TERMS OF REFERENCE

Review of

MONGOLIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY COVID-19 RESPONSE

 

1. SUMMARY

Job Title: Consultant- Monitoring & Evaluation

Purpose: The purpose of hiring a consultant/ consultant company for this review is to assess the progress and results of the overall COVID-19 response of Mongolian Red Cross Society (MRCS). The review will assess progress in implementation vis-à-vis the initial operational strategy, operation management, quality assurance, National Society implementation capacity, challenges faced and relevance of the operational strategy. Findings and recommendations of the review will inform improvements to the operational strategy, operation management, implementation and quality assurance to ensure better linkage between response, recovery and enhance the National Society’s response capacity.

Audience:  The results of this review will be used by Mongolia Red Cross Society (MRCS), IFRC Country Cluster Delegation (CCD) in Beijing, IFRC Regional Office in Kuala Lumpur, IFRC Geneva Office, in-country partner National Societies, current partners, and potential partners.

Commissioners: Secretary General of Mongolian Red Cross Society, and IFRC Head of Country Cluster Delegation in Beijing

Reporting to: IFRC CCD Beijing Program Officer for COVID-19

Responsible for the report: Evaluation Management Team

Duration: 28 working days (inclusive of briefing, review, reporting and debriefing)

Timeframe: 19 January 2022– 11 March 2022 (the timeline could be modified based on actual situation)

Location:  Mongolia

 

2. CONSULTANT PROFILE

A consultant/ consultant company will facilitate and implement the entire process of evaluation. The candidate must have proven track record in conducting evaluations, and ideally with background in emergency response and recovery operations. S/he must understand the Mongolian humanitarian programming context and be fluent in both spoken and written Mongol and English.

 

It is desirable that the consultant must have experience or significant knowledge of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, its Fundamental Principles and working philosophy, but should not be a current staff member of any Movement entity.

 

3. APPLICATION PROCEDURE

Interested applicants should submit their expression of interest to hr.eastasia@ifrc.org by 5 January 2022. In the subject line, please state the consultancy you are applying for, your name or last name and first name. (SUBJECT: Consultant – Monitoring & Evaluation, Last Name, First Name).

 

Application materials should include:

• Curriculum Vitae (CV) of applicant(s).
• Cover letter clearly summarizing your experience as it pertains to this evaluation, daily consultancy fees (in Mongolia tugrik) and two professional references.
• A Technical proposal including but not limited to proposed evaluation methodology, timeline etc.
• Financial proposal outlining daily consultancy fees and total cost of evaluation (in Swiss Francs).
• At least two sample of previous written report most similar to that described in this ToR.

 

Application materials are non-returnable, and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted for the next step in the application process and the selection panel does not have the capacity to respond to any requests for application feedback. Please take note that incomplete applications will be rejected.

 

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Context

When the COVID-19 outbroke in Wuhan, Mongolia has taken active precautionary measurements to prevent the spread of the virus since late January 2020. On 8 November 2020, Mongolia reported the first case of locally transmitted COVID-19. As of October 2021, Mongolia has suffered three large waves of COVID-19 and the total number of confirmed cases has exceeded 10% of its population, becoming one of the highest rates of transmission per capita globally. While Mongolia has taken early and decisive measures to prevent the inflow and outbreak of COVID-19, household-level impact caused by COVID-19 is long-lasting and the virus disproportionally hit the poor and vulnerable the hardest.^[1] The government of Mongolia has vaccinated more than 90.5% of the adult population. According to the Ministry of Health, 32% of confirmed patients have been vaccinated– of that 26.3% were fully vaccinated for 14 days prior to getting infected.

 

4.2 The role of MRCS

The MRCS is a member of the State Emergency Commission (SEC) and is actively involved in the planning and designing of the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The SEC adopted the National COVID-19 response plan in March 2020. The role of MRCS is identified in the plan as:

1. - To support and monitor the wellbeing of people who are at home isolation;
2. - To receive and organize international humanitarian aid;
3. - To conduct community surveillance, disseminate health awareness messages;
4. - To mobilize human resource and technical resource if needed.

 

The MRCS is also working in close cooperation with Ministry of Health, NEMA and Ministry of Labor and Social Protection to effectively organize response operations and to deliver humanitarian assistance to the affected population. The MRCS has several roles in various working groups to deliver necessary support:

 

1. Coordinator of the inter-agency risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) network to implement and monitor an effective action plan for communicating effectively with the public, engaging with communities, local partners and other stakeholders to help prepare and protect individuals, families and the public’s health during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Member of the working group to vaccinate the elderly who need assistance to get vaccinated. MRCS volunteers were working at hotlines to register vaccine recipients and transporting the elderly people to the designated vaccination centres.
3. Member of the Food Supply Operation Center established by the SEC to ensure continuously supply of food to the public during all-out readiness phases and coordinate pre-positioning of the emergency food supply in respective areas.
4. Member of the working group to register and support unregistered vulnerable populations. MRCS is supporting the unregistered, homeless people to receive Government assistance by referring them to State registration centres.

 

 

4.3 Overview of MRCS COVID-19 response

The MRCS is working actively to support the COVID-19 response of the state across 21 provinces and 9 districts. From March 2020 to October 2021, MRCS has supported the health system and assisted vulnerable population. There are three goals for the operation:

1) Support the health system and frontline workers

2) Address socio-economic impacts and reduce vulnerability

3) Increase community preparedness and participation.

 

To complement the response effort, MRCS trained and mobilized 1,400 volunteers in public health in emergencies. Starting from July 2021, with technical guidance and coordination of national center for communicable diseases, MRCS volunteers have been doing contact tracing and working at each local health unit to provide information and deliver medicine package to people who’re receiving treatment at home. To increase the vaccine awareness, MRCS volunteers have been conducting awareness sessions at local communities and providing information over the phone.

 

Details on progress made by MRCS on its COVID-19 response operation can be obtained at: https://go.ifrc.org/emergencies/4286#reports

 

 

4.4 Support by different stakeholders

IFRC-In response to the direct and secondary impacts caused by the pandemic across different sectors, the IFRC Global Appeal on COVID-19^[2] was launched on 31 January 2020 and extended until the 31 December 2022. This appeal has three operational priorities: 1. Sustaining Health and WASH; 2. Addressing Socio-economic Impacts; 3. Strengthening National Societies. Under this appeal, IFRC CCD Beijing office has been supporting MRCS for COVID-19 operations based on their National Society Response Plan (NSRP) since February 2020. Supported by the IFRC COVID-19 appeal, under the NSRP Phase I from February to December 2020, MRCS conducted activities including volunteer training and mobilization, food parcel and hygiene parcel distribution, construction of handwashing station, COVID-19 prevention information distribution etc. Under the NSRP Phase II from July to December 2021, the IFRC supported the MRCS for the COVID-19 operations on volunteer training and mobilization for contact tracing and vaccine awareness session, cash transfer for vulnerable households, and disseminating IEC materials for vaccination.

 

Other RCRC movement members-In addition to the IFRC Emergency Appeal, the MRCS COVID-19 operation has been supported by various other partners through bilateral arrangements. The list of partners from RCRC movement for MRCS COVID-19 response includes IFRC, ICRC, Australian Red Cross, Red Cross Society of China, Qatar Red Crescent Society, Turkish Red Crescent, Japanese Red Cross, Korean Red Cross.

 

• Australian Red Cross – Provided financial and technical support to mobilize volunteers and increase epidemic/ pandemic preparedness of the NS.
• Red Cross Society of China - Provided ambulance and PPE for the frontline workers.
• Japanese Red Cross Society - Provided financial support to the COVID-19 response
• The Republic of Korea National Red Cross- Provided financial support the COVID-19 response

 

Partners outside the movement-Furthermore, the MRCS has closely cooperation with other stakeholders such as WHO, UNICEF, MoH, NCCD and etc.

 

• WHO- Providing technical and funding for volunteer mobilization.
• Global fund - Funding for volunteer mobilization and food assistance.
• UNICEF – Made humanitarian contingency agreement for WASH emergencies. Funding for emergency hygiene supplies.
• Under a charity tele-concert on Independence Day “MONGOLIANS AT HOME”, which was organized by MRCS youth movement and with the cooperation of the Mongol HD TV, Khan Bank and VEP Production, MNT334 million was raised to purchase 5,572 food parcels to support the target groups at risk of malnutrition during the strict lockdown in the late 2020.

Since April 2021, Mongolian Red Cross Society (MRCS) has been collaborating with WHO and the National Center for Communicable Disease, to train and mobilize volunteers to bolster the contact tracing capacity of local public health units. The need for MRCS volunteers to support local health units is expected to continue well into the future.

 

 

5. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

 

5.1 Purpose

The purpose of the review is to assess the progress and results of the overall MRCS COVID-19 response from February 2020 to December 2021. The review will assess how far the operation has achieved its objectives, vis-à-vis the challenges faced and whether the initial strategies are still relevant. The analysis and recommendations of the review will inform the operational strategies, operation management arrangements, and implementation towards improvement of the overall quality of implementation in the future. It will provide measures for mid-course correction or need for modification on the strategies during the post-pandemic period, objectives and direction of the operation to transit into the routine programs.

 

5.2 Scope

This review will assess the relevance and appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the implementation of the response activities, strategies, implementation modalities, coordination and operation management mechanisms, quality assurance measures, capacities to implement, enhancement of capacities as a result of this operation, performance of the implementing partners and accountability to the beneficiaries and donors from February 2020 to December 2021.

 

6. OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

 

6.1 Objectives

• To evaluate whether the programme delivered relevant, efficient and effective activities to the targeted beneficiaries and communities supported by overall MRCS COVID-19 operations which include the NSRP supported by IFRC.
• To determine whether MRCS has ensured community engagement in designing and implementing its COVID-19 operations and whether assistance has reached those who deserve it most in an accountable manner.
• To determine how Movement and external coordination mechanisms contributed to or hindered advancing of the objectives of the MRCS COVID-19 operations.
• To identify ‘areas of concern’ and strategies to mitigate those that may inform the next phase of COVID-19 operation and longer-term pandemic preparedness.
• To identify and assess key lessons, challenges, best practices, and recommendations for utilizing in future pandemic or emergency response of MRCS, IFRC and others.
• To recommend (1) programming elements that need to be modified to maximize achievement of NSRP objectives, (2) how the response and implementation capacity of MRCS can be further strengthened, (3) how coordination mechanisms and initiatives can be maintained, at national and sub-national levels, and (4) how to transit the operations from response phase to recovery phase in the future.

 

6.2 Criteria

 

This evaluation focuses on the following criteria. Followings are some standard/sample questions that will need to be adjusted with the successful consultant, in agreement with the Evaluation Management Team, at the stage of the inception report.

 

S.No	Criteria	Specific Questions under the criteria
1	Relevance and Appropriateness	To what extent is the programme plan relevant and meeting the needs of the target communities? Is there a need to change programme implementation and/or direction in the future? To what extent the programme meets the outcomes and impacts articulated in the work plan? Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal? Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects? To what extent does the programme contribute to the fulfilment of relevant policies and strategies? How effective is the project in seeking and responding to feedback from target communities? How were the relevant interventions and activities implemented under the programme in addressing needs of the community people and targeted stakeholders?
2	Efficiency	How efficient was the delivery of the programme in terms of implementation of its interventions and activities? To what extent the programme modality considered the intervention quality? What preferences were given priority in terms of collaboration between NS and other stakeholders during programme implementation? To what extent the programme information and learning were shared among beneficiaries and stakeholders?
3	Effectiveness	To what extent the planned objectives in the logical frame of the programme were reached and delivered effective, efficient, relevant and timely activities to the community people and targeted stakeholders as per the indicators? To what extent were the programme interventions and activities contributed to meeting the programme goal? Was the programme effective for increasing the livelihood and improving living standard of target beneficiaries? What types of opportunities for collaboration between NS and other stakeholders were explored and strengthened and how were the collaboration contributed to increase effectiveness for the programme? To what extent the programme encouraged community engagement and ensured accountability issues during the programme life cycle management?
4	Coverage	Did the community people, beneficiaries and targeted stakeholders were reached as per the programme indicators and targets? To what extent have stakeholders been involved in the programme planning, implementation and monitoring aspects? To what extent have socially excluded groups including Person with Disabilities (PWD) and minorities been included, considered and targeted throughout the project t? Is there a need to include any other target groups in the programme in future?
5	Sustainability and connectedness	What is the programme trying to achieve? Were MRCS and other stakeholders including IFRC able to adjust the interventions to maintain relevance? How did the support in planning, strategic direction, coordination and NS development enable MRCS to better face future epidemics? How is the implementation going between sites? How relevant was IFRC in setting the coordination and strategic direction under the Emergency Appeal covering Mongolia? How did MRCS link with external coordination bodies, such as the UN and government bodies in Mongolia to ensure connectedness and sustainability? What is the perception of RCRC Movement by external coordination bodies? Has the perception of MRCS by other bodies been improved due to its additional responsibilities outlined in the localization principle? How is implementation going now compared with a year ago or two years ago? Was there adequate and relevant staffing including: a) decisions concerning the number of staff members needed, where, when, with what competences, at what levels, and at required availability and b) decision-making chain regarding staffing? How could the organization be changed to make it more effective? What important lessons have been identified that can improve future interventions in Mongolia and be shared more widely? Would greater investment in preparedness measures have resulted in more efficient, effective and less costly interventions? Did the interventions result in enhanced institutional capacity of the MRCS, in terms of: ability to plan and implement recovery programmes; ability to prepare for and respond to crisis in a timely, efficient, and coordinated manner; ability to mobilize communities at risk to cope with future crisis; its auxiliary role; and influence partners, including authorities, to act in accordance with humanitarian principles and (inter)national law?

 

6.3 Geographical coverage

• The review will cover the capital city- Ulaanbaatar and provinces- The consultant and EMT will decide the selected places during the inception phase.
• Travel to some provinces may be constrained by COVID-19 restrictions or bad weather, and as such some portions of the review may have to be conducted virtually.
  
  

7. METHODOLOGY

 

The methodology will adhere to the IFRC Framework for Evaluation, with particular attention to the processes upholding the standards of how evaluations should be planned, managed, conducted and utilized. Applicants to this consultancy should detail their technical approach to the evaluation, proposing a clear design and a subsequent methodology that should link with the financial components of the proposal.

 

The specific evaluation methodology will be detailed in close consultation between the consultant/ consultancy firm, Evaluation Management Team (EMT), commissioners and relevant stakeholders, but will draw upon the following mixed methods, conducting both quantitative and qualitative data collection:

 

• Desk review of relevant organizational and operational background documents and history relating to MRCS and IFRC, including national policies, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), prior MRCS and IFRC reports, and any relevant sources of secondary data, such as exit surveys, Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) reports, needs assessment reports, learning review reports and other evaluations/reviews from MRCS and IFRC and other actors in the country. The whole COVID-19 related documents will be provided by EMT.
• Questionnaire survey with volunteers and targeted beneficiaries.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with be staff and volunteers of MRCS (headquarters and branch levels), beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries as appropriate, institutional representatives (IFRC, ICRC, WHO, UNICEF, Australian RC, Red Cross Society of China), government bodies at national and sub-national levels (MOH, NCCD, health departments), other partner organizations, service providers and suppliers (including vendors of food parcel and hygiene parcel, handwashing station, training venue etc). The list of interviewees will be provided by EMT.
• Focus group discussions with institutional representatives, beneficiaries, and non-beneficiaries as appropriate.
• Field visits/observations at intervention locations.
• Case studies combining both quantitative and qualitative data.

 

The specific evaluation methodology will be detailed in close consultation between the consultant, EMT, the Commissioners, and relevant key stakeholders. A detailed evaluation design will be developed by the consultant in coordination with members of the EMT.

 

The detailed evaluation design is to be created by the consultant/consultancy firm; however, the following should be considered:

• Sampling method is to be decided by the consultant/consultancy firm. The consultants will use the information collected from the literature review to calculate a representative sample (with the consent of IFRC and MRCS) so that the information collected is a true representation of the targeted beneficiaries.
• Data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the consultant/consultancy firm, in consultation with the EMT, keeping in mind the reality of hard-to-reach locations.
• The consultant/consultancy firm should visit a representative number of communities in the programme areas.
• The consultant/consultancy firm will be responsible to clearly outline the support needed in-country. This will be agreed with EMT based on resources available.
  
  

8. DELIVERABLES

• Inception Report: The inception report will be a scoping exercise for the evaluation and will include the background/introduction, proposed methodologies, data collection and reporting plans with draft data collection tools such as interview guides, allocation of roles and responsibilities within the team, a timeframe with firm dates for deliverables and the travel and logistical arrangement plans for the team. The inception report should be approved by the Evaluation Management Team.
• A presentation or debriefing to MRCS and IFRC: The evaluation team will report its preliminary findings to MRCS, IFRC CCD Beijing.
• Draft report: A draft report identifying key findings based on facts apart from opinions or rumors, conclusions, recommendations, and lessons for the current and future operations, will be submitted within one week of the evaluation team’s return from the field. Briefing on initial findings and results will be given to IFRC and MRCS before submitting the draft report.
• Final report: The final report will contain a short executive summary (no more than 1,000 words) and a main body of the report (no more than 6,000 words) covering the background of the interventions evaluated, a description of the evaluation methods and limitations, findings, conclusions, lessons learnt and clear recommendations. Recommendations should be specific and feasible. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the Terms of Reference (ToR), cited resources or bibliography/reference, a list of those interviewed, case studies and any other relevant materials. The final report will be submitted one week after receipt of the consolidated feedback from the EMT.
• Case Studies to highlight stories of success in the field.
• Facilitation of a presentation: The presentation aims to provide an overall depiction of the best practices, challenges, etc. within the programme modalities. Findings from the workshop will also highlight best practices and stories of success in the field.

 

All products arising from this evaluation will be owned by the IFRC. The evaluators will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his/her own work or to make use of the evaluation results for private publication purposes.

 

The draft and final reports will be submitted to Evaluation Management Team (IFRC and MRCS), who will ensure the quality of the report providing input if necessary. The Evaluation Management Team will submit the report to the key stakeholders interviewed for review and clarifications. The EMT will oversee a management response and will ensure subsequent follow up.

 

Suggested final report outline

No.	Content	Description
01.	Executive summary	Summarizes the overall findings of the review with key conclusions and not more than 10 key recommendations. The summary must be specific to the review, clearly based on the specific context of the interventions.
02.	Background and context analysis	Outlines the response’s overall objectives, aims, intervention strategy, policy frameworks, targets, main stakeholders, financial frameworks, institutional arrangements, and a brief context analysis that highlights the challenges and issues on the ground.
03	Methodology	Outlines the overall approach used and the rationale of the approach, the tools applied and the key assumptions. It will focus on consideration for relevance and appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and connectedness in view of the internal and external issues.
04.	Findings	Outlines the findings of the review.
05.	Conclusions	Outlines the main conclusions that have emerged from the findings.
06.	Lessons learned and recommendations	Provides general recommendations, including on cross-cutting issues.

 

All products arising from this review will be co-owned by the MRCS and IFRC. The review team members will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as her/his own work or to make use of the review results for private publication purposes. The draft and final reports will be submitted through the EMT, who will ensure the quality of the report providing input if necessary. The EMT will submit the report to the key stakeholders interviewed for review and clarifications. The Commissioners will oversee a management response and will ensure subsequent follow up.

 

9. EVALUATION QUALITY AND ETHICAL STANDARDS

The review team should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the review team should adhere to the evaluation standards and specific, applicable process outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.

The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:

1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
4. Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

 

It is also expected that the MTR will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality. Further information can be obtained about these principles at: https://www.ifrc.org/fundamental-principles

 

 

10. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT TEAM (EMT)

An EMT will be appointed to oversee the evaluation process and ensure that it upholds the IFRC Framework for Evaluation. The EMT will consist of five members i.e., two from MRCS (provide interface with MRCS branches and will help to clarify internal and local processes and approaches for the team), three from IFRC. A staff member of IFRC will lead the EMT.

 

11. APPENDICES (TO BE PRESENTED AFTER APPOINTMENT)

 

12.1 PROPOSED SCHEDULE / TIMELINE

The review is expected to be completed in no more than 31 working days, including submission of the final report. The review will commence on 19 January 2022 (The date might be postponed) with the following schedule and deliverables:

 

Activity	Location	Working Days	Deliverables	Dates
INCEPTION and DESIGN PHASE
Kick-off discussion with EMT (remotely)	Mongolia, Beijing	-		19 January 2022
Literature / desktop review and draft inception report which includes sampling strategy, data collection plan and evaluation tools	Mongolia	3	Draft inception report	19-21 January 2022
IFRC and MRCS to review the draft inception report and provide feedback	Mongolia, Beijing	-		24-27 January 2022
Finalizing inception report by incorporating inputs and comments of IFRC and MRCS	Mongolia	1	Final inception report	28 January 2022
Approval of Inspection report by IFRC	Mongolia, Beijing	-	31 January-1 February 2022
Briefing: Evaluation Team with IFRC and MRCS, facilitated by EMT	Mongolia, Beijing	1	2 February 2022
DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND VALIDATION PHASE
Embarking on data collection (survey, KIIs, FGDs, etc), data entry, cleaning and data analysis	Mongolia	12(including travel days)		3-14 February 2022
FINAL REPORT PHASE
Presentation initial findings to MRCS, IFRC and other stakeholders (with some joining remotely)	Mongolia, Beijing	1	Initial findings presentation	15 February 2022
Facilitating presentation of findings and discussion with IFRC and MRCS to share draft findings and validate them for further producing case studies	Mongolia, Beijing	1		16 February 2022
Prepare and submit draft report with annexes	Mongolia	6	Draft report	17-24 February 2022
Review of the draft report: MRCS and IFRC submits any requests for clarifications, corrections, changes on the draft report	Mongolia, Beijing	-	Feedback on the draft report	25 February to 2 March 2022
Finalize and submit final report with annexes	Mongolia	3	Final report	3 March-7 March 2022
Final report approval by Commissioners	Mongolia, Beijing	-	Final report	8-11 March 2022
Total days		28

 

12.2 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Package of reference documents for MRCS’s response supported by IFRC and MRCS

1. Emergency appeals
2. Emergency plans of action/National Society Response Plan (NSRP)
3. Operation updates
4. Federation-wide COVID-19 indicators
5. Donor-based interim and final report
6. MRCS plans and reports to other stakeholders that the consultant may need

 

12.3 LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS 

To be provided

 

12.4 Schedule for payment of fees

The consultant will be consuming one and a half month. Payment will be separated into three tranches: first will be 25% when the consultant starts the work; second will be 30% when the draft report submits and presents to EMT; and third will be 45% on final submission after all feedback has been incorporated from EMT.