This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was 
prepared by EnCompass LLC for the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning platform in Senegal (Contract No. 
72068522F00003 /Task Order No. 7200AA20D00011). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect 
the views of USAID or the United States Government.
LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF 
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND 
LEARNING CAPACITY
FINAL REPORT
MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING IN 
SENEGAL
July 2023
i | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS ...........................................................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................................III
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ V
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1
Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................................3
1. Profile of Local Organizations.................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Perceptions of the Local MEL Market...................................................................................................................... 5
3. Experience with USAID, its IPs, Other Donors, or the Government of Senegal ......................................... 7
4. Opportunities and Challenges.................................................................................................................................... 9
5. Potential Eligible Partners..........................................................................................................................................12
6. Technical Competencies and Gaps.........................................................................................................................13
7. Technical and Organizational Capacity-Building diagnosis................................................................................16
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................18
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................20
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................22
Annex A: Research Methodology ................................................................................................................................22
Annex B: Data Collection Tools..................................................................................................................................25
Annex C: MEL Diplomas and Certificates.................................................................................................................63
ii | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Roadmap for accelerating engagement with MEL SPs............................................................................ 1
Exhibit 2: MEL SPs work in a diverse array of sectors (n=53) ............................................................................... 4
Exhibit 3: MEL SPs work in all MEL areas (n=53) ...................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 4: At least three-quarters of SPs reported having NGOs, the GoS, and donors as clients (n=53) 7
Exhibit 5: SPs perceived NGOs as the easiest to work with and perceived USAID as the most difficult 
(n=53)................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Exhibit 6: Technical skills accessed through subcontracting with SPs.................................................................10
Exhibit 7: Almost all SPs reported having an Evaluation Specialist on staff (n=53)..........................................13
Exhibit 8: Technical capacity-building needs reported by SPs to work with USAID (n=53).........................17
Exhibit 9: Organizational capacity-building needs reported by SPs to work with USAID (n=53) ...............18
Exhibit 10: Key informant interviews..........................................................................................................................23
Exhibit 11: Seminars and Certificate training in MEL offered by SPs and training centers ............................63
Exhibit 12: Diploma training in MEL offered by training centers .........................................................................64
iii | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
ABSTRACT
The Local Landscape Analysis (LLA) of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) capacity is the first 
phase of a multi-stage assessment and capacity-building approach intended to increase the participation 
of local MEL organizations in development in Senegal. The initial data collection used a mixed-methods 
approach to provide the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with an analysis 
of the MEL ecosystem in Senegal, including the overall characteristics, competencies, experiences, and 
capacity-building needs of MEL service providers and organizations providing MEL training as well as 
perceptions and practices of MEL clients. The MEL LLA is a mapping of local MEL firms that, when 
combined with future verification of organization-specific institutional capacity and technical capacity in 
Phase II, is intended to inform a roadmap for USAID to increase its engagement with these MEL firms. 
The report describes the characteristics and market segmentation of MEL service providers and training 
centers providing MEL courses, the challenges they face, their strengths, and their perspectives on 
donor funding, donor requirements, and USAID requirements. The report includes recommendations 
for USAID to develop a strategy for local MEL partners to successfully compete for a larger share of 
USAID resources.
iv | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DAIS Data Analysis, Integration, and Synthesis
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DRGP Democracy, human rights, governance, and peace
GoS Government of Senegal 
IP Implementing partner 
KII Key informant interview
LLA Localization Landscape Analysis 
MEL Monitoring, evaluation, and learning 
NGO Nongovernmental organization 
RT Research team
SenEval Association Sénégalaise d’Evaluation
SP Service Provider
USAID United States Agency for International Development
v | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Local Landscape Analysis (LLA) of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Capacity is a multi￾stage assessment and capacity-building approach intended to increase the participation of local MEL 
organizations in development in Senegal. The initial data collection, the results of which are included in 
this report, used a mixed-methods approach to provide the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) with an analysis of the MEL ecosystem in Senegal, including the overall 
characteristics, competencies, experiences, and capacity-building needs of MEL service providers (SPs), 
including private firms, universities, research centers, think tanks, and organizations providing MEL 
training as well as perceptions and practices of MEL clients. The MEL LLA is a mapping of local MEL 
organizations that, when combined with future verification of organization-specific institutional capacity 
and technical capacity in Phase II, is intended to inform a roadmap for USAID to increase its engagement 
with these MEL firms. 
Phase II will focus on a subset of MEL SPs that have established minimum capacity in technical areas to 
be targeted in the first round of sub-contracts. The Platform will integrate Phase II data collection into 
the design and implementation of the sub-contracting mechanism in priority MEL service delivery areas. 
The Platform will invite firms with appropriate prior experience in priority MEL areas, such as 
evaluation, to apply to participate in the advanced capacity building and sub-contracting program. 
Admission into this program will be based on a detailed SP-specific assessment of both prior technical 
work and organizational capacity assessed through the OCA. 
Data collection for Phase I took place from January 17–February 9, 2023, and involved three main 
activities: a document review to identify organizations, a survey of 58 local MEL SPs, and semi-structured
interviews with 56 local organizations. 
Findings point to several key conclusions about how USAID may best approach its commitment to 
greater localization of its MEL work. The local MEL market in Senegal is served by a variety of firms and 
organizations of different sizes, technical and organizational capacity, and with varying degrees of quality 
and client satisfaction. Data suggest that there are multiple high-capacity firms that could provide high￾quality MEL services to USAID. However, the data collected in Phase I is insufficient to definitively 
categorize the quality of specific organizations’ services and available capacities on its own and the study 
intentionally avoided collecting information from MEL clients on specific firms and institutions. 
Broadly speaking, demand for MEL services locally has undergone a significant expansion 
regarding the number of evaluations conducted over the past decade or two. This trend is 
similar to the overall growth in MEL internationally over the same period. This expansion has been 
driven by the fact that evaluation is perceived as a priority and requirement by citizens, government, and 
development partners. The growth in MEL demand has been accompanied by a corresponding emphasis 
from clients on higher quality processes and products. Rapid growth has sometimes contributed to 
lower quality services as new, less experienced firms have entered the market to keep up with demand.
Demand for evaluation services from MEL SPs is greater than those for monitoring and 
learning. While MEL SPs in Senegal are able to provide services in monitoring and learning, such 
activities are generally implemented by the clients themselves and do not have the same requirements 
for outside, independent perspectives. 
vi | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
Even though the availability of training in MEL has progressed in recent years, the overall 
quantity, at required levels of quality, and in specific technical areas adapted to the needs 
of students, potential customers, and the market remain low compared to the demand.
The availability of diploma-level training is more limited compared to certificate-level training, which is 
more widespread and diversified.
SPs provide MEL services to many different types of clients including Government of 
Senegal (GoS) entities, USAID IPs, NGOs, foundations, and other donors. This reflects the 
substantial diversity of clients demanding evaluation and other MEL services in the country. The number 
of NGOs identified as clients was higher than that for other organizations. This makes sense as NGOs 
of different types would make up most development implementers.
SPs have wide access to and utilization of a range of different dissemination channels used 
by potential customers. Many of these channels could be used by USAID and its partners to further 
the reach of their solicitations for MEL services. Apart from traditional distribution channels, various 
other means exist, including databases, mailing lists, and prequalification systems set up by certain 
customers.
Besides opportunities, MEL SPs face many technical and organizational challenges. Among 
these challenges, some, such as the rigidity of internal procedures of clients and vague terms of 
reference, are inherent in the work approaches of some clients. Both SPs and clients alike must address 
these challenges to improve the demand and supply of MEL services.
MEL SPs have proven skills in conducting technical work based on their experience with 
various clients and in certain specific areas such as quantitative data collection and analysis 
and use of digital tools. In addition, local firms have demonstrated capacity to quickly identify and 
mobilize local human resources required for MEL work ranging from data collectors to subject matter 
experts. However, some technical shortcomings in qualitative data analysis and impact evaluations 
should be considered and strengthened for some SPs. At the organizational level, the lack of permanent 
resource persons constrains service provision for several firms, especially smaller firms.
Any program that aims to increase the amount of USAID-funded MEL work performed by 
local firms will need to invest effort so that USAID’s technical terms, concepts, templates, 
and expectations can be well understood by many if not most potential partners. Such a 
program should ensure that it shares as much information as possible concerning the unique technical 
aspects of USAID’s MEL requirements.
The capacity-building needs of SPs are technical and organizational and not all of them can 
be successfully and efficiently addressed by the MEL Platform with large numbers of 
institutions in its current configuration. These needs must be analyzed in detail by the MEL 
Platform during the second stage of the process to identify feasible priorities. Certain needs, especially 
organizational ones, would require an investment on the part of the SPs themselves.
Depending on the Mission’s specific objectives in increasing the share of MEL funding that 
goes to local organizations in Senegal, it should be able to immediately find multiple firms 
able to perform MEL services to an acceptable standard. These service areas include all aspects 
of evaluation, such as data collection and analysis, evaluation design and management, preparation of 
reports, and dissemination of results. The sole caveat to this conclusion relates to the likely limited 
vii | LOCAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OF MEL CAPACITY USAID.GOV
availability of firms able to conduct the required aspects of this work in English, which may limit the 
number of firms that compete for awards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. As envisioned in the MEL LLA work plan, upon the completion of Phase II, USAID should work 
with the USAID MEL Platform to develop, share, and implement a multi-phase MEL localization 
plan. This plan should include capacity building in areas of multi-institutional need and 
mechanisms for awarding funds to local organizations with progressively greater responsibilities 
and corresponding budgets. The final plan should include clear objectives and corresponding 
MEL approaches to assess progress.
2. Depending upon USAID’s objectives in strengthening the quality of MEL training provided in 
Senegal, USAID could work with the USAID MEL Platform to take following actions:
• Organize discussion forums bringing together training centers or structures and potential 
customers to discuss the challenges encountered in the training offer with an opportunity to 
propose suggestions to improve the offer quality by taking Association Sénégalaise 
d’Evaluation (SenEval) as a lead.
• Advocate for the improvement of the training content that training centers offer so that it 
meets market needs by involving key players such as Center for Learning on Evaluation and 
Results, Commission Nationale d’évaluation et de Suivi des Politiques et des Programmes 
Publiques, and SenEval.
3. USAID should establish systems to provide specific feedback to all offers received and on all 
deliverables.
4. As envisioned in the MEL LLA work plan, to advance the possibility of other MEL clients and 
USAID IPs using local MEL firms for work going forward: 
• The MEL Platform should build a database and a mailing list of MEL SPs from the information 
collected.
• The MEL Platform should share the database with USAID and its IPs, SenEval, and other 
clients who regularly solicit MEL SPs.
• The MEL Platform should build the capacity of young professionals by involving them in the 
implementation of MEL activities carried out by SPs.
• USAID and its partners should provide information to the SP mailing list detailing where 
they will advertise business and/or share opportunities directly via the list.
• USAID and its partners should consider using the other specific platforms mentioned by SPs 
for advertising opportunities.
• USAID should support SenEval to organize discussion forums bringing together SPs, training 
centers and clients to exchange experiences concerning the strengths and challenges of 
collaboration. 
1 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
INTRODUCTION
The Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Local Landscape Analysis (MEL LLA) is a multi-stage 
assessment and capacity-building approach intended to increase the participation of local MEL 
organizations in development in Senegal. The initial data collection, the results of which are included in 
this report, used a mixed-methods approach to provide the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) with an analysis of the MEL ecosystem in Senegal, including the overall 
characteristics, competencies, experiences, and capacity-building needs of MEL service providers (SPs), 
including private firms, universities, research centers, think tanks, and organizations providing MEL 
training as well as perceptions and practices of MEL clients. The MEL LLA is a mapping of local MEL 
organizations that, when combined with future verification of organization-specific institutional capacity 
and technical capacity in Phase II, is intended to inform a roadmap for USAID to increase its engagement 
with these MEL firms working through the MEL Platform. See Exhibit 1 below. 
Exhibit 1: Roadmap for accelerating engagement with MEL SPs
BACKGROUND
USAID has long emphasized the importance of working with and through local organizations. USAID 
Forward and the New Partnership Initiative are only two relatively recent examples. Though well￾received, none have substantially broadened their partner base. Administrator Power has identified 
localization as a priority and set a benchmark of providing at least a quarter of all USAID funds directly 
to local partners by 2025. By 2030, USAID has committed that 50 percent of its programming will put 
local communities in the lead for implementation, including evaluation of USAID’s programmatic impact. 
USAID/Senegal’s funding to four local partners and its Government-to-Government program accounts 
for 2.6 percent and 10 percent, respectively, of its bilateral program budget.
PURPOSE
USAID tasked its MEL Platform to conduct the MEL LLA to increase Mission awareness of the 
Senegalese ecosystem of local MEL service delivery organizations, training organizations that offer MEL 
courses, and MEL clients. The assessment will help USAID/Senegal to better understand what
organizations exist, as well as their characteristics, competencies, experiences, and capacity-building 
needs. Data resulting from the study will be used to inform the design of a program implemented by the 
MEL Platform to build MEL capacity in priority areas and increase participation in Platform activities by 
local MEL firms. USAID identified five research questions, which the team has broken into additional 
headings in the report. These are included below:
2 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
1. What are the local SPs involved in MEL? What are their characteristics (type of services 
provided, type of organization)?
2. How do the SPs perceive the market demand for their services?
3. To what extent do the SPs work with USAID, its IPs, other donors, or the Senegalese 
government? What are the opportunities and challenges MEL SPs face? Are any MEL SPs 
assessed as eligible to receive direct funding for such activities?
4. What are SPs’ MEL strengths and weaknesses in conducting MEL technical work? 
5. What are their capacity-building needs—technical and organizational?
METHODOLOGY
The MEL LLA was a mixed-methods study that blended quantitative and qualitative data collection to 
provide a broad perspective on general capacities within the local MEL organization landscape alongside 
a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of a select sample. A detailed methodology is included 
in Annex A. 
Research Team (RT). This RT included the following members: Team Leader, Learning and Capacity 
Building Manager, M&E Manager and MEL Assistant. The Platform recruited five enumerators to support 
fieldwork. 
Methods and Sources. The mixed-methods research design included document review, an online 
survey of 58 local MEL organizations, key informant interviews (KIIs) with a subset of 30 MEL
organizations, and KIIs with two training centers, seven government entities, six donors, nine NGOs and 
associations, and two USAID implementing partners (IPs). 
Sampling. The team applied document review and a snowball approach to identify 81 potential local 
MEL organizations. The team then sent invitations to complete an online survey to all of these 
organizations. A total of 58 organizations, 72 percent of the initial total, completed the survey after a 
period of three weeks—a high response rate for a survey of this type. For the KIIs with MEL 
organizations, the team divided the survey respondents into three groups based on their perceived 
potential to work with USAID. This grouping was “higher,” “medium,” and “lower” potential based on 
reported work with USAID IPs and reported completion of all listed evaluation components. Within the 
three groups, firms were selected at random with a roughly 50 percent sample of each group.
Data Collection. All data collection took place from January 17 to February 9, 2023. After most firms 
completed the online survey, the sample of SPs was selected for KIIs. The team conducted 56 KIIs with 
local MEL organizations and stakeholders, and 58 local organizations completed the survey. Data 
collection tools are included in Annex B. 
Data Analysis and Reporting. The team transcribed audio recordings of the KIIs, created a 
codebook, trained data coders, and coded transcripts using Dedoose, running a pilot test to ensure 
consistency. Quantitative data were analyzed in Excel. The team used participatory methods to analyze 
data, applying a signature EnCompass approach, Data Analysis, Integration, and Synthesis (DAIS), to 
generate findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Limitations and Mitigations. This study faced limitations typical of other mixed-methods studies. 
Given the absence of a complete database of local MEL organizations and limited (28 percent) 
3 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
nonresponse among those contacted, the views presented in this study do not include all existent 
providers. The team made multiple attempts to encourage participation. Conducting KIIs with diverse 
stakeholders that interact with MEL providers was one of the approaches the team took to encourage 
broad commentary reflective of all existing MEL sector actors. In addition, the number of government, 
donors, and other client representatives included in the study was relatively small compared to the 
overall potential population and were selected purposively. Finally, all data included in the study related 
to MEL organizations’ capacity and experience are self-reported and thus potentially subject to some 
bias. While findings may not represent all local MEL organizations in Senegal, study results will provide 
insights that should apply to the broader population. 
FINDINGS
1. PROFILE OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
What are the local SPs involved in MEL? What are their characteristics (type of services 
provided, type of organization)?
The study included a total of 58 local organizations providing some aspects of MEL service delivery. 
These SPs self-identified as 45 businesses or firms (cabinet in French), six research centers, two NGOs, 
and five training centers. The first group provided MEL services, including MEL support. Some of them 
also provided MEL training. The latter group of training centers only provided MEL training as part of a 
large general training portfolio and did not provide other MEL technical support services. As a result, 
these organizations were not included in many aspects of the quantitative survey and were asked a 
different suite of qualitative questions.
Finding 1: Most MEL SPs are small, both in terms of reported revenue and reported numbers of 
employees. The majority reported annual revenues of less than $83,300 and fewer 
than ten full-time staff.
Total and MEL revenue. Of the 45 SPs who provided annual revenue figures in the survey, more 
than half (26) reported total revenues of 50 million XOF ($83,300) or less, and 31 SPs reported MEL 
revenues of 50 million XOF ($83,300) or less. A quarter of respondents reported total revenues of 10 
million XOF ($16,666) or less.1
Staffing. Full-time staff numbers varied between one and 214. Only two firms reported more than 20 
staff (47 and 214). The percentage of full-time staff dedicated to MEL averaged 38 percent. The 
percentage of MEL staff was generally higher in companies with fewer employees, with 71 percent of 
MEL staff reported in businesses with between one and five staff, 59 percent of MEL staff in businesses 
with between six and ten staff, and 48 percent of MEL staff in businesses with 11 to 20 employees.
Women made up 40 percent of staff overall and the same percentage among MEL staff. Youth (under 35 
years old) were about the same percentage of staff overall and a slightly higher percentage of MEL staff 
at 45 percent. The two largest firms had noticeably lower percentages of female staff than the others, 
1 Using an exchange rate 1 USD to 600 XOF
4 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
although their female staffing in MEL was about the same. The same distribution was observed for youth 
employees. Firms with between six and 20 employees had the highest percentage of youth staff.
Firm age. The reported age of MEL firms varied from one to 39 years, with an average of 11. Eight 
firms had been operating for two years or less, and 12 firms were between three and five years old. 
More than half of firms had been operating for ten years or less (32). Eleven firms had been in operation 
for more than 20 years.
Dakar-centered. Most SPs reported being based solely in Dakar (49). Seven SPs have an office in 
Dakar and in one or more other regions. Two SPs are based outside of Dakar, with one each in 
Ziguinchor and Thiès. Five SPs do not have official offices while 48 SPs do have official offices. 
Female ownership. Of the 53 SPs, only two are reportedly female-owned sole proprietorships. For 
the 28 SPs owned by a group of people, 23 percent of the owners are female. 
Finding 2: MEL SPs reported providing MEL services in all technical sectors of interest to 
USAID, although not all work in all sectors.
SPs reported working across all sectors of 
USAID interest and programming. Three￾quarters of respondents provide MEL 
support in economic growth, with education 
and health second and third in reported 
sectors.
Finding 3: MEL SPs reported providing technical services in all areas of interest to USAID, 
although not all work in all MEL areas.
SPs reported offering and providing services in all key 
areas of MEL work. Almost all surveyed SPs had 
provided evaluation services. Monitoring and learning 
services were less prevalent. Around half of MEL 
firms also provided technical capacity-building 
services in MEL. 
Finding 4: More than two-thirds of MEL SPs reported providing organizational capacity-building 
services.
In addition to technical MEL service delivery, MEL firms also reported offering organizational capacity￾building services. Forty-five of the 53 respondents (85 percent) indicated that they provide 
Exhibit 2: MEL SPs work in a diverse array of sectors (n=53)
Exhibit 3: MEL SPs work in all MEL areas (n=53)
5 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
organizational capacity-building services. Top capacity-building services reported included strategic 
planning (82 percent), financial management procedures (62 percent), human resource management (53 
percent), and communication (47 percent).
Finding 5: MEL firms and dedicated training centers reported offering a wide variety of MEL 
training.
Thirty-one organizations reported delivering MEL training and capacity building. Twenty-nine of these 
are MEL service delivery organizations, and five are training centers that offered MEL programs in 
addition to other training opportunities. Of the 31 MEL training organizations, 27 were private 
companies, and four were public institutions such as universities. Most training offers are certificate-level 
and seminars. Few opportunities for MEL training resulted in a diploma-level credential. 
Two main types of training delivery were identified: regularly scheduled and on-demand. Regularly 
scheduled courses were standardized trainings offered with pre-determined content and timing. On￾demand courses were generally offered to one organization, or a group of people such as MEL officers 
of a Ministry. The content of on-demand training courses could be tailored to client needs in several 
areas, including scheduling and topics. Twelve SPs and five training centers reported having offered on￾demand capacity building to institutions, with NGOs reported as the client most frequently followed by 
the government. Topics of the on-demand courses with institutions included general MEL and specific 
courses targeting one or more MEL components in more detail. Details on course titles, length, and 
costs are provided in Annex C. 
2. PERCEPTIONS OF THE LOCAL MEL MARKET
How do the SPs perceive the market demand for their services? 
Finding 6: Views on current demand and supply are mixed and depend on experience finding 
appropriate SPs in a timely manner at the right cost (clients) or on experience winning 
enough contracts at the right profit margin to meet business goals (SPs).
Client versus SP perceptions. Perceptions on current demand in the market for MEL services 
provided by local firms varied considerably among MEL clients and SPs. In general, most MEL clients 
expressed views that indicated the demand for services was higher than the supply. Explanations for this 
view were nuanced. However, these explanations all revolved around an assessment indicating that the 
overall quantity of firms in a market is not synonymous with having the desired number of capabilities 
within specific technical, cost, and quality parameters. Providers of MEL services most often felt that 
demand was weaker than desired, responses that could likely be explained by the almost universal desire 
of entrepreneurs to grow their businesses by winning more work than they have up to that point.
In interviews with MEL clients, few indicated that they could easily find firms and consultants with the 
technical skills and number of staff to implement according to their expectations in terms of schedule, 
sufficient experience, and commitment to produce high-quality deliverables in all areas and at budgeted 
costs. Those that were generally satisfied with the available market often had a small number of 
preferred providers that performed most of their MEL work. 
6 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
"So, in my opinion, in relation to the market, the demand is there, the available services do not respond, 
that is to say that there is not a sufficient quantity in terms of quality offers unfortunately, because 
sometimes we issue offers, but have to take what we can get.” —Interview with a client
Although there were exceptions, SPs were generally dissatisfied with the current demand for MEL 
services. As with clients, their views were affected by specific lenses, including perceived low levels of 
budgeting for specific activities. Their views of a perceived meagre market would appear to be 
supported by the relatively low levels of reported MEL income.
"The demand is too low in my opinion. What I have noticed is that we can go two to three years without 
needing a monitoring, follow-up and learning firm, whereas for the other sectors of the chain, like
construction, sociological and environmental studies, the demand is always there." —Interview with a client
Most of the SPs who felt that market demand was satisfactory were also those who had established 
strong relationships with specific MEL clients, resulting in more dependable work streams.
One fact both groups agreed on was that the demand for evaluation was greater than demand for 
monitoring and learning services. This was explained by the view that more monitoring and learning 
functions are provided by internal staff hired by the project and implementing organizations, while 
evaluation services are more often reserved for implementation by external personnel to help ensure 
more objective processes and products.
"The demand for monitoring is a bit low. Since many structures, many projects have their monitoring and 
evaluation officers, who oversee monitoring. But the demand is more for everything that is evaluation.” —
Interview with a SP
Finding 7: Almost all respondents reported that demand for MEL services, especially evaluation, 
will increase in the future.
Quantitative and qualitative data from SPs and clients predicted that demand for MEL services would 
increase in the future. In addition, both groups believe that the largest increase in demand would be for 
evaluation. Specific explanations for why and how demand for MEL services, including evaluation, would 
increase focused on increased demand for public policy evaluations, Senegal’s growing importance in the 
region and the increased concentration of international organizations, increased domestic and 
international focus on good governance, and the emergence of the oil industry.
Finding 8: Qualitative interviews revealed that the demand for MEL training is greater than the 
supply. 
Most training providers and clients reported that demand for training in MEL exceeds supply. MEL SPs 
that provided training and training centers with MEL courses both held this view. One provider singled 
out demand for evaluation courses as an area of important growth. This view is logical given the data 
presented in the previous finding and elsewhere in the report that the demand for evaluation services is 
also significant and increasing. A summary of Degree Programs, Certificate training and Seminars in MEL 
offered by SPs and training centers is included in Annex C. 
“The demand is greater than the supply, I tell you this honestly, demand is greater than supply. At our firm, 
we limit the participants. We take 25 and no more than that. In reality, there is a long waiting list, and I 
have to tell people to be patient every day.” —Interview with a SP
7 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
3. EXPERIENCE WITH USAID, ITS IPS, OTHER DONORS, 
OR THE GOVERNMENT OF SENEGAL
To what extent do the SPs work with USAID, its IPs, other donors, or the Senegalese 
government? 
Finding 9: Most SPs reported experience working with a wide range of clients.
SPs in Senegal have a rich history of working with a 
variety of MEL clients, including donors, the 
government, USAID IPs, and other organizations as 
detailed in both the quantitative survey and KIIs. SPs 
were asked to indicate the types of clients they work 
with frequently and then to provide the specific name 
of these partners. NGOs were the most frequently 
cited (85 percent), followed by the Government of 
Senegal (GoS), bilateral and multilateral donors, and 
foundations. 
NGO clients. Oxfam, Plan International, Caritas, 
and Conseil des Organisations Non Gouvernementales 
d'Appui aux Développement were the most frequently mentioned with seven, six, five, and four mentions 
each, respectively. World Vision, IntraHealth International, FHI 360, and ENDA Sante were listed by 
three SPs each. Over 100 other organization names were provided once or twice.
Government clients. The Ministry of Health and Social Action was listed more than twice as 
frequently (15 times) as the next most popular GoS clients: The Ministry of Professional Training, the 
Ministry of the Economy, Planning, and Cooperation, and the Ministry of the Family, Women, and 
Children, all of which were listed seven times. Agriculture and Education were the next most listed 
Ministries, six times each. In total, about 30 GoS entities were mentioned as MEL clients in the survey.
Multilateral and bilateral donor clients. USAID and the World Bank were the most frequently 
cited donor partners with 13 each. Agence Française de Développement was listed 11 times, and Deutsche 
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and Enabel had ten mentions. The United Nations 
Development Programme was listed by nine respondents and LuxDev by eight. Donor names were 
provided more than 160 times. There was also confusion in responses to several parts of the survey 
related to the difference between USAID as a Mission and USAID IPs. This may have increased the 
number of mentions for USAID as a donor partner in this question and could give the mistaken 
impression that local MEL SPs are currently receiving funding for MEL services from USAID, which is not 
the case.
Foundation clients. Foundations were the least frequently listed partner with around one third of SPs 
choosing this option. The Gates Foundation and Mastercard were the top clients with four and three 
mentions, respectively. Thirteen other foundations were named.
Client selection criteria. The study asked SPs to rate the perceived difficulty of requirements for 
being selected to work with different client types. Respondents rated NGOs and foundations as having 
the easiest selection criteria. They rated donors and the government about the same as each other and 
Exhibit 4: At least three-quarters of SPs reported having 
NGOs, the GoS, and donors as clients (n=53)
8 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
a little more difficult overall. A follow-up question asked SPs for the same rating about USAID’s 
requirements. When compared to the other clients, USAID’s selection criteria are perceived as the 
most difficult to meet. The wide variations in the number of SPs who answered for each category appear 
to reflect respondents’ actual experience pursuing work with each client type, although it isn’t possible 
to know this for certain. The same caveats for USAID Mission versus IP identification apply here as well 
since no respondents had worked with the USAID Mission directly.
Exhibit 5: SPs perceived NGOs as the easiest to work with and perceived USAID as the most difficult (n=53) 
Use of consultants versus firms. While many SPs reported working with donors, only two donors 
interviewed by the team currently worked with MEL companies. The other four had only worked with 
consultants until now. For reasons of cost and efficiency, most donors interviewed reported contracting 
directly with consultants to perform MEL tasks. Donors considered consultants to be much less 
expensive than contracting with a company due to overhead costs associated with the latter. In addition, 
it was reported to take less time and effort to contract with consultants due to simpler procurement 
requirements. Of the four donors who only worked with consultants, two plan to use companies in the 
future. All the NGOs included in the study reported using MEL firms, although some indicated that it 
depended on the size of the work with smaller tasks going to consultants.
Among the seven interviewed GoS entities, four allow cabinets to perform MEL work, while three have 
worked only with consultants.
Finding 10: Forty (40) percent of SPs reported having pursued contracts with USAID IPs, and 28 
percent have performed MEL work for IPs.
None of the SPs included in the study have ever worked directly for the USAID Mission on MEL tasks, 
although several reported having submitted proposals for non-MEL work in the distant past. A total of 
21 SPs (40 percent) reported that they had submitted proposals to USAID IPs for MEL-related work, 
and 14 SPs (28 percent) reported that they had received a contract as a result. Based on discussions in 
the KIIs with SPs, six of these contracts were for evaluations.
9 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Perceived barriers. SPs were asked to list the top three obstacles that they thought they would face 
in working with USAID. A lack of information about offers (38 percent), requirements to use English in 
working with USAID staff (34 percent), and a lack of international experience (25 percent) were the top 
listed barriers. Six SPs reported that they would face no obstacles in working successfully with USAID. 
As with earlier questions, it was not always clear that respondents distinguished between USAID IPs and 
the Mission itself. In addition, as with earlier questions, this question did not reference prior experience 
working with USAID or IPs.
All SPs (53) reported being interested in working with USAID in the future and all SPs listed evaluation 
as the technical area they would want to work in. Ninety percent of SPs expressed interest in 
implementing monitoring work for USAID. Learning was the least interesting area of work with USAID, 
selected by 66 percent of SPs.
4. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
What are the opportunities and challenges MEL SPs face? 
Finding 11: SPs reported that they have multiple sources of information about MEL opportunities.
SPs cited multiple sources of information on MEL opportunities. Professional networks (64 percent), 
newspapers (60 percent), and client websites (57 percent) were the top three most used resources. 
Interestingly, slightly more than half of SPs reported that clients send them offers directly. Association 
Sénégalaise d’Evaluation (SenEval), the Senegalese evaluation association and an important advocate for 
MEL in the country, was cited by 32 percent. Several SPs and clients confirmed during interviews that 
they have strong relationships based on previous success and that some clients limit solicitations to their 
preferred SPs. 
Client solicitation sharing. Clients provided specific information on their practices for sharing 
solicitations for MEL work with potential bidders. In some cases, specific advertising locations were 
required by their organizational policies. For newspapers, L’observateur, Le Soleil, Sud, Le Quotidien, 
and Walfadjiri were listed. Websites included SenJob, Relief.org, Concours.sn and professional 
networking sites like LinkedIn. If available, clients also used their organization’s internal communication 
tools and external sites. In addition, many clients maintain mailing lists of consultants and organizations 
where they share MEL opportunities. Several MEL clients, confirmed by SPs, reported using some 
version of a prequalification system to allow expedited use of MEL resources that have been previously 
approved. In such situations, opportunities are only shared with these providers.
Finding 12: Interviewed donors and NGOs reported allocating between 3 and 10 percent of their 
budgets to MEL.
Donor funding. In KIIs with donor and NGO MEL clients, interviewees reported allocating between 3 
and 10 percent of their overall budgets to fund MEL activities. The team was unable to determine how 
much of these funds were available for work by local SPs. Interviewed clients were unable to provide 
responses regarding future increases in the percentage of the budget allocated to MEL activities. 
“We have a rule that we spend between 3 and 5 percent of our budget on evaluation and maybe 7 
percent on monitoring. So, in total, about 10 percent of our budget goes to monitoring and evaluation. (...) It 
varies depending on the size of the budget.” —Interview with a client
10 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Multiple clients and SPs stated their confidence in the future of MEL in Senegal based on the country’s 
attractiveness for international organizations and investment. As a result, the MEL market is quite 
dynamic and diverse.
“So, I am pleased that monitoring and evaluation, as I said, is now in increasing demand, and that there is 
much greater interest from donors, the government, and other development actors, which is a good thing 
for Senegal, because for me, more evaluation means better programs later." —Interview with a SP
Youth talent. Certain clients and SPs highlighted that Senegal’s MEL professional population included a 
good number of well-trained young people. This is a promising element for the future of MEL firms in 
the country as they should be able to access staff as their current employees age out. Some of the same 
respondents cautioned, however, that this talented young pool was not being appropriately used due to 
prejudices against their age.
Finding 13: About 40 percent of MEL SPs reported responding to MEL opportunities by forming 
partnerships by being subcontractors or subcontracting other firms.
Senegalese MEL firms reported using subcontracting mechanisms to form consortiums that can better 
meet the demand than individual firms. Nine firms reported being subcontractors to other national and 
international firms, and 15 firms have contracted other firms themselves to deliver services. 
Interestingly, these were completely different sets of firms where none of the 15 firms who had 
subcontracted others reported having been subcontractors themselves.
 Exhibit 6: Technical skills accessed through subcontracting with SPs
Finding 14: Key challenges cited included lower than desired budgets allocated for MEL work, 
unclear terms of reference advertised by clients, limited financial resources for 
covering up-front costs, a lack of client feedback on submitted proposals and 
deliverables, and difficulties working with clients that have complex procurement and 
technical requirements.
Less attractive budgets. While the data appear to show that development organizations are 
allocating reasonable shares of their budgets to MEL work, USAID requires a 1 to 3 percent of total 
budget allocation for evaluations alone in ADS 201. Multiple SPs expressed concerns about meager 
budgets for specific MEL activities. 
67%
60%
53%
53%
40%
33%
27%
89%
67%
44%
89%
56%
22%
33%
Quantitative data analyst
Evaluation methods…
Subject matter expert
Qualitative data analyst
Enumerator
MEL trainer
Transcriptionist
Issued subcontracts Received subcontracts
n=15 (28% of SPs) n=9 (17% of SPs)
11 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
"There are consultants who tell us that the budgets you put in your bids are not too attractive." —Interview 
with a client
Terms of Reference. One challenge that about half of SPs raised in KIIs is inconsistency and frequent 
lack of detail in solicitations issued by MEL clients. This sometimes results in tensions between clients 
and service providers. These conflicts can arise in several ways: higher than expected (and budgeted for) 
costs for SPs, differences in views about required deliverables, and delays in completion of contracted 
tasks. 
"Just to let you know that TORs can be a source of conflict between the client and the firm. If the client 
doesn't say what they want or understand what they want, that's a huge source of conflict. " —Interview 
with a SP
Interviewed clients are aware of the importance of clear terms of reference, even if SPs don’t always feel 
that they follow this with action.
"We, on our side, have to be very precise in the terms of reference. That is to say, everything that needs to 
be done, whatever the level of detail, needs to be included in the terms of reference to ensure that there is 
no room for interpretation." —Interview with a client
Funding challenges. Another challenge for multiple SPs, especially smaller, younger firms, is the lack 
of financial resources to cover required expenses for larger-scale assignments when partial payments 
based on reaching contractual milestones aren’t included in the contract. This can become even more of 
a challenge when terms of reference are modified mid-assignment, acceptance of deliverables is delayed, 
or organizations have slower payment systems for whatever reason.
“Well, it varies. We generally have a good collaboration, but sometimes we have difficulties with the 
budgets, which are sometimes too limited, that often happens. Sometimes it's the payments that arrive late. 
It tires us, payments that don't arrive on time.” —Interview with a SP
Lack of Feedback. SPs lamented that most client procurement processes do not provide feedback on 
proposals that were not accepted. SPs also reported that submissions were not acknowledged, leaving 
them unsure if their proposals were even received. Other SPs raised concerns that clients did not 
provide feedback on submitted deliverables. While they are pleased to have their deliverables approved, 
they desired specific feedback to improve the quality of future efforts. Such practices can make it 
difficult, especially for new firms, to break into the market with new clients or in new technical areas.
Client procedures. The complex internal procedures of some clients were reported to complicate 
procurement of MEL services, resulting in delays in finalization of contracts, acceptance of deliverables, 
and issuance of payments. For some clients, these complicated procedures do not apply to individual 
consultants, reportedly resulting in a preference for consultants over MEL firms. When combined with 
the general challenge discussed earlier that certain SPs face difficulties in managing the burden of up￾front costs for some assignments, the implications of complicated procurement and payment procedures 
on decisions by SPs to work with certain clients can reportedly result in a more limited pool of potential 
applicants. One SP highlighted the added limitation to potential innovation that is presented by rigid 
templates and procedures.
“In the assembly of the files with the technical and financial partners it is the complexity of the documents 
to be completed or the outlines, especially also with USAID with templates which are so difficult to respect. I 
12 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
always call on the assistant, even for the characters and the like, to respect the outlines and the like and 
even the reports, even if it's... everything is configured, that doesn't leave the consultant too much power at 
least, at least beyond even writing the reports to at least try to innovate.” —Interview with a SP
5. POTENTIAL ELIGIBLE PARTNERS
Are any MEL SPs assessed as being eligible to receive direct funding for such activities? 
Finding 15: There are at least a half-dozen firms with previous donor and USAID IP evaluation 
experience that may be able to work with the MEL Platform and/or USAID directly 
without substantial additional capacity building.
While this first phase of the MEL LLA collected substantial information on the capacities, work histories, 
and perceived needs of MEL SPs, it did not go sufficiently in depth to concretely identify firms that are 
ready to work as MEL providers with the MEL Platform and/or USAID directly. Phase II of the MEL 
localization program will implement processes that should result in approval of one or more 
organizations to receive funding and perform MEL tasks for USAID in some fashion. 
Based on the Phase I data, however, it does appear likely that multiple MEL organizations should be able 
to meet USAID expectations in key areas of technical and organizational capacity with some additional 
capacity building. This conclusion is based on the findings that more than ten firms have completed 
evaluations and other MEL tasks for USAID IPs and/or other donors in recent years. As a result, they 
should have already built sufficient organizational capacity to meet appropriate standards of project 
management, have good ability to prepare detailed technical and costing proposals, communicate 
effectively about scopes of work and deliverables, and meet required technical standards of quality. It 
remains to be seen, however, if the highest-capacity firms will be interested in providing what is likely to 
be a limited palette of services short of a full-blown evaluation and delivering those services at prices 
that will be acceptable.
13 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
6. TECHNICAL COMPETENCIES AND GAPS 
What are SPs’ MEL strengths and weaknesses in conducting MEL technical work? 
Finding 16: MEL SPs and clients reported substantial experience and capacity in the sector 
performing evaluations in Senegal. 
Diverse experience. Most SPs reported 
having experience with multiple types of clients 
(finding ten above) and across multiple MEL 
areas. Reported capacities among their staff 
included evaluation methods, research design, 
statistics, collection and analysis of quantitative 
data, and MEL training. In addition, client and 
SP interviews confirmed that there are MEL 
firms in Senegal that can mobilize required 
experts and expertise from Senegal and 
outside of the country in a variety of key 
technical areas. Client interviews confirmed 
that the MEL market includes the capacity to 
implement core MEL functions in a diversity of needed subjects, even if the number of people with 
specific technical skills is finite.
“I think the areas where I find they exceed the most is when it's more about doing the statistics, doing the 
sample here, training the interviewers, making the tools in digital format. All of that really, they do it very 
quickly, and they're able to do it.” —Interview with a client
Evaluation is a key strength of MEL SPs’ support to development efforts in Senegal and the region. SPs 
were asked to describe their most recent three contracts. A total of 19 organizations provided 
information on 37 evaluations, assessments, and studies, of which 27 had “evaluation” in the title. SPs 
are performing and supporting evaluation work, and a good number of them are performing well enough 
to have conducted multiple evaluations for different clients as their most recent work.
Several interviewed SPs reported that they have expanded their operations because of the success of 
their businesses and the growing demands of clients. Some of these companies reported working in 
other countries in the region and collaborating successfully with local counterparts in those areas.
"We have supported many countries. We have intervened here in Senegal several times, in Benin, Niger, 
Burkina, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritania. We have intervened in most African countries in the 
implementation of demographic surveys in general with the quantitative aspect. —Interview with a SP
Demonstrating the quality of their work, multiple firms reported in KIIs having received various forms of 
recognition from their clients, including letters of satisfaction and emails appreciating their work. 
Interviewed clients often spoke highly of the work of certain SPs.
Exhibit 7: Almost all SPs reported having an Evaluation Specialist on 
staff (n=53)
14 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Finding 17: Most SPs and training centers reported participant satisfaction with their training 
courses in KIIs.
Positive feedback on training. Multiple training providers in MEL, SPs, and training centers reported 
that they receive positive feedback on their courses from participants. For nearly all these respondents, 
they cited their training evaluation and feedback systems as the source of this feedback.
“For the quality of the services we provide, if you go to our site or our Facebook page, you will see the 
testimonials, we have galore. From the first day of the training, they express their satisfaction to us. They 
are satisfied because there is no theory here, everything is practical here. So, everyone is usually satisfied. In 
any case, we have not met a participant who tells us that he is not satisfied.” —Interview with a SP
Flexible training approaches. As detailed in question 1, there is a range of available training 
modalities, offering flexibility to potential participants. Multiple organizations reported providing on￾demand, tailored training for clients intended to meet their specific needs. These custom courses are in 
addition to the regularly scheduled, more standardized courses also offered.
Finding 18: Reported areas of needed improvement included challenges related to having 
sufficient full-time human resources to implement some MEL tasks, a lack of qualitative 
data skills in some firms, and a lack of impact evaluation experience.
While the interviews with SPs and clients reported that SPs are conducting useful MEL work of good 
quality in Senegal, there were several areas of improvement identified. 
Human resources. SPs and their clients highlighted human resource constraints as a common 
challenge. Gaps in this area included difficulty finding specialists in certain technical areas such as child 
protection or special types of evaluation or other studies.
"Sometimes in the team we were offered, we had research experts who could handle all the research 
methodology, but sometimes what was missing was the thematic expertise." —Interview with a client
Human resource issues were also identified related to a lack of permanent staff at some firms. Issues 
cited ranged from delays in implementation due to the need to recruit data collection teams to finding 
key specialists once contracts are awarded and activities begin whose schedules may have changed. 
Smaller, less experienced firms often face a “chicken or the egg” conundrum where they would have 
more permanent staff required to win more bids if they could count on the contracts. The importance 
of consultants to the business strategies of many firms is illustrated to some degree in the reported use 
of consultants to deliver key MEL services. Only 15 percent of firms responded that they do not use 
consultants to perform MEL work.
"In terms of organization, as I said, our resources are limited. Expertise is expensive, which is why we have 
a small number. But if we had more resources, we would increase our human resources too." —Interview 
with a SP
Lack of qualitative skills. A specific technical gap was highlighted by multiple clients and some SPs—
qualitative data analysis. While the quantitative capacity of MEL SPs is widely acknowledged, expertise in 
collecting and analyzing qualitative data is an apparent limit on the quality of some MEL firms’ work.
15 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
"The other element is qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis, because when it's quantitative stuff, the 
analysis is well done. We have the reports and everything, but when it comes to the results of focus groups, 
the results of qualitative evaluations, that's a problem.” —Interview with a client
"I do qualitative analysis, but mostly manually, which takes a little more time. But I'm not too familiar with 
qualitative assessment tools." —Interview with a SP
Impact evaluation. Another specific area of limited experience noted by clients and SPs was in 
designing and conducting impact evaluations. Given the substantial, technical, and specific human 
resource requirements of impact evaluations, which often take years to complete and multiple rounds of 
large-scale data collection, this finding isn’t surprising.
Other gaps. Other capacity gaps or issues identified included concerns around the quality of 
deliverables and difficulties in meeting clients’ deadlines. These types of issues are common in industries 
like MEL where standards from client to client and preferred methods and formats of SPs can vary and 
lead to mismatched expectations. 
Finding 19: MEL training, especially at training centers, is often seen as being out of date in 
important technical areas such as use of software and a shortage of practical examples 
and has a lack of trainers with MEL experience.
While qualitative data revealed the existence of experienced MEL trainers at the two training centers, 
survey data highlighted that trainer skills need to be improved in certain aspects. About half of the 31 
organizations surveyed that offer MEL training reported technical and organizational challenges.
Outdated technology. One of the training structures indicated that some of its faculty members need 
to improve their skills in using technical tools like software. Comments from qualitative data highlighted 
challenges in ensuring that MEL courses are up to date and focus on the latest data collection, analysis, 
and visualization tools.
“When they run a monitoring and evaluation program, we feel that they know what they are doing but in 
relation to current needs. For example, for the technical tools, concerning the software, it is out of date, so 
we will try to see how to upgrade them.” —Interview with a training center
Lack of practical experience. One training center stated that it did not have a trainer exclusively 
specialized in the field of monitoring and evaluation. The trainers have, among other things, the profiles 
of planners, financial officers, project managers, or public policy evaluators.
Certain firms and clients raised concerns about the practical utility of MEL courses offered by training 
centers. Reflecting the lack of specific MEL experience and focus among some training center trainers, 
critiques highlighted a lack of practical examples and an approach that was too theoretical to build 
applicable capacity. One SP expressed frustration with this overall challenge of MEL capacity-building 
programs—SPs can learn theory and general concepts easily via resources available on the Internet. It is 
much harder to find specific templates and guidance, especially given the plethora of differing client 
requirements.
Another example of concerns around limited practicality of available courses was raised in identifying a 
lack of data collection and analysis content that focuses on the integration of quantitative and qualitative 
methods that is a cornerstone of current evaluation and research practice.
16 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Lack of harmonized approaches and tools on MEL. One general challenge that affects not only 
MEL training but also MEL practice overall is the lack of standardization in the industry. Best practices, 
preferred templates, methodological priorities, and required data robustness can all vary from client to 
client for similar assignments. This lack of harmonization led one SP to suggest that the MEL industry 
work to establish an ISO-type set of standards to make it easier for everyone to understand 
requirements and work together.
On the organizational level, similar challenges and gaps related to human resources were identified with 
overall MEL service delivery. A lack of permanent staff in some organizations limits training availability 
and quality. Quality is affected by limits on organizations’ ability to ensure that trainers are up to date 
and are high performers, especially when they can’t count on using preferred experts if they aren’t 
available.
“For example, I had to look for a trainer for the Malagasy for one week since Dr G. was unavailable. But if 
it was in another area, I can find another trainer quickly. But when I say trainer, I mean good trainers. So, 
you need very good trainers to ensure sustainability.” —Interview with a training center
Sustaining MEL training challenges. Other challenges to the sustainable provision of high-quality 
training include infrequent offering of training, which can result in trainers being out of practice and 
content not being up to date. Many organizations offering MEL training do not have dedicated training 
spaces that have been optimized to support the delivery of effective content and methods. Some 
respondents highlighted difficulties in ensuring enough participants to both ensure profitability and 
sufficient back and forth between participants to maximize learning. A final gap identified focused on 
perceived insufficient effort and resources focused on marketing of training opportunities.
7. TECHNICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY￾BUILDING DIAGNOSIS 
What are their capacity-building needs—technical and organizational?
Finding 20: Learning was the top technical capacity-building need reported for SPs to collaborate 
with USAID on MEL, listed by almost three-quarters of SPs. Monitoring and evaluation 
capacity building was listed by close to half of SPs.
Nine SPs (17 percent) indicated they would not need technical capacity building to work with USAID on 
MEL tasks. The majority indicated that they would need capacity building in learning, while about half felt 
they would need assistance in evaluation and monitoring to meet USAID standards. Qualitative 
interviews with SPs also highlighted the desire for capacity building in learning.
As detailed under the section above on SP areas of needed improvement, capacity building would be 
beneficial in qualitative data and impact evaluations. Another area of requested technical capacity 
building was in specific thematic areas of evaluation and research, including gender, childhood, climate 
change, and reproductive health. A broader technical and organizational capacity-building need 
highlighted by SPs, difficult to address through short-term assistance, is English language skills.
Seven SPs (13 percent) reported having received technical capacity building in the past. All stated that 
previous capacity building received included in-person interaction. For four of the seven, online training 
17 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
was included as 
was provision of 
templates and 
other job aids; 
three listed 
coaching, and two 
submitted 
proposals for 
technical review 
prior to 
finalization.
Institutions 
providing technical 
capacity building 
received by SPs 
included GoS 
entities (four), 
donors (three), 
NGOs (two), and 
foundations (one). 
SenEval was 
credited with technical capacity building by two SPs.
Finding 21: Clients and SPs identified multiple technical capacity-building resources, including 
client-funded mechanisms.
SPs were asked to list the type of entity and name of organizations that they knew were providing 
technical capacity building to Senegalese organizations. While 63 percent did not name anyone, the 
remaining responses highlighted 13 donors, nine GoS entities, seven NGOs, three foundations, and 
seven other types. While only one respondent stated it specifically, it is presumed that many of the 
donors do not deliver capacity building directly but fund it through their activities.
Finding 22: Around half of SPs reported needing organizational capacity building, including financial 
management procedures, strategic planning, equipment purchases, and 
communications. Human resource management was listed by almost a third.
As with technical capacity, the MEL LLA focused on self-reported capacity needs for organizational 
capacity. The Platform will conduct a more detailed organizational capacity assessment before launching 
a process of contracting with SPs.
Fewer SPs surveyed feel that they would need organizational capacity building (74 percent) than 
technical (84 percent) to work successfully with USAID. While 22 percent of SPs stated that they would 
Exhibit 8: Technical capacity-building needs reported by SPs to work with USAID (n=53)
18 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
not need any organizational 
improvements, nearly half listed 
operational needs, including 
financial management, strategic 
planning, equipment purchasing, 
and communications. Close to 30 
percent listed human resources 
management as an area that would 
need improvement for their 
organization. 
Interviews with MEL clients 
identified the same areas of 
needed capacity building to 
strengthen institutional 
performance to the USAID 
standard as listed in the survey.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings point to several key conclusions about how USAID may best approach its commitment to 
greater localization of its MEL work.
The local MEL market in Senegal is served by a variety of firms and organizations of different sizes, 
technical and organizational capacity, and with varying degrees of quality and client satisfaction. 
Furthermore, data suggest that it is likely that there are multiple high-capacity firms that could provide 
high-quality MEL services to USAID. The data collected for this study, however, are insufficient to 
categorize the quality of their services and available capacities with certainty. Verification of 
organizations’ reported capacity was outside of the scope of this assessment, which was based on self￾reports. In addition, the study intentionally avoided collecting information from MEL clients on specific 
firms. The MEL Platform will conduct detailed assessments of service quality, deliverable quality, and 
organizational competencies in Phase II.
Broadly speaking, demand for MEL services locally has undergone a significant expansion 
as the number of evaluations conducted over the past decade or two has grown. This trend 
is similar to the overall growth in MEL internationally over the same period. This expansion has been 
driven by the fact that citizens, government, and development partners perceived evaluation as a priority 
and requirement. The growth in MEL demand has been accompanied by a corresponding emphasis by 
clients on higher-quality processes and products. Rapid growth has sometimes contributed to lower 
quality services as new, less experienced firms have entered the market to keep up with demand.
Moreover, there is more demand for evaluation services from MEL SPs than for 
monitoring and learning. While MEL SPs in Senegal are able to provide services in monitoring and 
learning, these types of activities are generally implemented by the clients themselves and do not have 
the same requirements for outside, independent perspectives. The study did not uncover substantial 
evidence that this trend would change. 
Exhibit 9: Organizational capacity-building needs reported by SPs to work with 
USAID (n=53)
19 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Even though the availability of training in MEL has progressed in recent years, the overall 
quantity, at required levels of quality, and in specific technical areas adapted to the needs 
of students, potential customers, and the market remain low compared to the demand.
The availability of diploma-level training is more limited compared to certificate-level 
training, which is more widespread and diversified.
SPs provide MEL services to many different types of clients, including GoS entities, USAID IPs, NGOs, 
foundations, and other donors. This reflects the substantial diversity of clients demanding evaluation and 
other MEL services in the country. The number of NGOs identified as clients was higher than that for 
other organizations. This makes sense as NGOs of different types would make up the majority of 
development implementers.
SPs have wide access to and utilization of a range of different dissemination channels used by potential 
customers. Many of these channels could be used by USAID and its partners to further the reach of 
their solicitations for MEL services. Apart from traditional distribution channels, various other means 
exist, including databases, mailing lists, and prequalification systems set up by certain customers.
Besides opportunities, MEL SPs face many technical and organizational challenges. Among 
these challenges, some, such as the rigidity of internal procedures of clients and vague terms of 
reference, are inherent in the work approaches of some clients. SPs and clients alike must address these 
challenges to improve the demand and supply of MEL services.
MEL SPs have proven skills in conducting technical work based on their experience with various clients 
and in specific areas such as quantitative data collection and analysis and use of digital tools. In addition, 
local firms have demonstrated capacity to quickly identify and mobilize local human resources required 
for MEL work ranging from data collectors to subject matter experts. Their work experiences in the 
regions of Senegal, the countries of the sub-region, and internationally, and the existing collaborations 
between local and international firms help support their potential to contribute positively to USAID’s 
MEL needs.
However, some technical shortcomings in the areas of qualitative data analysis and impact evaluations in 
some organizations should be considered and strengthened. At the organizational level, the lack of 
permanent resource persons is a constraint on service provision for several firms, especially smaller 
firms.
Any program that aims to increase the amount of USAID-funded MEL work performed by 
local firms will need to invest effort so that USAID’s technical terms, concepts, templates, 
and expectations can be well understood by many if not most potential partners. Such a 
program should ensure that it shares as much information as possible concerning the unique technical 
aspects of USAID’s MEL requirements.
The capacity-building needs of SPs are technical and organizational and not all of them can 
be successfully and efficiently addressed by the MEL Platform with large numbers of 
institutions in its current configuration. These needs must be analyzed in detail by the MEL 
Platform during the second stage of the process to identify feasible priorities. Certain needs, especially 
organizational ones, would require an investment on the part of the SPs themselves.
20 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Depending on the Mission’s specific objectives in increasing the share of MEL funding that 
goes to local organizations in Senegal, it should be able to immediately find multiple firms 
able to perform MEL services to an acceptable standard. Such service areas include all aspects 
of evaluation, including data collection and analysis, design and management of evaluations, preparation 
of reports, and dissemination of results. The sole caveat to this conclusion relates to the likely limited 
availability of firms that can conduct required aspects of this work in English. This may, in turn, limit the 
number of firms that compete for awards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below emerge from the findings and conclusions above. We have numbered 
them to signal prioritization, with #1 being the most urgent suggested action.
1. As envisioned in the MEL LLA work plan, upon the completion of Phase II, USAID should work 
with the USAID MEL Platform to develop, share, and implement a multi-phase MEL localization 
plan. This plan should include capacity building in areas of multi-institutional need and 
mechanisms for awarding funds to local organizations with progressively greater responsibilities 
and corresponding budgets. The final plan should include clear objectives and corresponding 
MEL approaches to assess progress.
2. The USAID MEL Platform would be responsible for implementing this plan and making any 
awards, at least in early stages until USAID establishes separate funding and management 
structures that could provide appropriate oversight. This plan would be organized by the 
technical areas of MEL work so that it is clear the types of MEL services the Mission is focused 
on increasing local participation in, the modalities of this participation, the corresponding action 
items, including necessary capacity-building approaches, and the timetable for implementing this 
program. Based on USAID’s MEL localization experience in other countries and the diverse 
nature of the MEL SPs in Senegal, a multi-phase approach is recommended where rapid 
localization results are achieved by focusing initial awards on the highest-capacity firms in the 
first rounds of procurement. Subsequent rounds of funding would benefit from an ever￾increasing pool of eligible applicants because of the Platform’s capacity-building initiatives.
3. Depending upon USAID’s objectives in strengthening the quality of MEL training provided in 
Senegal, USAID could work with the USAID MEL Platform to take the following actions:
• Include the provision of MEL technical training in the localization plan by contracting with 
training centers.
• Organize discussion forums bringing together training centers or structures and potential 
customers to discuss the challenges and potential solutions for improving MEL training. 
Consider integrating SenEval into these discussions.
• Advocate for the improvement of the training content that training centers offer so that 
it meets market needs by involving key players such as the Center for Learning on 
Evaluation and Results, the Commission nationale d’évaluation et de suivi des politiques 
et des programmes publiques, and SenEval.
4. USAID should establish systems to provide specific feedback to all offers received when awards 
are made in order to foster a learning experience even for those entities that do not win the 
award. Similarly, provide feedback on all deliverables.
21 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS PHASE I– FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
5. As envisioned in the MEL LLA work plan, to advance the possibility of other MEL clients and 
USAID IPs using local MEL firms for work going forward:
• The MEL Platform should build a database and a mailing list of MEL SPs from the 
information collected.
• The MEL Platform should share the database with USAID and its IPs, SenEval, and other 
clients who regularly solicit MEL SPs.
• The MEL Platform should build the capacity of young professionals by involving them in 
the implementation of MEL activities carried out by SPs.
• USAID and its partners should provide information to the SP mailing list detailing where 
they will advertise business and/or share opportunities directly via the list.
• USAID and its partners should consider using the other specific platforms mentioned by 
SPs for advertising opportunities.
• USAID should support SenEval to organize discussion forums bringing together SPs, 
training centers and clients to exchange experiences concerning the strengths and 
challenges of collaboration.
22 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ANNEXES
ANNEX A: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The MEL LLA is a mixed-methods study that blended document review with simultaneous quantitative 
and qualitative data collection to provide a broad perspective on general trends within the local MEL 
organization landscape. The section below provides additional details of each method.
RESEARCH METHODS 
The team applied a mixed-methods research design relying on the strategies described below. Since all
the organizations in the study were based in Dakar, data collection took place there. (See the sampling 
section for more information on how the team selected the sampled organizations.) 
QUALITATIVE METHODS
Various qualitative methods joined together to support the MEL LLA:
Document Review. Document review informed the design phase of the study. Initially, the team compiled 
a preliminary list of local MEL organizations from lists provided by SenEval and other sources. The list 
was finalized during a meeting with MEL SPs before study kick-off.
Key Informant Interviews. The team conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants from MEL 
service delivery organizations and training centers providing MEL courses, as well as MEL clients 
including donors, NGOs, government entities, and the Senegalese evaluation association, SenEval. 
Interview guides for each type of stakeholder, included in Annex C, provided direction for the 
discussions.
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
The team collected quantitative information through an online survey of local MEL organizations, The 
survey compiled relevant information on their characteristics, technical abilities, market participation and 
perceptions, challenges, barriers, and strengths. 
SAMPLING 
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE
The Research Team targeted a 100 percent sample of identified MEL SPs and training centers for the 
quantitative survey. Out of 81 MEL SPs, a total of 58 completed the survey. A 72 percent response rate 
is high for a survey and was likely increased because of potential perception that participation in the 
survey, or non-participation, could affect SPs’ future opportunities for business. Of the twenty-three SPs 
that didn't complete the survey, nineteen of them didn't reply to the RT emails after several reminders. 
Of the remaining four, one declined to complete the survey because he has only worked as a consultant 
and not as a firm, one contacted the RT after the survey was closed, and two were confirmed as no 
longer in business. Out of the five training centers identified, all five completed the survey.
23 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
QUALITATIVE SAMPLE
The qualitative sample was purposive in nature. The team conducted a total of 56 key informant 
interviews (KIIs) with various stakeholders. Among these, the team conducted qualitative interviews 
with 30 local MEL SPs, the 30 SPs were selected randomly from three categories based on their 
responses to the survey. The intent of the classification and sampling was to ensure some 
representativeness of the KII data of SPs that were assessed, based on the limited data available in the 
survey, as being most likely to be able to work immediately with USAID, those of a medium likelihood 
to be able to work with USAID directly immediately or a high likelihood with some capacity building, 
and those where their capacity for USAID work was unclear. The team also attempted to conduct KIIs 
with all five of the training centers. However, only two agreed to the interviews.
KIIs were also conducted with other stakeholders, all but one who were MEL clients. These included 
seven government entities, six donors, nine NGOs and associations, and two USAID IPs. One of the 
associations was the national evaluation association, SenEval. Exhibit 10 below shows the distribution of 
interviews by stakeholder type.
Exhibit 10: Key informant interviews
TYPE NUMBER
MEL SPs 30
Training centers with MEL trainings 2
Government Ministries and Agencies 7
Donors 6
USAID International IPs 2
NGOs 8 
Associations 1
Total 56
THE RESEARCH TEAM
This RT included the following members: Team Leader, Learning and Capacity Building Manager, M&E 
Manager and MEL Assistant. The Platform recruited five enumerators to support fieldwork. 
DATA COLLECTION
The team trained enumerators on the qualitative data collection tools and conducted pilot interviews to 
test the instruments, refining the tools and providing additional training as needed. All data collection 
took place from January 17 – February 9, 2023. The on-line survey was open from January 17 to 
February 1. After the survey had been completed by the majority of firms, the sample of SPs was 
selected for KIIs. From January 23 to February 9, the team conducted 56 KIIs with local MEL 
organizations and stakeholders and 58 local organizations completed the survey, both methodologies 
focusing on their characteristics, engagement with USAID and other donors, challenges, and 
competencies. Data collection tools are included in Annex C. 
24 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
The team applied rigorous methods to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data, as described below. 
Qualitative. Data analysis relied on research questions to help guide interpretation of findings and 
subsequent conclusions. The team analyzes qualitative data collected via semi-structured KIIs using a 
three-phase process of content, pattern, and thematic analysis. The team developed a codebook based 
upon inductive and deductive analysis and proceeded to code the data using the Dedoose qualitative 
analysis software. The team used participatory methods to analyze data, applying a signature EnCompass 
approach, Data Analysis Integration and Synthesis (DAIS), to generate findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations.
Quantitative. Data analysis used descriptive methods to examine trends among the various SPs emerging 
from survey data. The team analyzed the data using Excel.
Report-writing. Report-writing was an ongoing process. Various team members input into the report 
building upon previous analysis stages to arrive at the findings and develop conclusions.
LIMITATIONS
The study has several potential limitations that should not substantially limit its utility. First, the data 
collected in the survey from MEL SPs are self-reported without systematic verification by the RT. This 
may result in bias towards an overly optimistic assessment of capacity or erroneous reporting in a few 
areas. There was some verification of reported data through several processes including comparison of 
data collected through the KIIs from a sub-sample of MEL SPs with that reported in the survey as well as 
similar comparisons/triangulation with data collected from clients where it is specific to an individual 
firm. Most importantly, no funding or award-based decisions are being made based on the reported data. 
Once the capacity building program has been launched, the RT will have access to additional data from a 
subset of SPs that will allow detailed assessment of technical and organizational capacity. 
A second limitation may have resulted from potential limitations on the RT’s ability to identify and 
interview all potential providers of MEL service delivery. There is no standard register of MEL providers 
in Senegal nor organization tasked with maintaining an accurate, up to date census of this group. 
Furthermore, as the RT relied on an on-line survey for efficiency purposes rather than in-person 
methods, the team did not travel to specific physical addresses where it could potentially ask neighbors 
about the business if it wasn’t at the location or open at the time. Regardless, the response rate for the 
survey was high – 72 percent of the total – and the respondents ranged from single-person operations 
to very large companies. Based on the team’s understanding of the reasons that all 81 initially identified 
organizations did not complete the survey, we believe that the data’s utility is unaffected by the smaller 
than intended respondent pool.
25 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ANNEX B: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
QUESTIONNAIRE D’ENQUETE AUPRES DES FOURNISSEURS DE 
SERVICES EN SEA
INTRODUCTION / CONSENTEMENT
L'objet de cette étude est de conduire une cartographie des fournisseurs de services en Suivi, Evaluation 
et Apprentissage (SEA) au Sénégal. L'USAID, dans le cadre de son appui au Gouvernement du Sénégal, 
prévoit d'élargir le partenariat avec les organisations locales, y compris les fournisseurs de services en 
SEA. Pour mieux appuyer les organisations ciblées, l'USAID a besoin d'avoir une meilleure connaissance 
de l'écosystème des fournisseurs de services intervenant dans le domaine du SEA. Dans le cadre de 
cette étude, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives à votre structure et non-pas des 
informations personnelles.
Personne en dehors de l'équipe de recherche ne verra les réponses. En plus de l'analyse qui sera faite 
des données, un répertoire contenant toutes les informations sur les fournisseurs de services en SEA 
ayant pris part à cette enquête sera remis à l'USAID. Nous ne partagerons aucune information sensible 
concernant votre structure. Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire, et que 
tout participant a le droit de mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Nous pensons que votre 
participation à cette étude comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, nous ferons tout ce qui est en 
notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. Nous vous prions de 
contacter Madame Safyatou Diallo, la responsable de l'étude au 76 150 26 97 ou à 
sdiallo@encompassworld.com si vous avez des questions ou préoccupations. Le remplissage du 
questionnaire vous prendra au maximum 45 minutes et vous avez la possibilité de l'enregistrer en mode 
brouillon pour le finaliser plus tard. Le questionnaire devra être soumis au plus tard le 28 janvier.
Êtes-vous d'accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
o Oui 
o Non
Mettez le mot de passe puis cliquer sur "valider"
FOURNISSEUR DE SERVICES EN SUIVI EVALUATION ET APPRENTISSAGE
Sur la base de la définition ci-après veuillez indiquer si votre structure est un fournisseur de services en 
Suivi Evaluation et Apprentissage.
sont considérés comme « fournisseurs de services en Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage », toutes 
structures ou tous cabinets, offrant des prestations de services en SEA telles que : la définition des 
indicateurs et des cibles, et/ou la vérification des données des indicateurs sur le terrain, et/ou la 
conduite d'études et/ou de recherche, la conduite d'évaluations, la collecte de données qualitatives et/ou 
quantitatives, l'analyse et traitement de données qualitatives et/ou quantitatives, la conduite d'activités 
d'apprentissage ( sessions de pause et réflexion, etc.). Cette définition ne prend pas en compte les 
prestations offertes par des consultants individuels. Elle n'inclut pas également les structures qui offrent 
exclusivement des formations en SEA.
26 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Est-ce que votre structure répond à cette définition ?
o Oui 
o Non
STRUCTURE ET CENTRE DE FORMATION
Sur la base de la définition ci-après veuillez indiquer si votre structure est un centre ou établissement de 
formation.
Les centres ou structures de formations sont des établissements qui offrent des formations de courte 
et/ou longue durée dans le domaine du Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage. Cette définition inclut aussi 
toutes les structures ou cabinets qui offrent régulièrement des formations de courte durée en SEA.
Est-ce que votre structure répond à cette définition ?
o Oui 
o Non
SECTION I : FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES EN SEA
A-Identification et caractérisation
1. Nom du cabinet/centre de recherche :
2. Numéro de téléphone du cabinet /centre de recherche :
3. Prénoms et nom du responsable de votre cabinet /centre de recherche ?
4. Email du cabinet /centre de recherche :
5. Numéro de téléphone du responsable :
6. Email du responsable :
7. Adresse physique du Cabinet :
8. Votre cabinet /centre de recherche existe depuis combien d'années ? 
9. Avez-vous un siège social ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
10. Dans quelle(s) région(s) du pays se trouve votre cabinet (tous les bureaux) ? Cochez toutes les 
cases qui s'appliquent
27 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Dakar 
o Diourbel 
o Fatick 
o Kaffrine 
o Kaolack
o Kédougou 
o Kolda
o Louga 
o Matam
o Saint-Louis 
o Sédhiou
o Tambacounda
o Thiès
o Ziguinchor 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
11. Quelle est la forme juridique de votre cabinet ?
o SA 
o GIE 
o SUARL
o GIE
o Association
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
11. Autre forme juridique à Préciser
12. Type d'organisation ?
o Cabinet
o Centre de Recherche 
o Autre à préciser
12. Autre type d'organisation à préciser
13. Le cabinet/ centre appartient -il à ?
o Une personne
o Un groupe de personnes 
o Autre à préciser
o Ne sait pas
o Non applicable
13. Autre à préciser
28 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
 13a. Indiquer le sexe de cette personne
o Masculin 
o Féminin
 13b1. Quel est le nombre d'hommes dans le groupe (s'il s'agit d'un groupe de personnes) ?
 Ne se sait pas ="999"
 13b2. Quel est le nombre de femmes dans le groupe (s'il s'agit d'un groupe de personnes) ?
 Ne se sait pas ="999" 
14. Est-ce que le cabinet /centre de recherche appartient à une personne ou un groupe de 
personnes vivant avec un handicap ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse 
o Non applicable
15. Votre cabinet dispose-t-il d'un manuel de procédure administrative et financière validé et 
appliqué ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
16. Parmi les propositions ci-dessous, veuillez indiquer les secteurs dans lesquels vous avez déjà eu à 
exécuter des contrats de prestation de services en SEA au cours des trois dernières années 
(Cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
o Education 
o Santé
o Démocratie, Gouvernance, Droits Humains et paix
o Croissance Economique (Agriculture, Pêche, Eau et Assainissement, Energie, etc.) 
o Environnement
o Genre
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne répond pas
16. Autres secteurs à préciser
17. Quels sont vos principaux types de clients (Cochez toutes les cases qui s'appliquent) ?
o Ministères ou entités du gouvernement 
o Bailleurs bilatéraux
o Bailleurs multilatéraux
o Organisations non gouvernementales 
29 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Fondations
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 17a. Préciser le(s) noms du Ministère(s) ou de l' (des) entité(s) du gouvernement
 17b. Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) bilatéraux 
 17c. Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) multilatéraux
 17d. Préciser le(s) nom(s) des organisations non gouvernementales
 17e. Préciser le(s) nom(s) de la/ des Fondation(s)
 17f. Autre catégorie à préciser
 18. Votre structure offre quel(s) type(s) de services (Cochez toutes les cases qui s'appliquent) ?
o Suivi
o Evaluation 
o Apprentissage
o Aucun
 18a. Quels sont les services de suivi offerts ?
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
 18a1. Autres services de suivi à préciser
 18b. Quels sont les services d'évaluation offerts ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
 18b1. Autres services d'évaluation à préciser
 18c. Quels sont les services d'apprentissage offerts?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
30 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
18c1. Autres services d'apprentissage à préciser
19a. Quels sont les services de suivi déjà exécutés ?
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
19a1. Autres services à préciser
 19b. Quels sont les services d'évaluation déjà exécutés ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
19b1. Autres services à préciser 
19c. Quels sont les services d'apprentissage déjà exécutés ?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
19c1. Autres à préciser
20. Veuillez indiquer les domaines dans lesquels vous faites appel à d'autres consultants externes pour 
fournir des services (Cochez toutes les cases qui s'appliquent)
o Suivi
o Evaluation 
o Apprentissage 
31 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Aucun
20a. Quels sont les services de suivi offerts par ces consultants externes ?
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
20a1. Autres services à préciser
20b. Quels sont les services d'évaluation offerts par ces consultants externes ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
20b1. Autres services à préciser
20c. Quels sont les services d'apprentissage offerts par ces consultants externes ?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
20c1. Autres à préciser
21. Fournissez-vous des services en renforcement de capacités organisationnelles ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
22. Si oui, veuillez indiquer les domaines dans lesquels vous offrez ces services (Cochez toutes les cases 
qui s'appliquent) ?
o Gestion financière
o Planification stratégique/ Manuel de procédure
32 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Equipements (Tablettes, logiciels, dictaphones...)
o Communication
o Gestion des ressources humaines
o Autre (à préciser)
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
22. Autres domaines à préciser
23. Avez-vous soumis des propositions dans le domaine du SEA ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
23a. Combien de propositions avez-vous soumis dans le domaine du SEA au cours des trois dernières 
années ?
o Moins de 10
o 10 à 20
o 20 à 30
o Plus de 30
23b. Veuillez lister les 03 dernières propositions soumises dans le domaine du SEA ?
Proposition 1
Proposition 2
Proposition 3
» P1
23b1. Dans quel domaine ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage
23b2. Préciser le montant de la proposition financière en CFA ?
23b3. Donner le nom du commanditaire pour la proposition ?
23b4. Type de commanditaire de la proposition (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement ...) ?
23b5-Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour l'exécution de la proposition ?
o Oui 
o Non
33 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
23b6. Dans quels domaines ?
» P2
23c1. Dans quels domaines ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage
23c2. Préciser le montant de la proposition financière en CFA ? 
23c3. Donner le nom du commanditaire pour la proposition ?
23c4. Type de commanditaire de la proposition (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement ...) ?
23c5. Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour la proposition ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
23c6. Dans quels domaines ?
» P3 
23d1. Dans quels domaines ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage
23d2. Préciser le montant de la proposition financière en CFA ?
23d3. Donner le nom du commanditaire pour la proposition ?
23d4. Type de commanditaire de la proposition (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement ...) ?
23d5. Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour la proposition ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
23d6. Dans quels domaines ?
24a. Avez-vous gagné des contrats dans le domaine du SEA au cours des trois dernières années ?
o Oui 
34 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Non
o Ne sait pas 
o Ne répond pas
24b. Combien de contrats avez-vous gagné au cours des trois dernières années
o Moins de 10
o 10 à 20
o 20 à 30
o Plus de 30
» 24c. Veuillez lister les 03 derniers contrats obtenus dans le domaine du SEA ?
Contrat1
Contrat2
Contrat3
» C1
24c1. Dans quels domaines ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage
24c2. Préciser le montant du contrat en CFA ?
24c3. Donner le nom du commanditaire du contrat ?
24c4. Type de commanditaire du contrat (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement ...) ?
24c5. Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour le contrat ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
24c6. Dans quels domaines ?
C2
24d1. Dans quels domaines ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage 
24d2. Préciser le montant du contrat en CFA ?
24d3. Donner le nom du commanditaire du contrat ?
35 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
24d4. Type de commanditaire pour contrat (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement) ?
24d5. Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour le contrat ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
24d6. Dans quels domaines ?
» C3
24e1. Dans quels domaines ?
Domaines : Suivi, Evaluation ou Apprentissage
24e2. Préciser le montant du contrat en CFA ?
24e3. Donner le nom du commanditaire du contrat ?
24e4. Type de commanditaire du contrat (ONG, Fondations, Bailleurs, Gouvernement ...) ?
24e5. Avez-vous fait appel à des consultants externes pour le contrat ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Ne répond pas
24e6. Dans quels domaines ?
B- Ressources techniques, humaines et Financières
25. Quel est le nombre total d'employés (à plein temps) de votre cabinet /centre de recherche ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
26. Quel est le nombre total d'employés (à plein temps) de votre cabinet /centre de recherche qui 
travaillent en SEA ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
27. Quel est le nombre de femmes employées (à plein temps) dans votre cabinet /centre de recherche ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
28. Quel est le nombre de femmes employées (à plein temps) dans votre cabinet /centre de recherche 
qui travaillent en SEA ?
36 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
29. Quel est le nombre de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) employés (à plein temps) dans votre 
cabinet /centre de recherche ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
30. Quel est le nombre de jeunes (personnes de moins de 35 ans) employés (à plein temps) dans votre 
cabinet /centre de recherche qui travaillent en SEA ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
31. Quel est le nombre de personnes vivant avec un handicap employées (à plein temps) dans votre 
cabinet /centre de recherche ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
32. Quel est le nombre de personnes vivant avec un handicap employé (à plein temps) dans votre 
cabinet/ /centre de recherche qui travaillent en SEA ?
Aucun employé = 0 ; Ne se sait pas ="999"
33. Quelles sont les capacités techniques en SEA existantes dans votre cabinet /centre de recherche ?
Cocher toutes les cases qui s'appliquent
Spécialiste des méthodes d'évaluation
• Expert thématique pour les évaluations
• Chercheur
• Statisticien/Analyste de données quantitatives 
• Analyste de données qualitatives/Codeur
• Transcripteur 
• Enquêteur
• Formateur en SEA 
• Autre à préciser 
• Ne sait pas
• Pas de réponse
33a. Autres capacités techniques
34. Quels sont les logiciels utilisés par le personnel de votre cabinet (Cocher toutes les réponses qui 
s'appliquent) ?
o R
o Stata 
37 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Eviews 
o SPSS 
o SAS
o ArcGIS 
o QGIS
o Tableau
o Autres à préciser 
o Aucune ressource 
o Pas de réponse
34. Autres logiciels à préciser
35. Faites-vous appel à d'autres fournisseurs de services (cabinets) en SEA comme sous-traitants 
pour vos missions ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas 
o Ne répond pas
36. De quels types de cabinet s'agit-il (Cocher toutes les cases qui s'appliquent) ?
o Locaux
o Internationaux 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 36a.Citer les cabinets locaux 
 Citer les noms des cabinets en les séparant par des virgules
 36b.Citer les cabinets internationaux
 Citer les noms des cabinets en les séparant par des virgules
37. Quelles sont les capacités techniques en SEA pour lesquelles vous avez contracté avec ces sous￾traitants ? (Cocher toutes les cases qui s'appliquent)
o Spécialiste des méthodes d'évaluation 
o Expert thématique pour les évaluations
o Statisticien/ Analyste de données quantitatives 
o Analyste de données qualitatives/ Codeur
o Transcripteur 
o Enquêteur
o Formateur en SEA 
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
38 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
37. Autres capacités techniques à préciser
38. Avez-vous déjà été sous-traitant d'un autre fournisseur (cabinet) de services en SEA ?
o Oui
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
39. De quels types de cabinet s'agit-il ?
o Locaux
o Internationaux 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 39a. Citer les cabinets locaux
 Citer les noms des cabinets en les séparant par des virgules
 39b. citer les cabinets internationaux
 Citer les noms des cabinets en les séparant par des virgules
40. Quelles sont les capacités techniques pour lesquelles vous avez été recruté comme sous-traitant 
?
o Spécialiste des méthodes d'évaluation 
o Expert thématique pour les évaluations
o Statisticien/ Analyste de données quantitatives 
o Analyste de données qualitatives / Codeur
o Transcripteur
o Enquêteur
o Formateur en SEA 
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
40. Autres capacités techniques
41. Quel est le revenu annuel moyen de votre cabinet /centre de recherche (en FCFA) ?
o Moins de 1 million 
o 1 million à 5 millions
o +5 millions à 10 millions
o 10 millions à 50 millions 
o Plus de 50 millions
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
42. Quel est le revenu annuel moyen de votre cabinet/centre de recherche (en FCFA) concernant 
les services en SEA ?
o Moins de 1 million 
39 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o 1 million à 5 millions
o +5 millions à 10 millions
o 10 millions à 50 millions 
o Plus de 50 millions
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
C. Marché du Suivi Evaluation et apprentissage
43a.Etes-vous informé des opportunités de consultances dans le domaine du Suivi, évaluation et 
apprentissage ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne répond pas
43b.Comment votre cabinet/centre de recherche est-il informé des opportunités de consultance dans le 
domaine du Suivi, évaluation et apprentissage ?
o Journaux
o Site web du client 
o SenEval
o Réseaux professionnels 
o Site d'emploi
o Le client nous envoie les opportunités 
o Autre à préciser
o Ne sait pas
43b1. Autres sources d'information
44a.Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des Ministères ou entités du 
gouvernement ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
44b.Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des bailleurs bilatéraux ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
40 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
44c.Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des bailleurs multilatéraux ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
44d.Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des Organisations Non 
Gouvernementales ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
44 e. Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences des Fondations ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
45a.Avez-vous déjà soumis une proposition dans le domaine du SEA en réponse à un appel d'offre lancé
par le bureau national (La Mission) de l'USAID ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
45b.Avez-vous gagné le contrat ?
41 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
46a.Avez-vous déjà soumis une proposition dans le domaine du SEA en réponse à un appel d'offre lancé
par un partenaire de mise en œuvre de l'USAID ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
46b. Avez-vous gagné le contrat ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas 
o Ne répond pas
47. Comment trouvez-vous les critères de sélection / exigences de l'USAID ?
o Très faciles à remplir
o Faciles à remplir
o Plus ou moins faciles à remplir
o Difficiles à remplir
o Très difficiles à remplir
o Ne connait pas les critères de l'USAID 
o Pas de réponse
48. Quels sont les trois principaux obstacles qui limitent votre collaboration avec l'USAID ?
Choisir 3 modalités maximum
Délais de soumission des offres 
o Profil du personnel clé demande 
o Anglais
o Complexité des exigences de l'offre technique
o Complexité des exigences de l'offre financière 
o Manque d'expérience internationale
o Manque d'information 
o Aucun obstacle
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
49. Votre cabinet est-il intéressé à collaborer avec l'USAID en fournissant des services en SEA ?
42 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Pas du tout intéressé
o Pas intéressé
o Plus ou moins intéressé 
o Intéressé
o Très intéressé 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
50. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels vous seriez intéressé à soumettre des propositions à l'USAID
?
o Suivi
o Evaluation 
o Apprentissage
o
 50a- Dans quels sous-domaines du suivi ? 
o Définition /revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
 50a1-Autres sous-domaines du suivi à préciser
 50b- Dans quels sous-domaines de l'évaluation ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
 50b1-Autres sous-domaines de l'évaluation à préciser
 50c. Dans quels sous-domaines de l'apprentissage ?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
43 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
 50c1. Autres sous-domaines de l'apprentissage à préciser
D. Renforcement de capacités techniques et organisationnelles
51. Auriez-vous besoin de renforcement de capacités techniques pour collaborer avec l'USAID ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
52. Veuillez indiquer les domaines dans lesquels vous auriez besoin de renforcer vos capacités 
techniques
o Suivi
o Evaluation 
o Apprentissage
53. Veuillez indiquer les sous-domaines du suivi dans lesquels vous auriez besoin de renforcer vos 
capacités techniques
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
 53a-Autres services à préciser
 53b- Veuillez indiquer les sous-domaines de l'évaluation dans lesquels vous auriez besoin de 
renforcer vos capacités techniques
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
 53b1. Autres services à préciser
54. Veuillez indiquer les sous-domaines de l'apprentissage dans lesquels vous auriez besoin de renforcer 
vos capacités techniques
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
44 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
 54a. Autres à préciser
 55.Auriez-vous besoin de renforcement de capacités organisationnelles pour collaborer avec l'USAID ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne répond pas 
o Ne sait pas
 55. Veuillez indiquer les domaines dans lesquels vous auriez besoin de renforcer vos capacités 
organisationnelles ? (Cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
o Gestion financière / Manuel de procédure 
o Planification stratégique
o Equipements (Tablettes, logiciels, dictaphones...) 
o Communication
o Gestion des ressources humaines 
o Autre à préciser
o Aucun
o Ne sait pas
 55a.Autre à préciser
 56.Quelle (s) organisation (s) au Sénégal fournit /fournissent un soutien en renforcement de capacités 
techniques en SEA à des cabinets (cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
Indiquez les trois principales
o Ministères ou entités du gouvernement 
o Bailleurs bilatéraux
o Bailleurs multilatéraux
o Organisations non gouvernementales 
o Fondations
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 56a.Préciser le(s) noms du Ministère(s) ou de l' (des) entité(s) du gouvernement
 56b.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) bilatéraux
 56c.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) multilatéraux
 56d. Préciser le(s) nom(s) des organisations non gouvernementales
45 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
 56e. Préciser le(s) nom(s) de la/ des Fondation(s)
56f. Autres catégories de clients à préciser
57. Votre cabinet a-t-il bénéficié d'un appui en matière de renforcement des capacités techniques pour 
améliorer vos prestations dans le domaine du SEA ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas 
o Pas de réponse
58. Quelle (s) est (sont) l'(les) organisation (s) qui a (ont) fourni cet appui en renforcement de capacités 
? (Cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent)
o Ministères ou entités du gouvernement 
o Bailleurs bilatéraux
o Bailleurs multilatéraux
o Organisations non gouvernementales 
o Fondations
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 58a.Préciser le(s) noms du Ministère(s) ou de l' (des) entité(s) du gouvernement
 58b.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) bilatéraux
 58c.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) multilatéraux
 58d. Préciser le(s) nom(s) des organisations non gouvernementales
58e. Préciser le(s) nom(s) de la/ des Fondation(s)
58d.Autres à préciser
58d1. Dans quel (s) domaine (s)
59. Quelles étaient les méthodes/approches de renforcement des capacités appliquées ?
o Formation en ligne
o Formation en présentiel 
o Coaching
o Mentorat
o Mise à disposition d'outils de travail tels que des canevas 
o Revue des propositions techniques
o Autre à préciser 
46 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
60. Autre méthode de renforcement de capacités à préciser
61. Votre cabinet a-t-il bénéficié d'un appui en matière de renforcement des capacités organisationnelles 
pour améliorer vos prestations dans le domaine du SEA ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
62. Quelle (s) est (sont) l'(les) organisation (s) qui a (ont) fourni cet appui en renforcement de capacités 
? (Cocher toutes les cases qui s'appliquent)
 Indiquez les trois principaux
o Ministères ou entités du gouvernement 
o Bailleurs bilatéraux
o Bailleurs multilatéraux
o Organisations non gouvernementales 
o Fondations
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
 62a.Préciser le(s) noms du Ministère(s) ou de l' (des) entité(s) du gouvernement
 62b.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) bilatéraux
 62c.Préciser le(s) nom(s) du/des bailleur(s) multilatéraux
 62d. Préciser le(s) nom(s) des organisations non gouvernementales
 62e. Préciser le(s) nom(s) de la/ des Fondation(s)
 62f. Autres à préciser
 62g. Dans quel (s) domaine (s)
 63. Quelles étaient les méthodes de renforcement des capacités appliquées ?
o Formation en ligne
o Formation en présentiel 
o Coaching
o Mentorat
o Mise à disposition d'outils de travail tels que des canevas 
47 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Revue des propositions techniques
o Autre à préciser 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
64. Autres méthodes de formation à préciser
65. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels vous pensez que la demande pourrait augmenter dans les 
années à venir (Cocher toutes les réponses qui s’appliquent)?
o Suivi
o Evaluation 
o Apprentissage 
o Aucun
 65a.Quels sont les sous-domaines dans lesquels la demande va augmenter dans le domaine du Suivi ?
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
 65a. Autres sous-domaines à préciser
 65b.Quels sont les sous-domaines dans lesquels la demande va augmenter dans le domaine de 
l'évaluation ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
 65b1.Autres sous-domaines à préciser
 65c.Quels sont les sous-domaines dans lesquels la demande va augmenter dans le domaine de 
l'apprentissage ?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
48 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
 65c1. Autres à préciser
66. Souhaiteriez-vous que nous ajoutons votre cabinet/centre de recherche à la base de données 
des fournisseurs de services en SEA que la plateforme va constituer.
o Oui 
o Non
49 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
SECTION II : CENTRES ET STRUCTURES FOURNISSANT DES FORMATIONS EN SEA
1. Nom de la structure :
2. Nom du responsable :
3. Numéro de téléphone du responsable :
4. Numéro de la structure : 
5. Email du responsable :
6. Email de la structure :
7. Votre centre/structure de formation existe depuis combien d'années ?
8. LOCALISATION (Cocher toutes les modalités qui s’appliquent)
o Dakar 
o Diourbel 
o Fatick 
o Kaffrine 
o Kaolack
o Kédougou 
o Kolda
o Louga 
o Matam
o Saint Louis 
o Sédhiou
o Tambacounda 
o Thiès
o Ziguinchor 
o Ne sait pas
o Pas de réponse
9. Adresse physique 
10. Type de structure :
o Structure de formation privée 
o Structure de formation publique 
o Autre à préciser
10. Autres types à préciser
11. Depuis combien d'années votre centre / structure de formation intervient dans la formation en 
SEA ?
o Moins de 2 ans 
o 2 à 5 ans
o 6 à 10 ans 
o 10 ans et plus 
o Ne sait pas
50 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
o Ne répond pas
12. Quels sont les types de formations en SEA offertes par votre structure (cocher toutes les 
réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
o Formation diplômante
o Formation certifiante (minimum trois mois) 
o Autre (A préciser)
o Ne répond pas
 Indiquer l'intitulé (maximum 3)
 12a.Autre formation à préciser (Laisser le champ vide si le centre/structure n'a pas d'autres 
formations)
 12a1.Intitulé de la formation ?
 12a2.Durée de la formation ?
o Moins d'une semaine 
o Une semaine
o Plus d'une Semaine 
o Autre à préciser
 12a3.Autre à préciser
 12a4. Quel est le coût de la formation ?
 12b1.Intitulé de la formation ?
 12b2.Durée de la formation ?
o Moins d'une semaine 
o Une semaine
o Plus d'une Semaine 
o Autre à préciser
 12b3.Autre à préciser
 12b4.Quel est le coût de la formation ?
 12c.Intitulé de la formation ?
 12c1.Durée de la formation ?
o Moins d'une semaine 
o Une semaine
o Plus d'une Semaine
o Autre à préciser
 12c2. Autre durée à préciser
51 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
 12c3.Quel est le coût de la formation ?
13. Quelles sont les formations diplômantes offertes en SEA (cocher toutes les réponses qui 
s'appliquent) ?
o Licence 
o Master 
o Doctorat
 13a.Indiquer l'intitulé de la formation pour le niveau licence
 13a1.Quelle est la durée en années de la formation pour le niveau licence
 13a2.Quel est le coût de la formation pour le niveau licence ?
 13b.Indiquer l'intitulé du(des) master(s) en suivi, évaluation et apprentissage
 13b1.Quelle est la durée en année du master ?
 13b2. Quel est le coût de la formation du master ?
 13c. Indiquer l'intitulé de formation pour le niveau doctorat
 13c1.Quelle est la durée en année de la formation pour le niveau doctorat
 13c2. Quel est le coût de la formation pour le niveau doctorat
14.Lister les formations certifiantes offertes par votre structure/centre de formation (maximum 3)
Formation certifiante 1
Mentionner l'intitulé
Formation certifiante 2
Mentionner l'intitulé
Formation certifiante 3
Mentionner l'intitulé
14a1.Quel est le coût de la formation certifiante 1 ?
14a2.Quelle est la durée de la formation certifiante ?
o 3 mois
o 6 mois
o Autre à préciser
14a2.Autre à préciser
52 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
14b1.Quel est le coût de la formation certifiante 2 ?
14b2.Quelle est la durée de la formation certifiante ?
o 3 mois
o 6 mois
o Autres à préciser
14b2. Autre à préciser
14c1.Quel est le coût de la formation certifiante 3 ?
14c2.Quelle est la durée de la formation certifiante 3 ?
o 3 mois
o 6 mois
o Autres à préciser
14c2.Autre à préciser
15.Quels sont les canaux de diffusion de vos formations (cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
o Journaux 
o Site web 
o SenEval
o Réseaux professionnels
o Pancartes publicitaires/ Distribution de flyers 
o Autres (A préciser)
16.Autres canaux
17.Quel est le public visé par les formations certifiantes (cocher toutes les réponses qui s'appliquent) ?
o Etudiants
o Professionnels 
o Autres à préciser
17a.Autres à préciser
18. Collaborez-vous avec des organisations pour le renforcement des capacités de leur personnel en 
SEA ?
o Oui 
o Non
o Ne sait pas 
o Ne répond pas
19. Si oui quelles sont les trois principales organisations avec lesquelles votre structure collabore ?
53 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
19a.Organisation 1
19b.Organisation 2
19c.Organisation 3
19a1. Dans quels domaines ?
o Suivi
o Evaluation
o Apprentissage
19a2.Dans quels domaines du Suivi ?
o Définition/revue des indicateurs/cibles 
o Elaboration de cadre logique
o Elaboration de manuel / plan de suivi et évaluation
o Mise en place d'un système de suivi et évaluation 
o Elaboration d'outils de suivi
o Autre à préciser
19a3-Autres services à préciser
19b1. Dans quels domaines de l'évaluation ?
o Conception de plan de travail (méthodologie échantillonnage) et outils de collecte
o Collecte, traitement et analyse des données
o Présentation/communication / dissémination des résultats 
o Rédaction de rapport
o Autre à préciser
19b2-Autres services à préciser
19c1. Dans quels domaines de l'apprentissage ?
o Elaboration de plan d'apprentissage (Questions d'apprentissage, activités d'apprentissage, les 
ressources, etc.)
o Mise en œuvre d'une activité d'apprentissage
o Rédaction d'un document d'apprentissage
o Facilitation d'activités d'apprentissage (de pause-réflexion : revue après action)
o Communication d'une expérience d'apprentissage
o Autre à préciser
19c2. Autres à préciser
54 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
20. Quels sont les défis auxquels vous faites face sur le plan technique pour renforcer l'offre de 
formation en SEA ?
21. Quels sont les défis auxquels vous faites face sur le plan organisationnel pour renforcer l'offre de 
formations SEA ? (Séparer les défis par une virgule)
22. Connaissez-vous d'autres structures qui offrent des formations en SEA
o Oui 
o Non
23. Si oui lesquels ? (Séparer le nom des structures par une virgule) 
24. Quel est l'appui dont vous auriez besoin pour mieux répondre à la demande de services en matière 
de renforcement de capacités ?
Merci d'avoir participé à cette enquête. 
55 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DESTINE AUX COMMANDITAIRES DE SERVICES 
EN SEA
Consigne : Poser des questions sur les forces et les faiblesses sur le plan organisationnel et sur le plan 
technique de façon séparée ?
EXPERIENCE DE COLLABORATION ENTRE LES COMMANDITAIRES ET LES 
FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES EN SEA
Au cas où le répondant a collaboré avec un fournisseur de service, posez-lui les questions suivantes : 
1. Présentation de l’organisation
2. Quels sont les principaux fournisseurs de services (cabinets) en SEA avec lesquels vous 
collaborez ? (Précisez le/les domaines de collaboration) 
3. Quelle appréciation faites-vous globalement de la collaboration entre les commanditaires et les 
fournisseurs de services en SEA (Succès, défis, contraintes, appréciation de la capacité) ? Cette 
expérience a-t-elle varié en fonction du service demandé ? (Demandez comment) 
4. Quelles sont les différentes modalités (contrat global, contrat ponctuel, accord à long terme, 
etc,) à travers lesquelles vous collaborez avec les fournisseurs de services en SEA ?
5. Selon vous, quels sont les services pour lesquels les fournisseurs de services ont démontré une 
capacité technique et organisationnelle élevée ? 
6. Selon vous, quels sont les services pour lesquels les fournisseurs de services ont démontré une 
capacité technique et organisationnelle à améliorer ? 
7. Quels sont les domaines prioritaires en SEA dans lesquels vous envisagez de collaborer avec des 
prestataires locaux (cabinets) ?
8. Quels sont les canaux que vous utilisez pour annoncer les opportunités de consultance sur le 
marché local ? (Opportunités qui visent également les fournisseurs de services locaux).
9. Quelle appréciation faites-vous des formations offertes par les centres et structures de 
formation en SEA ? (Appréciation de la qualité des services offerts, identifier les forces et les 
faiblesses de la collaboration
Au cas où le répondant n’a jamais collaboré avec un fournisseur de service, posez-lui la question 
suivante :
o Présentation du répondant (Nom, prénoms et de l’organisation)
o Demandez-lui les raisons et si l’organisation envisage de collaborer à l’avenir avec des 
fournisseurs de services en SEA ?
MARCHE DU SUIVI, EVALUATION ET APPRENTISSAGE
10. Comment appréciez-vous la situation actuelle du marché (offre et demande, acteurs impliqués, 
etc.,) du SEA au Sénégal ? Quelle appréciation avez-vous de l’évolution de ce marché ?
56 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
11. Quels sont les types d’évaluations commanditées au cours des trois dernières années ? (Précisez 
le nombre d’évaluations, le fournisseur de service et le domaine ?)
12. Au sein de votre organisation, quel pourcentage du budget est alloué au SEA ? 
13. Pour les trois prochaines années, quel est le pourcentage du budget prévu pour les activités du 
SEA ? Quelle est la part du budget allouée aux fournisseurs de services locaux en SEA ?
RENFORCEMENT DE CAPACITES TECHNIQUES ET ORGANISATIONNELLES DES 
FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES
14. Quels sont les besoins en matière de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services ?
15. Quels sont les domaines prioritaires en matière de renforcement de capacités à appuyer pour 
améliorer la qualité des services fournis par les cabinets locaux ?
16. Avez-vous déjà mis en œuvre un programme de renforcement de capacités ciblant les 
fournisseurs de services en SEA ? (Si oui, préciser lequel, le domaine, la durée/fréquence, le 
format, le critère de sélection et modalité de participation, etc.) (Demandez pourquoi ?)
17. Envisagez-vous de mettre en œuvre un programme de renforcement de capacités en faveur des 
fournisseurs de services en SEA ? (Si oui, préciser lequel, le domaine, durée/fréquence, format, 
critère de sélection et modalité de participation, etc.)
18. Quelles sont les ressources matérielles et immatérielles (guides, outils, manuels, documents) de 
renforcement des capacités en SEA dont vous avez connaissance et qui seraient utiles pour les 
fournisseurs de services SEA ?
19. Quelles sont les organisations offrant des services de renforcement des capacités en SEA que 
vous connaissez ? (Préciser leurs noms, leurs domaines d’intervention, etc.)
20. Quelles sont les organisations appuyant le renforcement des capacités en SEA des fournisseurs 
de services ? (Préciser leurs noms, leurs domaines d’intervention, etc.)
SUGGESTIONS OU RECOMMANDATIONS
21. Quelles suggestions et recommandations feriez-vous à la plateforme MEL pour la conception 
d’un programme de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services en SEA ? (Décrire 
les domaines prioritaires, les modalités, le format, le mécanisme etc.)
22. Quelles recommandations formuleriez-vous pour renforcer la collaboration entre les 
commanditaires et les fournisseurs de services SEA ?
23. Avez-vous d’autres suggestions/recommandations pour améliorer l’offre de services en SEA ?
Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous répondre et de participer à cet entretien. 
57 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DESTINE AUX FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES EN 
SEA
INTRODUCTION
1. Présentation du cabinet
2. Quelle appréciation faites-vous des capacités techniques (préparation de proposition, traitement 
et analyse de données, reporting, collecte de données, etc.) du personnel de votre cabinet ? 
(Décrire les compétences techniques existantes, les compétences techniques à renforcer, les 
forces et les faiblesses) 
3. Quelle appréciation faites-vous des capacités organisationnelles (Disponibilité de logiciels, RH, 
Gouvernance, Gestion administrative et financière, logistique)
4. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de la collaboration avec les consultants externes (experts) avec 
qui vous travaillez dans le domaine du SEA ? (Décrire le processus de collaboration, le niveau de 
satisfaction, qualité du service fourni, difficultés/contraintes)
EXPERIENCE DE COLLABORATION AVEC LES COMMANDITAIRES DE SERVICES EN 
SEA
5. Quels sont les principaux clients / commanditaires de services en SEA avec lesquels vous 
collaborez ? (Précisez le/les domaines de collaboration) 
6. Comment appréciez-vous les expériences de collaboration avec les commanditaires (clients) de 
services en SEA de façon générale ? (Décrire les forces, les faiblesses, les défis à relever pour 
améliorer la collaboration)
7. Recevez-vous des feedbacks de la part de vos clients après une mission exécutée ? Quelle 
appréciation ont-ils de vos prestations ? 
APPRECIATION DE L’OFFRE ET LA DEMANDE EN SEA
8. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de l’offre et de la demande du marché en SEA ? Quelle 
perception avez-vous de l’état du marché du SEA (en croissance, en décroissance, stable) ?
9. Quelles sont les opportunités de consultance (Missions de SEA) existantes sur le domaine du 
SEA ? Comment êtes-vous informé de ces opportunités ? Par quels canaux ? (Demandez si le 
cabinet rencontre des défis particuliers)
10. Quelles sont les capacités techniques dont vous disposez pour répondre aux exigences du 
marché ? (Décrire ces capacités, les forces, les faiblesses et les défis) 
11. Quelles sont les capacités organisationnelles dont vous disposez pour répondre aux exigences 
du marché ? (Décrire ces capacités, les forces, les faiblesses et les défis) 
RENFORCEMENT DE CAPACITES TECHNIQUES ET ORGANISATIONNELLES EN SEA
12. Quels sont les domaines techniques (S, E, A) et organisationnels que vous souhaiteriez renforcer 
pour améliorer la qualité de vos services ? (Précisez lesquels et comment, lister les contraintes 
ou les difficultés) 
58 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
13. Quels sont les domaines prioritaires en matière de renforcement de capacités à appuyer pour 
améliorer la qualité des services fournis par les cabinets locaux ?
14. Quelles sont les ressources matérielles et immatérielles (guides, outils, manuels, documents) de 
renforcement des capacités en SEA dont vous avez connaissance et qui seraient utiles pour les 
fournisseurs de services SEA ?
15. Quelles sont les organisations offrant des services de renforcement des capacités en SEA que 
vous connaissez ? (Préciser leurs noms, leurs domaines d’intervention, etc.)
16. Quelles sont les organisations appuyant le renforcement des capacités en SEA des fournisseurs 
de services ? (Préciser leurs noms, leurs domaines d’intervention, etc.)
SUGGESTIONS OU RECOMMANDATIONS
17. Quelles suggestions et recommandations feriez-vous à la plateforme MEL (Encompass) pour la 
conception d’un programme de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services en SEA ? 
(Suggérer les domaines prioritaires, les modalités, le format, le mécanisme etc.)
18. Quelles recommandations formuleriez-vous pour renforcer la collaboration entre les 
commanditaires et les fournisseurs de services SEA ?
19. Avez-vous d’autres suggestions/recommandations pour améliorer l’offre de services en SEA ?
Note : 
● Poser des questions (d’approfondissements) sur des acteurs spécifiques demandant des services 
spécifiques ?
● Identifier les fournisseurs qui travaillent à l'échelle internationale et leur champ d'action ?
Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous répondre et de participer à cet entretien. 
59 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DESTINE A L’ASSOCIATION SENEGALAISE 
D’EVALUATION 
EXPERIENCES DE COLLABORATION AVEC LES COMMANDITAIRES ET 
FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES EN SEA 
1. Brève présentation de SenEval 
2. Comment SenEval appuie-t-il les commanditaires dans la recherche de fournisseurs de services 
en SEA ? (Lister les commanditaires, les types d’appui, identifier les forces et les faiblesses) 
3. Quels sont les demandes et/ou besoins les plus exprimés par les commanditaires ? 
4. Dans quelle mesure SenEval collabore-t-il avec les fournisseurs de services en SEA ? (Lister les 
fournisseurs de services, les types d’appui, identifier les forces et les faiblesses)
5. Quels sont les défis rencontrés par SenEval pour répondre à la demande des commanditaires et 
fournisseurs de services ? 
6. Dans quelle mesure SenEval collabore-t-il avec les centres et structures de formation en SEA 
(Lister les centres et structures de formation, les types d’appui, appréciation de la qualité des services 
offerts, identifier les forces et les faiblesses de la collaboration)
7. Quels sont les défis rencontrés par SenEval pour répondre à la demande des centres et 
structures de formation ?
MARCHE DU SUIVI, EVALUATION ET APPRENTISSAGE
8. Comment appréciez-vous la situation actuelle du marché (offre et demande, acteurs impliqués) 
du SEA au Sénégal ? Quelle appréciation avez-vous de l’évolution de ce marché ? 
9. Quelles sont les opportunités de consultance/formation existantes sur le marché du SEA et 
comment êtes-vous informé de ces opportunités et par quels canaux les diffusez-vous ?
10. Quelle appréciation faites-vous des capacités des fournisseurs de services à répondre aux 
besoins exprimés par les commanditaires ? (Demandez les forces et les faiblesses)
11. Quels sont les domaines du SEA dans lesquels vous pensez que la demande de services en SEA 
va augmenter dans les années à venir ? (Exemple : Elaboration de cadre logique, traitement et 
analyse, élaboration d’un plan d’apprentissage)
12. Quels sont les défis à relever par les fournisseurs de services pour répondre aux exigences des 
commanditaires ?
13. Quelles sont les mesures que doivent prendre les commanditaires pour améliorer le partenariat 
avec les fournisseurs de services ?
RENFORCEMENT DE CAPACITES TECHNIQUES ET ORGANISATIONNELLES DES 
FOURNISSEURS DE SERVICES
14. Quels sont les besoins en matière de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services ? 
(Demander les besoins prioritaires)
15. Quelles sont les ressources matérielles et immatérielles (guides, outils, manuels, documents) de 
renforcement des capacités en SEA dont vous avez connaissance et qui seraient utiles pour les 
fournisseurs de services SEA ?
60 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
16. Quelles sont les activités de renforcement des capacités que vous avez mises en œuvre pour 
aider les fournisseurs de services / centres et structures de formation à mieux répondre aux 
appels d'offres et à améliorer la qualité des services ? 
17. Quelles sont les activités de renforcement de capacités prévues par SenEval dans le but 
d’accompagner les commanditaires et les fournisseurs de services/ centres et structures de
formation ? 
SUGGESTIONS OU RECOMMANDATIONS
● Quelles suggestions et recommandations feriez-vous à la plateforme MEL pour la conception 
d’un programme de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services en SEA ? (Décrire 
les domaines prioritaires, les modalités, le format, le mécanisme etc.)
● Quelles recommandations formuleriez-vous pour renforcer la collaboration entre les 
commanditaires et les fournisseurs de services SEA ?
● Quelles suggestions/recommandations formuleriez-vous pour améliorer l’offre de formation en 
SEA ?
Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous répondre et de participer à cet entretien. 
61 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DESTINE AUX CENTRES OU STRUCTURES DE 
FORMATION
INTRODUCTION
1. Présentation de la structure de formation 
2. Quel est le public visé par vos formations ? 
3. Quels sont les critères d’éligibilité pour intégrer le programme de formation ? 
4. Comment appréciez-vous votre expérience dans le domaine de la formation en SEA ? (Décrire 
les forces, les faiblesses, les défis)
5. Quelles sont les capacités techniques disponibles au sein de votre équipe chargée de dispenser 
les cours en SEA (Quel est le profil de l’équipe, leurs compétences, leurs forces et faiblesses)
6. Quelles sont les capacités techniques disponibles au sein de votre équipe chargée de dispenser 
les cours en SEA (Quel est le profil de l’équipe, leurs compétences, leurs forces et faiblesses)
7. Quelles sont les méthodes ou stratégies que vous utilisez pour le recrutement des formateurs ?
8. Rencontrez-vous des difficultés pour trouver des profils avec des capacités techniques 
spécifiques qui correspondent aux besoins de la formation ? Si oui, lesquels ?
APPRECIATION DE L’OFFRE ET LA DEMANDE EN SEA
9. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de l’offre et de la demande de formation en SEA ? Quelle 
perception avez-vous de l’état de ce marché (en croissance, en décroissance, stable) ?
10. Quels sont les canaux que vous utilisez pour annoncer les opportunités de formation de votre 
structure de formation.
11. Quels sont les objectifs spécifiques de performance/compétences professionnelles de vos 
cours/diplômes ? Sont-ils adaptés pour aider les entreprises d'EES établies à combler leurs 
lacunes dans les tâches de haut niveau telles que : 
▪ La conception d'évaluations 
▪ Le développement de méthodes mixtes pratiques 
▪ Rédiger des propositions efficaces et concurrentielles en réponse à des sollicitations de bailleurs
▪ La rédaction de rapports d'évaluation en anglais répondant aux normes internationales.
▪ Comment vos cours diplômants permettent-ils d'acquérir une expérience pratique ? 
▪ Travaillez-vous en partenariat avec d'autres organisations pour offrir des opportunités 
d'expérience pratique à vos étudiants ? Lesquelles ? 
12. Quelles sont les qualifications professionnelles de vos formateurs ? Quel travail technique ont-ils 
effectué en EES ? Comment faites-vous pour les tenir au courant de l'évolution du secteur ?
62 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
RENFORCEMENT DE CAPACITES TECHNIQUES ET ORGANISATIONNELLES EN SEA
13. Quels sont les domaines techniques (S, E, A) et organisationnels que vous souhaiteriez renforcer 
pour améliorer la qualité de vos services ? (Précisez lesquels et comment, lister les contraintes 
ou les difficultés) 
14. Quelles sont les ressources matérielles et immatérielles (guides, outils, manuels, documents) de 
renforcement des capacités en SEA dont vous avez connaissance et qui seraient utiles pour les 
structures de formation ?
15. Quelles sont les organisations offrant des formations en SEA que vous connaissez ? (Préciser leurs 
noms, leurs domaines d’intervention,)
SUGGESTIONS OU RECOMMANDATIONS
16. Quelles suggestions et recommandations feriez-vous à la plateforme MEL (EnCompass) pour la 
conception d’un programme de renforcement de capacités des fournisseurs de services en SEA ? 
(Suggérer les domaines prioritaires, les modalités, le format, le mécanisme etc.)
17. Quelles recommandations formuleriez-vous pour renforcer l’offre et la demande de formation 
en SEA ?
63 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ANNEX C: MEL DIPLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES
Exhibit 11: Seminars and Certificate training in MEL offered by SPs and training centers
Session Name Cost (USD) Duration
Coopérative de Services Consultants Associés
Setting up a monitoring and evaluation system 331 Less than a week
Monitoring and Evaluation 331 Less than a week
Groupe Mesure-Evaluation-Recherche-Apprentissage et Prestations de services en Afrique (GREL AFRICA)
Monitoring - Evaluation 414 One week
Djeg Djam Development (3DLab)
Complexity sensitive evaluation More than a week
ONG Concept
Monitoring and Evaluation 331 4 weeks
Groupe de Recherche d’Information Fiable (GRIF)
Monitoring and Evaluation 496 2 months
Impact Evaluation 496 2 months
Elite Capital
Monitoring and Evaluation 414 3 months
The fundamentals of Results-Based Management 248 3 months
Association d’Appui aux Initiatives de Développement (Aide 18 Safar)
Training and coaching in M&E 6,623 3 months
Cabinet d’Etudes en Ingénierie de Développement (CEID)
Monitoring and Evaluation 1,656 3 months
Tools for collecting and processing statistical data 1,656 3 months
Ecole Supérieures d’Electricité, de Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics (ESEBAT)
Monitoring and Evaluation of project 2,483 3 months
Software Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation 2,483 3 months
Institut de Santé et Développement (ISED)
Monitoring and Evaluation 2,483 3 months
Institut Supérieur de Développement Local (ISDL)
Planification et Monitoring- Evaluation of Projects 662 3 months
Icone Consulting
64 | MEL LOCALIZATION LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Monitoring and Evaluation 827 3 months
Exhibit 12: Diploma training in MEL offered by training centers
Diploma name Degree Cost 
(XOF) Duration
Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et l’Analyse Economique (ENSAE)
Decision making support and evaluation of 
public policies Master 4,967 1 year
Centre Africain d’Etudes Supérieures en Gestion (CESAG)
Evaluation of policies, programs and projects Master 4,967/year 2 years
Institut de Santé et Développement (ISED)
Monitoring – Evaluation of projects Bachelor 3,262/year 2 years
Ecole Supérieures d’Electricité, de Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics (ESEBAT)
Project Management and Monitoring & 
Evaluation Bachelor 2,566 1 year (After the 2nd 
year of bachelor level)
Project Management and Monitoring & 
Evaluation Master 2,897 1 year (After the 1st 
year of master's level)
Consortium pour la Recherche Economique et Sociale (CRES)
Impact evaluation of public policies Master 828 1 year
Ecole Supérieures de Management de Projets (ESMP)
Monitoring and evaluation of projects and 
programs
Master 2,070/year 2 years
Institut des Politiques Publiques (IPP)/ Université Cheikh Anta Diop 
Analysis, Evaluation and Digitization of Public 
Policies Master 1,738/year 2 years
Analysis, Evaluation and Digitization of Public 
Policies Bachelor 911/year 3 years
Analysis and Evaluation of Public Policies Master 1,728/year 2 years
3 years