1. Background Information

Kindernothilfe e.V. (KNH) is a Non-Governmental Organization founded in 1959. KNH works with local non-governmental organizations and their networks in 30 countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe to realize and protect children’s rights. In Germany, KNH engages in awareness raising, education and advocacy relating to development policies and particularly to the implementation of the Child Rights Convention. In Thailand, KNH has been supporting the work of local partner organizations for more than 28 years.

Through funding support from KNH and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) to Baan Dek Foundation (BDF) for Phase 1 of the project, BDF was able to implement strategies aimed at generating systemic impact to better advocate for systematic changes within the Thai construction sector. Phase 1 of the project focused on the implementation of child rights for migrant children living in construction site camps in Thailand and to bring about changes in the living conditions of these children, enabling them access to essential public services.

BDF’s engagement with construction companies in Phase 1 of the project (from December 2022 - February 2026) has resulted in increased interest and commitments from construction companies to respond to the needs of migrant workers and children living in construction site camps, and integrate business and human rights, and child rights and business principles into company-wide practices. In particular, the project outcomes demonstrated the relevance and effectiveness of the Self-Assessment  Tool (SAT) and approaches in improving camp conditions and company practices.

Towards this, KNH intends to extend support to BDF in implementing Phase 2 of the project focusing on the establishment and integration of social specifications into public construction procurement and regulatory frameworks, strengthening public-private collaboration, and establishing monitoring and reporting mechanisms aligned with government systems. The aim is to bring about change in the social practices and alignment of public construction practices with business and human rights, and child rights and business principles to achieve sector-wide and sustainable improvements in child rights and migrant worker protection within the construction sector. 

This project will receive funding from KNH and from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

2. Purpose of the Feasibility Study

The study is a prerequisite for funding from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

The purpose of the feasibility study is to provide a sound basis for further developing the project strategies into a project proposal by identifying project prerequisites, opportunities, and risks.

As such, the outcomes of this study will provide evidence-based data to support the project development processes for Phase 2 by assessing the feasibility, relevance, risks and opportunities, and institutional readiness for systemic change in the Thai public construction sector. 

The specific objectives of the feasibility study are as follows:

• Analyze the political, institutional, and socio-economic context related to migrant workers, children, and Thai public construction procurement processes within the Thai construction sector.
• Critically review the Theory of Change (can be made available upon request), proposed strategies, and intervention plan with regard to relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, under realistic political, institutional, and implementation conditions.
• Identify the most effective procurement leverage points for embedding social specifications that change contractor behavior, and assess subcontractor capacity and incentive structures to ensure feasible adoption and reduced resistance across the supply chain.
• Provide practical recommendations to refine project strategies, sequencing, partnerships, governance mechanisms, and monitoring systems.
• Assess alternative implementation scenarios (e.g. phased pilots, voluntary vs. mandatory mechanisms, selected ministries vs. national rollout) and provide a reasoned assessment of their feasibility and potential trade-offs.
• Assess BDF’s capacity in view of the planned intervention with suggestion - where necessary - of measures to strengthen the capacity of the organization.
  
  

3. Methodology

The consultant is expected to apply the suggested methodology outlined below. However, additional or alternative methods may be applied where relevant and justified. The feasibility study will adopt a mixed-methods approach, with an emphasis on system-level understanding and the development of plausible implementation hypotheses, rather than detailed policy or procurement instrument design.

         1. Desk Review

·         A structured desk review will be conducted to establish a comprehensive understanding of the policy, regulatory, and operational context relevant to the integration of social specifications in the Thai construction sector. This will include, but not be limited to:

o    National policies and legal frameworks, including the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP-BHR), public procurement regulations, child protection, migration, and labour-related laws and policies

o    Relevant international frameworks and standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), Child Rights and Business Principles (CRBP), OECD guidelines, and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)

o    Existing BSI tools and approaches, SAT data, Phase 1 project reports, and related field research studies

o    Relevant internal monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) data from BDF

The desk review will support system mapping and inform the identification of potential leverage points and constraints within public construction procurement and implementation processes.

2. Qualitative Data Collection

Qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews and/or focus group discussions (FGDs), using participatory methods where appropriate, with key stakeholder groups relevant to the project. These may include, but are not limited to: Government agencies (e.g. RLPD, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education,  Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Interior, BMA) involved in public construction, procurement, labour, child protection, migration, health, education; Developers, Construction companies and subcontractors involved in public projects; Civil society organizations and service providers; Migrant construction workers and their children (to be consulted with BDF on the accessibility to this target group for primary and secondary data collection)

3. Validation discussions with BDF and key stakeholders

o    Political economy: light political economy analysis to assess interests, incentives, power dynamics, and resistance among key actors affecting feasibility and adoption.

o    Scenarios: scenario testing to assess alternative pathways for integrating social specifications into public procurement and regulatory frameworks.

The Phase 2 Concept Note will serve as a core reference document but should be critically examined rather than assumed.

4. Areas of Research and Expected Results

Area 1: Context and Policy Analysis

• What national-level policies, strategies, action plans, and/or development plans are in place to address the identified problems and to serve the specific needs of migrant children and their families living in construction site camps?
• What are some of the specific national policies, laws, and regulations that discuss the mandatory enforcement of social specifications in the Thai public construction projects? (for e.g., Public Procurement Act, procurement regulations under the Ministry of Finance, NAP-BHR, labour and migration laws, child protection frameworks) What is the implementation status of these policies, strategies, action plans, and/or development plans within public construction projects? Where are the real decision-making and enforcement points?
• What are some of the key evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and/or weakness of these policies regarding the protection of migrant construction workers and their children in Thailand? Are there any documented gaps between the intent of these policies and on-site realities? Where do implementation failures most commonly occur?
• To what extent do current policies create enabling conditions or constrains for integrating legally binding social specifications into public construction procurement? Which policy instruments could realistically be strengthened, amended, or operationalized within the timeframe of Phase 2 implementation? 

Area 2: Public Project and Procurement Process

• Public project and procurement cycle:
• At which stages of the public construction project and procurement cycle (planning, tendering, contracting, implementation, supervision, payment, and monitoring) can social specifications be applied, and where are the real decision-making and enforcement points in practice?

• Institutional roles and authority:
• Which governmental agencies and units have formal and effective authority over construction procurement, contracting, site camp regulation, and enforcement, and how do coordination and decision-making differ across administrative or geographic contexts?

• Supply chain structure and incentives:
• How are public construction supply chains structured, which actors exercise real control over working and living conditions, and what incentives, constraints, and likely behavioural responses of contractors and subcontractors affect the feasibility of embedding social specifications?

Area 2: Analysis of Government Duty Bearers, Private Sector and Supply Chain

• Who are the responsible governmental duty bearers (ministries, departments, offices, sections, other agencies, etc. with relevant positions) for migrant workers and children’s access rights to health, education, protection, and other social services at the relevant administrative and/or implementation levels? Who are the responsible governmental agencies granting permission for maintaining workers camp at a construction side? Which institutions have real authority over construction procurement, contracting and enforcement? Are there geographic differences or other factors that change decision authority?
  
  
• What are the defined roles, functions, and particular mandates of the relevant governmental duty bearers? How is the cooperation and coordination between the relevant and responsible governmental duty bearers designed? How functional is this setting as reported by the governmental representatives?

• ​​How are construction supply chains structured in public projects, including subcontracting tiers and labour intermediaries? Which actors exercise real control over working and living conditions in construction camps, and at what tier?
• At which supply-chain levels can social specifications be embedded with the highest likelihood of compliance and enforcement? What are the expected compliance costs associated with implementing social specifications at different supply-chain tiers?
• How might companies respond to new social requirements (e.g. compliance, avoidance, cost-shifting, informality)? What incentives currently shape company behaviour in public construction projects? (such as financial (payments, penalties, delays), reputational, legal and contractual risks)

Area 4: Capacity Assessment of BDF to implement this project

• What technical capacity and staffing does BDF have to implement advocacy activities and to facilitate coordination between the construction companies and governmental service providers to jointly promote access to services for the contracted migrant workers and their children?
• What are some realistic opportunities for the BSI Framework for Action and Tools to be established as an influential mechanism to promote social specifications in the Thai construction sector and to facilitate access to rights of migrant workers and their children in the construction sector?
  
  
• What are the risks to BDF and its trusted relationship with construction companies when the foundation advocates at the government levels to improve access to services for migrants and their children? How can the risks be mitigated?
• How relevant is the network of construction companies that BDF has established, and the networks’ members, for introducing a systemic shift towards Business and Human Rights in the construction sector? Which kind of construction company should be added to the network?
• What are the capacity and competency gaps of BDF for successfully introducing the Framework for Action and its tools to the entire construction sector as a sustainable systemic change instrument? What measures are needed to develop BDF’s capacity and competency in this regard?
• How could interaction and coordination between BDF, relevant governmental duty bearers, the targeted construction companies, and additional non-governmental stakeholders best be shaped?
• What technical capacity does BDF have to collaboratively develop an effective and easy Monitoring and Evaluation Framework with the target groups, among them children, and duty bearers, that involves participatory data collection and interpretation? What measures are needed to encounter the identified gaps?
• What windows of opportunity are there for BDF to meaningfully participate in the formulation and/or implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights and the mandatory HRDD law in the 3-5 years to come? What civil society organizations exist for strategic partnerships for government-level advocacy in favour of the Rights of migrants and child rights?

Area 5: Assessment of achievement of Phase 1

• Were the project strategies, activities and implementation plan appropriate, relevant and feasible? What are some of the notable similarities and/or differences in the outcomes of the project activities based on the type of company and camps?
• How were the primary target groups included and/or involved during the project implementation? What are some of the key tangible and intangible impacts of the project on these target groups?
• What are some of the key recommendations that need to be closely accounted for the development and implementation of Phase 2 of the project? (based on the key project learnings from Phase 1 and assumptions for Phase 2)

Area 6: Analysis of the project and its strategies against the DAC-criteria

• How relevant is the project to the needs of the target groups (rights holders and duty bearers)?
• How much does the project complement the planned strategies and plans of the governmental duty bearers?
• How effective is the Framework for Action and its tools for construction companies (a) to improve the conditions in the worker camps, and (b) to facilitate equitable access to public services for the diverse migrant population? What measures are needed to develop the instrument and its tools? What technical measures and/or virtual/electronic add-ons are needed to upgrade the Framework for Action and its tools, to ease access and application, and to enable relevant capacity development?
• How possible will it be to achieve the desired change and impact after 3.5 to 4 years with the project strategies?
• How effective are the planned measures for developing an efficient and self-sustaining cooperation in service delivery between the governmental duty bearers and the construction companies? How can the effectiveness be increased?
• Which potential synergies with (a) interventions supported by other donors, (b) Thailand National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, (c) National Development Plans led by other Ministries, and (d) Plans of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) are possible?
• Which structural and personal resources are needed for efficient project implementation?
• How can participatory monitoring that includes target group(s) and governmental duty bearers in indicator setting, monitoring planning, data collection, and data interpretation best be ensured?
• To what extent does the planned project offer a multi-level approach (micro-, meso-, macro-level) to increase significance and effectiveness?
• To what extent does the objectives of the project consider gender aspects?
• What are the roles and responsibilities of governmental and/or civil society institutions and/or private sector construction companies with regards to the sustainability of the outcome, from the start of the project onwards?
• What negative consequences and impacts might result from the implementation of the project? If applicable - how will it be possible to address these risks in the project?

5. Deliverables

The consultant is expected to produce the following deliverables in the agreed timeline outlined in the timeline below.

1. Final feasibility study report (maximum 30 pages), which includes
• Executive Summary and Key Recommendations (2–3 pages)
• Introduction and Methodology (2–3 pages)
• Findings by Research Area (1–6) (10–12 pages)
• Assessment using OECD-DAC Criteria (5–7 pages)
• Comparative analysis of alternative system change scenarios (minimum 5 pages)
• Strategic implications for Phase 2 project design (minimum 5 pages)
  
  
2. Decision brief for BDF and KNH (maximum 7 pages), which includes
• Clear feasibility conclusions
• Recommended system-change pathway(s)
• Key risks and conditions for success
• Design choices and trade-offs for Phase 2
  
  

6. Recommendations

Based on the main study findings and the evaluation according to the DAC criteria, the consultant is expected to provide concrete recommendations that can be incorporated into the Context of the Project Description. Some of the guiding questions to develop the recommendations are

• What components, if any, are missing from the project concept to make the cause-effect relationships more coherent and to sustainably achieve the planned objectives? What planned components are not suitable or may have a negative impact, and for what reasons?
• Can the assumptions of cause-effect relationships be supported?
• What findings and project-relevant data from the study are suitable for inclusion in the project logic (impact matrix of the project proposal)? What are the recommendations for possible impact monitoring and data collection indicators?
  
  

7. Board Utility

A concise Decision Brief (5–7 pages) summarizing feasibility conclusions, recommended scenarios, key risks, and conditions for success for KNH/BMZ decision-making.

8. Timeline

The feasibility study will be conducted over two months starting 15.01.2026. As needed, BDF will support the consultant to facilitate introductory meetings for consultations with targeted stakeholders with whom BDF has established a working relationship.

The consultant should submit the draft report by 15.02.2026 and submit the final report by 15.03.2026.

9. Consultant Profile

The consultant (or team) should demonstrate:

• Proven expertise in Thai socio-political context, Business & Human Rights, child rights, migrant rights, Thai public policy, and advocacy at the national government level (strong asset)
• Strong understanding of Thai public construction procurement and regulatory systems
• Experience working with government institutions
• Experience in conducting similar feasibility studies and systemic change projects
• Expertise in participatory project planning and monitoring approaches/tools and Child Rights Approaches
• Excellent analytical and report-writing skills in English
• Thai-language capacity or demonstrated access to local research partners
• Minimum five years’ professional experience in the aforementioned topics

10. Proposal Submission

Applicants interested in conducting this assignment are requested to submit their proposals including the following (in English):

• A technical proposal outlining the methodology and workplan
• A detailed financial proposal with a break-down of costs for professional fees, travel, per diems and other related costs.
• Letter of Interest presenting the understanding of the TOR with references on similar assignments already conducted 
• Updated CVs of key persons involved in the study and one sample of similar study conducted. 

The applicant is asked to share the required documents (in pdf versions) to the following addresses: 

• Lene Andersen (BDF): lene@baandekfoundation.org 

• Thanadon Chanthathadawong (BDF): thanadon@baandekfoundation.org

• Swasti Karmacharya (BDF): swasti@baandekfoundation.org 

• Beke Claessen (KNH): beke.claessen@knh.de 

• Supanee Taneewut (KNH): supanee.taneewut@kindernothilfe.com 

The title of the email subject line and related attachments should include the name of the applicant and the words “Feasibility study 30103”

Further information about Baan Dek Foundation and the project overview can be received by contacting Swasti Karmacharya at swasti@baandekfoundation.org.

Where necessary, Baan Dek Foundation will support the consultant’s research and will be available for discussions and the capacity assessment. 

The contract will be made with Kindernothilfe.

Final Deadline for Submissions: 8th of January 2025

Note that incomplete applications cannot be taken into consideration and will be deleted.

You will receive an acknowledgement e-mail the working day after you have sent it, earliest on 5th January 2026.