the local priorities and policies?
• Did the planning and implementation of interventions account for local contexts, including (a) conducting adequate needs assessments, and (b) understanding and supporting the livelihoods, capacities, and socio-economic conditions of the target populations?
• Did the project team and local partners (e.g., local governments, business centers, community leaders) have the necessary institutional capacity, including staffing, local knowledge, and experience, to effectively implement the project’s objectives and respond to the evolving needs of the communities?
• To what extent did the community and key stakeholders (e.g., women-led enterprises, youth groups, local business associations) participate in the planning and implementation of the project interventions? Were their insights integrated into the project design?
• Did the AP Asia project effectively respond to the needs and priorities of the target groups, including addressing gender-specific economic barriers and fostering youth employment, while also adapting to any changes in circumstances or needs over the project’s 60-month timeline?
• To what extent are the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) being integrated in the initiative?
• How have changing needs or external factors influenced the project’s relevance over time?
• Were beneficiaries involved in the design process to ensure the project’s relevance to their needs?

Effectiveness: (A measure of the extent to which the project achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups.)
Objectives:
Questions:

• Did the project’s interventions lead to significant changes in the economic status of the target beneficiaries, particularly women and youth in rural settings? Were there observable improvements in income, employment, or enterprise growth?

- To what extent did the project’s interventions, such as business training, mentorship, and financial support, directly contribute to the growth of women- and youth-led ventures? Were these interventions effective in overcoming barriers to economic participation for these groups?

• To what extent did the programme achieve its outputs, outcome and goals? Following are the key outcome level indicators to assess:

Intermediate Outcome 1 (i OC1): Increased growth of supported enterprises
1.1: Percentage of supported enterprises that are profitable, over the last 12 months and cumulatively over the Action (by country, enterprises’ sector, sex and age of owner, and years supported)
1.2: Amount (in EUR) of co-financing secured by supported enterprises within three years of being supported (by country, amount, source, sex and age of owner)
1.3: Percentage of entrepreneurs having positive perceptions about their business’s performance as a result of coaching and mentorship (disaggregated by sex, country, age, location)

• To what extent has the visibility of the donor contributed to achieving the project’s objectives?

Intermediate Outcome 2 (i OC2): Increased trade between supported enterprises, producers and clients in targeted areas.
2.1 : Number of rural producers reached by supported enterprises as a result of the Action (by country, type of good/service, sex, region)
2.2 : Number of clients reached by supported enterprises as a result of the Action (by country, type of good/service, sex, region)
2.3: Percentage of supported enterprises that have traded across borders, of those that receive AP investments or are supported by SPCE with regional networking events over the last 12 months (by country, sector, male/female/youth ownership)
In addition to this, AKF will be interested in identifying additional indicators - such as creation of sustainable jobs, Sector competitiveness of graduated companies, commercialization of innovative business models, products, processes, or services, businesses involved in promoting green products and services supported under the intervention - to create a broader more comprehensive analysis on the interventions contribution.
Efficiency: (The measure of the extent to which the project delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way).
Objective:
Questions:

• To what extent did the AP Asia project use its financial and human resources efficiently to achieve its objectives of enterprise growth, employment creation, and trade facilitation in rural areas? Were the resources allocated appropriately across the four countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan)?

• Were the project’s interventions cost-effective in achieving the desired outcomes, such as increased enterprise growth, self-employment opportunities, and enhanced trade? Did the benefits of the interventions justify the costs?

• Were there any areas where the project could have reduced costs without compromising quality or results? Were there alternative approaches that could have achieved similar outcomes at a lower cost?

• Was the project delivered on time and within budget, and were any deviations from the plan managed effectively to maintain efficiency

Impact:( The extent to which the project has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects).
Objectives:
Questions:

• What were the positive and negative, intended and unintended, changes produced by the project?

• What unforeseen positive or negative impacts (if any) have resulted from the project’s interventions, and how have these affected the local economic or social conditions in the target regions?

• Did the AP Asia project lead to systemic changes in the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the target countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan), such as better access to markets, improved business networks, or increased support for start-ups and SGBs?

• To what extent has the project influenced broader policy or systemic change?

Sustainability: (The extent to which the net benefits of the project continue or are likely to continue).
Objectives:


Questions:

• To what extent are the benefits of the AP Asia project, such as enterprise growth, self-employment, and increased trade, likely to be sustained beyond the project’s completion?

• Have the project’s interventions (e.g., training, capacity building, business development services) equipped women, youth, and rural entrepreneurs with the skills and resources necessary to continue growing their businesses without external support?

• What mechanisms (e.g., partnerships, business networks, access to finance, market linkages) have been put in place to ensure the ongoing success of enterprises supported by the project? Are these mechanisms sustainable over time?

• To what extent has the project built local ownership and capacity among stakeholders (e.g., local governments, business associations, educational institutions) to sustain the impacts of the project, particularly in promoting economic well-being and enterprise development?

• How well are local institutions equipped to maintain and expand the project’s impact?

Additionally, AKFP aims to assess the extent to which the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) were integrated in the AP Asia activities.

Apply By:

Proposal Submission
Email applications should be forwarded to the Accelerate Prosperity at procurement_appk@akdn.org Wednesday , October 23, 2024,
The application should comprise:
For questions regarding the assignment please reach out to Ambareen Baig at ambareen.baig@akdn.org