«« Takaisin Tulosta ilmoitus

Kansallinen hankintailmoitus:
Varsinais-Suomen liitto : Impact evaluation

25.05.2018 09:43
Ilmoituksen numero HILMA:ssa: 2018-011673
Tarjoukset 28.6.2018 klo 15.00 mennessä osoitteeseen:
Varsinais-Suomen liitto 0922305-9 /
Varsinais-Suomen liitto
Merike Niitepõld
PL 273
20101
Turku
Puh. +358407420302
Fax. +35822100901

Ilmoituksen tyyppi

Tämä ilmoitus on:
Kansallinen hankintailmoitus

Hankintayksikön yhteystiedot

Hankintayksikön yhteystiedot
Hankintayksikkö Varsinais-Suomen liitto
Y-tunnus 0922305-9
Kilpailuttamisesta vastaava toimipiste tai hankintayksikön edustaja Varsinais-Suomen liitto
Yhteyshenkilö Merike Niitepõld
Postiosoite PL 273
Postinumero 20101
Postitoimipaikka Turku
Maa Suomi
Puhelin +358407420302
Sähköpostiosoite merike.niitepold@centralbaltic.eu
Faksi +35822100901
Internet-osoite (URL) http://www.varsinais-suomi.fi
Osoite, johon tarjoukset tai osallistumispyynnöt on lähetettävä
Ks. edellä hankintayksikön yhteystiedot
Hankintayksikön luonne
Kunta tai kuntayhtymä

Hankintalaji

Hankintalaji
Palvelut

Hankinnan kohde

Hankinnan nimi
Impact evaluation
Hankinnan kuvaus

1 Background 

1.1. The Central Baltic programme 

The Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020 (programme) is a cross-border co-operation programme 

funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The programme has an ERDF fund of 

122 MEUR. The programme funds co-operation projects between partners from Finland (including 

Åland islands), Estonia, Latvia and Sweden.  

The projects can be implemented under one of the following strategic goals: 

• Competitive economy (Priority axis 1); 

• Sustainable use of common resources (Priority axis 2); 

• Well-connected region (Priority axis 3); 

• Skilled and socially inclusive region (Priority axis 4). 

The four priorities of the programme are further split into Specific Objectives, each covered by 

an explanation of the foreseen actions and with output and result indicators defined. 

The Specific Objectives are divided between the priorities in the following way: 

Competitive economy: 

New Central Baltic knowledge intensive companies 

More entrepreneurial youth 

More exports by the Central Baltic companies to new markets 

 

Sustainable use of common resources 

Natural and cultural resources developed into sustainable tourist attractions 

Sustainably planned and managed marine and coastal areas 

Better urban planning in the Central Baltic region 

Reduced nutrients, hazardous substances and toxins inflow into the Baltic Sea 

 

Well-connected region 

Improved transport flows of people and goods 

  Improved services of existing small ports to improve local and regional mobility and 

contribute to tourism development 

 

Skilled and socially inclusive region 

More people benefiting from stronger Central Baltic communities 

More aligned vocational education and training (VET) programmes in the Central 

Baltic region 

For each Specific Objective the programme has defined indicative actions, foreseen partners 

as well as output and result indicators. The programme set-up is defined according to the 

logic chain model, presented below. 

  

The official language of the programme is English. 

The programme is implemented by the Managing Authority, hosted by the Regional Council of 

Southwest Finland.  

Buyer of the service:  

Varsinais-Suomen liitto (Y-tunnus: 0922305-9) 

Address: P.O. Box 273 (Ratapihankatu 36), 20101 Turku 

  

Other key programme bodies are the Monitoring Committee, which is set up to monitor and steer 

the programme implementation, and the Steering Committee, which has been delegated the 

task of selecting projects for funding. 

The programme also has an informal Evaluation task force, consisting of programme staff and 

representatives of all Member States/Åland. 

The programme is guided by EU regulations: 

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 referred to as “CPR regulation” 

Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 referred to as “ERDF regulation” 

Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 referred to as “ETC regulation” 

The Programme Monitoring Committee has approved a Programme Manual (Annex 1) for the 

project applicants and beneficiaries. The Manual sets out the main procedures and rules of the 

programme. 

1.2. The regulatory framework for the evaluation 

Main EU regulatory references which are relevant for the scope and contents of this evaluation 

are  

• Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, in particular Article 54 describing the general provisions 

on evaluation, Article 56 on evaluation during the programming period, Article 110 defining the 

functions of the Monitoring Committee and article 114 focussing on evaluation. 

• Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013, in particular recital 26 on the responsibility of the 

Managing Authority on carrying out evaluations on basis of the evaluation plan and Article 14 

describing the requirements for the submission of implementation reports.

 

1.3. The Central Baltic programme evaluation plan 

In compliance with Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, the Central Baltic programme 

Monitoring Committee has approved an Evaluation plan (Annex 1). The initial plan was approved 

in the first Monitoring Committee meeting. The plan has been discussed in later meetings, as 

foreseen by the regulations. 

The current version of the Evaluation plan was approved by the Monitoring Committee in its 4th 

meeting on 23 November 2016. 

The objective of the Evaluation plan is to support the result orientation and general 

implementation of the Cooperation Programme. The Evaluation plan defines the strategy chosen 

for evaluating the impact of the programme priorities and specific objectives and provides crucial information for decision-makers, programme implementation bodies and for reporting in 

the form of Annual Implementation Reports and the Final Report. 

The Evaluation plan gives an overview of the planned evaluations as well as resources required 

and reserved for them. 

Two main evaluations are planned: impact evaluation and an evaluation on the implementation 

of the programme Communication strategy. An impact evaluation of each Specific Objective of 

the programme is both a requirement but also highly relevant for all programme bodies. 

Information on the achievements of the result indicator targets will be gathered based on the 

methodologies set out for establishing the baseline. The evaluation of the programme’s 

Communication strategy will be done on a broad level, comprising both the set-up of the 

organisation and the quality of the work done. Relevant evidence will be gathered for the 

Central Baltic Programme 2014-2020 directly. 

After the main framework for evaluations has been agreed upon by the Monitoring Committee, 

the Managing Authority (MA) will share information about its Evaluation plan with other Managing 

Authorities located in the Central Baltic Programme countries (covering the same regions or 

policy fields). This allows for sharing of information or for joint data collection where relevant. 

The MA/JS internal working group will discuss the findings and recommendations made by the 

evaluators. A draft reply will be presented to the MC and the MC is asked to discuss and 

complement the reply. The MC will finally agree on the follow-up of each recommendation. 

Once the evaluation findings have been made available, the programme will use the findings in 

the following possible or complementary ways: 

As input to future decisions on how to allocate remaining programme funds 

As input to discussions about cross-border cooperation Post 2020 

To communicate the results of the Central Baltic programme in the period 2014-2020 

The evaluation reports will be made public on the programme website and their content used in 

programme communication to the target groups (applicants, projects, wider audiences) where 

considered relevant and interesting. For this purpose, the evaluation reports shall consist to 

relevant parts of infographics, fact sheets and other material that can be used towards the 

general public. 

The programme aims to use the evaluation results in improving its current procedures and 

develop the quality of the work of the programme. The evaluation may also be used as input for 

allocating any remaining funds or discussions regarding future cooperation programmes. 

Objectives and scope of the evaluation 

 

The overall goal of this evaluation is to assess how the Central Baltic programme’s funding 

contributed to the objectives of each programme priority. For each priority, the evaluation 

should answer if the objectives of the priority were achieved through the projects and to assess 

the effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme’s selected Specific Objectives and 

communication efforts in reaching the wanted impact.

The evaluation should also recognise 

which other factors contributed to the achievement. 

The evaluation covers all projects that have ended or are in their closure period by the end of 

2018. Other projects that have come very far in implementation may also be included. At least 

20 projects will be in this phase. 

The evaluation also consists of an evaluation of the programme’s effectiveness in the field of 

communication. 

General evaluation questions for Priorities 1-4 

Have Specific Objectives reached their set target or are they on a good way to do so? 

What interventions would be needed in this field in the future? 

What is the impact of the programme in the measured change? What other relevant 

factors have contributed to the measured change? How effective has Central Baltic 

funding been in creating change in this field? 

Did cross-border cooperation bring added value to the funded interventions? 

What is the involvement of different types of partners in the implementation of CB 

projects? 

How has this priority contributed to wider policy objectives, in particular the EU 

Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) 

 

Indicative evaluation questions per specific objective are given below.                   Together  with  the 

evaluation questions, the evaluators are presented with materials and methodology that can be 

used in the evaluation. The evaluator may to propose additional relevant evaluation questions to 

the ones listed below. 

For  each  Specific Objective,  the evaluators will be presented with data on the result indicator 

achievement, collected by the JS. The evaluators shall verify the relevance of the results. 

SO 1.1

Questions

 Are the joint companies really joint? Describe the aspects of the “jointness” 

Are the joint companies economically sustainable? 

Are the additional new joint companies to emerge after the project activities have 

ended? 

What were additional relevant results achieved by the projects?  

What were the main challenges in joint new business development processes? 

Are the organizations who participated in the projects interested to continue with 

joint new business development processes? 

Did the “new joint company creation” logic work in your sector/business area? 

 

SO 1.2

Questions

What was the impact on participating young people? 

What was good, what did not work? 

Is there a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship among youngsters 

who participaed in project activities? 

SO 1.3

Questions

Describe other additional results (to the achieved sales)? 

What is the potential to follow to the achieved sales, established channels for 

export, potential FDI deals? 

Did the project’s approach (strategy, activities) work to enter to the targeted 

markets? 

What were the main challenges and obstacles for the co-operation and joint 

entering to the new markets? 

 

SO 2.1

Questions

 Are the created attractions well representing joint Central Baltic natural and cultural 

resources? 

What are main characteristics which make the created attractions joint? 

To which target groups(s) and target market(s) is the attraction focusing? 

Is there marketing strategy and marketing plan in place or in implementation to attract 

visitors to the attraction? 

Is the targeted number of visitors realistic to achieve? 

Is the tourist attraction sustainable environmentally? 

Is the tourist attraction sustainable as the attraction? 

 

SO 2.3

Questions

How is integrated urban planning understood in participating partner 

cities? 

What specifically has been changed/improved in participating urban areas 

planning processes? 

What added value have the projects given to urban planning processes? 

Are the achieved improvements in integrated urban planning processes 

sustainable? 

Have all relevant stakeholder groups been involved in the integrated urban 

planning process? 

What have been the best methods to involve relevant stakeholders? 

What have been main challenges related to integrated urban planning processes? 

 

SO 2.4

Questions 

Is information available on baseline situations for targeted sources? 

Are methodologies in place to measure the changes in the inflows of the nutrients, 

hazardous substances and toxins? 

Are the achieved reductions sustainable? 

Are the solutions and methods worked out transferable to other regions? 

What were main challenges in working cross-border to achieve reductions in 

inflows? 

 

 SO 3.1

Questions

Identify the improvements in travel times of the passengers. 

Identify the improvements in the times for flows of goods. 

Identify whether transport corridors and nodes improvements have led to lower 

CO2 emissions. 

Are the methodologies in place for measuring the improvements in travel times 

and in the movement of the goods? 

  

Are the achieved improvements in transport corridors and nodes sustainable? 

  

Identify end-user experience where applicable in using improved transport 

corridors and nodes. 

What have been main challenges in improving cross-border transport nodes and 

corridors? 

 

 

SO 3.2

Questions

What public services of the small ports have been improved? 

Are the improved services adding value for the small ports network attractiveness? 

What are improvements for local people? 

Are the small ports’ services improvements sustainable? 

Are there additional spill-over effects related to the improved services in the 

small ports? 

Identify small ports’ service improvements related innovative solutions and 

technologies which have potential for wider use. 

SO 4.1

Questions

 

What was the improvement for the community? 

How were the baseline situations described for the participating communities? 

How were the targeted improvements described for the participating 

communities? 

To what extent have people with social inclusion challenges been directly 

involved in activities organized by funded projects? 

What kind of tools/solutions worked best for achieving targeted improvements 

for the communities?  

 

SO 4.2

Questions

Are the curriculas really aligned? Describe the aspects of the “alignment” 

Are the aligned curriculas relevant from the               point  of  view  of  economic 

structure, labour market of participating countries/regions? 

Are the aligned curriculas in use or will they be? 

Where  relevant, what is feedback from students who studied or are currently 

studying based on aligned curriculas? 

What were additional relevant results achieved by the projects?  

What were the main challenges in the curricula alignment processes? 

Evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Communication  strategy  –  here  an  evaluation  of  the 

quality and effectiveness of the programme Communication strategy shall be carried out 

Evaluation questions 

Have  programme  structures,  including  the  National  Contact  Point  structure 

established  for  the  2014-2020  programme,  been  efficient  in  ensuring  a 

well-functioning communication flow in the whole programme area? 

Have the objectives set out in the Communication strategy been reached? 

Have  the  programme  communication  measures  reached  the  relevant  target 

groups efficiently? 

Does  the  Communication  strategy  need  to  be  updated  for  the  remaining 

programme period based on the evaluation findings? 

 

For  all  evaluated  points,  the  evaluators  are  asked  to  provide  suggestions  for  future 

improvements. 

3 Methodology and available data 

3.1. Methodological approach 

For the evaluation, a theory based approach is assumed. The evaluator shall select the 

methodology that he/she considers the most appropriate in achieving the aim of the evaluation. 

The methodology shall reflect existing information sources, the need to search for additional 

information as well as the scope of the planned interventions. An overview of the intended 

methods and techniques of evaluation, including the planning and structuring of the evaluation, 

conducting interviews and surveys, and data collection and analysis of the information shall be 

provided in the submitted tender. 

The proposed methodology should be a mix of relevant approaches. In addition to desk-based 

research, interviews or surveys with relevant stakeholders are foreseen. Relevant stakeholders 

for interviews or surveys can include representatives of the Programme staff, the members of 

the Monitoring and Steering Committees, the European Commission, lead partners and project 

partners, end users and/or multipliers of project outcomes, and other stakeholders.  

The evaluator shall describe the methodology including the envisaged format of presenting the 

results in detail in an inception report. 

In the final evaluation report results of the evaluation shall also be visualised in diagrams, tables 

and or maps as far as possible. 

The programme will make available to the evaluators a large number of relevant data. The evaluators are expected to familiarize themselves with and take into account in their offer at least the following:

•Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2014-2020 (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/information/legislation/regulations/)

•Guidance on monitoring and evaluation – Cohesion Fund and ERDF, 2014-2020 (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/)

•Cooperation Programme of Central Baltic programme (Annex 3)

•Programme Manual (Annex 4)

•Ex ante evaluation report (Annex 5)

•Evaluation Plan (Annex 1)

•Interact guidance document Establishing ETC Programme logic and linking Programme and Project Intervention Logics (Annex 6)

•Communication Strategy, its Communication Objectives and result indicators (Annex 7)

•Annual Implementation Reports 2014-2017 (Annexes 8-10)

• Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (https://www.balticsea-region.eu/communication/news/590704-updated-eusbsr-action-plan)

•The indicator methodologies for how to calculate baselines and achievement of indicators (Annex 11)

Once the evaluator has been contracted, the programme will make available to the evaluators:

•Collected information regarding project output and result indicators from application forms and reporting

•Access to the programme database eMS, where Application Forms and reports are available

•Contact information to lead partners, project partners, members of the Monitoring and Steering Committees

In general, the evaluator shall be provided access to programme-related information and data where necessary for the fulfilment of the tasks described above.

Other Programme documents and relevant information can be found on the Programme website.

Duration and workflow of services

The work is expected to start immediately after the contract has been signed. This is foreseen to take place in September 2018.

The work shall start with an inception phase.

During the inception phase the evaluator shall submit to the MA/JS a detailed methodological concept and work plan of the evaluation. The Inception report shall describe among other things the following:

•Specifications of evaluation sub-questions

•Details on the methodology and tools applied for the execution of the assignment, including the proposed sources of information and data collection procedure

•Detailed schedule for the tasks to be undergone (work plan), the activities to be implemented and the respective milestones and deliverables

•Description of the work flows and interactions with the programme bodies

•Description of the role and responsibilities of each member of the evaluation team

•Any other relevant information

The Inception report shall be discussed in detail with the programme’s Evaluation task force, consisting of members of the MA/JS and Member State representatives and the contractor. The meeting to discuss the Inception report shall be arranged within one month of the approval of the contractor.

The work plan and its timing shall be updated/fine-tuned along the contract duration in order to adapt it to the actual progress of the evaluation exercise.

Deliverables

The evaluators are asked to provide their draft evaluation report on the evaluation methodology and potential findings for the Monitoring Committee meeting in November, 2018.

The draft final evaluation report with findings shall be made available to the Evaluation task force in February 2019. After comments, the final evaluation report with findings shall be presented by the evaluators in the Monitoring Committee meeting in April 2019. The evaluators shall then take into account feedback of the Monitoring Committee and provide final deliverables by 1 May 2019.

As part of the final evaluation report, a one-page infographic has to be produced for each evaluated Specific Objective and the Communication Strategy as whole. The infographic shall present key findings in a graphic format and by using programme layout.

Hankinnan ennakoitu arvo (ilman ALV)
100000 - 150000 EUR
Pääkohde
Päänimikkeistö
Tutkimus- ja kehityspalvelut ja niihin liittyvät konsulttipalvelut. (73000000-2)

Hankintamenettely

Hankintamenettely
Avoin menettely
Osatarjoukset hyväksytään
Ei
Vaihtoehtoiset tarjoukset hyväksytään
Ei
Hankinta varataan työkeskuksille tai toteutettavaksi työohjelmien yhteydessä
Ei

Hankintamenettelyn tarkemmat ehdot

Ehdokkaiden tai tarjoajien soveltuvuutta koskevat vaatimukset

The following criteria will be assessed: 

4.1. The experience and qualifications of the staff:  :

- Proven good knowledge of English is a required qualification;  ,

- The team will be evaluated based on proven knowledge of and experience in all .

Central Baltic programme area countries (demonstrated through academic or 

professional work in the last 2-3 years at least),  :

- Experience with impact evaluations in a relevant field with references listed (at .

least 3 relevant evaluations should have been finalised in the last 2-3 years),  :

- Proven knowledge of the thematics of the Central Baltic programme evaluation ,

- Proven knowledge of Interreg programmes, their context and requirements.  .

 

CV’s for the staff involved in the work must be provided to verify this point. 

(25%), maximum score 100 points 

 

4.2. An evaluation proposal, explaining the chosen methodology to cover the 

information provided in chapter 2 Objective and scope of the evaluation as well as 

other relevant parts of this Term of reference.  :

- The proposal shall consist of a proposal for how to address the evaluation .

objectives and questions, present a sound evaluation methodology, suitable 

evaluation tools and implementation schedule.  

 

(25%), maximum score 100 points 

 

4.3. Price of the service (50%), maximum score 200 points 

The price must be given as a total estimated cost of the service. The price shall be given without VAT (VAT 0%). In addition, a rate for additional work may be provided, 

together with an explanation of how or when such an option would be considered 

relevant. 

The assessment of the criteria will be done based on a quality evaluation of the criteria 4.1. and 

4.2. so that the top bidder receives 100 points, the following 90 and so on always with a 

difference of 10 points. 

The score for criteria 4.3. will be calculated with the formula: cheapest offer / offer x maximum 

score. 

Based on the assessment of the offers the one with the highest score will be awarded the 

contract. The content evaluation will be done by the MA/JS, assisted by the Evaluation task 

force where Member State representatives participate. 

Todistukset ja selvitykset, joiden perusteella soveltuvuuden täyttyminen arvioidaan

The following criteria will be assessed: 

4.1. The experience and qualifications of the staff:  :

- Proven good knowledge of English is a required qualification;  ,

- The team will be evaluated based on proven knowledge of and experience in all .

Central Baltic programme area countries (demonstrated through academic or 

professional work in the last 2-3 years at least),  :

- Experience with impact evaluations in a relevant field with references listed (at .

least 3 relevant evaluations should have been finalised in the last 2-3 years),  :

- Proven knowledge of the thematics of the Central Baltic programme evaluation ,

- Proven knowledge of Interreg programmes, their context and requirements.  .

 

CV’s for the staff involved in the work must be provided to verify this point. 

(25%), maximum score 100 points 

 

4.2. An evaluation proposal, explaining the chosen methodology to cover the 

information provided in chapter 2 Objective and scope of the evaluation as well as 

other relevant parts of this Term of reference.  :

- The proposal shall consist of a proposal for how to address the evaluation .

objectives and questions, present a sound evaluation methodology, suitable 

evaluation tools and implementation schedule.  

 

(25%), maximum score 100 points 

 

4.3. Price of the service (50%), maximum score 200 points 

The price must be given as a total estimated cost of the service. The price shall be given without VAT (VAT 0%). In addition, a rate for additional work may be provided, 

together with an explanation of how or when such an option would be considered 

relevant. 

The assessment of the criteria will be done based on a quality evaluation of the criteria 4.1. and 

4.2. so that the top bidder receives 100 points, the following 90 and so on always with a 

difference of 10 points. 

The score for criteria 4.3. will be calculated with the formula: cheapest offer / offer x maximum 

score. 

Based on the assessment of the offers the one with the highest score will be awarded the 

contract. The content evaluation will be done by the MA/JS, assisted by the Evaluation task 

force where Member State representatives participate. 

Hankintamenettelyä koskevat lisätiedot

6 Terms of Payment

Payments are foreseen in installments upon finalisation of the deliverables:

•10% of the total price is to be paid upon invoice by the contractor once the Inception report has been approved by the MA

•40% of the total price is to be paid upon invoice by the contractor once the draft evaluation report has been presented to the MC and approved by the MC and MA

•50% of the total price is to be paid upon invoice by the contractor once the final evaluation report has been approved by the MC and the MA

7 Submitting the offer

The offer shall be provided in English. The offer shall clearly specify the service provided as well the compliance with the assessment criteria, taking into account the specifications provided for each criteria.

The offer shall be sent by 2 July 2018 at 15:00 to kirjaamo@varsinais-suomi.fi or

Kirjaamo

Varsinais-Suomen liitto

P.O. Box 273

20101 Turku

The e-mail or envelope shall be marked with ”Central Baltic 2014-2020 impact evaluation”

Kokonaistaloudellisen edullisuuden peruste
Paras hinta/laatusuhde
Vertailuperusteet
Vertailuperusteet on ilmoitettu tarjouspyynnössä
Tarjoukset tai osallistumishakemukset on toimitettava hankintayksikölle viimeistään
28.6.2018 15.00

Tarjouspyyntöasiakirjat

Tarjouspyyntöasiakirjat

Annex 1_Evaluation plan_161101.pdf

Annex 3_Central Baltic Programme Document.pdf

Annex 4_Central Baltic Programme Manual 2.4.09.2017.pdf

Annex 5_CB1420 XA Evaluation Report FINAL VERSION corr030314.pdf

Annex 6_Programme_Project_Intervention_Logic_October_2014.pdf

Annex 7_Central Baltic Programme Communication Strategy final.pdf

Annex 8_Annual implementation report_2015.docx

Annex 9_Annual implementation report_2016.docx

Annex 10_Annual implementation report_2017.docx

Annex 11_2018-19MidTermEvaluationMethodologies.docx

Annex 2_ToR_Evaluation plan_180301.pdf

Muutoksenhakutiedot

Muutoksenhakuelin
Virallinen nimi Markkinaoikeus
Postiosoite Radanrakentajantie 5
Postinumero 00520
Postitoimipaikka Helsinki
Maa Suomi
Puhelin +358 295643300
Sähköpostiosoite markkinaoikeus@oikeus.fi
Faksi +358 295643314
Internet-osoite http://www.oikeus.fi/markkinaoikeus
«« Takaisin