Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an evaluation firm to implement the Lagos Education Access Fund (LEAF)

New amendment added #5: Dear Bidders,This RFP has been amended to:Extend RFP clarification date to:25th June 2026, 10:00 UTC.This is to allow for the access and review of the clarifications providedPlease take note of the same

New clarification added: Clarification 48:Will EOF and/or LASUBEB provide support for field access, including coordination with schools and local authorities, or is this expected to be fully managed by the Evaluation Firm?UNOPS responseThe evaluation firm is expected to manage the coordination with schools and local authorities with the support of implementing partners. Support from LASUBEB may also be provided on a need basis.Clarification 49:To assess field deployment risks, are there any known security, access, or operational constraints across the targeted LGAs that should be considered in planning field verification activities?UNOPS responseEOF and LASUBEB are not currently aware of constraints that would materially impede field verification across the lots. However, bidders should plan against the standard Lagos operational realities. Clarification 50:Could you please clarify the process for resolving disputes related to verification results, including the role of the Evaluation Firm in supporting resolution? UNOPS responseStandard process per results cycle (Section F of the ToR):Results communication workshop — convened by EOF and LASUBEB, with the Evaluation Firm presenting the verification process, data quality assessment, and calculation of payments to IPs.Written follow-up questions — IPs may submit clarification or challenge questions in writing.Consolidated written response — issued jointly by EOF, LASUBEB, and the Evaluation Firm to ensure consistent feedback.Steering Committee determination — material disputes, penalties, or adjustments (e.g. payment discounts in cases of suspected gaming) are determined by the Steering Committee.Contractual mechanisms — final backstop through UNOPS contract terms (and the Grant Confirmation Letter for IPs).Role of the Evaluation Firm in supporting resolution:Present verification findings transparently and in a technically defensible manner.Maintain an auditable trail of data, methodology, and decisions to support review.Respond to technical questions and provide supplementary evidence or analysis where reasonably needed.Where merited, revisit specific verification decisions, undertake additional sampling, or adjust calculations.Support EOF and LASUBEB in formulating consolidated written responses and Steering Committee recommendations.Clarification 51:Learning Instrument Validation: Will EOF/LASUBEB provide pre-validated, localized versions of the EGRA/EGMA and Lagos NALABE instruments, or is the consortium expected to lead the contextual adaptation? UNOPS responseThe procurement of EGRA/EGMA instruments is the responsibility of the evaluation firm. Clarification 52:Literacy assessment language: Would the EGRA and the literacy component of NALBE aim to assess English language competencies or would this be for any other language (such as Yoruba)?UNOPS responseIt will be confirmed during inception in consultation with EOF, LASUBEB, and the Federal Ministry of Education, taking into account the National Language Policy (which provides for mother-tongue or language-of-immediate-community instruction in early primary) and the prevailing language of instruction in Lagos public schools (English at upper primary, with Yoruba widely used at lower primary and in community settings).Clarification 53:Unified Learning Metric: The ToR language seems to suggest using a single combined learning metric of both literacy and numeracy (which is typically not done). Is this still the expectation? If yes, are there any baseline normalization scales or psychometric mapping weights available for the two assessments to generate this unified learning outcome score?UNOPS responseLiteracy and numeracy will be measured using two different tools (EGRA and EGMA). Then, both scores will be combined to produce a unique score that will be used to measure learning gains and inform payment. EOF’s current proposal is to use the mean of the literacy and numeracy scores as the ‘learning score’. However, applicants are welcome to propose an alternative option.

New clarification added: Clarification 42: In the event that the Evaluation Firm develops or procures the digital tool, what are the expectations regarding ownership, long-term maintenance, and liability for system performance?UNOPS responseOwnership - Consistent with the programme's sustainability objective (Section D.6.1 of the ToR), any digital tool, data platform, code, configurations, training materials, and supporting documentation developed or procured under the contract should be transferable to EOF and/or LASUBEB at the end of the programme, with appropriate licences or rights granted to enable continued use and onward adaptation. Bidders should propose the IP / licensing arrangement (e.g. open-source, perpetual licence to EOF/LASUBEB, escrow of source code) and reflect it in the Technical Proposal. Underlying programme data remain the property of UNOPS/EOF/LASUBEB and are governed by the Data Sharing Agreement.Long-term maintenance - During the contract period, the Evaluation Firm is responsible for hosting, maintenance, security patching, user support, and ongoing functional improvements. The Technical Proposal should set out the maintenance model (hosting, support hours, response times, vendor partnerships if relevant) and a transition plan for handover to LASUBEB or a successor provider at programme end, including documentation, training, and a defined handover window.Liability for system performance - Standard UNOPS contract terms will apply. The Evaluation Firm is accountable for the tool's fitness for purpose, uptime, data integrity, security, and compliance with the EOF Safeguarding Policy, the UNOPS Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis, UNOPS standard terms for activities involving children, and applicable data protection requirements. Where development is delivered through a third-party partner, the Evaluation Firm retains overall responsibility.Clarification 43:To ensure a sound and complete proposal submission, it is requested that the following be clarified:Request to list all the mandatory sections to be included in the 50-page main proposalPlease clarify the minimum number of projects/ credentials to appropriately validate organisation experience and requirements UNOPS responseThe Evaluation Execution ToR does not prescribe a rigid set of mandatory section headings within the 50-page Technical Proposal. Bidders have discretion over how to structure and fill out the proposal, provided it clearly addresses the Form C scoring criteria set out in Section L of the ToR:Overall Response (10 pts) — completeness of response and accuracy of understanding of scope and objectives.Proposed Methodology and Approach (30 pts) — including the required detailed section on the digital tool, workplan and timelines, deliverables, and quality assurance mechanisms.Qualifications of the Organisation, Team, and Team Leader (30 pts) — with team member roles, responsibilities, and allocated days; for consortia, a clear explanation of structure and governance.Annexes (CVs, prior assignment references, consortium agreement if applicable, sustainability documents) sit outside the 50-page limit.Project / credential references. The ToR (Section L, Required Documentation) requires bidders to include, as annexes, electronic copies or links to the two most recent and relevant similar assignments carried out by the applicant. Bidders may include additional references where helpful to evidence the organisational qualifications in Section J, but the explicit ToR requirement is the two most recent and relevant.Clarification 44: For the purposes of designing the evaluation approach and accurately costing the assignment, could you clarify whether baseline data across key indicators will be available to the Evaluation Firm (e.g., through existing systems or Implementing Partner submissions)UNOPS responseExisting baseline data will be made available where possible to the Evaluation Firm where it exists, to inform evaluation design, sampling, and costing.Sources expected to be accessible during inception include:LASUBEB administrative data, including the school mapping exercise conducted by EOF in collaboration with LASUBEB (school-level enrolment, PTR, absorptive capacity, OOSC density estimates).Available NEMIS records.Relevant assessment data from prior programmes in Lagos and comparable Nigerian contexts (e.g. EGRA/EGMA, NALABE results) where shareable.IP submissions during programme delivery, which will constitute the primary source of programme baseline data on eligibility, attendance, and learning assessments (per Section D.7 of the ToR).That said, available baseline data have known limitations (variability across sources, gaps in unregistered private and informal schools, mobility of the Lagos population). Bidders should design and cost their approach on the assumption that some indicators will require Evaluation Firm–led baseline measurement (notably the Year 1 learning benchmarking exercise, per Table 19 of the ToR).Specific data made available will be confirmed during mobilisation and reflected in the Data Sharing Agreement with UNOPS and the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3).Clarification 45: Role of impact investor: Kindly confirm that the scope of services does not require the evaluation firm to undertake any grant management functions.UNOPS response:Yes can confirm the scope of services does not require any grant management.Clarification 46:To clarify data governance structure, could you please clarify data ownership, access rights, and data-sharing protocols across EOF, LASUBEB, Implementing Partners, and the Evaluation Firm (including access to raw and platform-level data)?UNOPS responseData governance is being actively confirmed. stakeholders have reached tentative and verbal commitments on data ownership, access rights, and sharing protocols, and we are working to secure formal written confirmation. Final arrangements will be confirmed during mobilisation. The arrangements will be reflected in the contract, the Data Sharing Agreement with UNOPS, and the Evaluation Protocol  

New clarification added: Clarification 36.  To assess learning gains, the design alternates between two different approaches – census-based estimation (IP data) and Sample-based estimation (Evaluator data). Is there any threshold/ decision rule to ascertain, when is IP collected data not sufficient?UNOPS responseThe ToR sets the principle: from Year 2 onwards, learning gains are estimated using IP-collected census data if the Evaluation Firm's data quality assessment finds the IP data sufficient; if not, the Evaluation Firm's verification sub-sample is used to estimate outcomes in its place (or to complement it).The specific decision rule — including the threshold(s), how multiple checks combine, the unit of decision (school / lot / programme), and treatment of borderline cases — should be proposed by bidders in the Technical Proposal and finalised in the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3, September 2026).For reference, Table 19 of the ToR suggests two indicative checks comparing IP data against the evaluator's sub-sample (illustratively at ≤0.05 SD): a school-mean difference check and a learning-gain difference check, alongside standard completeness, consistency, and protocol-adherence checks.Clarification 37:We understand that in the TOR it is mentioned that “Payments will be made upon submission and satisfactory approval of deliverables and upon full and satisfactory completion of the assignment.” Could UNOPS clarify how payments will be structured against deliverables—whether payments are milestone-based, annual, or tied to specific outputs within each objective as well as the respective amount (%)? UNOPS response Payments will be deliverable-based, structured around the deliverables and timeline set out in Table 25 of the ToR ("Reporting Requirements per Objective"), grouped into annual cycles aligned with the Lagos school year.The indicative structure is as follows, with each tranche released against satisfactory submission and approval of the corresponding deliverables:Mobilisation tranche — on acceptance of Deliverables 1.1 (Evaluation Design Review), 1.2 (Workplan), and 1.3 (Evaluation Protocol).Annual tranches (Y1 to Y3, plus Y4 under the 25M scenario) — on acceptance of each year's Baseline Report, Outcomes Report(s), and results presentation, plus the Capacity Building Plan (Deliverable 1.4) in Y1 and the light-touch capacity-building assessment in the final year.Final tranche — on satisfactory completion of the final year deliverables and overall close-out.The specific percentage split across tranches is not pre-set in the ToR and will be agreed with the successful bidder during contract negotiation, following standard UNOPS procedures and proportionate to the LOE and deliverables in each tranche.Clarification 38:Form C of the financial form, suggests RFP no. RFP/2024/55830; while the LEAF project corresponds to RFP/2026/62590.UNOPS response: This has been updated on the tender.Clarification 39:The ToR allows for both- cross-section as well as panel data for assessing learning gains. However, does EOF have a preferred design out of the two?UNOPS responseThe ToR allows both designs and leaves the final choice to the Evaluation Firm. However, there is a stated preference for a panel design where feasible, particularly for the Evaluation Firm's verification sub-sample.The rationale (per Table 19 of the ToR) is that a panel design is more statistically efficient — the indicative power calculations assume a baseline–endline correlation of 0.50, which improves power and reduces required sample size compared with a cross-section. This matters in particular for the scenario where the Evaluation Firm's sample may need to substitute for IP data if data quality is insufficient.Bidders should propose the design they consider most appropriate, weighing power gains against logistical, ethical, attrition, and cost considerations, and justify the choice in the Technical Proposal. The final design will be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3, September 2026).Clarification 40:Evaluation and Payment Schedule: Please confirm how timeline deviations will be handled in case of:· Delays in data submission by IPs· School calendar disruptionsUNOPS responseTimeline deviations will be managed jointly between EOF, LASUBEB, the Evaluation Firm, and IPs through the programme's governance mechanisms, with the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3) setting out the operational procedures.IP data submission delays. The Evaluation Firm should use the digital tool's automated monitoring to flag gaps early, issue structured feedback to the IP, and escalate persistent delays to EOF and LASUBEB. Where a verification cycle is affected, adjusted timelines will be agreed with the Steering Committee. Persistent non-submission may have implications for the IP's payment under the relevant metric and Metric 5.School calendar disruptions. The evaluation is aligned to the Lagos school year and accommodates routine variability. For unforeseen disruptions (e.g. strikes, extended closures), the Evaluation Firm will assess the impact and propose adjustments (shifted windows, revised sampling, extended fieldwork) for EOF and LASUBEB approval.Material schedule changes to Table 25 deliverables will be agreed in writing with UNOPS, with corresponding payment adjustments where relevant.Clarification 41  Please indicate whether deliverable timelines are:· Fully fixed, OR  Adjustable based on implementation realitiesUNOPS responseDeliverable timelines are largely fixed but adjustable in justified cases.The deliverables and timelines set out in Table 25 of the ToR are the authoritative reference and bidders should plan against them. They are anchored to the Lagos school year and to programme-wide milestones (target setting, payment cycles, results communication), so significant shifts have knock-on effects.That said, EOF, LASUBEB, and UNOPS recognise that implementation realities (IP delays, school calendar disruptions, sampling or feasibility constraints surfaced during inception) may require adjustments. Material changes will be agreed in writing between UNOPS and the Evaluation Firm in consultation with EOF and LASUBEB, with corresponding adjustments to payment scheduling where relevant.

New amendment added #4: This RFP has been amended to :1.Change the technical score in the schedule of  requirement from 50 to 49 points (70%).2.To amend the returnable bidding form, Form C to reflet the correct tender number which is : RFP/2026/62590 .All amendments are highlighted in red. Please take note of the amendments. 

New clarification added: Clarification 30: The TOR narrative (Section L) states that the financial proposal shall be presented with a breakdown of costs per metric and year. The financial proposal template provided in Section M (Form B) is structured by deliverable and objective, not by payment metric. These two instructions are not identical. An objective-level breakdown aggregates across all metrics verified in each field wave. A metric-level breakdown would require artificial apportionment of joint field costs across the five payment metrics, since all metrics are verified simultaneously in each school visit and the underlying field costs — crew fees, transport, assessment materials — cannot be physically attributed to a single metric. Can we prepare our financial proposal using the Form B template structure (by objective and year) and have a supplementary cost per metric sheet that estimates proportional cost allocation across the five metrics based on verification effort intensity? We seek confirmation that this approach satisfies the TOR requirement. Question:Does UNOPS/EOF require a strict cost breakdown by individual payment metric, or is a breakdown by objective and year (as per the Form B template) acceptable, supplemented by an indicative proportional allocation table? If a strict per-metric breakdown is required, please advise how joint field verification costs should be allocated.  UNOPS responseEOF/UNOPS does not require a strict per-metric cost breakdown. The Form B template structure is the authoritative format for the Financial Proposal.What is requiredBidders should prepare the Financial Proposal using the Form B template (by objective, deliverable, and year). This is the structure against which proposals will be evaluated. The reference to "per metric and year" in Section L is intended as guidance on the granularity of cost transparency, not as a separate parallel template.What is not requiredA strict cost breakdown by individual payment metric is not required, for precisely the reasons you have raised: most field verification activities are conducted jointly across multiple metrics in a single school visit (eligibility, placement, attendance, learning assessment, digital tool checks), and crew fees, transport, and materials cannot be physically attributed to a single metric without artificial apportionment.Supplementary information that is welcome (but optional)If bidders wish to include an indicative proportional allocation table showing how costs map across the five payment metrics — based on verification effort intensity, sampling design, or share of fieldwork days — this is welcome as a supplementary annex. It can support EOF's review of the methodology–cost alignment under the financial scoring criteria, but it will not be treated as a compliance requirement.Clarification 31: The pre-bidding conference minutes (Question 4, 28 May 2026) state that "an item bank will likely need to be developed so pupils do not repeat the same tests." This applies regardless of whether EGRA/EGMA or NALABE is used as the primary learning assessment instrument. Item bank development – designing, piloting, and validating a set of parallel test forms – is a substantive technical and financial undertaking. It is distinct from instrument adaptation or piloting as currently described in the TOR. It is not explicitly scoped in the TOR or costed in the financial proposal template. The word "likely" in the pre-bidding minutes suggests this requirement has not been formally confirmed. If it is confirmed, evaluation firms that have not costed it will face a scope gap after contract award. Question: Is item bank development a confirmed requirement of the evaluator's scope of work under this contract? If so, is this cost to be included in the financial proposal, and are there any specifications — number of parallel forms, grade bands, timeline — that evaluation firms should use as a basis for costing? UNOPS responseExisting EGRA/EGMA and NALABE item banks have been developed and validated in Nigeria and comparable contexts. The starting expectation is that the Evaluation Firm sources these existing items, assesses their suitability for the Lagos context and the relevant grade bands (P1–P3 for EGRA/EGMA; P4–P6 for Lagos NALABE), and adapts them to produce the parallel forms needed to avoid test repetition. This is consistent with the broader programme principle of adapting existing tools.Treatment in the Financial Proposal. Bidders may include item bank sourcing and adaptation as a clearly identifiable supplementary cost line, sized against their proposed approach (number of parallel forms, piloting effort, psychometric checks) with assumptions made explicit.Indicative parameters for costing (to be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol during inception):Two grade bands (P1–P3, P4–P6).Minimum of four parallel forms (2 for implementing partners and 2 for the evaluator) per grade band per cycle to prevent repetition between baseline and endline; additional forms across years to be confirmed based on the chosen sampling design.Adaptation and limited piloting only — not bespoke development.The final scope will be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3, September 2026), and revisited collaboratively with EOF and LASUBEB if more extensive item bank work proves necessary. 

New clarification added: Clarification 27: I will like to clarify if the evaluation partner will be responsible for designing the Theory of Change and developing he log framework for the project. If not, would it be possible to share the exisiting therory of change and/or log framework for the evaluation assignment? UNOPS response: No — designing the overall programme Theory of Change and logframe is not the responsibility of the Evaluation Firm. EOF and LASUBEB have led the programme design, and the underlying logic is articulated in the Evaluation Execution ToR through:• Programme Description and Objectives (Section A.3 and A.6)• The five payment metrics and their stated rationales (Section B and Table 11)• The dual focus on direct learner impact and systemic impact (Section A.6)• The sustainability pathways (Section A.9)What the Evaluation Firm IS expected to do (Objective 1 of the ToR):• Review the evaluation design and the underlying assumptions for technical soundness, and propose adjustments where appropriate.• Produce the Evaluation Design Review Report (Deliverable 1.1, within 4 weeks of contract signing).• Produce the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3, by September 2026), which consolidates the final evaluation strategy.• Where deviations from the proposed evaluation design are recommended, the firm should justify them and describe the impact on the evaluation and on the budget.Upon contract award, EOF will share the relevant programme design documents and briefs (including any additional articulation of the Theory of Change and the indicator/results framework) required for the successful delivery of the assignment, as stated in Section M ('Additional considerations') of the ToR.If the Evaluation Firm identifies gaps in the existing programme logic or measurement framework during the design review, it is welcome to flag these and propose strengthening adjustments as part of Deliverable 1.1. Full re-design of the programme Theory of Change is not within scope.Clarification 28: Programme Schools Per Lot: Conflicting Figures)The TOR contains two different figures for the number of programme schools per lot under each funding scenario in the same section of the document. Table 1 (Section D.4) and the pre-bidding conference funding scenarios slide both state116–117 schools per lot under the 25M scenario and 80 schools per lot under the 14.375M scenario. A separate paragraph in Section D.4 states 100 schools per lot (14.375M) and 200 schools per lot (25M). These two sets of figures differ substantially and produce different sample size requirements, verification workloads, and field costs for evaluation firms. We have based our proposal on the Table 1 and pre-bidding slide figures (116 and 80 respectively) as these appear in the more authoritative sources, but we seek confirmation that this is the operative figure for proposal purposes. Please confirm whether the operative number of programme schools per lot is (a) 116–117 schools per lot for the 25M scenario and 80 schools per lot for the 14.375M scenario, as stated in Table 1 and the pre-bidding slide, or (b) 200 schools per lot for the 25M scenario and 100 schools per lot for the 14.375M scenario, as stated in a separate TOR paragraph. If the figures differ between the eligible school pool and the selected programme schools, please clarify the distinction.UNOPS responseThe financial proposal should feature a costing for two scenario: one with 80 schools per lot, and one with 117 schools per lot. Clarification  29- Digital Tool Procurement Cost: Scope of Evaluator's Financial Obligation)----The TOR requires the financial proposal to include a dedicated section on the digital data collection tool (Section M). At the same time, the TOR describes two unresolved procurement options: Option 1, under which EOF procures the tool and no cost falls to the evaluator, and Option 2, under which the evaluator procures the tool and costs are included in the financial proposal. The pre-bidding conference minutes (Question 1, 28 May 2026) confirmed that final accountability for tool selection rests with EOF and that the goal is to adapt an existing tool. However, the procurement pathway between Option 1 and Option 2 was not resolved at that stage. Without knowing which option applies, evaluation firms cannot accurately cost this component. Submitting a figure under Option 2 assumptions when Option 1 is eventually chosen would inflate the proposal cost, potentially disadvantaging competitive bids. Question: Has EOF now determined whether Option 1 or Option 2 will apply? If Option 2 applies, please confirm what specifications or reference costs evaluation firms should use to estimate digital tool procurement or adaptation costs. If the decision remains pending, please confirm whether evaluation firms may submit their financial proposals with this cost line explicitly excluded, subject to a supplementary cost schedule once the procurement pathway is confirmed. UNOPS responseThe procurement pathway (Option 1 vs Option 2) has not yet been finalised and will be confirmed during mobilisation. As noted in the pre-bidding conference minutes (Question 1, 28 May 2026), accountability for tool selection rests with EOF, and the prevailing intent is to adapt an existing tool rather than build something new from scratch.How to cost the digital tool componentBidders should not exclude the cost line. To enable like-for-like comparison under either pathway, please present two clearly separated cost lines in the Financial Proposal:Cost Line A — Evaluator LOE under Option 1 (EOF procures the tool): evaluator input into requirements, UAT/piloting, ongoing data quality verification, dashboard use, anomaly investigation, and support to IPs and LASUBEB.Cost Line B — Tool procurement / adaptation under Option 2 (Evaluation Firm procures or adapts the tool): all activities in Cost Line A, plus the costs of adapting / standing up the tool itself.Sizing Cost Line B — light-touch, not from scratchIf Option 2 is selected, EOF does not expect a comprehensive bespoke digital tool to be built for this programme. The expectation is a light-touch tool — most likely the adaptation of an existing solution (e.g. an existing IP or government tool, or a configurable off-the-shelf platform) to meet the programme's core needs: eligibility documentation, attendance, learning assessment capture, automated validation, and reporting dashboards (per the functional requirements in Section D.7 of the ToR), with Android compatibility and alignment with EOF safeguarding, UNOPS ethical standards, and PII protections.Bidders should size Cost Line B on this basis and make assumptions explicit (e.g. base tool being adapted, configuration / adaptation hours, hosting, licences, vendor partnership terms, ongoing support).  

New clarification added: Clarification 25:When possible, could you kindly share the presentation and/or the recording from the pre-bid meeting?UNOPS response:The minutes of the pre bid meeting have been included as part of the tender documentsClarification 26:I am writing to request additional clarification on one of the requested documents to upload as part of the submission. More specifically, what qualifies as Sustainability Documents for the purpose of this bid? Thank you in advanceUNOPS response: In reference to the requirements of the qualification criteria no 3.12.. The sustainability drive document is also available in this RFP.In regards to sustainability referenced in the TOR, this  refer to materials demonstrating how the bidder's proposed evaluation approach will deliver against the sustainability objectives set out in Sections D.6.1 and D.7 of the ToR — i.e. how the evaluation methodology, digital data systems, and capacity-building work will leave behind durable improvements in Lagos State's education infrastructure once the programme ends.In practice, this can be evidenced through the relevant sections of the Technical Proposal (and supporting annexes), addressing:1. Digital data systems contributing to long-term infrastructure How the bidder's proposed digital data collection tool and supporting platform will support consistent definitions, real-time verification, and transparent data sharing during the programme.How the design enables transition to LASUBEB ownership, alignment with EMIS, and potential linkage to federal-level OOSC data hubs.How data captured (attendance, learning, OOSC profiles) will be made usable by teachers, schools, LASUBEB, and other government stakeholders beyond programme end.2. LASUBEB capacity-building planA proposed approach to the four capacity-building themes in Section D.6.1: use of digital tools and data systems; data collection and QA processes; data management and analysis; interpretation and use of evidence for decision-making.An embedded, on-the-job model (joint working sessions, practical demonstrations) rather than standalone training.Indicative frequency, modalities, and the light-touch assessment of capacity-building activities to be delivered at the end of the programme.3. Sustainable evaluation methodologyHow the evaluation prioritises IP-collected data (per Section D.7), with the Evaluation Firm verifying rather than replacing routine data generation — embedding measurement within delivery.How verification protocols, instruments (EGRA/EGMA, Lagos NALABE), and data quality standards developed under the programme can be handed over for continued use by LASUBEB.

New clarification added: Clarification 20: Could UNOPS provide minimum qualification and experience requirements for key personnel roles?UNOPS response: 'Yes — these are set out in Section J of the Evaluation Execution ToR ('Qualification Requirements').Clarification 21:Kindly confirm whether there is a minimum prescribed team structure (e.g., Team Leader, Evaluation Specialist, Verification Expert, Data Systems Lead, Learning Specialist), or if bidders have full flexibility in proposing team composition.UNOPS response: There is a defined minimum core team. Beyond this minimum, bidders have flexibility to propose the composition that best fits their proposed methodology.Minimum prescribed core (per Section J.1.2 of the Evaluation Execution ToR):• A specialist in quantitative methods• A monitoring & evaluation (M&E) expert• A Basic Education specialist• A Team Leader meeting the qualifications described in the ToR (and summarised in the response to Clarification 20)All profiles must be supported by the relevant qualifications, experience, and local language coverage described in Section J.Beyond this minimum, bidders are free to propose additional roles aligned to the scope of the evaluation. Illustrative roles bidders may wish to include: Senior Evaluation/Statistical Advisor, Verification/Field Operations Lead, Data Systems / Digital Tool Lead, EdTech partner lead (if applicable), Learning Assessment Specialist (EGRA/EGMA/Lagos NALABE), Capacity Building Lead for the LASUBEB engagement, Data Protection / Safeguarding Lead, Lagos-based Project Manager, and Enumerator/Field Team supervisors.The Technical Proposal must clearly state, for each proposed team member:• Role and responsibilities• Number of days allocated• How the individual contributes to specific deliverables in Table 25 of the ToRCVs of all named personnel must be included as annexes.Clarification 22: Kindly clarify whether the metrics/parameters on which the IPs/providers are collecting data in Baseline Year 1 will be defined/designed by the evaluators in consultation with other stakeholders.UNOPS response:  Yes. The Evaluation Firm will lead the technical work to confirm and finalise these parameters, in close consultation with EOF, LASUBEB, IPs, and (where applicable) an EdTech partner.The process will run as follows (per Sections F and G of the Evaluation Execution ToR):Within the first 4 weeks of contract signing — Evaluation Design Review Report (Deliverable 1.1):• The Evaluation Firm reviews the existing evaluation design in the ToR and recommends any adjustments needed for technical soundness and feasibility.By September 2026 — Technical Inception Workshop (Deliverable 2.1):• Convened by EOF and LASUBEB.• Led by the Evaluation Firm.• Confirms and finalises: metric definitions, verification protocols, sampling approach, learning assessment instruments (EGRA/EGMA, Lagos NALABE adaptation), roles in data collection (IP vs Evaluation Firm), data flows into the digital tool, and the data quality criteria for Metric 5.• IPs may submit follow-up written questions; consolidated written responses are then issued by EOF, LASUBEB, and the evaluator.By September 2026 — Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3):• Consolidates the finalised evaluation strategy, including all metric definitions, verification protocols, sampling, instruments, and data quality criteria.• Becomes the authoritative reference for Year 1 baseline data collection.In parallel — Year 1 Assessment Training and Data Collection plan (Deliverable 2.2, Sept/Oct 2026):• Detailed protocols, enumerator training content, IRR measures, and QA procedures.The Evaluation Firm therefore plays the lead technical role in defining the Year 1 baseline parameters, but always in consultation with EOF, LASUBEB, and IPs, with EOF formally communicating when the design has been finalised.Clarification 23: Is there any indication on the person-days requirement for evaluators for Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3?UNOPS response: The Evaluation Execution ToR does not prescribe person-day requirements. Bidders are expected to propose person-days based on:• Their proposed methodology and verification approach;• Their proposed sampling strategy and the number of schools to be visited each year;• Their proposed capacity-building plan with LASUBEB;• Their proposed approach to the digital tool;• The deliverables listed in Table 25 of the ToR for each year.The Financial Proposal must include a complete cost breakdown per day and per professional/technical level (Section L of the ToR), and for data collection services, a breakdown per enumerator/trainer, the assumed fieldwork team size, duration of fieldwork, and day rates.As general guidance (informational only — bidders should size based on their own approach):• Year 1 typically requires the highest LOE: design review, Evaluation Protocol, mobilisation, inception workshop, Y1 baseline benchmarking learning assessment by the Evaluation Firm, eligibility/placement verification for Cohort 1, Y1 endline learning assessment (QA subset), and Y1 outcome reports.• Years 2–3 (and Y4 under the 25M scenario): annual placement verification for new cohorts, annual retention verification for prior cohorts, annual baseline + endline learning assessments (subset, for QA against IP census data), annual outcome reports, and capacity-building activities.• Across all years: ongoing data verification, digital tool quality checks, and engagement in results communication workshops.Bidders should make their LOE assumptions explicit in the financial template so that EOF can assess cost-effectiveness in relation to the proposed methodology (Section L: 'The evaluation will focus on cost-effectiveness in relation to the proposed methodology').Clarification 24:Please indicate a budget ceiling, if possible. UNOPS response:The budget cannot be shared at this stage as the financial proposal forms 30 points in the evaluation.The evaluation will focus on cost-effectiveness in relation to the proposed methodology. The financial proposal will be assessed based on both the overall cost and the alignment of the methodology with the proposed costs. The budget ceiling cannot be shared at this stage as the Financial Proposal forms 30 points in the overall evaluation. The evaluation will focus on cost-effectiveness in relation to the proposed methodology. The Financial Proposal will be assessed on both its overall cost and the alignment of the proposed methodology with the proposed costs.Bidders are reminded that:• A separate Financial Proposal must be submitted for each funding scenario (15M USD / 3 years / 100 schools per lot, and 25M USD / 4 years / 200 schools per lot) using the Financial Proposal Template provided.• The maximum number of points will be allotted to the lowest Financial Proposal among technically qualified bidders who have achieved at least 50 points in the technical evaluation; other Financial Proposals receive points in inverse proportion to the lowest price (Section L).• A minimum of 70%(49  technical points) is required for the Financial Proposal to be opened.

New clarification added: Clarification 17: Kindly clarify how student-level tracking across years should be handled in cases of dropouts or transfers.UNOPS response: Longitudinal tracking of each child across years is central to verifying retention and learning gains, and the design must ensure IPs are not penalised when children transfer between schools. Bidders are expected to propose how this will work in practice.Unique identification — to be determinedA unique identifier per child will anchor longitudinal tracking and prevent double counting. Responsibility for assigning the ID has not yet been fixed and will be confirmed during mobilisation in consultation with EOF, LASUBEB, IPs and the Evaluation Firm. Possible arrangements include:-An ID generated and managed by the Evaluation Firm (or via the digital tool) and adopted by LASUBEB / participating schools in their registers; or-A government-issued ID used as the master identifier, with the Evaluation Firm verifying and reconciling against it; or-A hybrid model linking the two.ID portability so transfers do not penalise IPsPer the ToR, children who transfer between recognised schools within Lagos State remain eligible for retention payment (1-year retention requires remaining in the same treatment school; from 2-year retention onwards transfers to other public primary, JHS, or vocational schools are allowed). The tracking design must therefore enable the identifier — and the child's attendance and learning records — to travel with the child across these transitions, so that genuine continued participation is captured rather than mis-recorded as a dropout.Bidders should set out in the Technical Proposal:-Their preferred approach to ID generation, custody, and reconciliation.-The operational mechanism that makes the ID portable and independently verifiable when a child transfers — for example digital tool linkages across schools, paper trail, cross-register matching, parent/community confirmation, or follow-up by the Evaluation Firm.-How they will resolve common issues: duplicate IDs, name spelling variants, re-enrolment of the same child under a new record, and tracking across schools and across IPs within Lagos State.Clarification 18: The TOR outlines outcome areas such as school readiness, retention, and learning gains, but does not specify detailed indicator definitions. Kindly confirm whether standardized indicators and definitions will be provided by the client, or whether the evaluation firm is expected to develop them during inception.UNOPS response: A hybrid approach. EOF and LASUBEB have established the high-level outcome areas, the payment metrics, the eligibility criteria, and the indicative measurement tools in the Evaluation Execution ToR (Sections B and E). However, detailed operational indicator definitions, scoring rules, verification protocols, and data definitions will be finalised during the inception/mobilisation phase by the Evaluation Firm in close collaboration with EOF, LASUBEB, IPs, and any appointed EdTech partner.What the Evaluation Firm will lead during inception:• Finalise the operational indicator definitions and detailed verification protocols.• Adapt and pilot EGRA/EGMA and Lagos NALABE for the Lagos context if necessary.• Set the precise data-quality thresholds for Metric 5.• Confirm sampling strategies and power calculations.• Define the unique identifier and operational rules for longitudinal tracking.• Produce the Evaluation Design Review Report (Deliverable 1.1) and Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3) consolidating all of the above.Proposals should reflect this allocation and clearly show how the firm will deliver detailed indicator definitions through the inception process.Clarification 19: Please clarify whether there are pre-approved measurement tools and scoring methodologies for each outcome (e.g., learning assessments, attendance thresholds).UNOPS response:  Partially. The Evaluation Execution ToR (Section B / Table 11 'Indicator and Measurement Tool') sets the measurement-tool backbone. Final scoring methodologies and cut-points will be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol during inception.Pre-approved measurement tools by metric:• Metric 1 — School readiness (placement):   – The placement test is the same in-school component baseline learning assessment used for learning gains (EGRA/EGMA for P1–P3 and Lagos NALABE for P4–P6).   – Stable attendance: ≥60% over a 30-day rolling period after a 15-day stabilisation period.   – Eligibility verification using documentary evidence (birth certificates, ID cards, previous enrolment records, attested statements) plus automated checks and in-depth sample verification.• Metrics 2 & 3 — Retention (1-year, 2-year):   – Attendance threshold: ≥70% of academic year, drawn from school registers and IP-submitted attendance data; field verification via spot checks and audits.• Metric 4 — Learning gains:   – P1–P3: Early Grade Reading Assessment / Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGRA/EGMA), adapted for Lagos.   – P4–P6: Lagos Assessment on Learning Achievement in Basic Education (Lagos NALABE) — an adapted/shortened version of the national NALABE. Adaptation, piloting, and validation will be supported by the Evaluation Firm in coordination with EOF, LASUBEB, and the EdTech partner, if required..   – Scoring: pre-post design; combined literacy + numeracy score; pupils sampled at baseline and endline; SD-based effect size (Section E and Table 19).• Metric 5 — Utilisation of Digital Tool:   – Pass-fail mechanism against an annual set of criteria; data quality dimensions of completeness, consistency, accuracy, uniqueness, timeliness.   – Indicative criteria: e.g., 30+ unique high-quality assessment records per school at baseline and endline, daily attendance data for all pupils, full submission via the digital tool.   – Final criteria to be developed annually by the Evaluation Firm with LASUBEB and IPs.Final cut-points, scoring procedures, instrument calibration, and item-level reliability/validation will be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol during inception and through the technical inception workshop.

New clarification added: Clarification 14: Any expected annual evaluation calendar to be followed, including the timing of baseline, endline, and verification rounds.UNOPS response: The evaluation calendar follows the Lagos State school year (September to July). Indicative timing is summarised below; the final calendar will be confirmed in the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3) by September 2026:Year 1 (Sept 2026 – Aug 2027) — benchmarking year for learning gains; no outcome payment for Metric 4:• Mobilisation, inception, design review, and Evaluation Protocol — within ~3 months of contract signing.• Technical inception workshop with all IPs — September 2026.• Year 1 learning baseline (administered by the Evaluation Firm only in a sub-sample of schools) — October–November 2026.• Eligibility / school readiness verification (Metric 1) — rolling, concentrated around the placement window in Q4 2026.• Continuous attendance monitoring — throughout the year.• Year 1 endline learning assessment (administered by both IPs in all their schools and the Evaluation Firm in a QA subset) — June 2027.• Year 1 preliminary results and outcome reports (Metrics 1 and 5) — July–August 2027.• Digital tool utilisation review (Metric 5) — Q3/Q4 of each year.Years 2–3 (and Year 4 under 25M scenario):• Annual baseline (IP census + Evaluator subset) — September/October.• School readiness / placement verification — concentrated around the placement window early in the school year.• Mid-year spot checks — periodic during the school year.• Retention 1-year verification — at the end of the school year (June–July) once attendance data are finalised.• Retention 2-year verification — at the end of the second school year following placement.• Annual endline learning assessment — June.• Annual outcome report per grantee and metric — July–August.• Results presentation workshops with EOF, LASUBEB, and Grantees — August.The full timeline aligned to the 25M and 15M scenarios is shown in Figures 12 and 13 of the ToR, and in the deliverable timetable in Table 25 ('Reporting Requirements per Objective').Clarification 15: Kindly specify the frequency of capacity-building support/workshops to be provided or supported by the evaluation firm.UNOPS response:The Evaluation Execution ToR does not prescribe a fixed frequency for capacity-building activities. Per Section G.5 ('Objective 5 – Capacity Building'), capacity building should be delivered primarily through on-the-job support, joint working sessions, and practical demonstrations, rather than standalone or formal training events. The Evaluation Firm is expected to strengthen existing LASUBEB systems and workflows in a way that is proportionate to the scope of the evaluation and feasible within the programme timeline.Bidders should propose their own indicative frequency and modalities in the technical proposal, in line with the embedded/collaborative approach described in the ToR. As a guide, EOF would expect a balanced mix of:• Ongoing embedded support: routine engagement with LASUBEB's M&E team during data collection, verification, and analysis cycles.• Periodic structured sessions: e.g., quarterly working sessions or joint reviews of programme data, dashboards, and verified results.• Targeted skills support: aligned to the four capacity-building themes in the ToR — use of digital data systems, data collection and quality assurance, data management and analysis, and interpretation/use of evidence.• Results dissemination workshops: at least once per annual cycle, alongside the results communication workshops described in Section G.3 of the ToR.A detailed Capacity Building Plan (Deliverable 1.4) is required by December 2026 and will be agreed with EOF and LASUBEB. A light-touch assessment of capacity-building activities is also required in the Year 3 final outcomes report.Clarification 16 : Kindly confirm whether the evaluation firm is permitted to engage third-party field agencies or enumerators (subcontracted resources) under its supervision for data collection and verification activities.UNOPS response:Yes. The Evaluation Firm may engage third-party field agencies, enumerators, or other subcontracted resources to support data collection and verification activities, subject to the following conditions:• Overall responsibility: The contracting Evaluation Firm retains full responsibility for the quality, timeliness, integrity, and compliance of all data collection and verification activities and deliverables. Subcontracting does not transfer accountability.• Supervision and QA: Subcontracted resources must operate under the Evaluation Firm's direct supervision, with documented quality assurance procedures, enumerator training, back-checks, and inter-rater reliability (IRR) measures (see Deliverable 2.2 in Table 25 of the ToR).• Compliance: All third parties must adhere to:   – EOF's policy on Safeguarding   – The UNOPS Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Analysis   – UNOPS Standard Terms for Activities Involving Children and Young People   – The Principles of Digital Development (for CAPI devices)   – The Data Sharing Agreement with UNOPS   – No PII shared with EOF without explicit consent• Disclosure: Proposed subcontracting arrangements (the role and identity of intended subcontractors, where known) should be disclosed in the technical proposal.• Pricing: Subcontracted costs must be transparently reflected in the Financial Proposal in line with the breakdown requirements in Section L of the ToR (cost per enumerator/trainer, fieldwork team size, fieldwork duration, day rates).Use of qualified local field agencies is encouraged where this strengthens local presence in Nigeria and supports efficient fieldwork delivery. 

New clarification added: Clarification 11:The RFP indicates the use of digital tools/platforms for data collection and verification, with potential involvement of the evaluation firm. Kindly clarify the expected level of detail to be included in the technical proposal regarding digital systems. Specifically, are bidders expected to provide:a) A high-level conceptual approach, orb) A detailed system design, so that the approach can be tailored accordingly?UNOPS response: Bidders should provide a high-level conceptual approach with sufficient technical depth to demonstrate feasibility, capability, and a credible path to deployment. The expectation is conceptual design plus technical assurance — not a finalised system design. The detailed system design will be developed collaboratively during mobilisation with EOF, LASUBEB, selected IPs, and (if applicable) the external EdTech partner.At proposal stage, the 'detailed section on the digital tool' (per Section L of the Evaluation Execution ToR) should include:• Conceptual architecture: data collection, storage, access, and reporting; integration with verification workflows; offline-first considerations given Lagos connectivity realities; Android compatibility (per the ToR — no hardware will be provided to IPs).• Indicative data model: key data entities (child, school, IP, assessment, attendance), unique identifiers, and how these support de-duplication and longitudinal tracking.• Approach to data quality and validation: automated completeness, consistency, accuracy, uniqueness, and timeliness checks; anomaly flags; alignment with the Metric 5 data-quality criteria.• Dashboards and reporting: what stakeholders (EOF, LASUBEB, IPs, evaluator) will see; access controls.• Security and data protection: compliance with EOF Safeguarding Policy, the UNOPS Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis, UNOPS standard terms for activities involving children, and PII protections (no PII shared with EOF without explicit consent).• Approach to instrument digitisation: how EGRA/EGMA and Lagos NALABE would be captured.• Sustainability: how the tool/platform could be transitioned to LASUBEB use beyond the programme, and how it could link with EMIS or federal-level OOSC data hubs.• Vendor strategy: whether the bidder will build in-house or partner with an EdTech provider, and the rationale.Detailed system design (functional specs, UI/UX, full data dictionary, code-level architecture) will be finalised during inception and reflected in the Evaluation Protocol (Deliverable 1.3, September 2026).Clarification 12:Please indicate the required percentage of subset in terms of schools to be covered per lot for the field verification activities.UNOPS response: The Evaluation Execution ToR does not prescribe a fixed percentage. Per Section G.3 of the ToR, 'The Evaluation Firm will verify learning outcomes in a representative sub-sample of schools (precise fraction to be finalised during mobilisation).' Bidders are expected to propose a justified sample size in the technical proposal and to confirm/refine it during mobilisation.The sample size should satisfy two objectives:1. Quality assurance of IP-collected data (the primary use case): the sample must be large enough to detect small, programmatically meaningful differences between IP-collected and Evaluator-collected data at lot level (e.g., a difference of ≤0.05 SD in mean school learning scores and in learning gains — see Table 19 of the ToR for indicative checks).2. Backstop for outcome estimation: the sample must be large enough that, in the event IP-collected data quality is judged insufficient, the Evaluator-collected sample can independently estimate annual learning gains per lot at an acceptable Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE).The ToR provides indicative power guidance (Table 9):• Assumptions: 30 pupils per school per round; ICC = 0.30; baseline–endline correlation = 0.50 (panel); α = 0.10 one-tailed; power = 80%.• Bidders are encouraged to consider scenarios with different sample sizes at baseline vs endline (the endline data quality check requires a larger sample) and to use power-maximising designs (e.g., panel over cross-section).For school readiness, eligibility, retention, and digital tool metrics, sampling will follow a risk-based verification approach with desk-based verification of all reported children, supplemented by sample-based field verification of a subset. Bidders should propose the size of this field verification sample per metric.Clarification 13: The TOR specifies that The total amount of outcomes funding targeted for this programme is 25M USD. The programme will aim to run in at least 600 public schools in Lagos State from Q3 2026 to Q3 2030, with mobilisation commencing in Q2 2026, however the table below the number of schools total is mentioned as 240/350. Please clarify the correct expectations in this regard. UNOPS response:350 (USD 25M) / 240 (USD ~14.4M) = target schools that receive both the in-school and out-of-school components. These are the schools in which learning gains (Metric 4) will be measured.The ~600-school figure under the 25M scenario reflects the combined programme footprint: the 350 target schools plus an anticipated ~250 supporting schools that participate in the OOS component only. Supporting schools are brought into the programme during implementation to absorb OOSC where target schools have reached their absorptive capacity.Across both scenarios the programme operates in three geographic lots, and direct programme reach under the 25M scenario is approximately 200,000 children across in-school and OOS components combined.For proposal purposesLearning assessment (Metric 4) and Metric 5 verification should be sized against target schools (350 / 240).OOSC eligibility, placement, and retention verification (Metrics 1–3) should be sized against the broader footprint that includes supporting schools.Target schools per lot will be finalised after the RFP through a collaborative process between LASUBEB, EOF, and selected IPs (Section A.8.5).Please also see the full response to Question 7. 

New clarification added: Clarification 10. Form C/technical Proposal: It is stated that the technical proposal must be organised to follow the format of Form C. However, this form mentions the evaluation criteria, not the sections. For example, if the overall response is to be considered a section, what are bidders expected to include here? UNOPS response: Form C presents the technical evaluation criteria; however, bidders are expected to structure their technical proposal in line with these criteria. To support clarity, the technical proposal should be organised into three main sections as follows:Overall ResponseThis can be presented as an executive summary, highlighting the bidder’s overall understanding of the Terms of Reference, the objectives of the assignment, and how the proposed approach aligns with these.Proposed Methodology and ApproachA detailed description of the approach to delivering the assignment, including the implementation plan, methods for data collection and analysis, timelines, and quality assurance mechanisms.Qualifications of the Organisation, Team, and Team LeaderInformation demonstrating that the organisation and proposed team meet the required qualifications and experience outlined in the RFP.The “Overall Response” section will be evaluated based on the completeness of the proposal and the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of and alignment with the Terms of Reference. 

New clarification added: Clarification 6. Number of Schools: The ToR refers to different school numbers across sections, including approximately 600 schools, 641 eligible schools, 350 schools under the 25M USD scenario, 240 schools under the 15M USD scenario, and 100/200 schools per lot in another section. Could you please confirm the school numbers bidders should use as the basis for technical and financial assumptions under each funding scenario?UNOPS response:For proposal purposes, bidders should use the updated parameters below (these have been revised following updated mapping exercises):The programme operates across three geographic lots and works with two categories of schools:Target schools: receive both in-school and OOS components; learning gains (Metric 4) are measured here.Supporting schools: receive the OOS component only; identified during implementation to absorb OOSC where target schools reach capacity.Scenario 1 — USD 25M funding scenario / 4 years-350 target schools (~117 per lot)~250 supporting schools identified during implementationTotal programme footprint: ~600 schools; direct reach ~200,000 childrenScenario 2 — USD ~14.4M funding scenario / 3 years-240 target schools (~80 per lot)Supporting schools identified during implementation (totals confirmed at mobilisation)Sizing the proposals:Learning assessment (Metric 4) and Metric 5 verification: size against target schools (350 / 240).OOSC eligibility, placement, and retention verification (Metrics 1–3): size against the broader footprint including supporting schools.Make school-count assumptions explicit for each metric in both the Technical and Financial Proposals.Clarification 7: Learning Agenda outside scope of assignment: The ToR states that Learning Agenda activities are outside the scope of this assignment, but also the learning agenda is described in the programme narrative. Could you confirm that bidders should not include separate Learning Agenda data collection, analysis, or research activities in the Technical or Financial Proposal?UNOPS response: Confirmed. Activities related to the design, data collection, analysis, and delivery of the Learning Agenda fall outside the scope of this Terms of Reference (see Sections A.9.2 'Programme Learning' and G.4 'Objective 4 – Learning Agenda' of the Evaluation Execution ToR).The Learning Agenda is referenced in the ToR for context only — to explain the broader evidence-generation ambition of the programme. The scope, methodology, and resourcing of any Learning Agenda work will be defined at a later stage (anticipated Q4 2026). EOF reserves the right to either (a) issue a follow-on contract to the successful bidder under this ToR, or (b) issue a separate procurement to engage a provider for the Learning Agenda.Proposals should focus exclusively on Objectives 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Evaluation Execution ToR (evaluation design review, school/lot selection support, outcomes evaluation, and LASUBEB capacity building).Clarification 8 :Unified digital data collection tool/platform development: Could you confirm whether bidders are expected to include the cost of procuring or developing the unified digital data collection tool/platform in the Financial Proposal, or whether this will be procured separately by EOF? If bidders should include it, should this be presented as a separate optional cost or as part of the core budget?UNOPS response: The final approach for procuring/developing the unified digital data collection tool will be confirmed during programme mobilisation in consultation with EOF, LASUBEB, the selected Evaluation Firm, and Implementing Partners. Per Section A.9.4 of the Evaluation Execution ToR, two options are envisaged:• Option 1: Tool procured by EOF through an external developer; or• Option 2: Tool procured or developed by the Evaluation Firm (in-house or via a partnership with an external technology / EdTech provider).Bidders are therefore asked to do the following:In the Technical Proposal:• Include the dedicated 'detailed section on the digital tool' required under Section L of the ToR ('Applicants will be required to submit a single proposal with a detailed section on the digital tool').• Demonstrate technical capability to support BOTH options (using an EOF-procured tool, or procuring/developing it through the firm itself).• Describe their approach to: tool design and adaptation, data architecture and data flows, automated validation/quality checks, dashboard reporting, security and data protection, and sustainability beyond the programme.In the Financial Proposal:• Present the cost of digital tool procurement/development as a separate, clearly identifiable line item — NOT bundled into the core verification budget. This allows EOF to evaluate the two options on a like-for-like basis.• Provide unit assumptions (e.g., licence fees, development hours, vendor partnerships) so EOF can scale costs based on the final approach.• Also include the LOE the firm would still incur under Option 1 (where EOF procures the tool) — see Clarification 9.This approach ensures comparability across bidders and gives EOF the flexibility to determine the final arrangement during mobilisation.Clarification 9:LOE if digital tool procured separately by EOF: If the digital tool is procured separately by EOF, what level of effort should bidders assume for the evaluator’s role in tool design, testing, data quality checks, dashboard use, and technical input?UNOPS response:During mobilisation / inception:• Provide technical input into the requirements specification (data fields, validation rules, dashboard logic), jointly with EOF, LASUBEB, IPs, and the external developer.• Co-design the agreed assessment instruments (EGRA/EGMA, Lagos NALABE) for digitisation within the tool.• Co-design verification protocols the tool needs to support (eligibility documentation, attendance, learning assessment).• Participate in user-acceptance testing (UAT) and piloting prior to roll-out.During implementation (each year):• Use the tool to receive, monitor, and conduct data quality checks on IP-submitted data (completeness, consistency, accuracy, uniqueness, timeliness).• Triangulate digital records with independent sample-based field verification and spot checks.• Use platform dashboards to identify anomalies and conduct in-depth investigation where flagged.• Provide structured feedback to IPs and EOF on data quality and recommend improvements.• Support LASUBEB and IPs in tool usage as part of the capacity-building objective.• Where the tool cannot capture certain data or fails to deploy on time, support the use of complementary templates/instruments.Bidders should size LOE based on:• 3 lots × ~117 schools (25M scenario) or ~80 schools (15M scenario) per lot.• Annual data quality verification cycles plus sample-based field verification across a subset of schools (see Clarification 12).• The technical inception workshop (Section F of the ToR) and annual results communication workshops.This LOE should be presented as a clearly identifiable cost in the Financial Proposal even when Option 1 is assumed, so EOF can compare bids on a consistent basis. 

New amendment added #3: Dear Bidders,This RFP has been amended to:1. Extend RFP clarification date to:19th June 2026, 10:00 UTC.2. Extend RFP closing date to:24th June 2026, 10:00 UTC. This is to allow for finalization and posting of the large number of clarifications recieved and also give bidders more time to finalise their proposals.3. Upload Pre bid minutes.Please take note of the amendments. 

New clarification added: Clarification 5: The ToR states that the Pre-bidding Conference is tentatively scheduled for 28th May. We would like to partcipate in this conference. Please could you update us on this?UNOPS response:The pre bid meeting will be held on 28th May 2026. Please make reference to below updated meeting instructions as previously shared.Clarifications/pre-bid meeting details:Pre Bid Meeting-Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an  evaluation firm to implement the evaluation design for the Lagos Education Access Fund (LEAF) Thursday, May 28 · 12:00 – 1:00pmTime zone: Europe/ZurichGoogle Meet joining infoVideo call link: https://meet.google.com/vyv-cdec-bgsOr dial: ‪(KE) +254 20 3893887‬ PIN: ‪692 106 962 1782‬#More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/vyv-cdec-bgs?pin=6921069621782

New clarification added: Clarification 4:Thanks for sharing the link. However, it is only going to a google calender platform that is not showing the link to the meeting itself. Kindly clarify if the case is that the caledar link will be updated in time? UNOPS response:The video link has been updated as below google meet information . All other details remain the same.Clarifications/pre-bid meeting details:Pre Bid Meeting-Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an  evaluation firm to implement the evaluation design for the Lagos Education Access Fund (LEAF) Thursday, May 28 · 12:00 – 1:00pmTime zone: Europe/ZurichGoogle Meet joining infoVideo call link: https://meet.google.com/vyv-cdec-bgsOr dial: ‪(KE) +254 20 3893887‬ PIN: ‪692 106 962 1782‬#More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/vyv-cdec-bgs?pin=6921069621782

New amendment added #2: This RFP has been amended to update the  pre bid meeting link details as below:Pre Bid Meeting-Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an  evaluation firm to implement the evaluation design for the Lagos Education Access Fund (LEAF) Thursday, May 28 · 12:00 – 1:00pmTime zone: Europe/ZurichGoogle Meet joining infoVideo call link: https://meet.google.com/vyv-cdec-bgsOr dial: ‪(KE) +254 20 3893887‬ PIN: ‪692 106 962 1782‬#More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/vyv-cdec-bgs?pin=6921069621782All other details remain unchaged.

New clarification added: Clarification 3:Could you kindly re-share the link and confirm the time? UNOPS response:Please see below details as shared in the tender under the particulars section:Clarifications or pre-bid meeting:  ApplicableClarifications/pre-bid meeting date:        2026-05-28 10:00 UTCClarifications/pre-bid meeting details:   https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=M3JpN29oMWRrbDhnMTk3NGRjZWFkOHA3bW8gcm9zZW1AdW5vcHMub3Jn&tmsrc=rosem%40unops.org

New clarification added: Clarification 1:Dear Sirs,We would appreciate clarification on the “local presence” requirement. Can international organizations submit a bid in association with a local partner - for example, a Nigeria‑based firm?Many thanks in advance. UNOPS response:International organisations are eligible to submit bids. The RFP allows for consortium applications, where organisations may partner with local (e.g. Nigeria-based) firms. In such cases, one organisation must act as the Lead Entity, taking overall contractual responsibility, while local partners may contribute to implementation and ensure strong on-the-ground presence. Clarification 2:We would like to kindly seek confirmation on whether the pre-bid conference scheduled for tomorrow will proceed as planned, considering the Eid holiday.We would appreciate your confirmation on the meeting schedule, meeting link and timing, or any revised arrangements, if applicable .UNOPS response: We would like to confirm that the pre‑bid conference will proceed as scheduled. Within the United Nations system, 27 May is observed as the Eid holiday. While we understand this may not apply in all contexts, we have taken this into consideration and ensured there is ample time between the pre‑bid conference and the submission deadline. To support any participants who may be unable to attend, the session minutes will be shared as part of the tender documents. Participants will also be able to submit follow‑up questions in writing after the session. The meeting link and timing remain as previously communicated.We appreciate your understanding and look forward to your participation.

New amendment added #1: This RFP has been amended to change the title and all documents from Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an  evaluation firm to implement the evaluation design for the Nigeria Education Outcomes Fund (NEOF) to Request For Proposal For the Engagement of an  evaluation firm to implement the evaluation design for the Lagos Education Access Fund (LEAF)