Consultant – Demand Stimulation Study 63 views1 applications

Assessment of Demand Stimulation Strategy in Extension Services Delivery in Nigeria: A case study of the USAID funded Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Activity.

1.0 Background.

The USAID Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Activity (the “Extension Activity”) was designed to enhance the productivity, income, and nutritional status of 2 million smallholder farmers (SHFs) in seven states of Nigeria namely Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger states. The Extension Activity partners with micro, small, and medium Enterprises (MSMEs) to introduce the most impactful practices (MIPs) and provide extension messaging to smallholder farmers (SHFs). The Extension Activity focuses on introducing and scaling up proven technologies, and improving service delivery within the aquaculture, cowpea, maize, rice, and soya bean value chains.

The Extension Activity proposed partner MSMEs deliver extension services to smallholder farmers as direct service or an embedded service at a cost to the farmers. The Extension Activity introduced several farmer-centric strategies including: the commercialization of MIPs to create value for smallholder farmers, the demand stimulation strategy, the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for extension service delivery among others.

The demand stimulation strategy (thereafter called demand stimulation) is an enterprise/marketing approach to extension that bundles and disseminates information on improved agricultural practices and services including the use of MIPs, application of digital tools in agriculture, application of climate smart technologies, and nutrition-sensitive practices. A demand stimulation event entails partner MSMEs visiting farming clusters to share extension messages and sell products and services to the farmers. In some cases, partner MSMEs establish demonstration plots to cluster farmers and facilitate penetration of the MIPs and early adoption of the new technologies in the farming communities.

In essence, demand stimulation is expected to enable partner MSMEs increase access to agricultural information, inputs and services for farmers by leveraging the relationships of the MSMEs with the farming communities in their vicinity. The marketing model is designed to help partner MSMEs resolve production, processing and marketing constraints for smallholder farmers who live in remote areas and are disconnected from inputs and services provision from public extension agents. Apart from providing extension messaging on new technologies and good nutrition, the MSMEs also use the demand stimulation platform to provide input credit to smallholder farmers. Through demand stimulation, it is expected that partner MSMEs would directly engage farmers in their farming clusters and built networks of rural farmers to deliver customized services to their clients (farmers) base.

In 2022, the first year of introducing the demand stimulation input marketing and extension dissemination model, partner MSMEs reached 25,902 (FY22Q2-Q4) smallholder farmers with extension messaging on MIPs and new technologies. However, the rapid inflation and rising cost of business occasioned by the crisis in Ukraine and other macroeconomic factors increased MSMEs’ operational costs and risks of investing in this newly introduced marketing and promotion strategy and created a slag in scaling the approach. In response, the Extension Activity applied the partnership innovation fund (PIF) to co-invest with partner 37 MSMEs who did well with the extension model. The PIF support, which is not a grant, was to enable Extension Activity leverage MSMEs resources and buy-down the increasing operational cost that are associated with the model to enable them to scale extension services to more farmers . With the PIF support, the MSMEs reached 568,984 smallholder farmers, based on data shared with the Extension Activity by partner MSMEs, as supported firms would have reached more farmers than documented. The farmers received various extension messaging and were exposed to digital technologies used in agriculture . However, some MSMEs continued to invest independently in demand stimulation, even without the PIF support, hence the need for this study.

2.0 Purpose of the Evaluation.

The purpose of the study is to assess if demand stimulation is an effective and scalable approach for extension service delivery. The study will assess:

1. The outcomes of demand stimulation on extension service delivery, determining the effect of this strategy in promoting new and improved technologies to smallholder farmers.
2. The participation and the benefits obtained by women and youth in the implementation of demand stimulation
3. The replicability and scalability of this strategy in extension service delivery, determining if this strategy can be recommended for wider adoption.
4. The possible continuation of the implementation of this strategy after the cessation of the technical support provided by the Extension Activity.

3.0 Research Questions.

The evaluation study in assessing the effectiveness and scalability of demand stimulation as an extension service delivery approach will seek to answer specific research questions such as:

1. Did demand stimulation help in any way in supporting the delivery of extension services? If yes, how did demand stimulation help in supporting the delivery of extension services? If yes, what are the factors to show that demand stimulation helped in supporting the delivery of extension services? If yes, to what extent did demand stimulation help in supporting the delivery of extension services?
2. What are the intended and unintended consequences of adopting demand stimulation for delivery of extension services?
3. Did demand stimulation service providers intentionally include women and youth as recipients of services? If yes, to what extent did demand service providers plan the inclusion of women and youth as recipients of services?
4. Did access to agricultural information, inputs and services increase for women as a result of demand stimulation, especially compared to men? If yes, to what extent did access to agricultural information, inputs and services increase for women through demand stimulation, especially compared to men?
5. Did demand stimulation encourage adoption of promoted practices and technologies by women, especially compared to men? If yes, to what extent did demand stimulation encourage adoption of promoted practices and technologies by women, especially compared to men? If yes, to what extent did women adopt promoted practices and technologies, especially compared to men?
6. Did access to agricultural information, inputs and services increase for youth as a result of demand stimulation, especially compared to non-youth? If yes, to what extent did access to agricultural information, input and services increase for youth through demand stimulation, especially compared to non-youth?
7. Did demand stimulation encourage adoption of promoted practices and technologies by youth, especially compared to non-youth? If yes, to what extent did demand stimulation encourage adoption of promoted practices and technologies by youth, especially compared to non-youth? If yes, to what extent did youth adopt promoted practices and technologies, especially compared to non-youth?
8. As a woman-led MSME, are there unique challenges faced in the implementation of demand stimulation? If yes, enumerate the unique challenges faced in the implementation of demand stimulation?
9. As a youth-led MSME, are there unique challenges faced in the implementation of demand stimulation? If yes, enumerate the unique challenges faced in the implementation of demand stimulation?
10. Do service providers stay within their original catchment area or go beyond their catchment in offering services? Why should service providers (MSMEs) stay within their original catchment area or go beyond their catchment area in offering services?
11. Is the PIF the only incentive for service providers to network more farmers to patronize their inputs and extension services? Are there other incentives that could enable the MSMEs to go network more farmers for their marketing of extension services?
12. Is the PIF the only incentive for service providers (MSMEs) to go beyond their original catchment area to offer services to farmers? Are there other incentives for service providers (MSMEs) that could enable them to go beyond their original catchment area to offer services to farmers?
13. What other incentives, besides cash, will make service providers implement demand stimulation in extension service delivery either within or outside their immediate areas of business operation?
14. To what extent have service providers (MSMEs) taken ownership in implementing demand stimulation in extension service delivery?
15. To what extent have service providers planned the continuation of the implementation of demand stimulation after the cessation of the technical support provided by the Extension Activity?
16. Were there challenges in the implementation of demand stimulation? If yes, what are the challenges faced in the implementation of demand stimulation?

4.0 Purpose of the Evaluation.

To answer the research questions enumerated above, the Extension Activity expects that the evaluation proposal will adopt a qualitative approach in evidence gathering from partner MSMEs. The evaluation consultant will propose cost effective research methods to respond to research questions outlined in an evaluation plan. An evaluation plan outline including significance and rationale, study design and methodology, including sampling strategy, and data analysis plan, should be proposed as part of the technical proposal.

The selected research consultant will be responsible for developing the data collection protocols for interviews of partner MSMEs. The following methods and tools should be used in the evaluation design:

• Document review. The assessment team will find it useful to consult a broad range of program documents related to the implementation of demand stimulation to be provided by Winrock.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). KIIs are suggested to be conducted with key stakeholders, including:
  • Partners MSMEs that benefitted from the PIF support in implementing demand stimulation
  • Partner MSMEs that did not benefit from the PIF support in implementing demand stimulation.
  • Partner MSMEs that did not implement demand stimulation.

5.0 Sample and setting.

The Extension Activity expects the evaluation consultant will adopt a mix of census and purposive sampling for this study. The 37 MSMEs that benefitted from the PIF support in implementing the demand stimulation strategy will be purposively selected, while 37 MSMEs that did not benefit from the PIF support in implementing the demand stimulation strategy and 37 MSMEs that did not implement the demand stimulation strategy will be purposively selected from the seven states in the Extension Activity’s zone of influence.

Data collection will be conducted in seven states namely Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger states where the Extension Activity is implementing. The consultant must propose a sampling strategy that will result in a sample that is qualitatively representative of the entire project implementation. The partner MSMEs characteristics – size, locations, service provision and commodities engaged in, derivable from the Extension Activity database, will be shared with the consultant to help in selecting a qualitatively representative sample.

Data collection protocols and tools, method for data entry and analysis should be designed in collaboration with Extension Activity’s management and the Winrock home office evaluation technical lead. The evaluation consultant is required to conduct data collection using transcripts, recordings and qualitative data analysis software to facilitate automation of data processing and minimize human error.

6.0 Roles and Responsibilities.

The evaluation consultant will implement some or all the following activities, depending on the final evaluation design:

• Collect data with inclusion and gender perspective including collection of socio- demographic data and disaggregation by gender and age. The evaluation consultant is responsible for creating and enabling environment for female and male, youth and adult participation
• Review project documents
• In collaboration with the Extension Activity, develop a detailed evaluation plan including evaluation study design, sampling protocols, guiding questions etc.) and timeline for the execution of the evaluation tasks (preferably a Gantt chart with work breakdown structure), and a final report structure outline
• Pilot all interview tools
• Hire a field team, preferably recruiting experienced staff with similar research exercises in country
• Prepare a field manual for training, then train interviewers.
• Arrange all fieldwork logistics
• Oversee interviews and any required data entry or transcription, using appropriate quality control measures and supervision
• Consolidate study data into a dataset, exportable into an easily accessible and editable format, like a text file, MS Word document, or MS Excel spreadsheet . Ensure anonymity of data, human subject research concerns (Do No Harm – dignity, right, safety, and privacy concerns), and confidentiality.
• Present initial findings and recommendations (drawn from their own conclusion, free from organizational or political pressure) to Extension Activity’s MEL team and senior management team, and subsequently to USAID for feedback.
• Prepare a draft report.
• Prepare a revised report that incorporates the feedback provided by the Extension Activity team.
• Submit a final report in English to Winrock.
• Submit datasets to Extension Activity.
• Submit to Extension Activity all the documents related to the study (interview transcriptions, coded qualitative (interview/focus group) data, training manual, fieldwork logs, etc.)
• Hold weekly status calls with Extension Activity MEL team and senior management team.
• Prepare a research brief on any identified ethical issues and how they were addressed.
• Prepare a 2-3-page stand-alone brief describing the evaluation design, key findings and other relevant considerations that will serve to inform any interested stakeholders of the final evaluation and should be written in language easy to understand by non-evaluators and with appropriate graphics and tables.
• Presentation of key findings delivered to Extension Activity Field Office team and Winrock Home Office team.

The Extension Activity will*:*

• Provide access to program documents and monitoring database
• Ensure that the contractor receives timely feedback on research design, data collection tools, sampling strategy and other methodological components.
• Provide a complete list of:
  • Partners MSMEs that benefitted from the PIF support in implementing demand stimulation
  • Partner MSMEs that did not benefit from the PIF support in implementing demand stimulation.
  • Partner MSMEs that did not implement demand stimulation.

7.0 General instructions to offerors.

Offerors wishing to respond to this ToR must submit proposals in English in accordance with the following instructions. Offerors must review all instructions and specifications contained in the ToR. Failure to do so will be at the offeror’s risk. Issuance of this ToR in no way obligates Winrock to award a consultancy agreement. Offerors will not be reimbursed for any costs associated with preparation of submission of their proposal. Winrock shall in no case be responsible or liable for these costs.

Submission to Winrock of a proposal in response to this ToR constitute an offer and indicates the offeror’s agreement to the terms and conditions of this ToR and any attachments hereto. Winrock reserves the right not to evaluate a non-responsive or incomplete proposal.

8.0 Submission Details

Proposal Submission Deadlines

Proposals must be received no later than before 4:00 PM West African Standard Time on Wednesday, September 11, 2024. Late submissions will not be accepted. Winrock International may request additional documentation after the bid deadline. Winrock will review all submitted proposals after the closing date and may conduct in-person or remote interviews with candidates under consideration.

All submissions are to be made electronically [email protected]

Questions Submission Deadline

Inquiries/questions must be received no later than 4:00 PM West African Standard Time on Monday, September 2, 2024, and must be submitted via e-mail to [email protected]. Winrock will review and respond to all potential offers as soon as possible.

Proposal Structured & Required Documentation

Offerors must submit 2 sets of proposals, including a technical proposal and financial proposal in separate files, with all pieces of the proposal labeled clearly. Each proposal should be typed in 12-point font. Submissions must be in English and typed single-spaced. The proposal submission should include each of the following sections in the specific order listed below in order to be considered for this consultancy:

Technical Proposal

The technical proposal (not to exceed 13 pages) shall include:

1. Consultants CV (1 page):
2. Analysis and Proposed Approaches/Methodologies (maximum of 5 pages): Describe the underlying assumptions, conditions, and constraints that will inform the applicant’s approach and guiding principles to evaluation. Describe the proposed approaches and methodologies for addressing the research questions laid out above. Describe the proposed sampling methods for the qualitative study. This section should include information on how qualitative data will be analyzed, including the software to be used and the analytical approach taken (e.g., will inductive or deductive coding be used for qualitative analysis?) Explain the perceived risks related to the assignment and proposed actions to mitigate them. This should also outline any ethical considerations including issues of consent/assent and plans for protecting human subjects.
3. Work Plan (maximum of 2 pages) The applicant shall propose an activity-based work plan that is consistent with the timeline, technical approach, and methodology described in the terms of reference structured around key milestones of the evaluation process. The work plan should follow the example illustrated in the Table 1 below. A Gantt chart can also be used to illustrate the work plan.

Table 1: Illustrative schedule of activity-based work plan

Activity Milestones – Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – (Etc.)
A) Phase I – Engagement ———————————————————————-
Inception meeting
Inception report
Work plan development
(Etc. as proposed by applicant)
B) Phase II – Research and Data Collection —————————————————————–
Work Plan approval
Preparations and training
Field-based interviews
Data analysis
Drafting of report
Demobilization
(Etc. as proposed by applicant)
C) Phase III – Analysis and Reporting —————————————————————–
Collaborative editing of draft Evaluation Report
Collaborative editing of final Evaluation Report
(Etc. as proposed by applicant)

1. Technical Experience and Past Performance References (maximum of 2 pages): The applicant shall provide a summary of His/her technical capacity to conduct monitoring and evaluation in general – with particular focus on qualitative evaluation studies in the agribusiness sector. The applicant should include details of contracts involving similar or related assignments within the last six years. Reference information must include the location, a brief description of the scale and scope of work performed, total compensation value, and the current contact phone number of a responsible and knowledgeable representative of the organization. Winrock reserves the right to contact these projects as an organizational reference as part of the selection process.

5. Sample Technical Output (Annexed/Attached): The applicant shall include one or more examples of a report or deliverable submitted to a client that relates to monitoring, evaluation, or economic analysis.

6. Personnel and Team Composition (maximum of 2 pages): The applicant shall list and briefly describe the names, qualifications, and functions of the proposed evaluation team. This must include at least three key personnel – a Team Leader and at least two other professionals. CVs of all three key personnel (not to exceed 5 pages for each) must be included as an annex to the technical proposal; up to three other CVs may be included for reference.

Financial Proposal:

The offeror must present a detailed financial proposal that covers the following items and includes a narrative on the assumptions behind the estimates.

• Salaries. Includes personnel for technical assistance, data collection, data, data entry, and analysis, (e.g., staff, enumerators, supervisors, drivers).
• Per diem and Travel. Includes daily costs for lodging and meals and incidental expenses during training and during field work, mode of transportation, vehicle rental, gas.
• Printing. Includes survey questionnaires (if applicable), other study tools, reports.
• Communications. Includes : telephone, email, computer, etc.
• Supplies. Includes mobile devices for data collection, paper, pens, bags, other materials for field work.
• Training costs
• Other relevant costs
• Cost quoted must include unit price and total price in Naira.

Additionally, the offeror shall submit on a separate sheet with the fixed price for the anticipated deliverables under this ToR.

9.0 Deliverables.

All deliverables under this assignment are internal to the evaluation team and Winrock. Key evaluation deliverables are as follows.

Deliverable 1 – Inception Report and Evaluation Plan

This report will summarize the agenda and conclusions of the inception meeting, which will involve the contractor, selected members of the Extension Activity’s team, representatives from the Winrock home office. During the meeting, the evaluation team will review and discuss the ToR in its entirety, clarify team member roles and responsibilities, prepare the work plan, develop data collection methods, review, and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment.

Based on the outcome of the inception meeting and report, the evaluation team will provide a revised work plan to Winrock headquarters and the Chief of Party. Winrock will provide any necessary feedback or edits, after which the evaluation team will have 3 days to submit a final version of the document.

At a minimum, the work plan should include (a) a task timeline, (b) a description of the methodology to answer each evaluation question, (c) team responsibilities, (d) document review process, (e) key informant and stakeholder meetings, (f) site visits details, and (g) draft and final report outlines.

The evaluation plan will expand upon the analysis and approaches/methodologies proposed by the evaluator in the technical proposal. It will serve as a guiding framework for the rest of the evaluation and will be included as an annex in the Final Evaluation Report. The evaluator will describe the data collection instruments to be applied and how they will be applied during the evaluation. After acceptance of the evaluation methodology and data collection instruments by the Extension Activity team, the evaluator will train supervisors, interviewers, documenters and data encoders as proposed in the workplan. The training should include pre-testing of the instruments in select project sites. Training activities should be documented in a training report.

• Weekly Updates

To ensure ongoing communication, the Evaluation Team Leader will provide a bulleted weekly email update to Extension Activity and Winrock headquarters reporting on progress. Any delays must be communicated immediately to Winrock to allow quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. Emerging opportunities to strengthen the evaluation should also be discussed with Winrock headquarters and the COP and MEL Manager, as they arise.

Deliverable 2: Draft Evaluation Report

A Preliminary Draft Evaluation Report must be submitted to Winrock headquarters and COP. Winrock will provide comments to the evaluation team. A Revised Evaluation Report will then be submitted to Winrock headquarters and COP that incorporates responses to comments on the preliminary draft and offered in the findings presentation. The written report should clearly describe findings, conclusions, and recommendations in separate sections. The report should answer all the evaluation questions, and the structure of the report should make it clear how the questions were answered. The draft report must have well-constructed sentences that are presented in a way that clearly presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The draft report must be of a high quality with no grammatical errors or typos and must include an indicator table with measured actual data

• Findings Presentation

This will be attended by Extension Activity’s management, the home office project team. The meeting will serve to present and discuss the key findings, conclusions and recommendations stemming from the evaluation. Input from the stakeholders can be used to refine the draft Evaluation Report.

Deliverable 3: Final Evaluation Report

The evaluation team will submit the Revised Draft Evaluation Report to Winrock electronically in English. To the extent possible, all information that is compiled from field-based studies should be (i) provided in an electronic file in an easily readable format; and (ii) organized and fully documented for use by persons not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation.

Winrock will review and edit the Revised Draft Evaluation Report as needed and engage the Evaluation Team Leader in this process. When completed, Winrock will submit this draft to USAID for their review and comments. Following receipt of these, Winrock will produce a Final Evaluation Report that incorporates responses to USAID’s comments.

10.0 Evaluation Criteria
CVs, proposals, and supporting documents will be evaluated according to the degree that they satisfy the criteria set forth in this ToR.: Submissions will be evaluated per the criteria below.

a. Technical Proposal — 70 points

b. Financial Proposal — 30 points