Introduction

WFD is the UK public body dedicated to supporting democracy around the world. Operating internationally, WFD works with parliaments, political parties, and civil society groups as well as on elections to help make political systems fairer, more inclusive and more accountable. 

We are a problem-solving, practitioner-led organisation that offers:

• High quality and impactful regional and country programmes that directly support the full spectrum of institutions in political systems to develop inclusive political processes, more accountable political systems, protection of rights and freedoms, and more pluralistic societies;
• Specialist analysis, research, and advice to inform UK policymakers on a range of democratic governance issues through our Centre of Expertise; and
• International elections observation on behalf of the UK.  

Aim of this RfQ 

WFD is issuing this RfQ  and we would welcome a proposal from you or your organisaion. This RfQ constitutes a formal request to undertake the services herein described.

 The aim of this assignment is to provide evidence on the VfM of delegation visits and study tours (study tours hereafter) undertaken as part of WFD’s Integrated Security Fund-funded2 Western Balkans: Investing in Democratic Resilience. Broadly, these are programme activities in which Members of Parliament (MPs), parliamentary staff, government officials and/or civil society leaders from WFD partner countries visit other institutions. Study tours are also organised around thematic issues or democratic practices that involve executive bodies, government agencies, civil society or aspects of politics, policy or service delivery that sit outside of the legislature. 

To date, this has included 18 study tours between delegates in the Western Balkans. The full list of study tours can be found in ANNEX I.

As Study Tours have become more frequent in WFD’s programme in the Western Balkans, the question around their effectiveness as a tool, especially from a VfM perspective is gaining on importance. This question has been raised by the Regional Director for ECA, but it has also been noted in the Mid-Term Review that was conducted by ECORYS earlier this year (this will be made available to the successful applicant).

In order to answer this question and share light on how to strengthen the effectiveness of study tours to achieve the best programme outcomes, WFD is commissioning a VfM assessment of study tours undertaken as part of this programme.

Purpose, scope and objectives 

Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to grow WFD’s evidence base on the VfM of study tours as a programme activity to better understand their effectiveness and value, as well as identify the instances in which they achieve the best outcomes.

Scope: The assignment is intended to cover WFD’s Western Balkans Programme between December 2022 and December 2024. The research is not expected to include other regions or programmes.

Objectives: The specific objectives of this research assignment are to:

• To provide an assessment of the VfM of WFD’s study tours undertaken to date;
• To identify the conditions (internal and external to WFD) that are associated with increased effectiveness of study tours;
• To develop a model design(s) of study tours, based on the available evidence of when, where and how they are most effective to yield the best results.

Audience: The primary audiences for the research include WFD’s Western Balkans Programme team, who are understood to be ‘decision-makers’ who may use the research to inform decision-making. The secondary audiences for this research include wider WFD stakeholders including WFD’s Head of Programmes, other programme teams, and the Evidence and Learning Manager. These are audiences who are expected to have an interest in the research, although they are not expected to use the research to immediately inform programme decisions. 

Ultimately, the research will contribute to WFD’s evidence base on how to deliver transformational programming with limited resources.

Approach and methodology

Overview  

In view of the purpose, scope and objectives of this research assignment, the prospective researcher(s) is expected to suggest an overall approach and methodology, including methods for data collection (including the number of data collection rounds), data analysis, data validation, and data dissemination. Quotes are also expected to include a list of draft research questions that will be refined during the inception stage of the research, as well as include a schedule of key tasks and activities.  

We expect proposals to include concrete suggestions for the research methodology that clearly demonstrate impartiality and lack of bias by relying on a cross-section of information sources and a suitable research approach. WFD is open to a wide range of research approaches and methods but expects the proposed methodology to be clearly justified and grounded in the principles of utilisation-focused research. WFD is especially interested to receive quotes that reflect on how the 4Es approach to VfM may be combined with elements of Qualitative Comparative Analysis to help identify the key components and conditions of effective study tours.  

The research is expected to foster limited participation at key stages of the evaluation, including proactively seeking feedback from the primary audience and key stakeholders. Importantly, the researcher(s) is expected to work in partnership with WFD to maximise the transparency and utility of the research process and products. It is therefore expected that the researcher(s) facilitate a virtual validation workshop to present initial findings and recommendations prior to producing final products.

Methodology

As above, WFD welcomes thoughtful reflections and innovations on this RfQ to deliver an appropriate VfM assessment. WFD’s suggestion is that the research consists of two main workstreams: 1) Mapping of the characteristics of study tours; and 2) assessing of success of the different study tours. This is expected to involve the collection and review of both primary and secondary data.

In the first part of mapping of the characteristics, the researcher(s) is expected to complete a thorough desk review of programme and activity documents. This will also require designing a survey to collect data from WFD’s Western Balkans staff, which will serve to identify the different types of study tours organized, how their aims and objectives differ, and the key dynamics and characteristics that can affect the success and effectiveness of the study tours.

In the second part of assessing the success of the different study tours, the researcher(s) may need to rely on a combination of approaches to achieve this. On the one hand, researchers should review programme monitoring data and previous evaluation reports to identify preliminary results. It is then expected that the researcher(s) continue this investigation with the survey and seek additional information at interview with WFD staff and any available third-party stakeholders (e.g., participants of study tours, their peers, and others) to triangulate the impact study tours have had.

The combination of these two workstreams should permit a rating for each individual study tour.

With the above-mentioned data collected, with ratings of different visits assigned, the researcher(s) should be able to cross reference the data to analyse the correlations between the different conditions and characteristics of the study tours and their level of success.

For example, this might include a description of the sample, describing the frequencies of the different conditions or characteristics, while in the second part through cross tabulations and by looking at the characteristics of the visits that have been awarded the highest ratings we can try and make a model of how would ideal study visit look like. As opposite of that, we could also do the similar approach for the least successful visits, and create a model on what does not really work.

It is hoped that this approach could help to develop insights on factors most associated with increased effectiveness, incorporating insights on conditions like: cost, place of visit, target group, timing, and so on.  

Research questions

Below, find a list of provisional research questions that have been developed using the 4Es VfM framework (Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Equity). It is expected that the researcher(s) will review and refine the below list in keeping with the 4Es framework. WFD has included provisional suggestions for available data after each secondary research question, which the researcher(s) is also expected to review and refine.

Main research question

The primary objective of this assessment is to respond to the following main research question:

• How and in what ways does WFD promote VfM of study tours and in what ways could this be further strengthened?

In order to respond to this question, it is expected that the researcher(s) answer the following secondary questions:

Economy

Objective: to identify the key costs of planning study tours, how and why these change, and cost-saving measures used.

Questions:

• What is the total cost per study tour participant? How does this vary by geography, stakeholder type, travel, accommodation, timing, duration, and other relevant logistical concerns? (data will be provided by WFD teams from budget and activity reports)
• What resources (human, time, funding) are required to implement a study tour? How does this differ between the UK and other regions? What are the resource implications for WFD’s partners? (data: staff survey, interviews, budget reports)
• To what extent is WFD maximising the use of cost-effective/-saving options (including bulk and early travel booking, appropriate accommodation, travel and subsistence options; frameworks and rates, and other relevant factors)? (data: booking confirmations/receipts, staff survey, interviews).

Efficiency

Objective: to assess the extent to which resources used align with programme objectives and were well-used and oriented to deliver outputs and outcomes. 

Questions:

• To what extent do activities align with programme outputs and the objectives of the study tour? (data: cost-to-objective map including study tour plans, programme theories of change, staff interviews)
• To what extent do participants find study tours relevant to their role, political context and their political agency? (data: participant surveys and interviews)
• How and in what ways does WFD’s relationship and partnership with institutions deliver additional value (including access to expertise, venue use, equipment, etc.)? (data: activity schedules/agenda, partner interviews)

Effectiveness

Objective: assess to what extent study tours achieve their intended outcomes.

Questions:

• What specific skills, knowledge, relationships or incentives do participants identify as the most valuable takeaways from study tours? (data: participant surveys and interviews)
• How have study tour participants applied the skills, knowledge, relationships, or incentives in their roles? What have been the main barriers? (data: participant survey and interviews, EIH data)
• Are there any concrete examples of changes to processes, policies or procedures to which the study tour is reported to have contributed? To what extent are these likely to be sustained into the longer term? (data: staff and participant interviews, parliamentary/institutional records)
• To what extent have study tours proved a valuable way to build political trust and act as an incentive for achieving wider programme objectives? (data: theory of change, participant interviews, staff interviews)
• Did study tours strengthen collaboration between the host and visiting delegations? (data: host and participant interviews)
• Which factors, types of study tour activities and follow-up mechanisms are most associated with delivering progress towards outputs and outcomes? (data: theories of change, staff and participant survey and interviews)

Equity

Objective: ensure study tours are selecting and engaging participants equitably to ensure sufficient distribution of benefits.

Questions:

• To what extent does the selection process for participants ensure appropriate participants to achieve tour and programme objectives, including gender balance and marginalised/under-represented voices? (data: theories of change, participant lists, staff interviews)
• Were all participants included and engaged in study tour activities? Were any activities selective and why? (data: participant and staff surveys and interviews) 

Ethical considerations and risk mitigations

Regardless of the approach and methodology chosen, proposals are expected to demonstrate their understanding of the sensitivities of the type of work WFD carries out and clearly set out how the project will abide by international ethical standards. 

Proposals are expected to outline their approach to potential risks and potential mitigation strategies by adapting the following table (add rows as appropriate):

Research logistics

Timeline

The timeline for the research is 24 February to 31 March 2025, by which all deliverables must be complete.

Expected deliverables

Below, find the expected deliverables and provisional dates for their completion: 

• Inception report 05.03.2025 – this should be a short (no longer than 10-pages) document summarising the research approach, research questions and data collection tools (including a completed survey design). It should also identify the key risks envisaged and propose the mitigations that will be followed.
• Preliminary findings presentation (mid-March) – this should present initial findings and recommendations prior to producing final products.
• Final report (31 March) – the final report should be no longer than 20 pages (excluding annexes), in line with the requirements of this RfQ.

Travel and working arrangements

It is expected that the researcher(s) will work virtually, with little to no travel expected.

Reporting

It is expected that the successful candidate will throughout the project hold regular check-ins with WFD. The exact timing and nature of these will be agreed in partnership with the successful applicant.

Budget and payment schedule

The approximate budget for the research is £5000. Below, find the provisional payment schedule.

• 20% upon acceptance of the inception report
• 20% upon acceptance of the preliminary findings presentation
• 20% of fee payable upon acceptance of the draft report
• 40% of fee payable upon acceptance of the final report  

Application process

General

All proposals should be submitted by 18 February 2025, 23:59 in writing, must comply with the requirements of this RfQ, and must include the information requested in the RfQ Requirements below.

The proposal should be sent electronically and addressed to Damir Neziri at damir.neziri@wfd.org. The same email address should be used for any questions related to this RfQ.

By submitting a proposal, you agree to comply with WFD’s standard terms and conditions for tendering and key policies, which are found here, and WFD’s Code of Conduct.

Questions related to this RfQ

Questions related to this RfQ should be expressed in writing to the email address listed above by 14 February 2025.

Equal opportunity

Should any supplier raise a question that is of general interest, WFD reserves the right to circulate questions and answers to other respondents, either via WFD’s website or by email. In this event, WFD will contact all potential bidders who have expressed interest with the contact email listed above; anonymity will be maintained. Therefore, potential applicants are strongly encouraged to express interest via email prior to submitting their bid. 

RfQ timeline

Please note the dates are indicative and subject to change.

RfQ requirements

All proposals must include:

A narrative proposal, outlining the proposed methodology and project plan for the research. Narrative proposals should not be longer than 7 pages (excluding CVs and annexes) and include the following sections: 

• Introduction (up to 1 page): this should introduce the applicant(s) and set out the researcher’s/s’ understanding of the assignment, as well as clearly identify any departure from the terms of reference;
• Approach and methodology (up to 4 pages): this should present and justify the research approach and methods, whilst also clearly noting any limitations. Proposals should clearly describe how they will foster participation during the research and specify draft research questions and approach to ensuring quality.
• Research organisation (up to 2 pages): this should clearly address ethics, risks and quality assurance. Proposals should identify potential ethical, technical and practical risks to the research and propose mitigations using the table included above. This section should include a schedule of key tasks and activities.
• Curriculum vitae (CVs) for the consultant(s), and a brief organisational profile (if applicable), highlighting relevant research experience. CVs should not be longer than three pages. 

A financial proposal, including:

• Full breakdown time and cost estimates for the proposed solution in GBP, including any daily rate to be applied.
• Separate accounting of VAT and/or any other applicable tax, duty, or charge.
• Detailing of any discount applied in view of WFD’s not-for-profit status.

Annexes must include:

Confirmation of acceptance of General Terms and Conditions of Tendering. By submitting a proposal, you confirm acceptance to WFD’s General Terms and Conditions for Tendering which can be found on our website WFD, General Terms and Conditions for Tendering | Westminster Foundation for Democracy. All proposals should include a signed copy of the Confirmation of Compliance form.  

References:  

• If the expert is currently registered with WFD’s Expert Roster, the expert should refer to this in the proposal and no further information is required. 
• If the expert is not currently registered with the Expert Roster, the expert should include details of at least three references relating to similar expert services provided in the last three years. 

Other information: If there is additional information that has not been requested in the RfQ but is relevant to your bid, please include that information as a separate attachment and explain its relevance to this RfQ. 

Assessment criteria

WFD does not provide a mathematical formula by which proposals will be assessed, but the procurement committee will usually consider the following criteria to assess the quality, relevance and value of all responses:

• Overall quality of the proposal
• Service offer and solution fit to the specifications of this RfQ
• Quality of the technical approach and methodology
• Organisation of the research
• Qualifications, experience and competence
•  Value for money and pricing factors
• The researcher(s) shall have the following expertise and qualification:  

Essential criteria

• The Team Leader or Lead Consultant must have led a minimum of 2 similar research projects before, including a VfM component, with similarities in size, complexity and thematic area. It is expected they have over 10 years’ experience in the field of research and/or evaluation within international development, political science or a related field, including experience working with international organisations and donors.
• The Team Leader or Lead Consultant should have at least a Master’s degree in a relevant field (such as Public Policy, International Development, Development Economics/Planning, Economics, International Relations or Diplomacy). Where this is not met, WFD may accept a sufficient level of professional experience in alternative.
• The researcher(s) should possess extensive expertise, knowledge, and experience in the field of capacity building, value-for-money assessments, and democracy support generally.
• The researcher(s) must demonstrate detailed knowledge of democracy in the Western Balkans, either from lived experience (such as being a national or having extended stays in the region) or extensive research experience in the Western Balkans.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills in English language

Desirable criteria

• Verbal proficiency of the languages spoken in the Western Balkans (Albanian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Montenegrin and Serbian) will be considered an asset

ANNEX I: LIST OF STUDY VISITS