Objectives and expected results

General objective

Recruit an Evaluation Team Leader to provide operational oversight of assessors in selecting the best proposals received under the call for proposals ‘Sustainable Blue Economy in West Africa’ and to conduct a comprehensive, consistent and high-quality selection process in accordance with the criteria set out in the guidelines for applicants.

Results to be achieved by the contractor

• • Individual grids checked and validated (quality, completeness, consistency) for summary notes and complete applications.
  • Consolidated grids prepared and communicated to the evaluation committee on time.
  • Summaries of evaluation results at each stage submitted to the evaluation committee
  • Final summary report of assessors' recommendations, analysing strengths/weaknesses by theme, country and project proponent
  • Lessons learned identified to improve future evaluation processes

Scope of intervention

Role and mission of the evaluation manager

Quality control of grids

• • • • Systematic checking of individual grids for summary notes and complete requests: completeness, consistency of scores/comments, justifications aligned with WASOP criteria
    • • The lead assessor validates the revised evaluations before submission.

Consolidation of assessors' grids:

• • • • Consolidation of assessments: Complete consolidation of assessments, producing a single grid with harmonised scores and comments.
    • • In the event of a significant discrepancy between the total scores of the two assessors, as defined by the assessment committee, the lead assessor facilitates an agreement between them; failing that, he or she ensures a third assessment by an additional expert.
    • • When a third assessment is required, it is the lead assessor who carries out this additional assessment. The final consolidation is then carried out on the basis of the grid of the lead assessor and that of the expert whose score is closest, in accordance with the terms defined by the assessment committee.

​Syntheses and submissions

• • • • Synthesis of results at each stage (individual evaluations, consolidations) and immediate transmission to the evaluation committee
    • • Monitoring of the balanced allocation of files by expertise (fishing, aquaculture, etc.) decided by the evaluation committee
    • • Regular monitoring of assessors' progress with reminders to meet deadlines

Final Report and Analysis

• • • • Drafting of a summary report of the assessors' recommendations, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the projects evaluated (by priority themes, countries, profiles)
    • • Coordination of initial briefings, weekly updates and collegial consolidations
    • • Identification of lessons learned to improve future evaluation processes.
    • • For projects not selected in either of the two phases (summary and full), but which may be of interest to other WASOP Pillar II tools (blue facility, practitioner network) or WASOP Pillars I and III, recommendations are expected from the lead assessor. This summary of recommendations may be included in an annex to the report, which would be submitted to the assessors at a later stage so as not to delay the assessment process.

Role and mission of assessors

The main task of the assessors recruited is to ensure an independent, methodical and rigorous assessment of the proposals received in response to the SBE WASOP call for projects.

Their main tasks include:

• • · Technical and financial evaluation of the summary presentation notes and complete applications, including verification of consistency, efficiency and budgetary relevance, with particular attention to anomalies or potentially overestimated budget lines.
  • · Participating, upon request, in coordination meetings with the evaluation committee to ensure good communication and smooth monitoring of the process.
  • · Submitting evaluation reports within the specified deadlines.
  • · Working closely with the lead assessor and the evaluation committee at each stage of the selection process.
  • · Strict compliance with a prior declaration of impartiality and confidentiality, ensuring an objective and confidential evaluation of applications.
  • · Immediate reporting of any potential conflict of interest to the contracting authority.

Evaluations are carried out in accordance with the guidelines and instructions established by the evaluation committee, based on the evaluation grids published for applicants. The overall evaluation is based on the sum of the scores obtained for each sub-section, aggregated by section, with a final score calculated as the arithmetic mean of the evaluations assigned by the assessors.

Each application must be evaluated on its own merits, without direct comparison with other proposals. Assessors are encouraged to draw on their personal experience of the sector and project implementation to enrich their analysis.

The evaluation committee may invite assessors to present and justify their evaluations in order to ensure the transparency and consistency of the process.

Finally, assessors are bound to absolute confidentiality at all stages of the evaluation process, thus ensuring the integrity of and confidence in the system.

Role and mission of the evaluation committee

The evaluation committee, appointed by the contracting authority, comprises a chairperson and a secretary who do not take part in the vote, and an odd number of members who do take part in the vote (at least three). Its role is to advise the contracting authority on the award of contracts in accordance with the criteria set in advance.

The chairperson coordinates the evaluation procedure in accordance with the procedures defined by the French rules of expertise and ensures its impartiality and transparency. The committee secretary performs all administrative tasks related to the evaluation procedure, including distributing and collecting declarations of impartiality and confidentiality, as well as drafting and filing the minutes and all other relevant data and documents.

Where the proposals received are particularly numerous or highly technical, assessors may carry out all or part of the detailed examination, so that the evaluation committee can deliberate on the basis of their analyses, including the opinion of the EU delegation in the country where the proposed project will take place.

The assessors work under the supervision of the lead assessor, who is the subject of these ToRs.

If the analyses do not meet the quality standards expected by the contracting authority, the latter may return the applications to the contractor and request a new evaluation by the same or another expert.

The process of evaluating summary notes and complete forms

Each proposal, whether a summary note or a complete form, is initially evaluated individually and independently by two designated experts (evaluator and/or assessor). Each expert assigns scores and provides comments for each of the evaluation criteria according to the specific grid provided, then submits their evaluation to the lead assessor for quality control.

The process of verifying each evaluation grid by the lead assessor is divided into two stages:

• • The lead assessor verifies the consistency, rigour and compliance of each evaluation grid with the criteria and procedures defined in the call for proposals guidelines.
  • Once this verification has been completed and the grid has been validated by the lead assessor, it is considered the final version, ready to be used for the next stages of the evaluation process.

The lead assessor will be entirely responsible for consolidating the evaluations. The lead assessor will carry out all the consolidation work without consulting the other assessors, except in the event of a significant discrepancy between their total scores, as defined by the evaluation committee. In this situation, the lead assessor will attempt to facilitate an agreement between the two assessors; failing that, they will carry out a third evaluation. When a third assessment is required, the final consolidation is carried out on the basis of the third expert's grid and the expert whose score is closest to it, according to the terms defined by the assessment committee. This consolidation aims to harmonise the scores by taking into account only the assessments of the third expert and the closest expert.

The consolidation results in a single evaluation grid, approved by consensus, with common scores and comments for each criterion. The consolidated evaluation constitutes the final evaluation and serves as the basis for the committee's deliberations on the ranking and selection of proposals, thus ensuring rigour, fairness and transparency.

Logistics and timetable

Location: Remote work with the possibility of virtual and face-to-face meetings.

Timeline: First half of 2026.

The mission of the Evaluation Team Leader is part of the WASOP call for proposals evaluation process, coordinated by the evaluation committee. It will span a total period of approximately six (6) months, covering two successive evaluation cycles:

• • An initial evaluation of the summary scores;
  • A second evaluation of the complete forms for the shortlisted proposals.

The actual duration of the assignment will depend on the number of proposals received and will be specified during the operational planning of each phase.

Provisional timetable:

Phase 1 – Familiarisation and briefing

• • Reading of reference documents (terms of reference, evaluation guide, criteria and scoring grids);
  • Participation in a briefing session organised by Expertise France to harmonise understanding of the criteria, procedures and evaluation tools;
  • Specific briefing for assessors: presentation of quality expectations and control procedures.

Phase 2 – Evaluation of summary scores

• • Distribution of proposals to assessors, avoiding any conflict of interest related to the assessors' country of origin or any other factor;
  • Quality control of individual assessors' grids according to the evaluation grid provided;
  • Validation of individual assessors' grids

• • Management of significant discrepancies and preparation of consolidations;
  • Summary of results and transmission to the Evaluation Committee for validation of the list of proposals to be invited to submit a complete form.

Phase 3 – Evaluation of complete forms

• • Quality control of individual assessors' grids according to the evaluation grid provided;
  • Validation of individual assessors' grids
  • Management of significant discrepancies and preparation of consolidations;
  • Transmission of consolidated evaluations to the Evaluation Committee for final validation of scores and selection recommendations;
  • Drafting of final report summarising strengths/weaknesses by theme and country.
  • Final report of recommendations for projects that were not shortlisted or selected but are nevertheless of interest for other WASOP tools or pillars.

Contractual and logistical terms

Nature of the mandate

One-off mandate funded by Expertise France as part of the WASOP programme, for a period of approximately 6 months covering the first half of 2026. The mission will be structured around two successive evaluation cycles: evaluation of summary scores and evaluation of complete forms.

Working method

• Mainly remotely, using the digital tools and secure platforms provided by Expertise France.

• Virtual or hybrid meetings as needed with the evaluation committee

• Coordination directly with the evaluation committee and Expertise France

Workload per assessor

The workload of the head of evaluation will be calculated as follows:

• • For quality control of the evaluation of a summary note (individual evaluation): 0.15 hours/day.
  • For consolidation of the brief assessment evaluation grid: 0.15 hours/day
  • For quality control of the full form assessment (individual assessment): 0.2 hours/day.
  • For consolidation of the full form evaluation grid: 0.2 hours/day

These times reflect an estimate of the time required to carry out a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of the documents submitted.

Summary of the results of the first stage: 3 days

Summary of the results of the second stage: 3 days

Drafting of the final summary report: 10 days

Drafting of the final report of recommendations for WASOP synergies: 3 days

Availability

• • The evaluation manager must be available for all key phases of the evaluation process (briefing, analysis of proposals, consolidation of scores, evaluation committee, drafting of the final report).
  • The precise duration of each intervention will depend on the volume of proposals received and will be communicated to the evaluation manager upon receipt of the documents to be evaluated.

Deliverables

• Validated individual grids

• Consolidated grids

• Interim summaries of evaluation results

• Final summary report analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the projects evaluated

• Final report on recommendations for synergies with WASOP for projects that were not selected but are relevant

All documents must be submitted within the deadlines set by the Evaluation Committee, in strict compliance with the rules of confidentiality and document security.

Logistical conditions

• • The Evaluation Team Leader must have access to a computer with reliable internet access and the necessary skills to use word processing, spreadsheet and presentation software and secure online platforms.
  • Any participation in face-to-face meetings, if necessary, will be subject to prior notification and logistical arrangements made by Expertise France.