SERICBPS

SOUTH ETHIOPIA REGIONAL STATE

INSTITUTE OF CAPACITY BULIDING AND POLICY STUDIES

CALL FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND POLICT STUDIES PROPOSALS APPLICATION 2019 EFY (2026-2027)

NOTIFICATION 

Please read carefully the guidelines given in the next couple of pages and fill out the application form accordingly. As your proposal will be forwarded to anonymous panel of assessors, the clarity of your application should express correctly what you exactly want to do. Diverging from the given format may put you out of the batch of the other applicants and hence may count unfavorably against you in the eyes of the assessors.

CALL OPEN AND PROPOSAL DEFENSE

§  Proposal should be submitted via portal https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/3XwPSSceCq from May 01 up to July 30, 2026 (due by 11:00 Ethiopian time).

§  After online submission, applicants should get notification for their submission and keep record of their track number for tracking progress of their proposal at latter stages.

§  Proposal review and defense dates: August 01-31, 2026

PROJECT TITLE:

What is the goal or the regional/ national priority area towards which the whole exercise should focus on and contribute solutions in the forms of leadership development and new knowledge production for policy and strategy changes? (max. 2 lines).

DURATION OF THE PROJECT

TOTAL AMOUNT OF GRANT REQUESTED IN BIRR ______________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is an overview of the intentions of the project, the actions that lead to the desired outcomes (max. 2 pages). This section includes: Background to the problem including of why the topic was chosen, objectives, methods, expected outcomes, budget estimate, and timeframe

BACKGROUND: RELEVANCE AND THE STATE OF KNOWLEDG

Provide a general presentation and analysis of the problem(s) and their interrelation at all levels with sufficient, relevant and updated literature review to justify the specific objectives that will contribute to the resolution of the problems by the action to be taken in the envisaged year(s) and Justification (Rationale)   for the proposed capacity building training and policy study.  (Max. 2 pages).

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The title must be supported with major and specific objectives to which the planned action will contribute and aims to achieve. Specific objectives (SMART) can be set as well in connection to or emanating from the major ones. In other words, these objectives (major and specific) must be achievable with reasonable certainty by the action that will be taken during the life of the project (max. 1 page).

METHODS

Provide an overview of the general methodology to indicate the actions of the capacity building training or research components fit together. Briefly describe the training or  study approach and design, the sampling methods applied,  the data collection methods employed (include a description of where and how data were collected, quality assurance measures, length of data collection process and problems which will encounter  in conducting the training study),  what methods  will be used to  analyses the data (max. 3 pages).

 QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISMS: 

This can be expressed in seminar presentations, bi-annual annual review meeting and reports with stakeholders, end-users and donors, etc. Furthermore, assurance should be ensured by statistical verification of the data and the level of partners’ interaction (max. 1 page).

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS (IF ANY): 

Wherever human and animal subjects are used in the action, ethical clearance should be obtained from the appropriate office. The proposal must describe the risks involved, the levels of damages to which the research subjects are exposed to and the assurance of mitigations (Max. 1 pages).

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES AND OUTCOMES: 

Describe the major achievable milestones or deliverables that the proposal is designed to accomplish. These can be described in number of training participants certified, and the knowledge that can be created (policy briefs, possible number and types of publications: journal articles, conference papers, modules, public lectures, etc.) (Max. 1 page).

BENEFITS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROPOSED TRAINING OR STUDY:

The benefits and beneficiaries of the proposed training or study should be clearly defined. Max. 1 page).

 DISSEMINATION PLAN (for policy study only)

-In what form will your findings be presented -e.g. report, Presentation, journal etc?

-How will you be disseminating your findings?

-To whom will you be disseminating your findings?

-How will you ensure anonymity in any publications?

-To whom does the research belong and have you thought about intellectual property rights?

STUDY WORK PLAN REFLECTING PROPOSED TIME FRAMES AND OUTPUTS/DELIVERABLES (including Gantt chart)

THE BUDGET 

Budget must meet the following requirements. Applicants are encouraged to provide the best price possible for the proposed training or study will be evaluated on this aspect. All line items must list the unit cost and quantity of that item. A notes column for each line item must explain how both the unit cost and quantity are being estimated. This must be completed for ALL line items. It must show the total estimated cost of the proposed project with a breakdown. The budget will be released in two phases: 50% of the 1st year budget shall be released to trainers or researchers within a few days after the signing of the agreement for the first phase. A further release of 50% of the budget   shall be done after production of an interim report describing the work already done for the budget taken and financial documentation detailing expenditures made up on the point and approval of ICBPS.

 EQUIPMENT AND CONSUMABLE

 PERSONNEL COSTS

TRANSPORT COST:

(It may be deducted if the university provides vehicle for the field trip)

 BUDGET SUMMARY 

REFERRENCES

All materials used in the compilation of the proposal should be referenced (max. 3 pages). Vancouver standard

ANNEX:

ELIGIBILITY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

The proposals received will undergo a technical evaluation by core reviewers. The core reviewers reserves the right not to accept the lowest bid, as the elements listed in the evaluation matrix below will play a major role when evaluating proposals. In order to ensure meaningful participation and effective comparison prospective service providers are requested to furnish detailed information in substantiation of compliance to the technical evaluation criteria.

Programs

§  Capacity building

§  Policy studies

Catchment areas:

§  South Ethiopia Regional State

§  South Ethiopia Regional State, and Neighboring Regional States of FDRE

§  South Ethiopia Regional State, Neighboring Regional States of EDRE, and Neighboring countries

Thematic areas

An overall thematic focus on regional and national priority areas. Hence, all applicants are advised to collect and familiarize themselves with their priorities. i.e. The proposal topics has identified as regional priority by confirmed in a written letter

1.     Capacity building

§  Leadership training

§  Public sector reform

§  E-governance

§  Institutional capacity building

§  Digitalization

§  Consultancy

§  Impacts of capacity building trainings

2.      Policy studies

                 Economy sector

§  Agriculture

§  Mining

§  Manufacturing industry

§  Tourism

                Social affairs

§  Health

§  Education

§  Poverty reduction

§  Women and youths

§  Human Resource Development

                 Democracy and good governance

§  Democracy and good governance

§  Institutional development

§  Federalism, etc.

Applicants

ICBPS trainers and researchers

§  will serve as principal trainers or investigators in trainings or research projects hosted by ICBPS;

§  can invite trainers or researchers from other regional, national and/or international institutions to develop joint training or research project proposals;

§  can ensure the project team/group should comprise of a minimum of five and maximum of seven experts

Trainers or researchers from other institutions

§  have to submit two support letters (one from their host institution, and another from collaborating government sector);

§  should include research staff from the collaborating government sector, and ICBPS;

§  should submit updated CV;

§  must hold PhD;

§  have given at least two trainings or published at least two articles related to the proposed project;

§  should provide certificates or proof of giving trainings or leading research projects previously;

§  must be willing to give trainings in collaboration with ICBPS trainers or serve as co-principal investigators;

§  have to prove familiarity with relevant PPT preparation tools or data analysis software.

Required quality elements:

Proposals should demonstrate all of the following to be considered for selection:

a)  It must be based on the proposal submission format described above and the proposal meets capacity building training and research quality standards in design, content and presentation as depicted in the advert document.

b)  The proposal must be: not more than 30 pages in length; typed in 1.5-space, font size-12, and font type-Times New Roman, 1.25 inch left margin and the rest margins must be 1 inch.

c)  Eligibility review team or panel of assessors: independent group of reviewers (3 to 5 in no) with expertise in relevant thematic areas that will review the applications against the established eligibility criteria only will be formed by the respective  the office of ICBPS. They must have field of specialization closer to the paper/subject to be reviewed. These experts are not necessarily the ICBPS staff. The reviewer shall possess an equivalent or higher academic rank than the author(s) and have a good profile/history with regard to publications of scientific papers and others.

d)  There will be blind review (60%) and open defense (40%).

Evaluation criteria

Proposals passing the eligibility criteria (see above) will be scored against the following:

a.     The review of proposal submitted by potential evaluators will be based on blind review (60%) and open defense (40%).

b.     Reviewer’s possible decisions

After reviewing and commenting the protocol the reviewer shall put his/her decisions on the following categories.

1. Accept without any changes

Despite the minor language and copyediting problems, the protocol is accepted as submitted.

2.     Accept with minor revisions

Some contents of the protocol need to be modified and corrected prior to acceptance.

3. Accept with major revisions

The protocol can be useful with the ideas and results it presents, but it requires major revisions.

4.     Reject

     There is no merit whatsoever in accepting this protocol.