Proposal by IRDP for Increasing Smallholder Farmer Productivity






Project name: Scaling Smallholder Service Delivery


Proposed skill contributions: See additional file.

Proposed partners: N/A


1 Background

We understand that Natural Extract Industries (NEI), Ltd. is a vertically integrated vanilla agribusiness founded in 2011 and based in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. NEI currently sources 100% of its product inputs from 5,000+ smallholder farmers(SHFs) in Tanzania and Uganda, and delivers extension services through a traditional field pyramid model. The company work in partnership with AgDevCo’s Smallholder Development Unit(SDU), NIE is conducting a research project to identify and pilot to improve its supply chain operations efficiency. In order to scale and meet demand from the customers, NIE is seeking to reduce its cost to serve and increases its producers’ yield. It is expecting to create Vanilla Centers of Excellence(VCoEs), that provide standardized but decentralized training to SHFs (incorporating learnings from behavioral research), as well as a developed financial instruments for the SHFs producers.

We also understand that NEI is looking for a consulting firm to undertake assessment on increasing smallholder farmer productivity in the vanilla value chain. The team within consulting firm should have service providers (SP) with multi-skills with significant experience in research with SHFs.

1.1 Purpose of the Study

We understand that the purpose of the study is to undertake an assessment on the increasing smallholder farmer productivity in the vanilla value chain with the aim of analyzing behavioral drivers change at farmers’ level among vanilla SHFs in Tanzania.

1.2 Project overall objective

We understand that the overall objective of this project is, “to increase vanilla SHFs productivity through the research and design of improved farmer training strategies”.

Specifically, the project aims to achieve 3 overreaching objectives as follows.

1) Increase SHF productivity through targeted training strategies;

2) Decrease SHF supply risk through improved access to finance; and

3) Scale service delivery to SFHs through Vanilla Centers of Excellence (VCoEs).

1.3 Project output, impact/Goal

We understand that the expected impact of the project target the SHFs dealing with producers of vanilla in Tanzania, NEI Ltd, who collaborates with SHFs through supplying inputs and extension service, and the impact expected is based on the behavioural change of SHFs-VVC. Project outputs. We understand that the expected outputs for this project being the following; first, NEI understands key drivers of/barriers to household productivity across its SHF network. Second, NEI understands its key SHF segments and their respective training and extension needs. Third, NEI’s training materials are designed to address segment-specific SHF capacity gaps. Fourth, NEI’s training programme is designed for scale to reach 7,000 SHF beneficiaries in regions of Arusha, Kagera, Kilimanjaro, Mbeya and Morogoro.

1.4 Rationale

We understand that NEI is delivering extension services through a traditional field pyramid model on the vanilla value chain, part of which involves analysis of the variations in productivity among SHFs with too low outputs compared to theoretical potential yields. SHFs tends to be influenced by the behavioral productivity drivers at farmers’ level, which are unclear and limiting NEI’s ability to address productivity concerns. However, the constraints they face and the opportunities for enhancing their performance in ways that improve productivity are not that well addressed.

1.5 Specific areas to be addressed

We understand that the following areas need to be assessed for SHFs-VVC.

1. Identify behavioral drivers of SHF productivity

2. Segment NEI’s SHF network based on training needs

3. Design and pilot segment-specific training content/methods

4. Identify opportunities and dependencies to scale training improvements

1.6 Comments on the Terms of Reference

The scope of work has been set forth by the client. We have reviewed them and have the following comments.

i) While the ToRs mention about undertaking an assessment on the increasing smallholder farmer productivity in the vanilla value chain in Tanzania, yet, the specific area(s)/ region(s) where the study should be conducted have not been indicated in the ToRs. Nevertheless, after reading the document, we assume that the study should take place in regions with producers of vanilla. Therefore, the main five regions which produce vanilla in Tanzania includes: Arusha, Kagera, Kilimanjaro, Mbeya, and Morogoro are believed to be an ideal study area for this assignment. In order to achieve a thorough analysis of the market systems in addition to these study areas, we also propose to include Dar es Salaam region which is the market destination for vanilla and its products.

ii) We propose that the consultant will have to make a presentation of the findings and draft report to the client and other stakeholders for recommendations in order to produce a good quality final report. However, since the number of stakeholders has not been clearly established determining the cost of this aspect at this stage is difficult. Therefore, we suggest the client has to take in account the costs of this item if we are selected to undertake this assignment.


2 Approaches and Methodology

2.1 Approach

The approach will be based on the requirements of the TORs as provided by the client. This assignment will be more participatory in nature during the data collection exercise. Since, we understand that, the selected service provider (SP) must have full mobility to visit NEI’s SHF and their farm on their own accord. Also there will be analytical (non-participatory processes) during the preparation of the report. Value Chain Approach and systems analysis will be used in this assignment to comply with the clients’ suggestion in the TORs, as the approaches will enable Clients to critically design interventions that will enable to improve the vanilla value chain.

The value chain and systems approach will be the key framework for understanding how productivity among SHFs is highly variable, with average productivity being too low compared to theoretical potential yield. Also, the framework will help us to analyze the factors responsible for the behavioral productivity drivers at farmer level and reveals the limiting factors that hinder NEI’s ability to address productivity. Moreover, the value chain perspective provides an important means to understand the relationship of actors and, mechanisms for increasing efficiency. In particular, Systems analysis will provide critical aspects that are needed for a well-functioning value chain of a particular commodity so that it can improve and sustain the long term benefit of small scale farmers and related vanilla SHFs involved in on and off-farm economic activities.

2.1 Methodology

The project will employ both qualitative and quantitative research to identify behavioural drivers of productivity in SHF households across NIE’s SHF network. A quasi-experimental design will be employed, with randomized experiments whereby a counterfactual analysis will be done in which a control group (CG) (i.e. non-beneficiaries’ vanilla farm inputs) for attribution and the treatment group (beneficiary farmers on farm inputs supply). The experiment will be based on the project hypothesis as following. First, adoption of new farming techniques practices can be attributed to continuing supply of inputs (SOI) by NIEs to the SHFs network. Second, adoption of new farming practices can be attributed to technical assistance (TA). Lastly, adoption of new farming practices can be attributed to both continuing supply of inputs by NIEs to the SHFs network and technical assistance (SOI+TA). However, this approach will not be an end in itself as it is more suitable in simple projects since; it will be difficult to establish internal validity. Therefore, there is a need to complement with a complicated complex project analysis tools and methods to determine the external validity of data from behavioural point of view among vanilla farmers. So, we will supplement information by employing Outcome Harvesting (OH) and Most Significant Change (MSC) to address complexity to assess behavioural productivity drivers and the reluctant of SHFs in adopting new farming practices/techniques.

2.3 Methodological framework

The basic idea of the experimental design is that one compares the intervention situation with the counterfactual, the situation that would have occurred without the intervention, in order to determine whether and to what extent changes in variables of interest can be determined to the intervention. More specifically, one compares a participant group (affected by/receiving benefits from the intervention i.e. vanilla SHFs who receives inputs and new techniques) with a

control group, a group that exactly resembles the participant group in all aspects but not for participation in the intervention.

The validity of the tests of the main hypotheses underlying the experimental design (see as described in the above section) depends on the extent to which the group comparisons actually represent unbiased estimates of the net effects of particular incentives. In other words, in order to be able to analyse in a credible and valid way (and subsequently accept or reject) these hypotheses, the following three inter-group comparisons would need to be bias-free (Not affected by any of the problems described):

i. Comparing the average change over time of the ‘SHFs only’ group with the CG;

ii. Comparing the average change over time of the ‘SHFs only’ group with the ‘SHFs + TA‟ group;

iii. Comparing the average change over time of the SHFs 2 years’ group with the SHFs 4 years’ group.

Several aspects of design and implementation of an experimental design in development interventions can potentially threaten its validity. In analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design the following aspects will be taken into account, which are deemed most pertinent as threats to the validity and utility of an experimental design in projects(For detailed discussions see for example Shadish et al. (2002) or Morgan and Winship (2007)). Selection bias: refers to the problem of under- or overestimating project results due to uncontrolled differences between different (treatment) groups of farmers that would lead to differences in result variables if none of the groups would have received project benefits (Rossi et al., 2004; Shadish et al., 2002). One can differentiate between selection bias on the basis of observable variables (e.g. farm size, education level) and unobservable variables (e.g. motivation, risk aversion). Contagion (or treatment diffusion): refers to the problem of groups of farmers that are not supposed to be exposed to (or receiving) certain project benefits are in fact benefiting from a project in one or more ways: by directly receiving the benefits from the project, by indirectly receiving benefits through other participating farmers (e.g. knowledge transfers), or by receiving similar benefits from other organizations (see Shadish et al., 2002). Behavioural responses: several unintended behavioural responses not caused by project incentives or ‘normal’ conditions might disrupt the validity of comparisons between groups and hence the ability to attribute changes to project incentives. The most important are the following (see Shadish et al., 2002):

a) Expected behaviour or compliance behaviour: participants react in accordance with project staff expectations for reasons of compliance with the established contract, due to the (longstanding) relationship with staff, or due to certain expectations about future benefits from the organization (not necessarily the project).

b) Compensatory equalization: discontent among staff or recipients with the inequality between groups might result in compensation of groups that receive less than others.

c) Compensatory rivalry: differentiation of incentives between groups of farmers might result in social competition between those receiving (many) project benefits and those that receive less or no benefits.

Other aspects that might weaken attribution analysis:

d) Characteristics of the intervention.

e) Quality of the data collected.

f) Timing of the data collection activities.

g) Characteristics of the design.

2.4 Sampling, Data Collection Methods and Tools

Therefore, there will be stakeholder interviews with project staff at different levels (NIEs project manager, AgDevCo’s Smallholder Development Unit (SDU) staffs, NIEs project coordinators, and NIEs field technicians). Interviews with stakeholders and farmers will be semi-structured and will cover a list of topics to be described in the next section on the conceptual framework that will be used for evaluating the project’s experimental design. Triangulation between opinions and findings from different interviews, documents and data analysis will be used to validate findings.

The observation method: the easy ways of obtaining information related to social economic conditions and is done by using a prepared checklist prior to data collection. Therefore there will be; field observation, farm visits, farmer-staff meetings, field technicians, farmer interviews, on-farm visits, document review and secondary data, stakeholder documents, external literature on impact evaluation content-related NIEs’ SHFs network. Quantitative survey data will be based on (experimental project findings). Also, farmer interviews and observations will be based on our sampling strategies. Additional variables during field work such as; being member of SHFs network, farm distance to main roads. Hence, Snowball sampling technique will be employed whereby the sample size will be determined on the basis of theoretical saturation as described by (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Focus group discussion (FGD), interview using the key informant survey like the district agriculture officials and extension officers will be done using prepared questionnaires. Also participatory approach tools like scoring and matrix ranking will be used to determine factors responsible for low productivity at farmers’ level. Household survey by using pre-designed questions to collect indicators related to household social economic conditions to determine magnitude of productivity.

2.5 Data analysis and presentation

Despite the problems found in the experimental design, further statistical analysis will be possible if another effort is made to collect ex post data at farm (household) level. This will open up new possibilities for using matching techniques (creating better control groups) or regression-based approaches using statistical controls to reduce observable selection bias problems (and to some extent, if measured) contagion problems. Nevertheless, some of the validity threats to attribution analysis (unobservable selection bias, contagion problems, unintended behavioral responses) cannot be corrected by further quantitative analysis.

Another option for further quantitative analysis would be to focus less on attribution of changes to project incentives and more on the general question of associations between levels and patterns of adoption on the one hand and different incentives, farm (household) characteristics and contextual variables on the other. To some extent, these data are available in the project’s baseline survey. The problem is that important variables like land sales or purchases, access to farm inputs and/or technical assistance in the past few years, are crucial explanatory variables without which further explanatory analysis would be markedly incomplete. This provides another reason for implementing an ex post survey covering all SHFs-VVC and CG farmers.

Another analysis will base on the Theory-based evaluation focuses on the underlying assumptions of how an intervention is supposed to work. A distinction can be made between process theory and impact theory, the latter focusing on the causal assumptions connecting project outputs (and some process variables) with outcomes and impacts. Several pieces of evidence can be used for reconstructing the intervention theory, for example: an intervention’s existing logical framework provides a useful starting point for mapping causal assumptions linked to objectives; other written documents produced within the framework of an intervention are also useful in this respect; insights provided by as well as expectations harbored by policy makers and staff (and other stakeholders) on how they think the intervention will affect/is affecting/has affected target groups; (written) evidence on past experiences of similar interventions (including those implemented by other organizations); research literature on mechanisms and processes of change in certain institutional contexts, for particular social problems, in specific sectors, etc.

3. Consulting Firm

3.1 IRDP Profile

The Institute of Rural Development Planning (IRDP), Dodoma was established by the Parliamentary Act No. 8 of 1980. The Act provides a legal framework for the Institute to be established as an important national centre for provision of training, research and consultancy. IRDP strives to enhance and strengthen capacity for Rural Development practitioners by providing post-secondary education and training, research and consultancy services in the country, especially at local levels (from village to district). Certificates of registration, TIN and tax clearances are attached in Annex 1. Currently, the Institute conducts a number of long-term training programmes. These programmes are Certificate in Rural Development Planning, Certificate in Development Administration and Management, Diploma in Development Planning, Diploma in Development Administration and Management, Bachelor Degree in Regional Development Planning, Bachelor Degree in Environmental Planning and Management, Bachelor Degree in Population and Development Planning, Bachelor Degree in Development Finance and Investment Planning, Bachelor Degree in Human Resource Planning and Management, Bachelor Degree in Development Economics, Bachelor Degree in Urban Development and Environmental Management, Post Graduate Diploma in Regional Planning, Post Graduate Diploma in Environmental Planning, Post Graduate Diploma in Governance and Sustainable Development and Post Graduate Diploma in Project Planning and Management, Master Degree in Development Economics and Master Degree in Environmental Planning and Management.

With regard to short course training programme, IRDP offers short courses which are intended to acquaint participants with fundamentals of development planning, management and administration. They integrate theory and practice to carter for development skills needed at all levels. Concentration and depth depend on the role of participants with the existing administrative functional set up. Since the year 1979, when the IRDP started operating, its staff has accumulated considerable practical experiences and knowledge on a number of consultancies and researches related to development administration and management in line with the mission statement.

IRDP Mission Statement: “To facilitate the process of rural development planning by providing training and education, research and public services (consultancy) in rural development planning and management aimed at bridging the knowledge gap among different practitioners of development planning, which include the central government sectors, local government authorities, non-governmental organizations, community based organizations and the private sector.”

3.2 Statement of Qualifications

Our core practice areas are: monitoring and evaluation; action oriented research; knowledge management; professional and technical support services and solutions.IRDP offers technical services in needs assessments; project evaluations, action oriented research; and data analysis using STATA, SAS, Minitab, Matlab, SPSS, Epinfo, FLAT and ENA for SMART; carry out editorial works of technical reports; design socio-economic profiles and strategic plans.

3.3 Experiences in Similar Conditions

One of the strengths of the IRDP is to work with the Government, Local Government Authorities (LGAs), Public and Private Sector Organizations, and CSOs in both urban and rural areas of the country. Recently, IRDP worked with World Vision Tanzania (WVT) on the Technical Programmes (TP) & Community Engagement and Sponsorship Project (CESP) evaluation in 40 World Vision Tanzania supported Area Programmes (APs). Also, IRDP worked with TASAF in the Beneficiary Assessment of Third Tanzania Poverty Reduction Project (TPRP III) in 13 Project Area Authorities (PAAs) of Arusha and Njombe Regions. The experience of IRDP in working with TASAF will be instrumental in successful implementation of this assignment. Also, the individual works of key team members for this assignment as detailed in Annexes 3 show that team members have strong experience in working in related conditions in terms of location, target population and methodologies.

3.4 Description of Similar Assignments

IRDP has conducted a number of similar assignments involving different teams or combination of staff. Annex 2 provides a list of 16 selected similar assignments (Re #1-16) conducted by IRDP thus; provide evidence of our track record and competence. In addition to Annex 2, the list of similar assignments conducted by the proposed key team members for this assignment is shown on their respective CVs in Annexes 3, 4 and 5.



Activity 1: Inception meeting
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.


Activity 2: Desk review of documents
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.

Activity 3: Field Work
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.

Activity 4: Data analysis and report writing
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.

Activity 5: Submission of draft report

Description: See additional file. 

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.

Activity 6: Finalizing draft report
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.

Activity 7: Submission of final report
Description: See additional file.

Duration: See additional file.

Deliverable: See additional file.


Project measurables: See additional file.

Methods of data collection: See additional file.

Risks in project: See additional file.

Risk management strategies: See additional file.


Relevant past experience:

  • Re #1
  • Assignment name: Technical Programmes (TP) & Community Engagement and Sponsorship Project (CESP) evaluation in 40 World Vision Tanzania supported Area Programmes (APs).
  • Country: Tanzania
  • Location within country
  • 36 districts in 13 administrative regions of Tanzania Mainland, namely, Kilimanjaro, Manyara, Arusha, Tanga, Morogoro, Dodoma,
  • Singida, Shinyanga, Simiyu, Tabora, Kigoma, Kagera and Iringa
  • Duration of assignment (months): Two
  • Name of Client: Wprld Vision Tanzania (WVT)
  • Total No. of staff months of the assignment: 60 days
  • Approx. Value: TZS 300,000,000/=
  • Start date (Month/year): December 2019
  • Consultants: Prof. Zacharia Masanyiwa, Prof. Baltazar Namwata, Prof. John Safari and Dr. Hosea Mpogole
  • Completion date (month/year): February, 2020
  • Narrative description of project: The overall purpose of the TP evaluation is to build an evidence base that enables World Vision and its partners to improve programming by assessing respective TP programme effectiveness with regards to CWBOs reflecting on questions such as, what worked well and for whom, what did not work and why. The evaluation also aims to increase accountability by sharing evaluation results in appropriate ways with all key stakeholders, including communities, partners, host governments and supporters and advocate for change by using the evaluation results as evidence to lobby for changes to policy. The TP evaluation opportunity will also be used to baseline four APs, which are new to establish benchmarks for the next TPs and CESP, re-design and new NO Strategy. The specific objectives of this evaluation are to:
  • • Understand the changes in child well-being, including child well-being targets;
  • • Understand the impact on the most vulnerable children (MVC) by separating out data concerning different types of vulnerability by gender;
  • • Understand how the programmes or projects have influenced gender equality by separating out and analyzing data relating to gender;
  • • Measure progress towards the sustainability of programme outcomes (using drivers and indicators of sustainability);
  • • Identify and acknowledge the contributions that partners have on programming; the TP & CESP evaluation must include an assessment of the health of the partnerships or networks, and their potential ability to sustain the benefits of the programme in the future;
  • • Examine the effectiveness of any advocacy initiatives in changing the local or national policy environment;
  • • Assess the inclusion of sponsorship considerations in TPs, the effect of TPs in RC and RC families;
  • • Assess and determine efficiency and effectiveness in implementation of the ITAW Campaign in the Aps;
  • • Assess and determine the strength and challenges of the ITAW Campaign and provide recommendations aimed at informing the future/progress of the Campaign in/by WVT;
  • Re #2
  • Assignment name: Provision of consultancy services for conducting beneficiary assessment in the Third Tanzania Poverty Reduction Project (TPRP III) 13 supported Local Government Authorities in Arusha and Njombe Regions.
  • Country: Tanzania
  • Location within country: All 13 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) of Arusha and Njombe Regions
  • Duration of assignment (months): Two
  • Name of Client: Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) 
  • Total No. of staff months of the assignment: 60 days
  • Approx. Value: TZS 161,000,000
  • Start date (Month/year): June 2019
  • Completion date (month/year): February, 2020
  • Consultants: Dr. Hosea Mpogole, Prof. John Safari, Prof. Baltazar Namwata
  • Narrative description of project
  • The main objective of this assignment is to assess the impact of the implemented sub projects with support from the Third Tanzania Poverty Reduction Project (TPRP III) to the beneficiary communities, households and support institutions. It is also intended to assess the ability of communities to utilize the acquired knowledge and enhanced social capital from project processes to demand better governance from those in public trust. This will in turn lead to increased effectiveness and sustainability of community subprojects through improved implementation strategies in meeting the people’s demand.
  • The BA is intended to give the beneficiaries an opportunity to express their opinions with regard to the design and operations of TPRP III in meeting their needs. Findings from the BA will feed into the review of monitoring process and end-term evaluation of TPRP III. The eventual outcome of the BA will be to bring about areas of common interest and foster mutual partnership among all stakeholders in implementation of the Project.
  • Re #3
  • Assignment name: Mid Term Evaluation of “Improve the competitiveness and increase postharvest value chain of smallholder rice farmers” (RICE Project).
  • Country: Tanzania
  • Location within country: Iringa District in Iringa Region
  • Duration of assignment (months): Two
  • Name of Client: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
  • Total No. of staff months of the assignment: 35 days
  • Approx. Value: N/A
  • Start date (Month/year): May 2019
  • Completion date (month/year): August, 2019
  • Consultants: Dr. Hosea Mpogole
  • Narrative description of project: 
  • The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the implementation strategy of the RICE Project. The MTR was conducted with an aim to assess the extent to which the project has achieved and delivered the intended results/outputs and its impact to the community and draw lessons learned, good practices and action-oriented recommendations to integrate in the project design and inform decision making. The review had a particular emphasis on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact of the intervention carried out and approach adopted.


  • Re #4
  • Assignment name: Baseline survey for the Project Mainstreaming poverty-environment-gender-climate change into Local Economic development and SDGs Localisation for Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction in Tanzania
  • Country: Tanzania
  • Location within country: Busega, Bunda, Maswa, Meatu and Itilima Districts
  • Duration of assignment (months): Two
  • Name of Client: UNDP Tanzania/UNDP Poverty Environment Initiative Nairobi
  • Total No. of staff months of the assignment: 6 months
  • Start date (Month/year): June 2019
  • Completion date (month/year): August, 2019
  • Name of Senior Staff (Team Leader) involved and function performed
  • Functions performed:
  • • Manage all assignment activities
  • • Supervise and coordinate team members
  • • Prepare and submit inception report, draft and final reports
  • Consultants: Dr. Hosea Mpogole
  • Narrative description of project: 
  • The baseline study aimed at establishing reference points for monitoring project progress.
  • Detailed Description of Actual Service Provided by IRDP Staff
  • • Carry out poverty analysis using Multidimensional Poverty Analysis Tool in selected villages /wards along Lake Victoria shore in Simiyu and Mara regions;
  • • Document eco-village best practices in Tanzania and developing a step-by step toolkit that will provide guidance on establishment and running eco-villages
  • • Carry out baseline survey using Multidimensional Poverty Analysis Tool on climate smart and gender responsive enterprises in selected villages/wards in Mara and Simiyu Region;
  • • Based on above recommend prioritized interventions that are climate smart and gender responsive and villages where can be implemented;
  • • Facilitate preparation of detailed documents of prioritized interventions to be implemented
  • Re # 5
  • Assignment name: Baseline survey for the Project Reversing Land Degradation Trends and Increase Food Security in Degraded Ecosystems of Semi-arid Tanzania
  • Country: Tanzania
  • Location within country: Kondoa, Mkalama, Nzega and Magu in Mainland Tanzania and Micheweni in Pemba Zanzibar
  • Duration of assignment (months): 4
  • Name of Client: VPO/IFAD/GEF
  • Total No. of staff months of the assignment: 4
  • Start date (Month/year): November, 2018;
  • Completion date (month/year): January 2019
  • Name of Senior Staff (Team Leader) involved and function performed

Key staff experience:

Consulting Team Composition and Staffing Schedule

The ToR shows the understanding, competencies, experiences, qualifications and skill requirements for the consultant(s) to undertake this assignment. IRDP acknowledges and has considered these requirements and will deploy a multidisciplinary team of staff with the relevant qualifications, competences, experiences and skill mix as shown in Table 2 (see additional file, p11). The IRDP team will be comprised of Dr. Vedastus Timothy (Lead Consultant), Dr. Daniel Mpeta(Assistant Lead Consultant, Mr. Shauri Timoth (Consultant) and Mr. Harold E. Mabwe (Consultant) and Mr Kiula Peter Kiula(Consultant). of Dr. Vedastus Timothy will provide technical leadership across the entire evaluation of SHFs-VVC and oversee the technical team. In order to ensure timely data collection, transcription, entering and analysis, the Consultant will engage fifteen Research Assistants. As aforementioned, there will be three teams, one for each district. Each team will consist of one Consultant and four Research Assistants with at least a Bachelor degree. The five key team members will provide overall supervision during data collection as well as during data transcription and entering. Research Assistants will be trained prior to data collection. There will be three-day training sessions



Currency Selection: TZS

Upper fee limit: 230,080,000

Payment structure:

Reporting processes

Desired frequency of reporting

Interest in follow on work:

SECTION 6: Additional files


See additional file (pp 20-46)

Workplan and budget

See additional file (pp 10-13)

Additional files