Consultant(e) en évaluation de projet

1. Introduction

The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) is an international humanitarian and development organization dedicated to serving vulnerable communities regardless of ethnicity, political affiliation, age, gender, or religion. In Sudan, ADRA implements integrated humanitarian, recovery, and resilience programmes aimed at strengthening livelihoods, improving food security, enhancing access to basic services, and building the resilience of conflict-affected and vulnerable communities.

The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) Sudan is implementing the project "Improving the Livelihoods of Conflict-Affected Communities" (Project No. A-SDN-2024-0251) with the objective of improving the resilience and well-being of conflict-affected households in Kerenik, Jebel Moon, Sirba, and Geneina localities of West Darfur State, Sudan. The project is being implemented over a 27-month period, from 1 November 2024 to 31 January 2027 targeting 11,901(5,788 female, 6,113 male) direct beneficiaries, in response to the prolonged humanitarian crisis, displacement, and deteriorating food security and access to basic services in the targeted areas.

The project is funded by Bread for the World, aims to support the implementation of integrated food security, livelihoods, and WASH interventions aimed at strengthening the resilience of conflict-affected communities in West Darfur.

The project is implemented in West Darfur State, one of Sudan's most conflict-affected regions, where recurrent violence, large-scale displacement, and prolonged humanitarian needs have significantly affected livelihoods, food security, and access to essential services. The conflict has disrupted agricultural production, weakened local markets, damaged critical infrastructure, and reduced communities' access to safe water, sanitation, healthcare, and other basic services. The presence of internally displaced persons (IDPs), combined with limited livelihood opportunities and environmental degradation, has further increased the vulnerability of both displaced and host communities. In addition, insecurity, population movements, logistical constraints, and seasonal access challenges have created a complex operating environment that requires flexible and adaptive programming. These contextual factors are important considerations for the evaluation, as they have influenced both project implementation and the achievement of intended outcomes.

The project seeks to address the immediate and longer-term needs of conflict-affected communities through an integrated approach combining food security and livelihoods interventions with Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programming. The intervention is guided by two overarching objectives:

Project Objective 1: Conflict-affected target communities’ livelihoods are enhanced.

Indicator 1.1: At least 560 (336 female) households increased their acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS) by 65% (i.e., from 0 to 65%)

Indicator 1.2: At least 450 (225 female) households have diversified their livelihood options (by engaging in small-scale farming, livestock rearing, petty trade, artisanal work, and participation in local cooperative businesses)

Indicator 1.3: At least 525 (250 female-headed) households in the target areas have reduced their food gap from 2 months to zero months.

Project Objective 2: Target communities' Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practices have improved.

Indicator 2.1: At least 70% out of 1000 households have got access to potable drinking water.

Indicator 2.2: 90% of the community representatives (community leaders, elders, and women) reported that changes in sanitation and hygiene practices within the targeted communities and IDP sites.

Under the first objective, the project aims to improve household food security and strengthen livelihood resilience by increasing acceptable Food Consumption Scores (FCS), diversifying household livelihood opportunities through agriculture, livestock, petty trade, artisanal work, and cooperative businesses, and reducing seasonal food gaps among vulnerable households. Under the second objective, the project seeks to improve sustainable access to safe drinking water while promoting positive sanitation and hygiene behaviors among target communities and internally displaced persons (IDPs).

To achieve these objectives, the project implements a comprehensive package of interventions across three main technical components.

The Food Security component provides unconditional restricted food vouchers to 750 vulnerable households, accompanied by beneficiary identification and verification processes, community sensitization, and regular Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) to assess the effectiveness and accountability of food assistance.

The Agriculture and Livelihoods component focuses on strengthening productive capacities through Farmer Field Schools (FFS), Pastoralist Field Schools (PFS), the provision of seed and agricultural tool vouchers, establishment of tree nurseries for environmental restoration, and support for irrigation rehabilitation and solarization through Community Action Plans (CAPs). These interventions are designed to increase agricultural productivity, diversify income sources, improve climate resilience, and enhance sustainable natural resource management.

The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) component aims to improve access to safe water and promote healthy hygiene practices through the rehabilitation and solarization of water yards, rehabilitation of hand pumps, installation of handwashing stations in IDP sites, distribution of hygiene kits, production and dissemination of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials, and capacity strengthening of Water User Committees and Hygiene Promoters to support sustainable management of water infrastructure and community hygiene promotion.

The project is implemented by ADRA Sudan in close collaboration with local authorities, government institutions, community-based structures, and beneficiary communities to ensure effective intervention delivery and promote sustainable local ownership. Funded by Bread for the World, the project engages a diverse network of stakeholders, including the State Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Animal Resources, the Forestry Unit, and the State Water and Sanitation Project. At the community level, key partners include community leaders, women and youth groups, small farmer groups, Water User Committees, hygiene promoters, lead farmers, and pastoralists. Crucially, conflict-affected households and internally displaced persons (IDPs) serve as the primary beneficiaries and central stakeholders.

The project targets conflict-affected households, internally displaced persons, vulnerable farming and pastoralist communities, women-headed households, community leaders, Water User Committees, hygiene promoters, and other community representatives across the four target localities. The intervention places particular emphasis on gender inclusion and community participation to ensure equitable access to project benefits and strengthen local ownership.

A baseline assessment was conducted at the beginning of the project to establish benchmark values for the project's outcome and output indicators. The findings of the baseline study provide the primary reference against which progress and results will be assessed during this evaluation. No previous independent mid-term or final evaluation has been conducted under this project.

Building on the baseline findings, the evaluation will assess the extent to which the project has achieved its intended objectives and outcomes, examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, impact, and sustainability of the interventions across all project components, and generate evidence-based findings and practical recommendations to support organizational learning, strengthen accountability to stakeholders and the donor, and inform the design of future humanitarian and resilience programming in Sudan.

2. Cause and objective of the external evaluation

The Improving the livelihoods of conflict-affected communities (ELEVATE) Project is approaching the end of its implementation period (01.11.2024 – 31.01.2027). In line with ADRA Sudan's commitment to accountability to affected populations, partners, and the donor, ADRA Sudan has commissioned an independent external evaluation of the project.

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the project's performance and to determine the extent to which it has achieved its intended objectives and indicators. Specifically, the external evaluation will:

• Assess the overall performance of the project against its objectives, expected results, indicators, and Theory of Change or intervention logic, where applicable.
• Determine the extent to which the project has achieved its intended outcomes and contributed to the well-being and resilience of the target population.
• Assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the project's interventions in accordance with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
• Examine the quality of project design, implementation, management, coordination, and monitoring systems, taking into consideration the operational context in which the project was implemented.
• Identify good practices, lessons learned, implementation challenges, and factors that facilitated or constrained the achievement of results.
• Generate practical, evidence-based, and forward-looking recommendations to inform:
  • The design and implementation of future programmes in West Darfur and similar contexts;
  • The potential scale-up, replication, or adaptation of successful approaches and interventions;
  • ADRA Sudan's broader strategic programming, organizational learning, and quality improvement efforts.

The external evaluation is being conducted at this stage because the project is nearing completion, providing an appropriate opportunity to assess the achievement of planned outputs and outcomes, examine the early evidence of impact and sustainability, and document lessons that can inform future humanitarian and development programming ADRA and the its broader partners

The evaluation has been commissioned by ADRA Sudan, as the implementing agency, in consultation with the financing partner Bread for the World, as part of its commitments to accountability, organizational learning, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous programme improvement.

The findings of this external evaluation will be used for strategic decision-making, organizational learning, accountability reporting, and future project design, rather than for project continuation funding decisions for the current phase.

3. Key questions

The evaluation shall assess the project using the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The evaluation shall also assess the integration of cross-cutting issues, including gender equality, disability inclusion,environmental sustainability, conflict sensitivity, accountability to affected populations (AAP), protection, and community participation.

3.1 Relevance

The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH interventions responded to the needs and priorities of the target communities.

Key evaluation questions:

• To what extent were the Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH activities relevant to the needs and priorities of conflict-affected communities in the target areas?
• To what extent were the project objectives and intervention design aligned with the priorities of the target communities, national policies, and the strategic priorities of ADRA Sudan and Bread for the World?
• Were the beneficiary targeting and selection criteria appropriate, equitable, and transparent?
• To what extent did the project adapt to changes in the humanitarian and operational context during implementation?

3.2 Coherence

The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project complemented other humanitarian and development interventions and was coordinated with relevant stakeholders.

Key evaluation questions:

• To what extent were the project's Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH activities coherent with national policies, sector strategies, and humanitarian priorities?
• How effectively were the project's interventions coordinated with local authorities, community structures, humanitarian actors, and other development partners?
• To what extent did the three project components complement one another to achieve integrated and sustainable results?
• Were there opportunities to strengthen coordination or create additional synergies with other interventions operating in the target areas?

3.3 Effectiveness

The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended objectives and indicators outline above under the introduction section.

Key evaluation questions:

• To what extent did the Food Security interventions improve household food security and food consumption?
• To what extent did the Agriculture and Livelihoods activities strengthen agricultural production, livelihood opportunities, and household resilience?
• To what extent did the WASH interventions improve access to safe water, sanitation facilities, and hygiene practices?
• To what extent were the project objectives, outputs, and outcomes achieved? What led to over/under achievement of the target set on the project indicators?
• What factors facilitated or constrained the achievement of the project's expected results, outcomes and impacts?
• To what extent were women, internally displaced persons (IDPs), persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups effectively reached by the project?
• How effective is the project implementation approach? Could similar or better results have been achieved using alternative implementation approaches?

3.4 Efficiency

The evaluation should assess how efficiently project resources were utilized to achieve the intended results.

Key evaluation questions:

• Were financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to implement the Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH activities?
• Were project activities implemented according to the planned schedule and budget?
• Were the project's management, coordination, procurement, and monitoring systems efficient and appropriate?

3.5 Impact

The evaluation should assess the broader changes resulting from the project.

Key evaluation questions:

• What positive changes have resulted from the Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH interventions for the target communities?
• To what extent has the project contributed to enhancing the resilience of conflict-affected communities in West Darfur?
• Were there any unintended positive or negative effects resulting from the project? How are the unintended negative effects managed through the project?
• To what extent has the project strengthened the capacity of communities and local institutions to address future shocks and challenges?

3.6 Sustainability

The evaluation should assess the likelihood that project benefits will continue beyond the project period.

Key evaluation questions:

• To what extent are the benefits of the Food Security, Agriculture and Livelihoods, and WASH interventions likely to be sustained after project completion?
• Have sufficient capacities been developed among beneficiaries, community structures, and local institutions to sustain project results?
• What factors are likely to support or hinder the long-term sustainability of the project's outcomes? How can the hindering factors be mitigated?
• To what extent has the project promoted community ownership and strengthened local systems to maintain project achievements?

3.7 Cross-Cutting Issues

The evaluation should assess how effectively cross-cutting principles were integrated throughout the project.

Key evaluation questions:

• To what extent were gender equality and women's empowerment integrated into the design and implementation of the project?
• To what extent were persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups meaningfully included in project activities?
• How effectively did the project incorporate environmental sustainability and conflict-sensitive approaches?
• To what extent were accountability mechanisms, including community participation, feedback, and complaint mechanisms, effective and accessible?
• Were safeguarding, protection, and the Do No Harm principles adequately integrated throughout project implementation?
• The evaluator(s) may refine these evaluation questions during the inception phase in consultation with ADRA Sudan, provided that any proposed modifications remain aligned with the overall objectives, scope, and purpose of the evaluation.

4. Evaluation design/methods

The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with internationally recognized evaluation standards and ethical principles, including the OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria (Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability) and the OECD-DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. Throughout the evaluation process, the evaluator(s) shall also consider cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, disability inclusion, protection, accountability to affected populations (AAP), environmental sustainability, conflict sensitivity, and the Do No Harm principle.

The evaluator(s) shall propose an appropriate evaluation design and methodology in the inception report. The proposed methodology should employ a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the project. The inception report should clearly describe the evaluation design, sampling strategy, data collection methods, analytical framework, quality assurance measures, ethical considerations, limitations, and mitigation measures.

At a minimum, the evaluation shall include the following:

• A comprehensive desk review of all relevant project documentation.
• Collection and analysis of both primary and secondary data.
• Field visits to selected project locations, subject to security and accessibility.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with relevant stakeholders.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with project beneficiaries and community representatives.
• Direct observation of project activities, infrastructure, and household-level conditions, where appropriate.
• Development of case studies to document significant achievements, good practices, lessons learned, or implementation challenges, where appropriate.
• Triangulation of data from multiple sources and methods to ensure the validity, reliability, and credibility of the evaluation findings.
• Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the collected data, leading to evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and practical recommendations.

The evaluator(s) shall consult a broad range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to:

• ADRA Sudan senior management, programme staff, technical staff, and MEAL personnel.
• Bread for the World, where appropriate.
• Relevant national, state, and local government authorities.
• Community leaders and community-based structures.
• Water User Committees, Hygiene Promoters, Farmer Field School (FFS) facilitators, and Pastoralist Field School (PFS) representatives, where applicable.
• Project beneficiaries, including women, men, youth, internally displaced persons (IDPs), persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups.
• Implementing partners, local organizations, and other humanitarian and development actors operating in the project area, where relevant.

The evaluator(s) shall review all relevant project documentation, including, but not limited to:

• Project proposal and approved project document.
• Logical framework (Logframe), Results Framework, and Theory of Change, where applicable.
• Project agreement and relevant contractual documents.
• Baseline assessment report.
• Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) framework.
• Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) or equivalent monitoring database.
• Progress reports, narrative reports, financial reports, and audit reports, where applicable.
• Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) reports and other technical assessments.
• Monitoring visit reports, supervision reports, and annual review reports.
• Complaints and Feedback Response Mechanism (CFRM) reports and other accountability records.
• Project work plans, implementation schedules, training materials, technical guidelines, and any other documents considered relevant to the evaluation.

The evaluator(s) may identify additional stakeholders, documents, and appropriate data collection methods during the inception phase where these are considered necessary to ensure a comprehensive, credible, and evidence-based evaluation. Any proposed refinements to the evaluation methodology shall be discussed and agreed upon with ADRA Sudan before implementation.

5. Process of the evaluation/time frame

The evaluation will be conducted according to the following indicative phases, activities, deliverables, and timeline. The timeline may be adjusted in consultation with ADRA Sudan depending on operational access, security conditions, and stakeholder availability.

1. Contracting & Preparation Phase

Activities

• Contract signature and mobilization
• Handover of project documentation
• Initial briefing with ADRA Sudan

Deliverables

• Signed contract
• Shared document package
• Agreed workplan

Timeline

1–4 September 2026

2. Inception Phase

Activities

• Desk review of project documents
• Refinement of evaluation questions and methodology
• Development of data collection tools
• Preparation of Inception Report

Deliverables

• Inception Report

Timeline

5–10 September 2026

Activities

• Review and approval by ADRA Sudan

Deliverables

• Approved Inception Report

Timeline

11–15 September 2026

3. Data Collection Phase

Activities

• Field visits to project locations in Blue Nile State
• Household surveys, Key informant interviews, FGDs, and other data collection activities
• End-of-mission debriefing with ADRA Sudan

Deliverables

• Field debriefing

Timeline

16–27 September 2026

4. Analysis & Reporting Phase

Activities

• Data cleaning, analysis, and triangulation
• Drafting of evaluation report

Deliverables

• Draft Evaluation Report

Timeline

28 September–5 October 2026

5. Finalization Phase

Activities

• Review of draft report by ADRA and stakeholders
• Incorporation of comments
• Final editing and submission

Deliverables

• Final Evaluation Report

Timeline

6–15 October 2026

6. Key Indicator to be collected

Objective

Conflict-affected target communities’ livelihoods are enhanced

Indicators

1. At least 560 (336 female) households increased their acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS) by 65% (i.e., from 0% to 65%)

2. At least 450 (225 female) households have diversified their livelihood options (by engaging in small-scale farming, livestock rearing, petty trade, artisanal work, and participation in local cooperative businesses)

3. At least 525 (250 female-headed) households in the target areas have reduced their food gap from two months to zero months.

Objective

Target communities' Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practices have improved

Indicators

1. At least 70% out of 1000 households have got access to potable drinking water.

2. 90% of the community representatives (community leaders, elders, and women) reported that changes in sanitation and hygiene practices within the targeted communities and IDP sites.

7. Sampling Framework

The evaluation shall apply a statistically sound and representative sampling approach to ensure reliable and valid findings that reflect the views and experiences of project beneficiaries across the intervention areas.

For the quantitative component, a household survey shall be conducted using a statistically representative sample of project participants. The sample size shall be calculated based on a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. To account for potential non-response or incomplete responses, the final sample size shall be increased by at least 10% (or an appropriate adjustment proposed and justified by the evaluator(s)) to ensure adequacy of responses.

For the qualitative component, a purposive sampling approach shall be applied to ensure the inclusion of diverse stakeholder perspectives, including different gender groups, age categories, vulnerable groups (including persons with disabilities and internally displaced persons), and key community actors.

The evaluator(s) shall clearly define and justify:

• The qualitative data collection methods to be used (e.g., Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions, case studies);
• The criteria and process for selecting Key Informants and FGD participants;
• The proposed qualitative sample size for each stakeholder group;
• The sampling strategy for ensuring representation across different project components and geographic areas.

Where appropriate, the evaluator(s) should apply standard statistical sampling formulas for household surveys and clearly present the assumptions used in determining the sample size (e.g., population size, confidence level, margin of error, and expected variability).

The overall sampling approach shall ensure triangulation of data sources and representation of key beneficiary groups, enabling robust and evidence-based conclusions for the evaluation.

8. Expected Products (Deliverables)

The evaluator(s) shall be required to produce the following deliverables in line with internationally accepted evaluation standards. All reports shall be written in clear and professional English, unless otherwise agreed with ADRA Sudan. All deliverables must be submitted in editable format (MS Word) and final reports also in PDF format.

8.1 Key Deliverables

• Inception Report
  The inception report shall present the evaluator(s)’ detailed understanding of the assignment and include, at a minimum: refined evaluation questions, methodology, sampling strategy, data collection tools, analysis plan, ethical considerations, limitations, and detailed work plan. The report must be approved by ADRA Sudan prior to the commencement of field data collection.
• Draft Evaluation Report
  A complete draft evaluation report presenting preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The draft report will be shared with ADRA Sudan and relevant stakeholders for review and feedback.
• Final Evaluation Report
  The final report shall incorporate all comments received from ADRA Sudan and stakeholders. It shall present a comprehensive and evidence-based analysis of the project performance.
• Presentation of Findings
  The evaluator(s) shall present the key findings, conclusions, and recommendations to ADRA Sudan and relevant stakeholders at the end of the evaluation process (debriefing session).

8.2 Evaluation Report Structure (Minimum Requirements)

The final evaluation report shall include, at a minimum, the following sections:

Front Matter

• Cover page including: project title, project number, implementing organization, evaluator(s), report date, project location/region, and project duration
• Table of contents
• List of abbreviations and acronyms

Executive Summary (maximum of 1.5 pages)

• Brief overview of the project and context
• Purpose and scope of the evaluation
• Key findings
• Key conclusions
• Key recommendations

1. Introduction

• Description of the project (objectives, target groups, geographic coverage, duration)
• Implementing organization and donor
• Purpose of the evaluation

2. Context and Framework Conditions

• Political, economic, social, and environmental context relevant to the project
• Key risks and assumptions affecting implementation
• Role of government and other actors
• Relevant interventions by other stakeholders

3. Evaluation Methodology

• Evaluation design and approach
• Data collection methods and tools
• Sampling strategy and study population
• Composition of evaluation team (if applicable)
• Limitations and mitigation measures
• Ethical considerations

4. Findings (based on OECD-DAC criteria)

• 4.1 Relevance
• 4.2 Coherence
• 4.3 Effectiveness
• 4.4 Efficiency
• 4.5 Impact
• 4.6 Sustainability

5. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

• Overall conclusions
• Key lessons learned
• Good practices and innovations (where applicable)

6. Recommendations

• Clear, practical, and actionable recommendations
• Targeted to relevant stakeholders (ADRA Sudan, donor, partners, etc.)
• Prioritized where possible

7. Annexes

• Terms of Reference
• Data collection tools
• List of beneficiaries
• List of stakeholders consulted
• Field itinerary and methodology details
• Electronic copies of all raw quantitative and qualitative data collected during the evaluation, including survey datasets, interview notes, and transcripts
• Electronic copies of cleaned and analyzed datasets, including statistical analysis outputs, coding frameworks, and summary tables used for reporting findings.
• Maps or diagrams (where applicable)
• Any other relevant supporting documents

8.3 Additional Requirements

• The final report should not exceed 40 pages (excluding annexes).
• All findings must be evidence-based and derived from triangulated data sources.
• Cross-cutting issues (gender, disability, protection, environment, and accountability to affected populations) must be integrated throughout the report, not treated as a separate section only.
• The evaluator(s) shall ensure confidentiality and ethical standards in handling all collected data.

9. Key qualifications of the evaluators

The evaluation shall be conducted by an independent evaluator or evaluation team with demonstrated expertise in humanitarian and development evaluations. The evaluator(s) should possess a combination of technical, methodological, and contextual knowledge relevant to the scope of this assignment.

9.1 Required Qualifications and Experience

• Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or higher) in relevant fields such as International Development, Social Sciences, Economics, Agriculture, Public Health, WASH, or other related disciplines.
• Proven experience in conducting independent evaluations of humanitarian and/or development projects, preferably in fragile, conflict-affected, or post-conflict contexts.
• Strong knowledge and practical experience in applying OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and mixed-methods evaluation approaches.
• Demonstrated experience in data collection and analysis, including both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
• Experience in conducting evaluations in sectors relevant to this project, including:
  • Food security and livelihoods programming
  • Agriculture and resilience-building interventions
  • Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) programming

9.2 Technical and Methodological Skills

• Strong skills in designing and implementing evaluation methodologies, including sampling strategies, survey design, and qualitative research tools.
• Proven ability to analyze complex datasets and synthesize findings into clear, evidence-based conclusions and recommendations.
• Experience in conducting field-based evaluations, including Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and household surveys.
• Ability to ensure data quality, triangulation, and ethical data collection practices.
• Strong report writing and analytical skills in English.

9.3 Contextual and Regional Experience

• Familiarity with humanitarian and development programming in Sudan or similar fragile and conflict-affected contexts is highly desirable.
• Understanding of socio-cultural, gender, and conflict dynamics relevant to the project areas.
• Ability to work effectively in challenging operational environments, including limited access and security constraints.

9.4 Language Requirements

• Fluency in written and spoken English & Arabic is required.
• Knowledge of local languages spoken in the project areas is an asset and may be considered an advantage for field data collection and community engagement.

9.5 Additional Requirements

• The evaluator(s) must demonstrate independence and impartiality, with no prior direct involvement in the design or implementation of the project.
• Experience working with international NGOs or donor-funded projects (e.g., Bread for the World or similar donors) is considered an advantage.
• In case of a team, clear roles and responsibilities must be defined, including a designated team leader responsible for overall coordination and final deliverables.

10. Content of the evaluator’s offer

Interested evaluator(s) or evaluation teams are requested to submit a comprehensive proposal that includes both technical and financial components. The offer must provide sufficient detail to allow a fair and transparent comparison of applications.

10.1 Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall include, at a minimum:

• A brief understanding of the assignment and its objectives.
• A detailed description of the proposed methodology, including:
  • Evaluation design and approach;
  • Data collection methods and tools;
  • Sampling strategy;
  • Data analysis plan;
  • Quality assurance measures;
  • Ethical considerations, including safeguarding, confidentiality, and Do No Harm principles.
• A clear explanation of how cross-cutting issues will be integrated into the evaluation, including gender equality, disability inclusion, protection, environmental sustainability, and accountability to affected populations (AAP).
• A proposed work plan aligned with the timeline outlined in the Terms of Reference.
• A detailed composition of the evaluation team (if applicable), including roles and responsibilities.

10.2 Curriculum Vitae (CVs)

• Detailed CVs of all proposed team members, highlighting relevant qualifications, technical expertise, and previous evaluation experience, particularly in humanitarian or development contexts.

10.3 Financial Proposal

The financial proposal shall include a detailed and itemized budget covering:

• Professional fees for all team members;
• Daily rates and estimated number of working days;
• Travel costs (international and/or national, as applicable);
• Accommodation and subsistence allowances;
• Costs related to fieldwork (transport, logistics, communication, etc.);
• Costs for workshops, validation meetings, or presentations (if applicable);
• Taxes, charges, and any other applicable costs.

The financial proposal shall be submitted in a clear and transparent format to allow comparison between offers.

11. Remuneration

Payment will be in phases as follows:

• 20% of the contract sum will be paid at upon submission of the inception report and its approval.
• 30% of the contract sum will be paid upon completion and submission of the first draft report.
• 50% of the contract sum will be paid upon submission and acceptance of the final.

How to apply

Interested candidates should submit their application for this consultancy to the email [email protected] put [email protected] no later than August 21th ,2026. The application of interested candidates should include a financial proposal with a breakdown into costs such as consultancy fees and ancillary costs such as transport, accommodation, and other fees (in USD) needed for this service, CVs of its team members and a cover letter showing relevant professional experience and requirements listed above. Ideal candidates are also highly encouraged to submit samples of previous works related to this study.