Terms of Reference (ToR) for DCA Consultant, End of Project Evaluation

Background and overview of the project

DanChurchAid (DCA) has been implementing Humanitarian Assistance Programme in the remote areas of South Sudan since 2011, providing humanitarian support to over 1.8 million people affected by conflict. The programme is centered around providing immediate relief assistance, supporting community resilience, building on the local capacity and facilitating coordination of humanitarian actors.

Currently, DCA in collaboration with the local implementing partners has been implementing a multi-year emergency assistance project in the regions since January 2024, focusing on providing multi-purpose cash transfers to the vulnerable households. This is aimed at reaching conflict-affected communities including IDPs who have fled from the conflict which erupted in Sudan in April 2023. In addition to addressing the immediate needs of the vulnerable households, the cash programme also stimulates local market structures and builds on the coping capacities of households. Besides cash assistance, the project has provided physical inputs to the conflict-affected communities including vegetable seeds, Non-Food items (NFIs) and tools to support environmental protection and ecosystem restoration for improved agricultural and livelihood opportunities through Integrated Watershed interventions.

The project also scaled up integrated watershed management interventions, which built the capacity of communities, local leaders and technical secretariats to sustainably use natural resources and mitigate environmental degradation for increased adaptation to the impacts of climate change on agricultural production and water resources and reduced disaster risk. Through partnership with IRC, the project recently expanded to integrate the provision of health and WASH services-ensuring women, men, girls, and boys enjoy improved health outcomes and reduced exposure and susceptibility to diseases.

Summary of the project

Project name: Emergency response and resilience building through coordinated humanitarian support to conflict affected communities

Project goal: Provide lifesaving and locally led emergency support to conflict affected households in R1 and R2.

Objectives of the project

• Promote effective, broad-based humanitarian coordination and information management in and outside R1 and R2
• Improve access to food and other essential commodities via cash distribution to vulnerable households affected by conflict
• Provide access to safe, habitable and appropriate living spaces and non-food items to conflict and disaster affected households in need
• To save lives of conflict-affected, food-insecure IDPs and vulnerable host community populations, through scaling up access to emergency primary healthcare and WASH services
• People are aware of key public health risks related to WASH and can adopt individual, household and community measures to reduce them, and PIN have access to safe, portable water.

Indicators

Humanitarian coordination

• Number of humanitarian organizations actively coordinating in the proposed area of work
• Number of humanitarian organizations actively participating in inter-agency coordination mechanisms
• Number of other key humanitarian actors actively participating in humanitarian coordination mechanisms
• Number and percent of humanitarian organizations utilizing information management services
• Number and percent of humanitarian organizations directly contributing to information products
• Number of products made available by BHA-funded information management services that are accessed by stakeholders.

Emergency cash and food assistance

• Total number of individuals (beneficiaries) assisted through emergency cash for food
• Percent of (beneficiary) households who report being able to meet their basic needs as they define and prioritize them
• Percent of beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner
• Percent of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS)
• Mean and median Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) score
• Total USD value of cash transferred to beneficiaries

Shelter and settlements

• Number and per item cost of NFIs distributed
• Number and percent of beneficiaries reporting satisfaction with the quality of the NFIs received
• Amount and percent of the activity budget spent on goods and services produced/procured in country
• Number and percent of households in identified settlements occupying shelter that is provided by BHA

Health

• Percent of total weekly surveillance reports submitted on time by health facilities
• Number of health facilities rehabilitated
• Number and percent of pregnant women who have attended at least two comprehensive antenatal clinics
• Number and percent of deliveries attended by a skilled attendant
• Number and percent of community members who can recall target health education messages
• Number of health facilities out of stock of any of the medical commodity tracer products, for longer than one week, 7 consecutive days
• Number of health facilities supported
• Number of health care staff trained
• Number of outpatient consultations
• Number of Community Health Workers supported (total within activity area and per 10,000 population)
• Number and percent of newborns that received postnatal care within three days of delivery
• Number of consultations for communicable disease
• Number of consultations for noncommunicable diseases
• Number of consultations for any mental health condition
• Number of consultations for trauma-related injuries
• Number of individuals trained in medical commodity supply chain management
• Number of individuals treated for the restricted use indication
• Quantity of pharmaceuticals purchased to treat individuals for the restricted use indication

WASH

• Number of individuals directly utilizing improved water services provided with BHA funding
• Average liters/person/day collected from all sources for drinking, cooking, and hygiene.
• Number of individuals directly utilizing improved sanitation services provided with BHA funding
• Percent of individuals targeted by the hygiene promotion program who know at least three (3) of the five (5) critical times to wash hands
• Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the contents of the WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits) or vouchers
• Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quality of WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits), vouchers, or cash
• Percent of water points developed, repaired, or rehabilitated with 0 feacal coliforms per 100 ml sample
• Number of individuals gaining access to basic sanitation services as a result of BHA assistance
• Number of individuals receiving direct hygiene promotion (excluding mass media campaigns and without double-counting)
• Number of individuals receiving improved service quality from solid waste management, drainage, or vector control activities (without double-counting)
• Average number of community cleanup/debris removal activities conducted per community targeted by the environmental health activity
• Average number of communal solid waste disposal sites created and in use per community targeted by the environmental health activity
• Total number of individuals receiving WASH NFIs assistance through all modalities (without double-counting).

Project targets

Total number of affected people: 3,639,641; Target: 357,844 (182,500 IDPs)

Food security: 135,090 (81,054 IDPs)

Shelter and settlements: 51,000 (30,600 IDPs)

Health: 97,603 (58,562 IDPs)

WASH: 137,300 (27,460 IDPs)

This project will end on 31st May 2026. Therefore, this ToR describes DCA’s plan to evaluate the project performance. It outlines the project background and specific outcomes, objectives of the evaluation, methodology, and the expected deliverables. Guidance has also been provided for the competitive bidding and sourcing of the External Consultant.

2. Purpose and objectives of the evaluation

The main purpose of the end of project evaluation is to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and potential impact of the project interventions. The evaluation will help to provide practical recommendations and document the lessons learned for adoption in other similar projects in the regions. Specifically, four key evaluation themes will be covered during the evaluation process: project logic, participation, partnership, and sustainability. The Consultant will also assess cross-cutting themes, including disability inclusion, gender and social inclusion, accountability to the affected population, social cohesion (IDP vs host community) and environment during the evaluation process. The pre-and-post-project performance analysis with the baseline values compared against the end-of-project targets, significance of the change in the indicator performance will also be determined during the endline evaluation.

The specific objectives of the evaluation will be:

1. To establish whether and to what extent the project design and interventions have been relevant to the needs of the target participants.
2. To assess the extent to which the project has achieved the planned outcomes and outputs.
3. To assess the extent to which the components of cash transfer, shelter and settlements, health, WASH, agriculture and natural resource management interventions have been efficient
4. To establish the indications of the impact of the project interventions on the target participants
5. To assess if the benefits of the project are likely to continue beyond the project life span
6. To assess the extent to which the project contributed to reducing vulnerability and reliance on humanitarian assistance
7. To assess the extent of corrective measures identified and addressed in a timely manner during the implementation process
8. To document lessons learnt and good practices that can be replicated in future projects.

Scope of the Evaluation

Geographically, the endline evaluation will cover 12 counties across R1 and R2 where the project activities were implemented between January 2024 and May 2026. The evaluation will broadly assess the key achievements of all the expected outcomes as outlined in the project logframe. The evaluation will also assess the different project activities as in the logframe, with a strong emphasis on the following:

• Determining the extent to which the project outcomes and outputs have been achieved and whether there were unexpected outcomes
• Determining the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the project
• Documenting the challenges, lessons learnt and key recommendations for improvement.

The endline evaluation will take place between April and May 2026.

3. Evaluation Questions and Criteria

The endline evaluation will be guided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) and Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) criteria for evaluating humanitarian actions of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact, and sustainability criteria).

Evaluation Questions

Relevance

The relevance of the project will be assessed by looking into whether the humanitarian action is tailored to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability, and cost-effectiveness accordingly.

• Are interventions tailored to IDPs and the host community’s needs (men, women, PwDs, and other vulnerable population segments), settings and locations?
• To what extent did the project build local capacities and worked towards improving the resilience of communities and people affected by crisis human-made or disasters?
• Were the project participants involved in the process of developing, implementing and evaluating the project?
• How well was the project aligned with the Humanitarian Response Plan?

Coherence

The extent to which the interventions of different actors are harmonized with each other promotes synergy, avoid gaps, duplication, and resource conflicts.

• To what extent has the project engaged in stakeholder coordination, including local authorities and clusters?
• Which factors have restricted coordination, and which factors have supported it? Are there any coordination success factors that can be transferred to other situations?
• How did the various components of the project work together to achieve the overall goals and objectives?
• Are the project activities and outputs logically connected and aligned with the project's purpose and intended outcomes?
• To what extent did the project adapt and adjust its strategies in response to changing circumstances and new information while maintaining its overall coherence?
• Do the staff understand the approach to the project and how their individual roles contribute to its success?

Effectiveness

Evaluation of coverage will involve determining who is supported by humanitarian action, and why.

What were the main reasons that the intervention provided or failed to provide major population groups with assistance and protection, proportionate to their needs?

• To what extent have the intended outcomes (and use of outputs) been achieved by the end of the project?
• Are the IDPs and host community participants being identified and assisted in a timely manner?
• What factors contributed to the achievement or non-achievement of planned project results? What are the main operational bottlenecks, what is causing them and how can they be addressed?
• To what extent are the most vulnerable participants being reached by the project interventions? Do men, women and PwDs have equal access to the project interventions? How successful have project partners been reaching the most vulnerable groups in the most affected geographic areas?
• To what extent has the affected population been properly targeted and reached by the project? If not reached, what were the impediments? What strategies can be used to improve targeting?
• Is the project covering an appropriate number of people in need?
• Is the project adequately responding to the changing humanitarian context?

Efficiency

This will assess the project output, both qualitative and quantitative, in relation to the inputs i.e., were inputs, staff, time, funding, equipment used in the best possible way to achieve outputs.

• To what extent were the components of cash transfer, agriculture, shelter and settlements, health, and WASH interventions efficient?
• Did the project leverage on other projects in the same area?
• How did the costs compare to other projects targeting similar outputs?
• Did the project adhere to established timelines and milestones?
• Were there any unexpected challenges or obstacles that affected the project efficiency?

Sustainability

The project sustainability will be assessed by establishing to what extent the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue?

• To what extent was the project able to connect short-term interventions to medium-term strategies and longer-term perspectives?
• Environment: To what extent did the project adopt different approaches towards environment-sensitive protection programming? What are the concrete adjustments applied both operationally and programs side?
• Exit Strategy: To what extent did the project build the capacity of the local recipients and structures in contributing to the exit strategy? How feasible is the exit strategy considering the context and capacities?
• What is the likelihood of the continuation of positive project outcomes beyond the end of the project (both by primary stakeholders and duty bearers)?
• How does the project seek to safeguard sustainability?
• Are there any factors threatening the sustainability of project outcomes? How does the project seek to mitigate these risks?
• To what extent was the target group becoming more aware and resilient and their aid-dependence is considered less than before?

Impact

The project impact will be assessed by establishing to which extent the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects?

• Is the project contributing to systemic changes, e.g to improved access to rights and aid, mitigated protection risks, better service provision, etc. (contribution analysis)?
• What evidence is there that the expected outcomes have been realized by the project?
• What have the achievements of the project been in relation to these outcomes and, to what extent have other contextual and operational factors played an influential role.
• What are the unintended positive and negative impacts of the implementation of the project? If it has, what measures have been and can be taken to eliminate or reduce the negative impacts?

Partnerships

The assessment and analysis of collaborative partnerships between organisations to achieve common goals.

• How would the communication and collaboration between DCA, IRC and the implementing partners be rated?
• In what ways did the project partners effectively share resources and support each other to achieve the project objectives?
• Has the partnership among the project partners resulted in measurable benefits or outcomes for the parties involved? If so, what are the key examples?
• How effectively did the project partners address any challenges or conflicts that might have arisen during the partnership? How satisfied are the project partners with the level of transparency and trust?
• Have there been any missed opportunities or areas where project partners could have worked more effectively together?
• What recommendations are proposed for strengthening and enhancing the partnership among the project partners in the future?

Lessons Learnt

The Consultant will document challenges, programmatic lessons learnt and key recommendation

• What are the key lessons learned?
• What are the recommendations for improvement of the project or for other similar projects?
• What best practices are to be adopted for such projects in future?
• What mistakes should be avoided if the project were to be replicated?
• Is there any identifiable harm caused by the project either for participants or non-beneficiaries?

4. Approach and Methodology

The evaluation will employ a participatory approach. The results of the evaluation and lessons learned will be used to improve future projects. The evaluation will adopt both quantitative and qualitative methods, using both primary and secondary data sources. Interviews will be conducted with the project participants, local partners and other key stakeholders. Document reviews will also be conducted. A range of existing information will be made available to the Consultant upon notification of the award. These will include project proposal, logframe, MEAL plan, IPTT, baseline, and post-distribution monitoring reports, monthly and quarterly reports, financial reports and other relevant documents.

As part of this assignment, the Consultant will apply different methodologies, including primary data collection and a review of existing resources. The primary data collection will include Key Informant Interviews (KII) with implementing partners (IP)- duty-bearers and key stakeholders; Most Significant Change (MSC) guide; beneficiary surveys; and substantiating photos and videos.

The Consultant will provide a detailed plan of the proposed methodologies in the inception report. The proposed methodology should include an evaluation matrix to reflect evaluation questions, judgement criteria, indicators linked to the judgement criteria, data sources, data collection and analysis plan. The project partners shall review the methodology proposed by the Consultant and provide feedback before the evaluation process begins.

The methodology used and the final report must adhere to the minimum standards of quality of evidence outlined in BOND Evidence Principles Checklist, including voice and inclusion, appropriateness, triangulation, contribution, and transparency. To demonstrate the impact of the project, the consultant will make use of three approaches as follows.

• Comparing the performance of outcome and impact level indicators at Baseline and Evaluation. The difference in the two (positive or negative) provides an indication of the change that has transpired because of the interventions of the project
• Determining if the change proposed is significant with 95% confidence that indeed there has been an impact of the interventions of the project when the baseline is compared with evaluation findings
• Documentation of impact or most significant change stories to qualitatively complement the quantitative data collected.

While maintaining independence, the evaluation will seek the views of all parties, including the affected population. The emphasis of analysis and learning will be in the targeted areas of the project, result achieved, and process adopted, as well as coordination and collaboration among partners.

Data privacy and protection

The Consultant is expected to sign an understanding to ensure protection of personal data collected during this assignment. The consultant in the (inception report) needs to elaborate on how participant data will be collected and protected; what equipments will be used to store the data, and how long this data will be stored. It is the Consultant's responsibility to ensure that all staff involved are clear on the evaluation’s aim and purpose, as well as all project details.

Translators, if needed, must be organized by the Consultant and should strictly comply with the above measures. It is the role of the Consultant to ensure that interviewers are trained in confidentiality procedures. Interviewers need to be trained in obtaining verbal consent for interview participation. Staff should have experience in programme monitoring, surveying, and data collection and effectively use technology-based analysis software to collect and analyze data. The Consultant will prepare all manuals, guides, and training material used to train data collectors. All tools will be designed in English and approved in collaboration with DCA and IRC. The Consultant will be expected to translate all the tools into relevant languages (if needed). The main language of reports and tools will be English.

5. Evaluation Management

The DCA Head of MEAL and Programme Manager will be the main contact persons for the evaluation process. DCA will manage the contract and engagement with the Consultant in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Consultant should make the necessary arrangements and coordinate with DCA and IRC before field work to ensure no issues arise during the data collection. Relevant contacts will be shared with the Consultant. The summary of the roles and responsibilities are outlined in the table below.

Programme Manager: Commissions/authorizes the evaluation study, the main user of the evaluation results

Head of MEAL: Overall management of evaluation and technical support if needed. In particular, the MEAL Manager will provide technical support during the end line evaluation process to ensure that the evaluation is of the required quality and standard.

Consultant: Responsible for carrying out the evaluation as agreed upon in the ToR (and the Inception Report).

Head of Procurement and Logistics: Make sure that the evaluation administration regarding the finances and procurement is compliant with the existing donor/organization’s regulations.

DCA and IRC MEAL teams: Day-to-day coordination and communication with the Consultant, including mobilisation and recruitment of the data collection team

6. Expected Deliverables

The following deliverables are the key deliverables of the evaluation. These must be submitted to DCA in soft copy:

Inception Report (IR)

• The IR should set out the planned design and methodology to meet the above-mentioned objectives and to answer the evaluation questions. Furthermore, the overarching evaluation questions should be specified further in the IR
• The IR should also reflect the limits of the suggested design and methodology and explore the feasibility for answering the evaluation questions and reflect on the ToR, describe the overall approach of the evaluation and how data will be collected by providing an evaluation matrix, data collection tools such as questionnaires and interview guidelines as well as the evaluation schedule.
• The IR should follow a standard outline which will be provided to the Consultant(s) after contracting and needs the approval of the contracting party.

Data collection tools

• The Consultant shall develop the data collection tools and have them approved by both DCA and IRC before field data collection. The data collection tools shall be shared and approved together with the IR.

Draft Evaluation Report

• The Consultant shall prepare the draft evaluation report with details of findings, recommendations and lessons learned for review by the DCA, IRC and partners

Validation of Results

• A virtual meeting or face-to-face to discuss the main evaluation findings, draft report with the project partners.

Final Evaluation Report

• The Consultant will share the final evaluation report after incorporating the comments for DCA and project partners

Evaluation Management Response Matrix

The Consultant, as part of the assignment shall elaborate a Management Response Matrix, listing the recommendations and the person responsible for each recommended action. The priority level for each recommendation shall be provided in the Evaluation Management Response Matrix provided by DCA and IRC.

7. Suggested Schedule

The evaluation is expected to take approximately 45 days starting from 1st April 2026. The table below presents the tentative schedule to guide the evaluation process.

1. Review documents, develop data collection tools and IR-7 days
2. Review of the draft IR and data collection tools by DCA, IRC and project partners-5 days
3. Finalisation and approval of the IR-3 days
4. Digitalisation of data collection tools and mobilisation of logistics-2 days
5. Field data collection-10 days
6. Data analysis and preparation of the draft evaluation report-8 days
7. Review of the draft evaluation report-5 days
8. Preparation of the Final Evaluation Report-5 days

8. Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation method will be quality and cost-based selection. A two-stage procedure shall be utilised in evaluating the Proposals, a technical evaluation and a financial evaluation.

Proposals will be ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights of 85% for the Technical Proposal; and 15% for the offered price. Each proposal’s overall score shall therefore be: St X 85% + Sf X 15%.

Technical evaluation

For the evaluation of the technical proposals, DCA will take the below criteria and weights into consideration.

DCA reserves the right to discard offers below a technical score of 75 points.

Technical evaluation

Expertise of the Candidate submitting proposal (50 points)

1. Availability of quality assurance procedures for data collection and analysis-10 points
2. Candidate’s Specialised knowledge and experience in the field of assignment. Roles of the team members are clearly outlined, demonstrating the ability to meet the evaluation expectations-15 points
3. Candidate’s relevant academic qualifications in the relevant sectors of programme focus-5 points
4. Candidate’s experience in South Sudan/Sudan e.g. knowledge of the administrative system, culture, government etc-10 points
5. Candidate’s reports and previous assignments submitted (At least 2 sample reports with high quality in the past 3 years)-10 points

Proposed Organisation and Methodology (50 points)

1. To what degree does the proposal show understanding of the task? Is there clear description of how the evaluation questions will be answered? -10 points
2. Have the Terms of Reference been addressed in sufficient detail? -15 points
3. Is the proposed methodology adopted appropriate for the task? Sound methodology, clear sampling criteria, clear data collection and analysis matrix-15 points
4. Is the sequence of activities and the planning logical, realistic and promising efficient implementation to the Contract? Comprehensive work plan with realistic time estimates of each major segment of the work plan-10 points

Interviews

DCA reserves the right to call to interview the Candidates having submitted proposals determined to be substantially responsive.

Financial evaluation

Each proposal shall be given a financial score. The lowest Financial Proposal (Fm) will be given a financial score (Sf) of 100 points. The formula for determining the financial scores shall be the following:

Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which

Sf is the financial score

Fm is the lowest price and

F is the price of the proposal under evaluation

9. Team Composition and Qualifications

This assignment is open to Evaluators with sound experience. The Consultant must meet the following requirements:

• Team Leader with Graduate qualifications in Public Health, Sociology, Development/Humanitarian studies, Cash Programming and team members with the relevant qualifications in the project sectors
• Over 10 years’ experience with strategic and multi-sectoral programme evaluations, reporting and design processes, and participatory evaluation methodology etc.
• Extensive experience from international NGO and NGO based development and/or humanitarian assistance in fragile contexts such as South Sudan/Sudan
• Experience with partner-based organisations (including faith-based partners).

Annex 1: PROPOSAL OUTLINE

Interested consultants should submit a proposals using the structure and main sections below.

1. Rationale

• Any comments on the Terms of Reference of importance for the successful execution of activities, its objectives and expected results, thus demonstrating the degree of understanding of the Contract. Detailed list of inputs, activities and outputs. Any comments contradicting the Terms of Reference or falling outside their scope will not form part of the final Contract.
• An opinion on the key issues related to the achievement of the Terms of Reference and expected results.

2. Strategy and methodological approach

• An outline of the approach and methodology proposed for the evaluation.
• An outline of the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the contract objectives.
  • (If appropriate) A brief description of the backstopping support that will be available to the evaluation team from the contractor.
  • (If appropriate) A brief description of subcontracting arrangements foreseen (eg. for enumerators, local consultants and/or interpreters), with a clear indication of the tasks that will be entrusted to a subcontractor and a statement by the Candidate guaranteeing the eligibility of any subcontractor.)

Ethical considerations when conducting the evaluation

3. Timetable of activities

• The timing, sequence and duration of the proposed activities considering mobilisation time.
• The identification and timing of major milestones in conducting the evaluation, including an indication of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports particularly those stipulated in the Terms of Reference.

4. Key experts

• The proposal should include a detailed description of the role and duties of each of the key experts or other non-key experts, who are proposed as members of the evaluation team. The CV of each key expert shall be included highlighting their experience in the specific field of the services and their specific experience in the country/region where the services are to be performed.
• The proposal should clearly state existing commitments of experts which may affect their availability to participate in the evaluation to the extent possible.
• The proposal should clearly state any conflicts of interest which may compromise the objectivity of the experts in the evaluation. (e.g. involvement in the programme being evaluated and/or employment by DCA and/or DCA partners.)
• The proposal should include 2-3 examples of previous work from evaluation assignments or similar.

5. Financial Offer

• The financial offer should be presented in USD.
• The financial offer should only cover the cost of professional fees, flights, communication and accomodation for the Consulting team. Due to the contextual challenges, DCA will directly cover the cost of enumerators and vehicle hire during data collection. However, the Consultant must clearly indicate the number of enumerators needed and days for data collection.

1. For more details: https://www.alnap.org/help-library/evaluating-humaintarian-action-using-the-oecd-dac-criteria

How to apply

Apply through: Email: viona@dca.dk, agym@dca.dk; with kamm@dca.dk;