FFAR Multi-Program Evaluation Request for Proposal

FFAR seeks to evaluate the success of three distinct programs, each representing a key investment portfolio aligned to FFAR’s mission and strategic outcomes.

While each evaluation may result in its own contract and will have distinct workplans, timelines and deliverables, all evaluations will utilize methodological approaches that are appropriate to the type of assessment being conducted.

Depending on the program, evaluations may be:

• formative (i.e., process & implementation assessment): Assessing program management, design, governance and execution efficiency;
• summative (i.e., outputs, outcomes and, where available, impacts assessment): Assessing results achieved, adoption or use of research outputs, policy or practice influence, and contributions to U.S. and global food and agriculture systems; or
• a combination of both.

FFAR intends each evaluation to include one or more exemplar case studies that illustrate meaningful contributions, pathways to impact, or realized and prospective economic outcomes resulting from funded research or funded intervention. Exemplar case studies are in-depth analyses that use a mixed methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Read the RFP for the full scope of work.

• Contractors may bid on any combination of the evaluations listed.
• Proposals must clearly indicate which evaluation(s) are included.
• FFAR reserves the right to award contracts separately or jointly.
• FFAR may select one contractor to complete all evaluations if capacity, expertise and value are demonstrated.

If Submitting for One Evaluation:

• Submit a standalone proposal that addresses the program-specific scope, timeline and budget.
• The proposal should demonstrate deep understanding of the specific program area, relevant evaluation expertise and the ability to deliver a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment.

If Submitting for Multiple Evaluations:

• Submit a single, integrated proposal package that clearly identifies which evaluations are included.
• Include separate workplans, timelines and budget narratives for each evaluation.
• Describe how the proposed team structure and capacity will support delivery across multiple projects (e.g., shared evaluation frameworks, dedicated subteams or phased scheduling).
• Identify efficiencies that may result from cross-program analysis or shared methodological tools, where appropriate.
• Clearly articulate any cost efficiencies or added value from conducting more than one evaluation.

FFAR reserves the right to award contracts to one or multiple firms, based on expertise, capacity and best value to the foundation.

FFAR anticipates staggered start and completion dates across the four evaluations to allow for adequate scoping, data collection and synthesis while balancing internal review capacity. Each evaluation will run up to 7–12 months from contract execution to the delivery of final reports. Specific start and end dates will be finalized in consultation with selected evaluators.

Each evaluation will follow a similar sequence of milestones. These timelines may be adjusted for particularly straightforward or complex evaluations:

• Kickoff meeting and definition of criteria/standards of success: within 4 weeks of contract execution
• Desk review, data collection, and analysis: months 2–8
• Presentation of preliminary findings: approximately month 9 or 10
• Submission of draft final report: month 11
• Submission of final report and all deliverables: month 12

Applicants proposing to conduct multiple evaluations should clearly describe:

• How projects will be sequenced or overlapped within their proposed schedule;
• How team structure and resourcing ensure quality and timely delivery across evaluations; and
• Any cost efficiencies or methodological synergies achieved through shared frameworks, tools, or analytic approaches.

Proposals Should Contain the Following Sections

1. Applicant background/overview (1 page maximum), including an indication of relevant expertise
2. Previous experience(s) of research program evaluation work with a similar or related scope (2 pages maximum)
3. Description approach and evaluation plan (5 pages maximum)
• Including relevant, illustrative measures you plan collect that assess the proposed evaluation questions. Make it clear which potential measures apply to which evaluation if submitting a multi-evaluation proposal.
4. Project budget and budget justification (this evaluation does not require matching funds)
   • Make it clear how costs are being used across evaluations if submitting a multi-evaluation proposal. Additionally, clearly identify any shared costs or efficiencies if submitting a multi-evaluation proposal.
   • Within each program proposal, the evaluator must provide:
     • A core evaluation budget (no exemplars included), and
     • A single unit cost to develop one exemplar case study, using methods appropriate to the evaluation type.
       • During early data collection, FFAR and the evaluator will jointly determine how many exemplars (up to four) are feasible.
     • The core budget + four exemplars should not exceed the maximum cost listed for each program.
5. Evaluation timeline
6. Project key personnel including roles and responsibilities
7. Team members’ CVs
8. Links to deliverables from past evaluation projects of a similar scope
9. Client references

Yes. FFAR will hold a 60-minute meeting (20-minutes presentation and 40-minute panel interview) with finalists via video conference. The presentation should highlight the applicant’s approach, including the criteria and standards they envision being used to measure the success of projects and programs as a whole. Additionally, the presentation should include a brief explanation of methods, followed by a showcase of how collected data may be visualized.

The panel discussion may be used to clarify the methods used for collection and analysis of data. Additionally, the panel may inquire about past projects and previous client relations to ensure the applicant and FFAR are a good fit.