The Asia Foundation: Request For Proposals – BERDAYA Evaluation

Request for Proposals: BERDAYA Final Evaluation

1. BACKGROUND

BERDAYA is a five-year program implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) and supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT).  The current program period covers February 2022 to March 2027. BERDAYA aims to improve access to quality violence prevention and response services for women in Papua, through improved implementation of legal frameworks and community-based mechanisms by the government, community, or service providers to prevent and respond to violence against women.

BERDAYA is implemented in selected areas in Papua Province (Kota Jayapura, Kabupaten Jayapura) and South Papua Province (Kabupaten Merauke). Under its current program framework, BERDAYA focuses on strengthening CSOs and community-based mechanisms to prevent violence against women; improving the institutional capacity of subnational government service providers, particularly DP3A and UPTD PPA, to deliver inclusive and gender-responsive services; and building collaboration among civil society, government institutions, community leaders, and other relevant actors. These pathways are intended to improve the implementation of legal frameworks and community-based mechanisms to prevent and respond to violence against women.

In line with BERDAYA’s MERL framework, an independent final evaluation will be conducted toward the end of the program’s implementation period. Undertaken by an external evaluator or evaluation team, the evaluation will assess the program’s performance, results, and contributions, including the extent to which BERDAYA has strengthened community-based mechanisms, subnational service systems, and multi-stakeholder collaboration to prevent and respond to violence against women. The findings are expected to inform accountability and learning, support sustainability planning, and provide an evidence base for potential future programming beyond the current program, including MFAT’s future engagement on gender-based violence prevention and response in Papua or similar contexts.

2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Building on the rationale outlined above, this final evaluation is intended to assess BERDAYA’s performance, results, and contributions, and to identify lessons that are useful for accountability, sustainability planning, and potential future programming. The evaluation will apply selected evaluation criteria, including relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, with emphasis on the areas most useful for decision-making.

Key Objectives:

1. Assess BERDAYA’s achievement against its intended results, including short- and medium-term outcomes related to i) service access, ii) institutional capacity, community engagement, and iii) CSO-government collaboration, and how these results contribute toward the long-term goal of iv) improving access to quality violence prevention and v). Response services in Papua.
2. Examine the relevance and responsiveness of BERDAYA’s strategy to Papua’s evolving context (social, political, legal, and economic), including its alignment with relevant national and subnational priorities and the role of adaptive management in responding to contextual changes and implementation learning.
3. Review the effectiveness and efficiency of program delivery and resource use.
4. Evaluate the sustainability of results and local ownership.
5. Identify key lessons to strengthen sustainability planning and inform the design of potential future programming on gender-based violence prevention and response in Papua or similar contexts.

This evaluation will be conducted in a focused and proportionate manner, guided by the intended use of the findings. It will focus on priority areas of inquiry, draw on available program evidence, and engage a strategically selected set of key informants. Rather than reviewing all activities in equal depth, it will provide credible and useful findings on BERDAYA’s most relevant results, contributions, and lessons for sustainability and future programming.

3. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS (KEQS)

The evaluation will be guided by a focused set of key evaluation questions, organized around selected OECD-DAC evaluation criteria[1] and aligned with the BERDAYA MERL framework and MFAT’s evaluation operational policy. To keep this evaluation proportionate and useful for decision-making, the KEQs are intended to focus on the most relevant areas of inquiry rather than cover all aspects of program implementation in equal depth. Additionally, a selective set of sub-questions that are directly linked to the main KEQs will also be used to further focus and guide data collection and analysis.

4. SCOPE OF EVALUATION

The BERDAYA final evaluation will cover program implementation and results across the program period, with reference to the approved results framework and current MERL framework. The scope is defined around the evaluation timeframe, geographic focus, key stakeholder groups, and priority areas of inquiry, as outlined below.

5. PROCESS, DELIVERABLES, AND ILLUSTRATIVE TIMELINE

The evaluation process will be a collaboration between the selected applicant and relevant parties within a BERDAYA partnership to support a shared understanding of the evaluation process and use of findings. In addition, an in-person meeting (offline/online/hybrid) to confirm the evaluation plans with representatives from each partner is scheduled within a week of the announcement of the request for proposals. The selected consultant is expected to develop a methodology for this meeting and take responsibility for facilitating the process, in close collaboration with the TAF team.  The proposed methodology is expected to fully integrate the principles of participation, inclusiveness, and shared ownership. The proposal should clearly outline the communication flow and coordination mechanisms among the different actors involved.

Importantly, the evaluation design should be shaped by the intended users and audiences of the final report. These include:

• TAF and implementing partners – the findings will support accountability, learning, sustainability planning, and future programming decisions. They will also help identify effective approaches, key risks, and lessons learned that can inform the continuation, adaptation, or scaling of relevant practices beyond the current program.
• Program participants and key stakeholders – engaging with this group is essential to ensure downward accountability, foster mutual learning, and promote ownership and motivation among those directly affected by the program
• Donors, including the MFAT – New Zealand – as the primary funder, they will be a key audience for the final report, along with other stakeholders in the NZ development ecosystem who may draw on the findings to inform broader policy or programming decisions.

The evaluation will primarily use a mixed-methods approach, with qualitative emphasis and selective use of quantitative data from existing sources.  Data collection will focus on capturing program results, contributions, implementation dynamics, and contextual factors in a focused and proportionate manner. The following methods will be incorporated:

• Desk review of key project documents (baseline study, MERL Framework, annual reports, partner reports, and relevant program data.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with stakeholders (government officials, CSOs, community leaders, survivors, and beneficiaries).
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with women’s groups, community members, and CSO staff.
• Application of a GESI lens across all data collection and analysis
• Adherence to ethical protocols, especially in engaging with survivors of violence.
• The use of short case studies as appropriate, to illustrate credible examples of what has worked well, how it worked, and key factors contributing to success.

The approach is designed to balance depth, feasibility, and usefulness for decision-making. Any limitations related to time, access, or scope will be clearly documented to maintain transparency and support realistic and actionable recommendations.

6.  QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

The Asia Foundation Indonesia Office intends to contract independent organization to conduct this evaluation.  We also welcome proposals that demonstrate collaboration between multiple organizations. Partnerships between research institutions and/or independent consultants are encouraged to ensure the breadth and depth required for this evaluation. The evaluation team leader must have knowledge of the context of the program, culture of Papua Selatan and Papua province area, and are able to do interviews with local communities – governments and other relevant parties.

The proposed evaluator or evaluation team should demonstrate the following qualifications and competencies:

1. Proven experience (minimum 10 years) in evaluating development programs, particularly related to GBV, women’s empowerment, access to justice, or civil society strengthening.
2. At least seven years of experience in the development sector
3. Proven capacity in qualitative and participatory evaluation methods.
4. Familiarity with Papua context and/or anthropological approaches is highly desirable.
5. Demonstrate commitment to ethical standards in evaluation, including survivor-centered approaches.
6. Fluency in English and Bahasa Indonesia, ability to communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders.
7. Ability to work independently, take initiative and respond appropriately to constructive feedback.

7. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

The evaluation will be managed by The Asia Foundation’s BERDAYA program team with technical oversight from BERDAYA program team. Periodic coordination will also be maintained with MFAT to ensure transparency and adherence to quality standards. The successful evaluator will report to TAF and engage in periodic check-ins to validate progress and address emerging challenges.

8. HOW TO APPLY

We invite proposals from organizations or companies legally authorized to operate in Indonesia.
Please send your proposal to: wri@asiafoundation.org at the latest COB June 10, 2026.
The proposal text should be a narrative and organized based on the structure below:

1. Section 1 – Summary of Qualifications: A summary of the individual or institutional qualifications and relevant experience that make you well-suited for this assignment
2. Section 2 – Relevant Track Records: A proven track record in evaluating programs focused on advocacy, gender justice, gender-based violence (GBV), GBV service for women and children, government engagement, and strengthening. Please include two recent examples of relevant evaluations in your application.
3. Section 3 – Strategy to Promoting Ownership – Your proposed strategy to promote ownership of findings and recommendations at various levels of the program, and to foster cross-learning within the partnership
4. Section 4 – Methodology – Your interpretation of the Key Evaluation Questions (KEQs) and how you propose to address them in the evaluation framework. This includes a clear explanation of the data collection methodology you intend to apply to answer these questions effectively
5. Section 5 – Reporting Approach – An outline of your approach to writing evaluation reports that are accessible and meaningful to both technical and non-technical audiences
6. Section 6 – Feedback and Revision Process – A description of your feedback and revision process to ensure quality and responsiveness in finalizing evaluation deliverables
7. Annex 1 – Team Composition and Roles – A clear identification of the lead evaluator and other key team members, including their roles and estimated time commitment to the mid-term review.
8. Annex 2 – Supplementary materials:
   1. An initial budget proposal, CVs of key personnel (maximum 3) – highlight relevant experiences and personal profile,
   2. At least one, preferably two recent studies/writing examples on similar themes with significant/primary writing by the lead researcher.
   3. Applicants are encouraged to propose additional products or deliverables that would strengthen the usefulness, accessibility, or practical application of the evaluation findings. These may include, for example, learning notes, best practice documentation, case studies, tools, or other knowledge products relevant to sustainability planning and future programming. Proposed additional deliverables will be considered as an added value in the assessment of proposals, where they are relevant, feasible, and aligned with the objectives of this evaluation.
9. Annex 3 – Budget Summary – A budget proposal showing the total proposed cost and a clear breakdown of major cost items, such as evaluator fees, travel, data collection, meetings or workshops, report writing, and other relevant costs. The total proposed budget must not exceed IDR 500,000,000.
10. Annex 4 – Optional Supplementary Deliverables – Applicants are encouraged to propose additional products or deliverables that would strengthen the usefulness, accessibility, or practical application of the evaluation findings. These may include, for example, thematic learning, best-practice documentation, tools, or other knowledge products relevant to sustainability planning and future programming. Proposed additional deliverables will be considered as an added value in the assessment of proposals, where they are relevant, feasible, and aligned with the objectives of this evaluation.

Please limit your main proposal (sections 1 to 6) to no more than 10 pages in total, excluding annexes. Please do not insert page breaks between sections; each section should continue directly after the previous section where possible. Items #7, #8, #9, and #10 should be submitted as annexes and will not count toward the 10-page limit.

APPENDIX 1 – BERDAYA Result Framework

See: tiny.cc/merlberdaya (type this on the web)

[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/development-co-operation-evaluation-and-effectiveness/evaluation-criteria.html