Consultant - Programme de cohérence d’évaluation finale en Éthiopie

1. Introduction

Le programme COHERENCE Éthiopie 2022-2026 est mis en œuvre par la branche Soddo de l’Église catholique éthiopienne – Commission sociale et de développement (ECC-SDCO/S) et la branche Adigrat (ECC-SDCO/AD), avec le soutien coordonné du directeur régional du programme Afrique de l’Est CI.be. Le programme est mis en œuvre dans 7 pays et est cofinancé par le gouvernement belge.

L’objectif du programme est d’équiper les communautés rurales afin qu’elles deviennent plus résilientes et puissent mieux faire face aux situations de crise. Par-dessus tout, le programme souhaite que les personnes les plus vulnérables, en particulier les femmes, les jeunes et les personnes en situation de handicap, aient davantage d’opportunités d’améliorer leurs conditions de vie. Grâce à une approche de « triple nexus », l’accent est mis sur (1) la cohésion sociale, la consolidation de la paix et la protection des droits au sein des communautés ; (2) développement économique rural ; et (3) la préparation aux catastrophes

Les présents termes de référence concernent exclusivement l’évaluation finale de COHERENCE Ethiopia. Les évaluations finales des trois autres programmes nationaux font l’objet d’appels d’offres distincts et ne relèvent pas du cadre de cette mission.

2. Objet de l’évaluation : COHÉRENCE Éthiopie

2.1 Objectif du programme, résultats et activités

Pour lutter contre l’insécurité alimentaire des ménages pauvres et vulnérables – en se concentrant sur les ménages dirigés par des femmes et sans terre – comprenant 2 kebeles dans le district de Damot Woyde (Wolaita) et 2 kebeles dans le district d’Irob (Tigré oriental), COHERENCE Ethiopia visait à améliorer sa base de subsistance de manière durable, grâce à une approche à triple nexus, reliant trois zones complémentaires : cohésion sociale, développement économique rural et réduction des risques de catastrophe (DRR).

L’objectif spécifique de l’action a été formulé comme suit : « D’ici la fin de 2026, les ménages pauvres et vulnérables, en particulier les foyers pauvres dirigés par des femmes et sans terre, dans deux kebeles (Endamosa et Hareze Sabata) du district d’Irob et deux kebeles (Kindo Koyo et Mayo Kote) du district de Damot Woyde ont renforcé leur base de subsistance, leur permettant ainsi de mieux saisir les opportunités et de réaliser leurs aspirations. » L’objectif devait être atteint par trois résultats.

Un premier résultat concernait la cohésion sociale, qui devait être améliorée en développant la capacité des ménages et des communautés à gérer les conflits induits par les ressources et à garantir un accès équitable et équitable ou un droit aux ressources naturelles, notamment à travers :

• Réalisation d’une analyse rapide du contexte de genre au niveau communautaire (1 dans chaque zone d’intervention) ;
• Organisation en groupes et formation de 180 agents communautaires de cohésion et d’autonomisation des genres sur les compétences en consolidation de la paix, gestion des conflits et facilitation ;
• Organisation de sessions de dialogue communautaire sur la paix, la gestion des conflits et l’équité de genre (tout en appliquant la méthode de transformation du foyer) ;
• Réhabilitation et extension des canalisations d’eau pour résoudre les conflits existants d’accès à l’eau (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. Dans quelle mesure l’approche de lien adoptée par le programme était-elle appropriée et adéquatepour répondre aux besoins prioritaires des groupes cibles ? [Critères du DAC : cohérence et durabilité]
   1. Dans quelle mesure les voies de changement et les hypothèses (théorie du changement) et la logique d’intervention (cadre des résultats) étaient-ils cohérents, plausibles et réalisables ?
   2. Dans quelle mesure les trois approches innovantes (agents de paix villageois, transformation de genre et groupes d’apprentissage communautaire) ont-elles été cruciales dans la conception adoptée de l’approche nexus ? Dans quelle mesure ont-ils contribué à l’intégration des trois piliers du nexus (synergies entre les piliers) ?
   3. Dans quelle mesure ces innovations n’ont-elles pas atteint les différents groupes vulnérables ciblés par le programme (LNOB) ?
2. Quels ont été les rôles et les contributions des trois approches innovantes (agents de paix villageois, transformation de genre et groupes d’apprentissage communautaire) pour atteindre les résultats des programmes? [Critères du DAC : efficacité et durabilité]
   1. Dans quelle mesure et en quoi ces trois approches innovantes ont-elles été efficaces pour provoquer un changement comportementaletl’adoption de nouvelles pratiques au niveau du groupe cible ? Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé ces changements ? Quels facteurs peuvent être identifiés qui ont freiné ou ralenti les changements ?
   2. Dans quelle mesure ces trois méthodes ont-elles mieux fonctionné que d’autres méthodes alternatives existantes pour atteindre les résultats du programme ?
   3. Dans quelle mesure et en quoi ces trois approches innovantes sont-elles transformatrices ? Peut-on voir les premiers signes de changements durables dans les normes et les systèmes ?
3. Dans quelle mesure le programme a-t-il créé des mécanismes permettant de maintenir les effets positifsinduits par ces trois approches innovantes ? [Critères du DAC : cohérence et durabilité]
   1. Quelle était la pertinence du processus d’introduction des trois approches innovantes au sein des communautés ciblées ? Le programme a-t-il appris et adapté ces approches innovantes ou autres activités lors de leur mise en œuvre ? Quelle a été la contribution du processus MEAL à cela ?
   2. Dans quelle mesure les parties prenantes de l’intervention – y compris les acteurs gouvernementaux et les groupes cibles – prennent-elles la responsabilité des résultats obtenus grâce aux trois approches innovantes et dans quelle mesure sont-elles engagées à maintenir ces résultats après la fermeture du programme ?
   3. Dans quelle mesure le programme a-t-il renforcé les capacités des parties prenantes clés (partenaires de mise en œuvre, bureaux du secteur public et groupes ciblés) nécessaires pour institutionnaliser ces approches innovantes sans renoncer à la propriété et au leadership de base, et en permettant la continuité des bénéfices ?

Pour chaque question d’évaluation, des leçons claires et pertinentes sur l’introduction d’innovations doivent être identifiées pour la formulation et la mise en œuvre de futurs programmes et projets, en termes de :

• Opérationnaliser le nexus ;
• Atteindre les résultats et résultats des programmes ;
• Maintenir les résultats et institutionnaliser les approches.

5. Approche et méthodologie

L’offre de l’évaluateur en réponse à cette offre doit inclure, dans le cadre de l’offre technique, une proposition méthodologique qui montre comment l’évaluateur procédera pour atteindre les objectifs de l’évaluation, rendre l’évaluation utile et présenter des résultats répondant à des normes de qualité élevées. L’évaluateur privilégiera des méthodes participatives autant que possible. Les équipes en Éthiopie suggèrent une combinaison d’une approche fondée sur la théorie (utilisant des études de cas comparatives) et de la collecte des résultats.

La proposition méthodologique contiendra :

• Une évaluation préliminaire de l’évaluabilité, qui doit démontrer les principales conditions et limites auxquelles l’évaluation sera confrontée pour atteindre les objectifs prévus et trouver des réponses aux questions posées. Il indiquera également comment résoudre les problèmes d’évaluabilité ;
• L’approche théorico-méthodologique générale qui guidera l’évaluation finale;
• Une proposition pour accompagner le processus de documentation (études de cas) dans lequel les équipes de projet s’engageront elles-mêmes, en complément de l’évaluation finale et pour intégrer cette documentation dans l’approche et la conduite de l’évaluation finale elle-même ;
• Une proposition de cadre analytique/matrice d’évaluation pour l’évaluation externe, incluant les questions d’évaluation, les critères d’évaluation, les moyens et les sources d’information. Cette matrice est un outil pour la mise en œuvre des questions d’évaluation, mais ne remplace pas l’approche théorico-méthodologique qui guidera l’évaluation et qui doit être présentée de manière claire et différenciée dans la proposition ;
• Une description des techniques et outils d’évaluation qui seront utilisés pour collecter, classer, analyser et présenter les données requises. L’utilisation et l’analyse de données quantitatives existantes et accessibles sont attendues. L’utilisation de méthodes quantitatives nécessitant la collecte de données primaires par l’évaluateur n’est pas demandée.

Les sources d’information suivantes seront mises à disposition de l’évaluateur (liste non 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

Toutes les données collectées, transcriptions, enregistrements, notes de terrain, bases de données et livrables produits au cours de la mission sont la propriété exclusive de Caritas International.

L’évaluateur ne peut pas publier, diffuser ou réutiliser tout ou partie de ces documents à d’autres fins, ni les transférer à des tiers, sans autorisation écrite préalable des organismes de commission. Les données personnelles doivent être traitées conformément au Règlement général sur la protection des données, conservées en toute sécurité pendant toute la durée de la cession et détruites, ou remises aux parties chargées de la commission, au plus tard un mois après l’approbation du rapport final. Un certificat de destruction sera fourni.

Comment postuler

Les candidats intéressés sont invités à soumettre une proposition technique et une proposition financière. Les propositions ne doivent pas dépasser 10 pages, à l’exclusion des CV joints.

La proposition technique doit inclure :

• Une proposition méthodologique ;

• Un plan de travail détaillé ;

• Les CV des membres proposés de l’équipe, ainsi qu’une répartition des rôles et responsabilités ;

• Références professionnelles et un exemple d’un travail d’évaluation antérieur pertinent ;

• Une déclaration sous serment confirmant l’absence de tout conflit d’intérêts.

La proposition financière, cotée en euros, doit être décomposée par type de coût et par journée-homme. Il s’agira d’un devis fixe, impôts inclus, et devait inclure tous les coûts liés au service.

Les offres doivent être envoyées avant le 30 septembre 2026 à Dorry Hagos (d.hagos@caritasint.be), avec des copies à Mark Breusers (m.breusers@caritasint.be) et Jozef Serneels (j.serneels@caritasint.be).

Si vous avez des questions ou des demandes d’informations concernant cet appel à offres, veuillez contacter d.hagos@caritasint.be et/ou m.breusers@caritasint.be.