1.       Evaluation Process

Evaluation of CARD projects is a 2-Step process.  The first step which will result in decisions on which EOIs will be invited to prepare full Project Proposals will be made by the CARD Program Coordination (PCC).  The PCC will be supported by a Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) consisting of 4 members from Vietnam and 4 members from Australia.  TAP members will be invited by the PCC based on their broad experience in research. 

Expressions of Interest will be evaluated individually by each TAP member according to the criteria detailed below.  They will submit an evaluation report to the PMU in preparation for a combined TAP meeting to discuss all projects and prepare technical advice for the PCC. 

The process of evaluation of full project proposals is detailed in Section 2 E.

2.    TAP Terms of Reference

2.1         Background

The CARD Program supports specific project proposals aimed at improving the agricultural competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural systems in Vietnam.  Agriculture is defined to include agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry.  Agricultural knowledge refers to knowledge about the scientific, technical and economic aspects of production in these sectors while technologies refer to identifiable technical or management opportunities to change existing production methods.  Related rural enterprises are defined as including activities of government, private sector or non-government organisations or institutions involving the provision of inputs to or dealing with the products of agriculture, livestock, fisheries or forestry.

The Program is managed on behalf of AusAID by Hassall and Associates International (HAI).

CARD Program Goal is”

“To increase the productivity and competitiveness of Vietnamese smallholder agriculture and related rural enterprises.” 

Purpose:

“To develop and apply agricultural knowledge and technologies which address constraints to productivity and competitiveness.”

The outcome expected from CARD is:

Agriculture and rural development through the application of research, technology, skills and management practices

CARD will achieve its goal and purpose through: a) the implementation of collaborative projects between Vietnamese and Australian institutions; and b) assistance to develop the capacity within MARD to manage the CARD Program with particular focus on project selection, systematic monitoring of projects, promoting assimilation and broad discussion of results through workshops, and the effective use of the ICARD website.

Collaboration between an Australian and Vietnamese institutions is a central tenant of CARD and strengthens the likelihood of each CARD funded project achieving its development outcome.  Collaboration will also deliver additional and mutual benefits to both groups through better understanding, professional/academic development, or ongoing professional or business relationships.

The CARD process involves:

1. Establishing partnership arrangements between Vietnamese and Australian institutions;
2. Joint preparation of a CARD Project Expressions of Interest (EOIs);
3. Submission of EOIs (in Vietnamese and English) to the CARD Program Management Unit (PMU) in MARD by the Lead Vietnamese Institution;
4. Assessment and scoring of all EOIs by a Vietnamese Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) against agreed evaluation criteria;
5. Submission of the assessment results and technical advice to the Program Coordinating Committee who will decide on submissions that will be invited to prepare full project proposals.
6. Submission of full Project Proposals to the CARD PMU.
7. Peer appraisals of each full project.  Peer review will be managed by the Vietnamese and Australian TAPs (i.e. at least two Vietnamese and one Australian appraisal of each project).  Appraisals are expected to follow these steps :
   1. Vietnamese and Australian TAPs identifying technically competent peer appraisers, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest between the appraisers and the project proponents;
   2. Vietnamese and Australian TAPs advise the PMU and CARD Program Unit (CPU) in HAI, respectively of their nominations for independent appraisal of each project;
   3. The PMU and CPU contract the technical peer appraisals for each project on a flat fee for service basis and according to a Technical Appraisal Terms of Reference;
   4. Completed Technical Appraisals returned to the PMU and circulated to the TAP to assist in their deliberations.
8. Specific feedback/comment to project proponents will be provided by the PMU with an opportunity for a response from project proponents.
9. A combined TAP meeting to review and discuss project proposals and budgets, peer appraisals and responses from proponent institutions and to prepare advice to the PCC on relevance, quality and value for money for all submitted projects.
10. The PMU will prepare summary of the TAP advice and circulate it to PCC members prior to a scheduled PCC meeting.
11. The PCC will decide on funding support for projects and through preparation of a decision paper for the Chair of the PCC seek MARD endorsement.

2.2         Vietnamese Technical Panel

The Vietnamese TAP will be appointed by MARD.  It is expected that the TAP members be eminent persons with a high post-graduate qualification and an extensive track record in research and development delivery and management.  It is also expected that as well as a MARD representation, key institutions, such as universities and non-MARD research institutions will also be represented.

The Vietnamese TAP will select its own chair and be assisted by the PMU M&E Specialist as required.

Specific duties include:

·           Assessment of each EOI according to the EOI evaluation criteria (Annex 1).  This assessment to be conducted on an individual basis and the results recorded as individual assessments and an average assessment;

·           Submission of assessments through the PMU to the PCC;

·           Identification of suitable peer appraisers for each of the projects that are short-listed for full project proposals.  Appraisals will address

o         Alignment with Vietnam’s R&D priorities and the CARD Strategic Framework

o         Benefits to smallholders

o         Technical quality of the proposal;

·          Quality of the approach and methodology

·          Likelihood of success

·          Strategies for impact dissemination beyond the project sites

·          Risks and mitigation strategies identified

·          Mitigation of any environmental impact

·          Effective M&E processes outlined

o         The feasibility of the proposal;

·          technical feasibility

·          resource feasibility (time and budget)

o         Value for money;

o         The sustainability of the intervention;

o         The capacity of the proposed Vietnamese collaborating institutions;

o         Quality and appropriateness of the collaboration proposed (timing and duration of input).

·           Assessment of the appraisals once completed and preparation of a summary report of all peer appraisals, according to the full project proposal evaluation criteria (Annex 2) for submission through the PMU to the project selection committee;

·           Participation in workshops/meetings to improve the quality and uniformity of peer appraisals and to further improve the process of appraisals; and,

·           Participation, as requested by the PMU, in site visits to projects as part of the M&E process and to obtain feedback on the quality of the project appraisal process.

2.2.1        Australian Technical Panel

The HAI nominee will chair the Australian Technical Panel.

Specific duties include:

·           Identification of at least one suitable peer appraiser for each of the projects that are short-listed for full project proposals.  Appraisals will address:

o         Expected impact on smallholders.

o         Technical quality of the proposal;

·          Quality of the approach and methodology

·          Likelihood of success

·          Strategies for impact dissemination beyond the project sites

·          Risks and mitigation strategies identified

·          Mitigation of any environmental impact

·          Effective M&E processes outlined

o         The feasibility of the proposal;

·          technical feasibility

·          resource feasibility (time and budget)

o         Value for money;

o         The sustainability of the intervention;

o         The capacity of the proposed Australian collaborating institutions;

o         Quality and appropriateness of the collaboration proposed (timing and duration of input).

·           The appraiser will also identify any areas for potential improvement to the technical quality of project proposals.

·           Assessment of the appraisals once completed and preparation of a summary report of all peer appraisals, according to the full project proposal evaluation criteria (Annex 2) for submission through the PMU to the project selection committee;

·           Participation in workshops/meetings to improve the quality and uniformity of peer appraisals and to further improve the process of appraisals; and,

·           Participation, as requested by the PMU, in site visits to projects as part of the M&E process and to obtain feedback on the quality of the project appraisal process.

2.3         General Provisions

The TAPs will report to and through the CARD PMU.

Members of the TAP will be required to declare any conflict of interest (such as applications for funding from their own institutions) in all parts of the EOI and full project proposal evaluation process.

Allocation of time and the establishment of TOR for each task will be undertaken by the Chair of each TAP Panel in consultation with the PMU/TC.  All reports from the Panel will be treated in confidence and submitted through its chair to the CARD Technical Coordinator or the CARD Program Coordinator respectively.

Funding for the activities of the TAPs is provided by the CARD Project.  Provision has been made for both in-Australia and in-Vietnam inputs.  Agreements on payments for the TAP member’s time and any direct costs of implementation will be outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between HAI and each Technical Advisory Panel.

3.       Expression of Interest Evaluation Criteria

All Expressions of Interest will be evaluated according to matrix below.  In order to focus on Vietnamese priorities, evaluation of EOIs will be undertaken by the Vietnamese Technical Advisory Panel.  Each criterion will be given a score ranging between 1 and the available score.  Scores from each evaluator will be added and recommendations for short-listing will be based on the average score calculated.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST	Available    Score
1    Project Relevance                                                                                  Max Score 30 Points
a) Rural development or research problem or opportunity clearly defined and resolution/realisation achievable	15
b) Relevant and consistent with the CARD Strategic Framework, builds on current knowledge, or compliments existing projects and fits within the priorities of MARD and MoFi R&D programs.	10
c) Is innovative and avoids duplication of current or past R&D projects	5
2     Benefits in the short to medium term                                              Max Score 40 Points
a) Potential to provide financial, human capacity development, social and                 environmental benefits to smallholders	20
b) Benefits to women, poor and disadvantaged groups and for remote areas are                 identified and achievable.	10
c) Capacity gaps in the Vietnamese institution have been identified and                 collaboration will be effective in addressing those gaps	10
3   Collaborative Arrangements                                                             Max Score 30 Points
a) Vietnamese institution has the relevant experience, facilities and staff resources to address the problem/opportunity defined and the role and responsibilities of the partners in project implementation is clearly identified.	8
b) Australian institutional skills and experience is appropriate to assist in problem or opportunity resolution and to improve capacities within Vietnamese institutions	8
c)  Potential for participation/contribution from the Vietnamese private sector is recognised, local private sector partners identified and agreement in principle for private sector collaboration in place.	7
d) Next users of technology are identified, the potential for involvement of DARD, NGOs and private sector service providers in strategies for transfer/dissemination to next users beyond the project area clearly outlined.	7
TOTAL SCORE