Consultant – Final Evaluation Coherence programme Ethiopia 4 views0 applications

1. Introduction

The COHERENCE programme Ethiopia 2022-2026 is implemented by Ethiopian Catholic Church – Social and Development Commission Soddo branch (ECC-SDCO/S) and Adigrat branch (ECC-SDCO/Ad), with coordination support by the East Africa regional programme Manager CI.be. The programme is implemented in 7 countries and is co-funded by the Belgian Government.

The program’s aim is to equip rural communities so that they become more resilient and can better cope with crisis situations. Above all, the program wants the most vulnerable people, particularly women, young people and people with disabilities, to have expanded opportunities to improve their living conditions. Through a ‘triple nexus’ approach, focus is on (1) social cohesion, peace-building and rights protection within communities; (2) rural economic development; and (3) disaster preparedness

The present terms of reference relate exclusively to the final evaluation of COHERENCE Ethiopia. The final evaluations of the three other country programs are the subject of separate tenders and fall outside the scope of this assignment.

2. Object of the evaluation: COHERENCE Ethiopia

2.1 Program objective, results and activities

To address food insecurity of poor and vulnerable households – with a focus on female-headed and landless households – of 2 kebeles in Damot Woyde district (Wolaita) and 2 kebeles in Irob district (Eastern Tigray), COHERENCE Ethiopia aimed to improve their livelihood base in a sustainable way, by means of a triple nexus approach, linking three complementary areas: social cohesion, rural economic development and disaster risk reduction (DRR).

The action’s specific objective was formulated as follows: “By the end of 2026, poor and vulnerable households, especially resource poor female-headed and landless households, in two kebeles (Endamosa and Hareze Sabata) of Irob district and two kebeles (Kindo Koyo and Mayo Kote) of Damot Woyde district have strengthened their livelihood basis, better enabling them to seize opportunities and realize their aspirations”. The objective was to be achieved through three results.

A first result concerned social cohesion that was to be improved by building household and community capacity to manage resource-induced conflicts and to ensure equitable and fair access or entitlement to natural resources, through, among others:

• Conducting a rapid gender context analysis at community level (1 in each intervention area);
• Organizing in groups and training of 180 community cohesion and gender empowerment agents on peace building, conflict management and facilitation skills;
• Organizing community dialogue sessions on peace and conflict management and gender equity (while applying the household transformation method);
• Rehabilitating and expanding water piping to address existing water access conflict (Wolaita);
• Planting tree seedlings on communal land between communities as a joint, social cohesion enhancing activity (Tigray);
• Providing energy-saving stoves for 300 households (Wolaita).

The direct causes of food insecurity in the intervention zones are – besides the two-year war in Tigray (2020-2022) – the depletion of household assets and continuous dwindling of income. Repeated food shortages have also forced many households to sell their assets to address immediate needs. Therefore, through a second result, the program aimed to contribute to improving household production, income, savings and productive assets by:

• Supporting households in income generating activities and household asset building;
• Organizing, training and equipping savings and and internal lending groups (SILCs) to enhance solidarity, savings and resilience;
• Selecting specific Household Asset Building Packages (HABP), providing technical and basic business training of HABP-SILC groups, and supporting households in financing business plans by means of subsidy.

Finally, a third result sought to strengthen vulnerable households’ resilience in response to climate-induced shocks and stress, by focusing on improving farm production by:

• Organizing volunteer smallholders in “community learning groups” (type of farmer field schools) and providing orientation training on Resilience Design (RD);
• Facilitating self-assessments based on local knowledge, practices and exchange;
• Increasing soil fertility with appropriate durable techniques identified using a RD approach;
• Supplying farm-resilient seeds and biological catalysator (for compost making) (Tigray);
• Providing energy-saving tools for households with special needs;
• Conducting quality monitoring and group learning of RD-related activities implemented at farm-level through community learning groups or famer field school groups.

In addition, by means of workshops, exchange visits, networking and inclusive and participatory MEAL, stakeholders were expected to mutually reinforce each other’s capacities, in particular with regard to issues addressed by the program.

2.2 Target groups

COHERENCE Ethiopia’s implementation period extended over 42 and 36 months respectively in Wolaita and Eastern Tigray, addressing a total of at least 1,900 households (1,000 in Wolaita and 900 in Eastern Tigray). More specifically, the program targeted:

• With regard to social cohesion: 1,900 households (1,000 in Wolaita, 900 in Tigray) of which 1,327 are male-headed (787 in Wolaita, 540 in Tigray) and 573 female-headed (213 in Wolaita, 360 in Tigray), 4 peace and social cohesion and gender equity promoting groups, and 180 peace and social cohesion agents / community leaders (elders, religious leaders, women and youth representatives, …) (75 in Wolaita, 105 in Tigray);
• With regard to rural economic development (household asset building): 830 poor households (400 in Wolaita, 430 in Tigray) with priority for female-headed and landless households, and 49 SILCs (20 in Wolaita, 29 in Tigray);
• With regard to disaster risk reduction (resilience design): 800 smallholder households (600 in Wolaita, 200 in Tigray), with a priority for smallholders vulnerable to climate change;
• Government technical staff.

In addition to these target-groups, i.e. direct beneficiaries, the following indirect beneficiaries were foreseen:

• The population of the 2 kebeles (Endamosa and Hareze Sabata) in Eastern Tigray and of the 2 kebeles (Kindo Koyo and Mayo Kote) in Wolaita;
• Government services and local authorities of the 4 kebeles;
• Authorities of Irob and Damot Woyde districts.

2.3 Three innovative approaches

Three approaches are assumed to have particularly contributed to the action’s achievements and are to receive specific attention during the final evaluation (see evaluation questions below).

2.3.1 Social cohesion and peace building through village peace agents

To encourage peace building and social cohesion, COHERENCE Ethiopia mobilized volunteers from the targeted communities who were expected to become “change agents”.They were trained on basic peace building and conflict management and thus equipped with knowledge and skills on grassroots conflict prevention, management and resolution. Thereto, the program adopted the so-called the 3Bs/4Ds methodology (cf. https://ics.crs.org/resource/ties-bind-building-social-cohesion-divided-communities) that combines binding, bonding and bridging (the 3Bs) with appreciative inquiry (the 4Ds: discover, dream, design and deliver) to enable communities to cooperate and collaborate across ethnic, religious, gender, class and other divides and to strengthen horizontal and vertical rights relations and social cohesion. Following this methodology, key grassroots actors were accompanied in discovering their individual and collective strengths and their mutual responsibilities in promoting social cohesion. At the heart of the methodology is a focus on what connects and energizes people, rather than on obstacles and issues that separate them. The trained change agents were to facilitate “community dialogues sessions” that focused on tensions and conflicts that had been identified through a rapid conflict analysis and a limited social cohesion barometer survey.

2.3.2 Gender empowerment

Apart from promoting peace and social cohesion, the community volunteers were also expected to be change agents with regard to gender relations in their community. They were trained on gender analysis and participatory gender transformative methods and tools. A rapid gender context analysis was conducted and based on its findings, gender transformation activities were engaged in by the program at two levels. First, at village level, trained change agents organized, in collaboration with the program’s community animators, community conversation sessions on gender issues with groups of men and women, giving participants room to talk, discuss and exchange ideas about gender perceptions and roles in their households and at community level. Next, using two complementary gender transformation methods (the Household Transformation Method (HTM) and Gender Action Learning (GAL)), male and female members of households were supported in assessing and analyzing intra-household gender disparities (division of labor, access to and control of household resources, benefits sharing mechanisms, decision-making power, etc.). Ultimately, the approach was to result in bringing about change and improvement in terms of the gender empowerment index.

2.3.3 Community Learning Groups

Co-creation and sharing of knowledge plays a central role in the process of developing and implementing agroecological innovations including climate change adaptation. To create together and share knowledge, farmers need a platform that supports them to work in small groups and have opportunities to articulate ideas, increase their motivation and participation to innovate and adapt, build trust and collaborate among themselves and with other stakeholders (e.g. extension workers) and strengthen effective linkages with stakeholders. One way in which co-creation and knowledge sharing can be encouraged is by establishing and strengthening Community Learning Groups (CLG) at grassroots. While in other approaches Farmer Field Schools (FFS) or Farmer Training Centers (FTC) are used as centers where people go and learn or acquire knowledge, a CLG is a group of active and interested individual farmers organized for peer-to-peer learning and experience or knowledge sharing, regardless of age, sex and social group. Most of the time, experience sharing and visiting events take place among members and external experts and trainers are invited on demand only.

Farmers participating in the Ethiopia program thus established such CLGs. While participating in these groups, they implemented resilience design activities concerning soil health, soil and water conservation and crop diversification. Group membership is based on proximity of farmland. The program strengthened the CLGs’ capacity by means of an orientation session and training on the CLG approach and its objectives and its added value compared with other extension approaches. With the support of the program, the CLGs established bylaws and appointed their leadership (chairperson, secretary and record keeper). They meet once per month to share experiences and to learn. For each meeting the agenda – including issues for discussion, whether or not to invite external persons, etc. – is set by the CLG leaders in consultation with members. The CLG members visit each other’s farm, possibly accompanied by a development agent (DA), to see and exchange on and learn from the resilience design activities that were accomplished at the farm. The CLG approach was expected to encourage dissemination of good practices within and outside communities. Within a community, larger CLGs could be divided into smaller ones at village-level or below, so that the number of people participating in experience exchange could be multiplied.

The budget of COHERENCE Ethiopia is 849,799 Euro.

3. Purpose and objectives of the evaluation

The final evaluation of the COHERENCE Ethiopia program aims at:

• Identifying lessons learned in the introduction and adoption of social methodological innovation in view of future programming by CI.be and its partners;
• Ensuring accountability towards donors and other stakeholders, by rendering public the results of program performance assessment.

These two objectives will be accomplished by answering three evaluation questions concerning the implementation of the three methodological approaches – presented above in § 2.3. – within the overall HDP nexus perspective. These approaches – respectively involving village peace agents, gender transformation and community learning groups – are considered innovative and key to the achievement of the program’s outcome.

The intended users of the final evaluation’s results include the following:

• Implementation and coordination teams of partners ECC-SDCO/Ad and ECC-SDCO/S;
• CI.be staff at regional offices and head office and partner staff involved in joint development programming;
• Staff of other development actors (through publication of the final evaluation report on the CI.be website);
• DGD, the program donor (accountability).

4. Scope of the evaluation, evaluation criteria and evaluation questions

With regard to its scope, the final evaluation will cover the COHERENCE Ethiopia program in both intervention areas, that is, in both Wolaita and Eastern Tigray, although – given the uncertain security situation in Tigray – fieldwork is expected to be restricted to solely Wolaita. Focus will be on the performance of three innovative methodological approaches, implemented by the program within a nexus approach: village peace agents, gender transformation and community learning groups.

The DAC criteria that will be taken into account include coherence, effectiveness and sustainability. In addition, particular attention will be paid to the performance of the intervention in terms of inclusiveness in the fight against poverty and organisational strengthening of the target groups.

The following evaluation questions are proposed (to be refined and prioritised during the framing phase):

1. To what extent was the nexus approach adopted by the program appropriate and adequate foraddressing the target groups’ priority needs? [DAC criteria: coherence and sustainability]
   1. To what extent were the pathways of change and assumptions (theory of change) and the intervention logic (results framework) coherent, plausible and feasible?
   2. To what extent were the three innovative approaches (village peace agents, gender transformation and community learning groups) critical in the adopted design of the nexus approach? To what extent did they contribute to integrating the three pillars of the nexus (synergies between the pillars)?
   3. To what extent did the innovations fall short in reaching the different vulnerable groups targeted by the program (LNOB)?
2. What have been the roles and contributions of the three innovative approaches (village peace agents, gender transformation and community learning groups) in achieving program outcomes? [DAC criteria: effectiveness and sustainability]
   1. To what extent and how have the three innovative approaches beeneffective in bringing about behavioral changeandadoption of new practices at target group level? Which are the factors that were conducive to these changes? Which factors can be identified that have hindered or slowed down changes?
   2. To what extent did the 3 methods function better than other existing alternative methods in achieving program outcomes?
   3. To what extent and how are the three innovative approaches transformative? Can we see early signs of enduring changes in norms and systems?
3. To what extent has the program created enabling mechanisms to sustain the positive effects induced by the three innovative approaches?[DAC criteria: coherence and sustainability]
   1. How appropriate was the process of introducing the three innovative approaches within the targeted communities? Did the program learn from and adapt these innovative approaches or other activities during their implementation? What was the contribution of the MEAL process in this?
   2. To what extent do the stakeholders of the intervention – including government actiors and target groups – take ownership of the results achieved by means of the three innovative approaches and how committed are they to sustaining these results after the program’s closure?
   3. To what extent has the program built capacities of key stakeholders (implementing partners, government sector offices and target groups) required to institutionalize the innovative approaches without forsaking grassroots ownership and leadership and allowing continued flow of benefits?

For each evaluation question clear and relevant lessons on introducing innovations are to be identified for use in the formulation and implementation of future programs and projects, in terms of:

• Operationalizing the nexus;
• Achieving program outputs and outcomes;
• Sustaining outcomes and institutionalizing approaches.

5. Approach and methodology

The evaluator’s offer in response to this tender should include, as part of the technical offer, a methodological proposal that shows how the evaluator will proceed to achieve the evaluation’s objectives, to make the evaluation useful and to present results that meet high quality standards. The evaluator will favour participatory methods wherever possible. The teams in Ethiopia suggest a combination of a theory-based approach (using comparative case studies) and outcome harvesting.

The methodological proposal will contain :

• A preliminary evaluability assessment, which should demonstrate the main conditions and limitations that the evaluation will face in achieving the planned objectives and in finding answers to the questions posed. It will also indicate how evaluability problems can be solved;
• The general theoretical-methodological approach that will guide the final evaluation;
• A proposal for accompanying the documentation process (case studies) that the project teams will engage in themselves in complement to the final evaluation and for integrating that documentation in the approach and conduct of the final evaluation itself;
• A proposal for an analytical framework/evaluation matrix for the external evaluation, including evaluation questions, evaluation criteria, means, and sources of information. This matrix is a tool for the implementation of the evaluation questions, but does not replace the theoretical-methodological approach that will guide the evaluation and that should be presented in a clear and differentiated way in the proposal;
• A description of the evaluation techniques and tools that will be used to collect, classify, analyse and present the required data. The use and analysis of existing and accessible quantitative data is expected. The use of quantitative methods requiring the collection of primary data by the evaluator is not requested.

The following sources of information will be made available to the evaluator (list not exhaustive):

• The theory of change and the program proposal including the results framework;
• Baseline survey report;
• Internal narrative annual reports, performance scores and lessons learned (2023-2025, and draft documents for 2026);
• Monitoring data collected and reports produced by the implementing partners;
• Resource persons at the level of CI.be and implementing partners.

Other documents can be provided upon the evaluator’s request (e.g. concerning meetings, trainings, etc., organised within the framework of the program).

6. Coordination of the evaluation

The final evaluation will be coordinated by CI.be’s regional program manager based in Addis Ababa and Ethiopia desk in Brussels, with the support of CI.be’s MEAL officer. The regional program manager and desk officer will be first points of contact of the evaluator, with whom meetings will take place at least at certain specific moments of the process: initial briefing, finalisation of the terms of reference and framing note, discussion of the detailed methodological approach, etc. The regional program manager and desk officer will be responsible for monitoring, accompanying and facilitating the final evaluation process, and more concretely for:

• Facilitating the evaluator’s access to relevant sources of information (documentation, data, people);
• Facilitating communication between the evaluator, program implementation teams and partners, and other stakeholders;
• Monitoring and quality assurance of the process.

The formulation of these terms of reference relied on an ongoing consultative process with the implementing partners ECC-SDCO/S and ECC-SDCO/Ad throughout the program. They will also be consulted during the final evaluation at appropriate times (framing note, draft evaluation report, etc.).

Logistics of the evaluation will be coordinated by the regional program manager and ECC-SDCO/S and ECC-SDCO/Ad.

7. Reports and feedback

Nature of the documents to be delivered

According to a timetable agreed at the start of the evaluation and in accordance with § 8.2, the evaluator will provide the following documents and reports:

• A methodological “framing note” specifying the approach and methods that will be used by the evaluator to collect the required data and information;
• A provisional evaluation report presented for discussion and comment to CI.be and the implementing partners;
• A final evaluation report taking into account the remarks made on the provisional report and/or adding in annex the collection of comments not taken into account, accompanied by the reasons for not doing so.

Quality of the documents

Reports should be understandable and easy to read. The results and analyses must be detailed. Causal links between findings, conclusions and recommendations should be clearly visible and sequences of reasoning clearly expressed. Conclusions and recommendations should be well argued and usable in an optimal way by the final evaluation’s stakeholders (CI.be and partners, DGD, other stakeholders, …). It is therefore important that the recommendations are limited in number number and presented in order of priority and that they are operational in order to facilitate CI.be’s and partners’ management responses. Where relevant, different options available can be explored as well as risks and limitations associated with each option.

Structure of the final report

• Table of contents ;
• List of abbreviations and acronyms;
• Executive summary (maximum 1 page, including main findings and recommendations, with interpretation);
• Key information on the program and the methodology used;
• Well-argued findings on the evaluation questions and DAC criteria (analysing the collected and accessed data);
• Conclusions and recommendations, including a synthetic table presenting findings – recommendations – targeted actor (maximum 4 pages);
• Annexes: Terms of Reference; implemented work program (activities, list of people and organizations met, …); list of documentation consulted; inventory and documentation of lessons learned; comments not taken into account, with reasons for not taking them into account.

Even though the inventory and documentation of lessons learned is presented in an annex, it should be treated as of equal importance to the main report.

8. Practical aspects

8.1 The process

Phase 1: framing the assignment

The evaluator will finalise the methodological approach proposed in their offer on the basis of initial briefings by CI.be and a first reading of the documents (as mentioned in § 5) shared with them. The documentation will be made available to the evaluator at the start of their work. This stage will be an opportunity for the evaluator and CI.be and its partners to conclude possible refining of the evaluation questions presented in § 4.

Phase 2: documentation through case studies

The partners and implementation teams in Eastern Tigray and Wolaita can engage in case studies, intended to complement the documentation process and to support the external evaluation. CI.be encourages that such case studies are organized, while being accompanied methodologically by the evaluator, who then monitors and validates the process and its relevance for the final evaluation.

Phase 3: desk study and preparation of field visit

During this phase, the main stakeholders involved in the field visit will be identified. The evaluator will interview online or in-person key staff of CI.be at head office and regional office, read the available documentation and develop a methodological approach (including a timetable, persons and/or groups to be met and organisation of first local feedback meeting/workshop).

Phase 4: field visit

The fieldwork will concern only the action in Wolaita, given the uncertain security situation in Eastern Tigray. Primary data collection will take into account budget constraints as well as the existence of particular implementation problems, etc. It will focus on those locations and key persons that are considered most relevant in assessing the three methodological innovations in the nexus approach. Sufficient time needs to be planned for methodological briefing and participatory analysis involving the implementation team and stakeholders in Wolaita.

The field visit should enable triangulation of the information obtained from the reading and analysis of the documentation of the action with primary data and participatory analysis and sense making with the program teams of the two partner organizations and CI.be’s regional program manager. To allow the Eastern Tigray project team’s involvement in this sense making, they will be invited to participate in the feedback workshop to be organized in Wolaita (to the extent that the budget allows).

Phase 5 : data analysis, reporting, presentation and feedback

The evaluator will analyse the collected data and produce a draft report, to be presented and discussed at an online feedback session, in which CI.be, ECC-SDCO/S and ECC-SDCO/Ad will participate. Taking into account these discussions, the evaluator will finalise the evaluation report. S/he will be free to take the comments into consideration or not. However, the remarks which s/he does not take into account must be included in an annex, together with the justification for not taking them into account.

In addition, the evaluator is expected to present and participate in an online sensemaking meeting with the program teams of all 7 country programs. The evaluation plan calls for findings and relevant actions to be shared and analysed among country program teams in order to be appropriately leveraged and ensure a collective, horizontal learning process.

8.2 Available budget

COHERENCE Ethiopia has foreseen a budget of € 15,000 for its final evaluation, which the offer should not exceed. The amount is understood to be exclusive of expenses related to mobilization of target groups, fieldwork logistics, etc. Otherwise, the tender must include all costs associated with carrying out the assignment: fees, travel expenses, daily allowances, insurance, reproduction costs and any other expenses. The financial offer is deemed to be firm and final.

The successful contractor must include in their tender a detailed work plan setting out the number of days worked per activity and per member of the evaluation team, as well as indicative dates and locations. This work plan will be discussed and approved as part of the methodological framing note.

The payment terms are as follows: 30 per cent on signing the contract, 40 per cent upon submission of the draft report, and 30 per cent upon approval of the final report.

8.3 Calendar

Indicative calendar:

Tender: 09/2026

Analysis of offers: 09/2026

Decision on contract: 10/2026

Briefing: 10/2026

Methodological framing note: 10/2026

Documentation process by partners: 10/2026 – 11/2026

Desk study: 10/2026 – 11/2026

Field visit :11/2026 – 12/2026

Draft reporting and feedback: 12/2026 – 01/2027

Final report: 01/2027

Management response: 01/2027

Sharing of report: 02/2027

Multi-country sense making meeting: 12/2026 – 01/2027

8.4 Profile of the evaluator

The evaluation should preferably be carried out by a mixed team of consultants. CI.be encourages gender balance among applicants.

Required expertise and experience:

• Program design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, including outcome harvesting;
• Organisation of participatory evaluations;
• Capacity building of grassroots institutions and empowerment;
• Technical expertise areas:
• HDP nexus and conflict-sensitive development;
• Gender equity and empowerment;
• Agroecology;
• Social cohesion and peacebuilding (small p);
• Rural development and social technology innovation;
• Proficiency in “results-based management” and “theory of change” methods;
• Geographical experience in Ethiopia and knowledge of the local context (Wolaita, Eastern Tigray);
• Knowledge of local languages.

The CVs of the evaluator and their team proposed for this evaluation must be attached to the technical and financial offer.

8.5 Selection of the evaluator

Tenders will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the technical offer (80%) and the price of the services offered (20%). The technical offer will be evaluated on the basis of:

• The methodological approach and understanding of the terms of reference;
• The proposed approach to the practical organisation of the evaluation (indicative timetable of the different phases);
• The qualifications and experience in the different fields mentioned above of the expert and team members proposed for the evaluation.

For the technical offer, the tenderer must obtain 60% of the points relating to this criterion. If not, the bid will be disregarded.

The financial offer (20%) will be evaluated on the basis of:

• The overall package price (10%); the score (NPX) for the price of offer X will be calculated as follows: NPX = 10 x (lowest bid price)/(bid price X);
• The average price for a day’s service (10%); the score (NPMX) for the average price for a day’s service of offer X will be calculated as follows: NPMX = 10 x (lowest average price)/(average price of offer X). The average price per day of service will be calculated by dividing the sum of salary/per diem/accommodation for the evaluation team by the number of days of service offered.

All bidders commit to not having any conflict of interest in relation to the program to be evaluated, including in its preparatory phases.

9. Transparency, confidentiality, ethical standards and data ownership

9.1 Transparency and confidentiality

The reports to be published will not contain any information that could endanger partners, teams or any other stakeholder, compromise the integrity of the program in any way, or pose any other risk in terms of confidentiality, particularly with regard to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

The evaluator is required to respect the confidential nature of all documents and data to which they have access during the evaluation process.

The results of the evaluation are intended to be made public, in the interest of accountability to the donor and external stakeholders.

9.2 Ethics

The evaluator carries out their work in accordance with the quality standards and ethical principles customary in the evaluation sector, including independence of judgement, impartiality, transparency of methods, reporting of findings to those concerned, and respect for the dignity of the people interviewed.

The free and informed consent of interviewees is obtained prior to any interview or focus group discussion. Participants are informed of the purpose of the evaluation, how their comments will be used, and their right to refuse answering or to withdraw at any time. Comments reported in the final report are anonymised, unless the persons concerned have given their explicit written consent.

Particular attention is paid to the protection of vulnerable individuals. The evaluation team shall immediately report to CI.be any situation brought to its attention that could constitute a breach of personal integrity.

9.3 Conflict of interest

Candidates shall declare, in their tender, that there is no conflict of interest, whether actual or apparent, with CI.be, ECC-SDCO/S and ECC-SDCO/Ad or the donor. In particular, a conflict of interest is deemed to exist where a person has designed, implemented or evaluated all or part of the intervention that is the subject of this evaluation, or where they have a contractual, financial or personal relationship that could compromise the independence of their judgement.

Any conflict of interest arising in the course of the assignment must be reported without delay. The concealment of a conflict of interest constitutes grounds for termination of the contract.

9.4 Ownership and retention of data

All data collected, transcripts, recordings, field notes, databases and deliverables produced in the course of the assignment are the exclusive property of Caritas International.

The evaluator may not publish, disseminate or reuse all or part of these materials for any other purpose, nor transfer them to third parties, without prior written authorisation of the commissioning bodies. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, stored securely for the duration of the assignment and destroyed, or handed over to the commissioning parties, no later than 1 month after the final report has been approved. A certificate of destruction shall be provided.

How to apply

Interested candidates are invited to submit a technical proposal and a financial proposal. Proposals must not exceed 10 pages, excluding any attached CVs.

The technical proposal shall include:

• A methodological proposal;

• A detailed work plan;

• The CVs of the proposed team members, together with a breakdown of roles and responsibilities;

• Professional references and an example of a relevant previous evaluation work;

• A sworn statement confirming the absence of any conflict of interest.

The financial proposal, quoted in euros, shall be broken down by type of cost and by man-day. It is to be a firm quote, inclusive of tax, and shall include all costs relating to the service.

Offers must be sent by 30 September 2026 to Dorry Hagos ([email protected]), with copies to Mark Breusers ([email protected]) and Jozef Serneels ([email protected]).

If you have any questions or requests for information regarding this call for offers, please contact [email protected] and/or [email protected].