Tender document for the evaluation of Islamic Relief Worldwide’s Global Covid-19 response and recovery programme 2020/21, March 2021

Islamic Relief Worldwide

Islamic Relief is an international aid and development charity, which aims to alleviate the suffering of the world’s poorest people. It is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) founded in the UK in 1984.

As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, Islamic Relief promotes sustainable economic and social development by working with local communities – regardless of race, religion or gender.

Our vision:

Inspired by our Islamic faith and guided by our values, we envisage a caring world where communities are empowered, social obligations are fulfilled and people respond as one to the suffering of others.

Our mission:

Exemplifying our Islamic values, we will mobilise resources, build partnerships, and develop local capacity, as we work to:

Enable communities to mitigate the effect of disasters, prepare for their occurrence and respond by providing relief, protection and recovery.

Promote integrated development and environmental custodianship with a focus on sustainable livelihoods.

Support the marginalised and vulnerable to voice their needs and address root causes of poverty.

We allocate these resources regardless of race, political affiliation, gender or belief, and without expecting anything in return.

At the international level, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is committed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through raising awareness of the issues that affect poor communities and through its work on the ground. Islamic Relief are one of only 13 charities that have fulfilled the criteria and have become members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (www.dec.org.uk)

IRW endeavours to work closely with local communities, focussing on capacity-building and empowerment to help them achieve development without dependency.

Please see our website for more information http://www.islamic-relief.org/

Project background

2020 will remain an unforgettable year for humanity with the exponential spread of Covid-19 across the world and the resultant loss of life, widespread lockdowns, restrictions in social contact and in many countries, compounding humanitarian crisis, on top of pre-existing and new crisis caused by conflict, natural disasters and climate change.

Global humanitarian impacts from Covid-19 during 2020 are summarised below from OCHA’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan Update (February 2021):

In less than one year (March-December 2020), more than 82 million COVID-19 cases and 1.8 million deaths were recorded. Beyond the immediate health impacts of COVID-19, the secondary effects of the pandemic were particularly grievous in humanitarian settings. Closures and lockdowns, and market volatility drastically increased food insecurity, pushing over 270 million people worldwide to suffer from acute food insecurity by the end of 2020.

Gender-based violence sharply increased, fuelled by the loss of referral pathways, access to information, the closures of schools and safe spaces, and the day-to-day isolation of women and girls during lockdowns. Some countries recorded a 700 per cent increase in calls to gender-based violence (GBV) hotlines in the first months of the pandemic. The pandemic also increased the abuse and neglect of older persons who are the group most at-risk of dying from COVID-19.

Health service disruptions also led to a 30 per cent reduction in the global coverage of essential nutrition services, leaving nearly seven million additional children at risk of suffering from acute malnutrition.

*The closure of schools led to the loss of important early intervention opportunities for protection, mental health and psychosocial support, and nutrition programmes. The economic contractions worldwide brought about the first increase in extreme poverty since 1998. In January 2021, it was estimated that between 119 million and 124 million people could have fallen back into extreme poverty in 2020 due to COVID-19, with an additional increase of between 24 million and 39 million people in 2021, potentially bringing the number of new people living in extreme poverty to between 143 million and 163 million.***

Under this unprecedented challenge, Islamic Relief Worldwide and our country programmes launched significant Covid-19 response efforts throughout 2020 to confront both the primary and secondary impacts of the pandemic. Whilst initial responses were focused on short-term lifesaving needs including risk communication and community engagement (RCCE), strengthening health systems to take care of Covid-19 affected patients, and providing emergency food security assistance to those impacted by lockdowns, Islamic Relief also recognised the need to act on the secondary impacts. IR’s initial response strategy is summarised below:

· Working with communities to promote good hygiene practices and equip them with the information they need to halt the spread of the virus

· Supporting and strengthening healthcare services

· Making sure the long-term impacts of the crisis are addressed from the outset.

Examples of type of responses in different countries during the first phase is provided in tables below:

Examples of Islamic Relief Worldwide Covid-19 response interventions during the initial response phase (April – September 2020)

Local health authorities are better preparedness and have long term capacity to respond to COVID19 cases

Trainings on COVID-19 case management and containment for health service providers in collaboration with national and provincial disaster management and health authorities.


Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) supplies for health centres (per health cluster package and standard) for medical and paramedical staff to ensure their safety leading towards containment and management of COVID-19 in 40 health centres.


Medical equipment, medicines and medical supplies for health centres and quarantines as per WHO standards to deliver uninterrupted services focused upon limiting losses of life in 40 health centres.


Provision of non-food (Hygiene kits and necessary daily use items) to national and provincial disaster management and health authorities for quarantine facilities and designated hospital in relation to COVID-19 in 40 health centres


Supply of materials for decontamination/Disinfection of quarantine spaces, designated hospitals and localities with the support of local authorities premises where cases of COVID-19 reported


Community led health information awareness campaigns contributes to reduced risk of spread of infection

COVID19 Risk awareness messaging disseminated via different communication mediums, for ex radio/TV, social media and printed IEC materials)


Mobilise and train volunteers to raise COVID-19 risk awareness information across communities) – check with budget on length of training


Assistance provided to vulnerable persons to access social safety nets) i/e persons with disabilities, older persons, female headed households


Enhanced capacity of the most vulnerable families and individuals to manage basic (social and economic) needs – food insecurity, livelihoods etc.

Provision of food packages to 40 health centres for vulnerable COVID-19 affected patients)


Provision of interest free microfinance support to entrepreneurs in urban peripheries and small landholders /farmers in rural areas with particularly emphasis upon women affected by COVID-19 to restart their work and reduce


Establishment of Health Trust Fund by developing risk financing framework


Health care facilities and authorities have enhanced preparedness and long- term capacity to respond to COVID19 cases.

Provision of protective equipment and WASH kits (cluster standards) to 43 community health centres and 2 District health centres


Strengthen referral mechanisms (from community to health centre and community health centre to District health centre levels)


Rapid rehabilitation of X water points at health centres


Training of health workers at screening posts (cordon sanitary), 43 community health centres and X District health centres


Provision of equipment to X District decontamination teams


Community led health information awareness campaigns contribute to reduced risk of spread of infection

Train X community health association teams (CHAs) on COVID sensitisation and equip them with sensitisation kits


Conduct awareness raising sessions on Covid-19 through CHAs


Establish and train X faith-leader, traditional healer, community leader committees on COVID, protection, burial management and equip with sensitisation kits. Committees will be linked to health centres


Conduct awareness raising sessions on Covid-19, protection and burial management from a faith based perspective through faith-leader, traditional healer, community leader committees


Training of women volunteers on COVID-19 and pregnancy


Mobilise volunteers to conduct awareness sessions on COVID-19 and implications on pregnancy equipped with adapted materials on hygiene, IPC, danger signs and how and where to seek care


Following on from the first phase response, Islamic Relief also developed a ‘Socio-economic recovery framework’ to guide a more holistic recovery effort focused on secondary impacts of Covid-19. The framework is summarised in the diagram below with some examples in the table further down of the type of interventions in phase 2 ‘recovery phase’ from September 2020 onwards:


Example of a phase 2 Covid-19 response recovery programme are listed in table below:

12 months

A. Strengthened food security of most vulnerable households affected by multiple hazards X

B. Increased employment opportunity through VSLA and income generating activities X

C. Strengthened capacity of existing health facilities and services to combat Covid-19 X

D. Improved access to safe water and enhanced coverage of sanitation and hygiene services X

Objectives of the evaluation

This evaluation has been commissioned by Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), funded by IR USA, in line with our commitment to learning and accountability to communities and partners. The purpose of this evaluation is to map our global Covid-19 response and recovery programme and assess the effectiveness of IR’s response and recovery strategies and approaches with reference to outcomes and outputs as well as draw lessons for future programming and preparedness. We propose that this is done using a sample of five country-level reviews with consolidation of findings, incorporating global preparedness and coordination assessment, project mapping and desk review, into one global evaluation report. This evaluation should take into consideration the OECD/DAC Evaluation Criteria to assess the performance of projects in selected countries and the overall programme approach, as well as use the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) to evaluate the quality of the interventions and the aspects of accountability.

The focus is on:

  1. Identifying lessons and good practice from the overall Covid-19 response and recovery programme to inform IRW and potentially wider sector to future response to similar health emergencies. This report will be externally published.
  2. Assessing the extent to which planned outputs and outcomes have been achieved using the OECD DAC criteria for evaluating humanitarian responses including assessing for relevance, connectedness, coherence, coordination, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability and recommend priorities and any changes to approach for subsequent phases of Covid-19 recovery.
  3. Evaluating the appropriateness and extent of application of quality standards, with a particular focus on the CHS.
  4. Examine what level of preparedness at IRW headquarters and country offices had / could have had, what went well in the coordination / management of it, what didn’t and what ought to be done differently going forward etc [This section of the report will be internal but may also be published for wider learning purposes]

The scope of the evaluation

The scope of the evaluation should cover the activities funded under IR’s Global Covid-19 Response and Recovery Programme. The geographical scope of the evaluation includes a desk review and mapping of the overall IR global Covid-19 response and recovery projects as well as targeted in-country reviews of specific identified completed or ongoing projects from across all the following 5 countries:

· Sudan (Khartoum and Greater Kordofan)

· Somalia (Banadir and Middle Shabelle)

· Tunisia (Tunis, Tataouine and El Hamma)

· Mali (Bamako and Gourma Rharous)

· Pakistan (Islamabad & Balochistan – preferred; or AJK)

Its expected the lead global consultant, responsible for the consolidated final evaluation report, will identify and partner with a national consultant or consultants in each of these 5 countries, including any enumerators required where relevant, for the county level reviews to be conducted in parallel. Where a national consultant cannot be identified or would not have access to communities within any particular country or countries, we welcome proposals that combines in-country and remote reviews and consultatation with IRW staff and stakeholders and potentially community members for these specific countries. In case its not possible to do physical in-country review in all 5 countries, physical in-country reviews must be conducted in at least 3 countries and the others reviewed remotely using appropriate ‘good enough’ methodologies and approaches. National consultants/team members must have been identified and be available during the proposed evaluation by the time the consultancy agreement has been signed – expected to be no later than 31st March 2021. However, bids where national consultants have already been identified by the date of tender submission or interview will score higher in this component. Under the overall leadership and responsibility of the lead consultant, national consultants will need to be responsible, for hiring and supervising any in-country enumerators envisaged and ensuring data quality and integrity.

The technical scope of the evaluation is to:

· Examine the relevance and appropriateness of Islamic Relief’s Covid-19 response and recovery programmes, with specific reference to the design of project, choices and prioritisation of intervention approaches and the progress in achieving the planned objectives (i.e. the outcomes and outputs)

· Review the effectiveness and efficiency of the mode of operation in both initial response and ongoing recovery phases

· Make a brief comparison between IR’s response strategies and any UN or government cluster response plans and strategies for the sectors of intervention in each country and the degree of alignment or divergence and rationale for this

· Examine beneficiary and community targeting and selection strategies and whether the most vulnerable and at-risk individuals and communities were targeted and supported, especially those living in extreme poverty and from an age, gender and disability inclusion and protection perspectives. Data gathering and analysis should disaggregate for any differences in relation to access and benefit from a sex, age, disability perspective.

· Uncover the gaps in provision or unintended positive or negative impacts and providing commentary on the primary and secondary effects of the intervention, along with any direct and indirect contributions

· Analyse the connectedness of the response interventions to aiding recovery, including the degree to which or otherwise IR’s socio-economic recovery framework was applied, incorporated and found to be relevant and effective in recovery phase programming

· Assess coherence of the response and recovery efforts with other actors and review the extent to which collaboration with stakeholders built and leveraged local capacity and resources and whether IR proactively worked with local actors, leverages them, supports them and strengthens them

· Examine the strategic value addition and distinctive contribution of IRW, if any, including but not limited to faith-based approaches, risk communication and community engagement, protection, inclusion and conflict sensitivity and environmental and resilience considerations

· Assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of adaptations made by each IR country team in light of Covid-19 to ongoing pre-Covid programming and projects and to adapting MEL and accountability processes within country, including remote management, remote MEAL approaches and ensuring inclusive accountability mechanisms for persons most at risk.

· Assess the appropriateness and relevance of IR’s ‘Socio economic recovery framework’ in informing IR’s global Covid-19 response and minimising medium and long term risk – in particular how or to what extent the SERF was understood and adopted in programming? Whether SERF catalysed any new elements or innovations in programming and any recommendations to improve it.

· Document and highlight any innovations and key lessons learned from each country as well as those at IRW international office coordinating and supporting overall response and recovery effort

To the degree feasible, the above should be done with a view to gauging differences in performance and outcomes including level of resilience to Covid-19 primary and secondary impacts, comparing 3 different communities areas in each country (i.e. urban/peri-urban, pre-existing rural working area with established IR facilitated community organisations or self-help groups and an area where Covid-19 response was to a new target community and/or no prior IR projects).

As IRW is a certified CHS agency and is deeply committed to ensuring accountability to and participation of communities, IRW incorporates the use of the CHS standard within our evaluations as standard. We believe this can be integrated with the DAC criteria in the following way:


· CHS Commitment 1: Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

· CHS Commitment 4: Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback


· CHS Commitment 2: Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

· CHS Commitment 3: Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

· CHS Commitment 5: Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

· CHS Commitment 8: Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.


· CHS Commitment 6: Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

· CHS Commitment 7: Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

· CHS Commitment 9: Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

The evaluation conclusion should provide an indicative assessment of performance of Islamic Relief’s Covid-19 response and recovery programme in each country against each of the CHS Commitments and any actionable recommendations for improvements. This indicative assessment of compliance should be based on findings from consultations with communities and stakeholders and be presented using a RAG indicator, where red signifies non-compliance and significant improvement needed, amber signifies weak or non-systematic compliance requiring some improvement and green signifies adequate or good compliance. A consolidated assessment across the overall response against each of the 9 CHS Commitments should be included with recommendation for improvements and highlighting particular good practice examples.

For more guidance on CHS evaluation questions, please refer to appendix 3.

Methodology and approach

A provisional list of projects to be evaluated in each country are provided in Appendix 2. However the specific projects to be reviewed in each country can be adjusted in consultation with IRW based on accessibility to the locations and community; or following desk review identifying other projects which may be more relevant or provide a wider perspective on the overall response and recovery programme. Consultation with staff, communities and wider stakeholders is expected to include an assessment of the overall IRW Covid-19 response and recovery programme in country, and adjustments related to Covid-19 to any ongoing pre-covid or newly approved non-Covid related projects, and not just the specific project being reviewed.

As a guide for planning purposes, at least 2 projects should be reviewed per country with a maximum of 5 working days including travel to review and gather community data from communities per project. In countries where locations are closer or there are smaller projects, up to 3 projects may be reviewed within 10 working days. Total review time per country including consultation and data gathering with communities, interviews and FGDs with staff, wider stakeholders including partners, local government and national level peer/UN cluster leads etc should not exceed more than 15 working days. Its expected that each of the 5 country reviews will be conducted in parallel using a national consultant or consultants per country.

Within each of these 5 countries the evaluation should endevour to assess our Covid-19 response and recovery support in at least one urban/peri-urban and two rural communities (one of which is should, where present, be a pre-Covid 19 working area with IR established community organisations or self-help groups) .

We are looking for an evaluation team to meet the above objectives and scope through a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) approach of:

· Desk review of secondary data and information, including rapid review of sector level lessons learned and evaluations of Covid-19 responses by humanitarian agencies available in the public domain e.g. ALNAP and review and mapping from IRW project documentation

· FGD with communities – with proportionate sampling and numbers of FGDs

· Survey and key informant interviews with IR staff (at IRW international office, country offices and potentially fundraising partner offices), relevant peer agencies, local partner organisations, key identified stakeholders in each country, including community leaders, faith leaders, representatives of specialised protection and inclusion focused agencies, relevant UN cluster leads and local or national government authorities

· Remote or physical household surveys (where safe, possible and relevant) with a statistically representative sample, where safe and appropriate to do so, within each of the identified countries. If household survey cannot be done in any particular country or context, we would be happy to hear of alternative approaches to a household surveys to draw out voices of right-holders in representative manner, particularly those that are most at risk or vulnerable,

· Facilitating a lessons learned exercise with key staff from each country programme team (either in-person or via remote means) as well as a separate exercise with selected IRW international office staff to capture learning and opportunities for improvement at the global level including initial surge and coordination of the pandemic response.

· Ensure robust qualitative and quantitative data analysis to ensure findings are triangulated, evidenced and representative

We would like the evaluators to outline their proposed methodology and requirements for this particular consultancy and we also welcome any alternative proposed methodologies or evaluation approaches that may be deemed more suitable and efficient.

Required competencies

The successful team will have the following competencies:

· Demonstrate evidence of extensive experience in evaluating humanitarian action

· Possess sectoral experience and knowledge in evaluating previous public health emergencies, health, WASH, cash and voucher assistance, food security and livelihood interventions

· Possess deep knowledge and practical experience of using quality standards such as CHS and Sphere

· Possess strong qualitative and quantitative research skills

· Have excellent written skills in English

· Have the legal right and ability to travel to or within the identified countries or have national counterpart consultants appointed in those countries

· Be able to fluently communicate in English and can or shall have a team member/s who speaks the the local language of the countries to be evaluated (if local translators are required this should be budgeted).

The chosen evaluation team will be supported by IRW Programme Quality (PQ) team, the IRW Disaster Risk Management Department (DRMD), the IRW Regional team and IR country teams.

Project outputs

The consultant is expected to produce:

  • A detailed work plan and inception report developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the evaluation.
  • A Covid-19 risk assessment with proposed mitigation measures related to conducting this evaluation, setting out different contingencies in case of challenges to the evaluation due to Covid-19 or other issues.
  • A full report with the following sections:

a) Title of Report: An Evaluation of Islamic Relief’s Global Covid-19 Response and Recovery Programme 2020/21

b) Consultancy organisation and any partner names

c) Name of person who compiled the report including summary of role/contribution of others in the team

d) Period during which the review was undertaken

e) Acknowledgements

f) Abbreviations

g) Table of contents

h) Executive summary

i) Main report – max 40 pages – (Specific reporting structure will be agreed at inception stage, but consultant is invited to propose a suitable report structure layout)

j) Annexes

· Terms of reference for the review

· Profile of the review team members

· Review schedule

· Documents consulted during the desk review

· Persons participating in the review – with appropriate consent for names to be published or specific names should be anonymised highlighting just role, organisation and gender

· Anonymised copy of field data collected during the review

· Additional key overview tables, graphs or charts etc. created and used to support analysis inform findings

· Bibliography

k) The consultant will be required to have a video conference call with IRW international office and provide feedback on and answer questions about the findings. This meeting can be attended remotely by the consultant via Microsoft Teams or Zoom where the consultant is outside the UK or based on request from the consultant.

Timetable and reporting information

The evaluation is expected to run for a maximum of 30 working days, starting by the 1st April 2021 and ending before the 3rd of June 2021




2nd March 2021 Tender live date IRW

16th March 2021 Final date for submission of bid proposal Consultant

17th – 18th March 2021 Proposals considered, short-listing and follow up enquiries completed IRW

18th – 31st March 2021 Consultant interviews and final selection (+ signing contracts) IRW

1st – 2nd April 2021 Meeting with the consultant and agree on an evaluation methodology, plan of action, working schedule IRW

8th April 2021 Submission of Inception Report (at least 7 days before commencing the evaluation) Consultant

14th April – 7th May 2021 Evaluation/Data collection Consultant

17th May 2021 Collation and analysis of evaluation data, and submission of the first draft to IRW for comments Consultant

19th May 2021 Initial Presentation of Findings Consultant

25th May 2021 IRW responses to draft report IRW

31st May 2021

Final report submitted to IRW Consultant

1st – 3rd June 2021 Final Presentation with IR key stakeholders Consultant Reporting information;

Contract duration: Duration to be specified by the consultant

Direct report: Programme Impact & Learning Manager

Job Title: Consultant; Global Covid-19 Programme Evaluation

The consultant will communicate in the first instance with and will forward deliverables to the IRW Programme Quality team.

Proposal to tender and costing:

Consultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:

a) Submit a proposal/bid, including the following;

i. Detailed cover letter/proposal outlining a methodology and approach briefing note

ii. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant who will be carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the project

iii. Example (s) of relevant work

iv. The consultancy daily rate

v. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signed

vi. Be able to complete the project within the timeframe stated above

Vii. be able to demonstrate experience of humanitarian review for similar work

Payment terms and conditions

Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows:

· 40% of the total amount – submission of the inception report

· 30% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report

· 30% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all outputs and attachments mentioned above**

We can be flexible with payment terms, invoices are normally paid on net payment terms of 28 days from the time of the invoice date.

Additional information and conditions of contract

During the consultancy period,

IRW will only cover:

· The costs and expenses associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team

· International and local travel for the consultant and the local team

· Accommodation while in the field

· Training venues

· Consultancy fees

IRW will not cover:

· Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax

· Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant

· Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by the consultant

To access and download the original tender documents please access the link beneath;


How to apply

Consultancy contract

This will be for an initial period that is to be specified by the consultant commencing from March/April 2021. The selected candidate is expected to work from their home/office and be reporting to the Programme Impact & Learning Manager or team member designated for this study.

The terms upon which the consultant will be engaged are as per the consultancy agreement. The invoice is to be submitted at the end of the month and will be paid on net payment terms 28 days though we can be flexible.

All potential applicants must fill in the table beneath in Appendix 1 to help collate key data pertaining to this tender. The applicant must be clear about other expenses being claimed in relation to this consultancy and these must be specified clearly.

For this consultancy all applicants are required to submit a covering letter with a company profile(s) and CV’s of all consultants including the lead consultant(s).

A proposal including, planned activities, methodology, deliverables, timeline, references and cost proposal (including expenses) are expected.

Other relevant supporting documents should be included as the consultants sees fit.

All applicants must have a valid visa or a permit to work in the UK (if travel is required to the UK) and to the places where this project is required to be undertaken.

Tender dates and contact details

All proposals are required to be submitted by Tuesday 16th March 2021 at 1.00pm UK time pursuant to the attached guidelines for submitting a quotation and these be returned to tendering@irworldwide.org

For any issues relating to the tender or its contents please email directly to tendering@irworldwide.org

Following submission, IRW may engage in further discussion with applicants concerning tenders in order to ensure mutual understanding and an optimal agreement.

Quotations must include the following information for assessment purposes.

  1. Payment terms (as mentioned above)
  2. Full break down of costs including taxes, expenses and any VAT
  3. References (two are preferred)
  4. Technical competency for this role
  5. Demonstrable experience of developing a similar project

Note: The criteria are subject to change.

Appendix 1

Please fill in the table below. It is essential all sections be completed and where relevant additional expenses be specified in detail. In case of questions about how to complete the table below, please contact tendering@irworldwide.org **

Cost of a consultancy for the evaluation of Islamic Relief’s Global Covid-19 Response and Recovery Programme 2020/21, February 2021

Full name of all consultants working on this project

Full company trading name

No of proposed hours per week

No. of proposed days

Preferred days

Non preferred days**

Earliest available start date

Expected project finish date

Day rate (required for invoicing purposes) £

Total cost for consultancy in GBP (less taxes and expenses) £

Expenses (flights) £

Expenses (accommodation) £

Expenses (transfers) £

Expenses (in country travel) £

Expenses (visa) £

Expenses (security) £

Expenses (food) £

Expenses (print/stationary) £**

Expenses other (please specify) £

Total expenses £

Total VAT or taxes £

Total cost for consultancy in GBP (inclusive of taxes and expenses) £


The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.

Appendix 2: Provisional list of projects to be evaluated in each country


Interventions to be evaluated (alternative projects in each country may be selected where any of the projects below are not accessible to the national consultant due to in-country travel or security restrictions or where during desk review altetnative projects are found to feature innovative components of interest)**


Project 1: Emergency Support to Prevent the Spread of Second Wave of COVID-19 in Tunisia (Ongoing)

Strategic objective:

Support the efforts of the Ministry of Health to fight the spread of a second wave of COVID-19 in Tunisia


  1. Improved infrastructure of public health care facilities to test and treat critical COVID-19 positive cases


1.1 Increased access for COVID-19 patients to Intensive Care Units in hospitals in areas with high rates of infection

1.2 Improved access of patients to COVID-19 sample testing in Elhamma hospital

Project 2: Rural Women Empowerment Tataouine – Phase 2 (Ongoing)

IRT aims at:

i) ensuring the sustainability and continuity of the existing women’s structures in the region and support them to be more effective actors in the regions and economically self-reliant.

ii) open opportunity for 50 women to have a decent source of income which will help them cover basic needs of their households throughout the provision of micro-projects

iii) raise awareness of rural women in different subjects such as their basic rights, reproductive health, GBV, environment protection and first aid

iv) ensure early detection of breast/uterus cancer as well as other chronic diseases through the health caravans which will help save lives

Project 3: Emergency Response to Fight the Spread of Corona Virus in Tunisia “Spread Hope Tunisia” (Completed)

This Project aims to reinforce the efforts of the Ministry of health to fight the spread of the pandemic throughout the provision of Medical equipment and necessary machines for the Intensive Care Units which is the most critical need as per the Ministry’s request.

The materials that will be provided are

 ICU electric syringe pump

 Monitor for ICU beds

 Suction machines

 Automated Biochemistry machine


Project 1: Mali COVID-19 Response (Completed)

Implemented in the 4 target communes of the health District of Gourma Rharous, this intervention is composed of the following activities:

• Training 30 Government Health Workers (16 Community Health Centre Staff for 4 community health centres and 14 District Health Centre Staff) on infection prevention control, COVID case management and referral.

• Support reinforcement of 4 ‘screening teams’ (cordon sanitaire) teams through employment of 8 additional volunteers and support in staffing costs of health agents.

• Provision of PPE and WASH Kits to targeted community health centres and to district health centre

• Train 120 people accross 40 villages (faith leaders and traditional healers) on COVID-19 awareness and prevention and protection, including faith based messaging. Those trained will be equipped with safety kits and re-sensitise their community members.

• Provision of WASH kits to 200 vulnerable HHs (including 100 IDP HHs) HHs to be targeted will be those that are most vulnerable to the outbreak

• Cash transfer to 200 vulnerable HHs (100 IDP HHs) (42,000 xof per month) to enable minimum food needs to be met for 2 months. The same HHs provided with WASH kits will also receive a mobile transfer of cash as per WFP standards for food assistance.

• Displaying of 100 posters with COVID-19 and protection messaging from a faith based perspective

• Broadcasting of 20 radio debates between faith leaders on COVID-19 and protection (messaging to be age, gender and ability appropriate)

Broadcasting of 120 radio messages on COVID-19

Project 2: Bamako COVID-19 Response (Completed)

This project aims to provide 300 vulnerable and at risk host community households in Bamako (Communes 2 and 4) with immediate support in mitigating and preventing COVID-19 transmission. 1 WASH kit will be provided to each household (300 total), accompanied by community awareness activities including 100 radio broadcasts; 100 posters on best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19; the training of 40 faith leaders on COVID prevention and identification; and the further sensitisation of the Communes through 4 awareness sessions led by Community Response Teams. The project will also support 22 Health Centres across Communes 2 and 4 by providing WASH kits and protective clothing (gloves and masks).


Project 1: Response to Coronavirus Precautions and Prevention in Greater Kordofan

The project aims at providing COVID-19 services and CASH assistance to the most affected 10,000 individuals in South and North Kordofan states, Refugees and IDPs host community staying urban centers through distributing of hygiene/ sanitary kits, PPE include face masks, hands sanitizers, soap, radio messages, and IES materials, these urban centers are at siginificant risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19 Virus among the refugees and host community to the target HHs, ( IDPs and refugees) who are usually rely on casual labour and small scale businesses

IRW will provide multipurpose CASH assistance to provide flexibility to let them able to meet their basic needs after they became in unemployment during the lockdown period.

Project 2: Integrated Development Project to Improve Access to Basic Services by Conflict Affected Vulnerable Communities in Blue Nile and Kordofan States, Sudan

The project is an integrated development project that will cover thematic areas of FSL, Education, Protection, WASH and Health. The project is aimed at providing the affected vulnerable communities with sustainable basic services to ensure well-being, improved food security at the HH level, improved enrolment and retention of school going children, provide gender and culturally sensitive WASH and protection services while ensuring sustainable environmental practices.

The proposed project will complement and linked to existing IRS projects in the proposed project sites while incorporating Covid-19 awareness and prevention.


Project 1: COVID-19 Prevention Response in Somalia (CORPS)

This project will give attention to prevention of COVID 19 transmission through improved hygiene practice and awareness in the internally Displaced people of Daynille and bondhere IDP camps in Banadir region and Balcad in Middle shabelle region through sustainable access to handwashing facilities, provision of hygiene kit and community health education.

· Supply medicine for primary health care facilities. The medicine will be supplied to 3 health centres administered by IRS in Mogadishu.

· Target household in Daynille (400), Bondhere (400), and Balcad (200) with hygiene kit, mobile handwashing stands, facemasks and temperature screening facilities at health centres, and hygiene promotion campaign.

· Provide hygiene kits to 1,000 household and put up 6 mobile communal handwashing stands to promote good hygiene practices.

· Conduct handwashing demonstration and COVID awareness campaign in IRS operated primary health care facilities in Daynille, Bondhere and Balcad

Project 2: COVID-19 Emergency Response in Somalia (Completed)

For this response, IRS seeks to complement the efforts of the government and other humanitarian organisation in Somalia by reaching approximately 40,000 beneficiaries directly and up to 200,000 indirectly.

  1. Risk communication and community engagement.
  2. Health: Strengthen existing health facilities in the selected IDP camps to combat COVID 19 infection. The proposed project will provide 18 PPE kits to seven health facilities in the seven IDP camps and the three designated COVID 19 referral hospitals. The proposed project will also set up and equip 11 COVID 19 screening centres in the to do surveillance and early detection at the primary health care centres in the IDP camps, provide cleaning and sterilising equipment and supplies to these facilities to limit hospital infections.
  3. WASH: 24 hand-washing stations will be built in the IDP camps in Bondhere, Baidoa, Balcad, Gardho and Burtinle. Hygiene kits, containing bath soap, laundry soap, 2 jerry cans, and facemask, will be supplied to 3500 households. Special consideration will be given to female headed household and PWD.
  4. Livelihood: Improving livelihoods through unconditional cash transfer of USD 70 for 3 months to 333 households, and USD 70 cash assistance for 2 months to 333 households as livelihoods support. The UCT will be done using mobile money transfer
  5. Establish complaint management and feedback mechanism to the affected population.
  6. Build and establish DRR community champions for covid-19 preparedness, response and treatment.

Pakistan (No household surveys)

COVID-19 Awareness and Protection Emergency Response (CAPER)

Implementation of this project will be with the close coordination of the PDMA and health departments of District Government Quetta and Chagai. See below, the list of supplies that will better equip the health departments to better respond to the increasing number of COVID-19 cases in their provinces:

  1. Provision of 50 Portable hand wash basins
  2. Provision of 20 Portable WASH Rooms
  3. Provision of 150 portable water coolers for Quarantine/Isolation Centres
  4. Provision of 100 Patient protection Kits (covid-19 response focused)
  5. Provision of 2 Mobile X-ray machines
  6. Provision of 4 Portable ventilators
  7. Provision and installation of 1 Incinerator (small capacity)
  8. Provision of 200 PPE Kits for doctors and paramedics. These include: 3 Chinese-KN95- Mask, Disposable medical masks, 1 pair Goggles, 1 Face shields, 1 bottle Hand Sanitizers, 1 Tyvek Suit, 1 Head Cover, 1 Medical protective coveralls (sterile) and 1 pair Surgical Gloves
  9. Provision of 5,000 bottles of Hand Sanitizers (For support and security team working at quarantine and isolation centres)
  10. Provision of 10,000 face masks (For support and security team working at quarantine and isolation centres)
  11. Provision of equipment 20 Screening-Thermo-gun
  12. Provision of 4 BIO safety Cabinet
  13. Provision of 200 Tyvek Suits

Through this project, we will also be supporting with the following activities: Community awareness sessions for Behaviour Change through networks and alliances: The community awareness session will be focused to prevention and safety from Covid19 for the communities that IR work with in the targeted Districts on WHO and NIH standard IEC Material.

Transformation and Adaptation Against Climate Variability Affected Areas (TACVA)

The proposed project is a multifaceted opportunity where the objectives of drought resilience will be targeted through water use efficiency and indigenous/sustainable access to food security needs, while the outreach will be used to integrate the best available and known practices in the fight against COVID-19 outbreak. These notions will be backstopped by policy advocacy for having mechanisms within the public structures for climate adaptive and COVID-19 planning, budgeting and implementation through integrated programs and policies.

Quetta and Harnai are strategically prioritized for this action; Quetta having unique challenges and opportunities being the central urban and provincial headquarter, and Harnai that is characterized by rugged mountains and arid plains with poorest socio-economic development indicators

Appendix 3: Core Humanitarian Standards Questionnaire (for reference only)

The question bank below is for reference for consultant to carefully select, adapt and frame some of their questions for this evaluation. The consultant/s should use and adapt this and any additional questions they feel necessary, to efficiently provide an overall judgment about the performance of IR’s response, and the implementation of this project, against the quality criteria set out by the CHS. The inception report should provide a list of carefully selected/adapted questions to be asked and answered within the evaluation and the methods by which these will be answered and triangulated with further adjustments to be made upon feedback prior to any data collection.

Please see the following link to learn more about the CHS:

1) https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20S…

2) https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/CHS-Guidance-Notes-and-…

1. Humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant.

  • Has a comprehensive and timely needs assessment been conducted and used to inform response planning including age, gender and diversity analysis?
  • Has a rapid food security and livelihoods assessment and response options analysis been undertaken at the onset of the humanitarian crisis to inquire about changes in food availability and food access following the crisis, to assess market functions and the severity and underlying causes of food insecurity; to assess impact on livelihoods assets, strategies and opportunites, analyse coping mechanisms, and; identify the worst affected groups and areas, resources and capacities of communities to meet immediate needs, and appropriate interventions to support food security and livelihoods recovery?
  • Are multiple sources of information, including affected people and communities, local institutions and other stakeholders consulted when assessing needs, risks, capacities, vulnerabilities and context?
  • Are assessment data and other monitoring data disaggregated by sex, age and disability?
  • Were the short set of Washington Group Questions used to collect disability data?
  • Are barriers to participation of groups at risk, including older people, people with disabilities, women and children, assessed and enablers created?
  • Does the response include different types of adapted assistance and/or protection for different demographic groups based on the findings of the analysis?
  • Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Was the assistance culturally appropriate?
  • Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated?
  • Was cash routinely considered alongside with other tools? Were there competent staff available for strategic, technical and operational functions required for cash and voucher assistance?
  • Has the assistance provided by IR met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men and women, children, the elderly, and those with disabilities?
  • What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and relevant? How programme implementation (outcomes, outputs, activities, budget, duration etc) were adapted / adjusted to the new realities provoked by covid crisis?
  • How were programme implementation (outcomes, outputs, activities, budget, duration etc) were adapted / adjusted to the new realities provoked by covid crisis.

2. Humanitarian response is effective and timely.

  • Are constraints and risks identified and analysed? Where they analysed along with the affected communities including groups at further risk? Was identification and analysis undertaken from outset and then throughout project duration? How were new risks added?
  • Does planning consider optimal times for activities? Does it consider seasonal calendar?
  • Are contingency plans used?
  • Are globally recognised technical standards used and achieved? Which standards? (e.g. MERS, LEGS, INEE, SPHERE)
  • Was the use of cash and vouchers assistance effective and timely to meet the identified priority needs of the covid-affected households?
  • What was the participation strategy used to allow effective information are shared with groups at risk?
  • How timely was IR’s response in meeting the needs of the affected people, especially vulnerable people?
  • Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely completion of the project activities? If yes, were any changes made to the project as a result and if not, should changes have been made to be more appropriate?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response? Was there any way the affected community could have been reached sooner?

3. Humanitarian response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.

• What local capacities for resilience (structures, organisations, leadership, and support networks) exist and how these have been strengthened?

· Has the CVA capacity of the country office been strengthened as a result of the humanitarian response? In what way and how it may be strengthened even more?

How was the capacity and leadership of groups at further risk (children, women, older people and people with disabilities) and their representative organisations strengthened to contribute to inclusive humanitarian response?

• Were risks faced by groups at risk identified, assessed and mitigated? How?

• Is existing information/ data on protection risks, barriers, hazards, vulnerabilities and related plans considered to allow safe and equitable access to services?

• In what ways are local leaders (formal and informal) and/or authorities consulted to ensure strategies are in line with local and/or national priorities?

• Are there equitable opportunities for participation of all groups in the affected population in decision-making?

• Does the response facilitate early recovery? Does the response only take an emergency approach or are there elements of early recovery?

• What mechanisms exist for assessing, prompt detection and mitigation of unintended negative effects?

4. Humanitarian response is based upon communication, participation, and feedback.

  • Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to affected communities and people?
  • Is information about rights and entitlement provided in an accessible and inclusive way to all (women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities)?
  • Are people, especially vulnerable and marginalised groups, accessing and understanding the information provided?
  • Are crisis-affected people’s views, including those of the most vulnerable and marginalised, sought and used to guide programme design and implementation?
  • How was meaningful participation of groups at risk of marginalisation promoted in decision making?
  • What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local government policies and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation? Was this was planned/factored in from the outset?
  • To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported and developed?
  • Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?

5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed.

  • Is information provided to and understood by all demographic groups including women, older people and people with disabilities about how feedback and complaints mechanisms work and what kind of complaints can be made through them?
  • Was information on feedback and complaints mechanism communicated in different ways to reach out to all?
  • Are complaints about sexual exploitation and abuse investigated immediately by staff with relevant competencies and an appropriate level of authority?
  • Was there a written complaints system developed (preferably in local language) involving the communities?
  • Did the complaint system clearly and effectively communicated to staff and partners?
  • Was there any complaint received?
  • How were they dealt with?

6. Humanitarian responses are coordinated and complementary.

  • Is information about the organisation’s competences, resources, areas and sectors of work shared with others responding to the crisis?
  • Is information about the competences, resources, areas and sectors of work of other organisations, including local and national authorities, accessed?
  • Have existing coordination structures been identified and how has IR participated in these structures?
  • Does existing coordination structures include Older People Association, Organisation for Persons with Disabilities, Women Group, etc.?
  • Are the programmes of other organisations and authorities taken into account when designing, planning and implementing programmes?
  • What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most vulnerable areas where the needs were highest?
  • How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people affected? What criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?
  • Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, the elderly, those with disabilities?
  • Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?
  • What have been the biggest successes in coordination? What were the biggest gaps?
  • Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships with local CBOs, CSO organisations been built-up?
  • What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country offices and between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?

7. Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve.

  • Were evaluations and reviews of responses of similar crises consulted during programme design?
  • What are the benefits, challenges and lessons learned in the use of cash and voucher assistance in the humanitarian response?
  • Were monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints-handling processes leading to changes and/or innovations in programme design and implementation?
  • Did IR country used the learning to improve the way they provide inclusive humanitarian assistance in other projects? Is learning systematically documented?
  • What kind of actions and systems are used to share learning with relevant stakeholders? To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader humanitarian community and the government?
  • Did IR country identify and document learning, challenges and opportunities for including women, older people and people with disabilities in humanitarian action?
  • Did IR country share learning, good practice and innovation, both within IR and with other organisations, such as project partners, national organisations and authorities.

8. Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.

  • Do staff sign a code of conduct?
  • If so, do they receive orientation on this and other relevant policies?
  • Are complaints received about staff? How are they handled?
  • Were all staff and volunteers provided with an induction and appropriate and ongoing training to help them to effectively do their jobs? Did the induction include training on protection and inclusion?
  • Were staff working as per the agreed IRW values? How have IR staff incorporated the values into their work?
  • Does IR country have relevant capacity, diverse and gender balanced team for response?
  • Does the office have all appropriate and up to date policies and procedures, including the IR Handbook, available to them for reference should they be required?

9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.

  • To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame?
  • To what extent have agreed humanitarian standards, principles and behaviours including the Code of Conduct standards been respected?
  • What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing their resilience capacity?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response, in regards to resource management such as finance, HR, procurement, logistics?
  • Are services and goods procured using a rapid competitive bidding process?
  • Are potential impacts on the environment monitored, and actions taken to mitigate them?
  • Is a safe whistle blowing procedure in place and is known to staff, communities, people and other stakeholders?
  • How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-going or completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation?
  • Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources, logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?
  • How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?
  • Were the funds used as stated?
  • How does the project demonstrate value for money?
  • Were small scale mitigation activities cost-efficient?
  • To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response been explored and exploited to reduce costs and maximise results?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response?
  • How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate vulnerability over time and is there evidence of this?
  • To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met?
  • Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the perceptions of key stakeholders? How do you know?
  • What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the intervention?
  • What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost effective?
  • Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How are you adjusting your programme with the unforeseen risks?

Cross cutting issues

· How well did the response mainstream/ensured the inclusion of gender, age and disability?

· How well did the response tackle immediate and strategic gender needs?

· How did you ensure protection of women and children from abuse? Including other vulnerable groups such as older people and people with disabilities

· How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural sensitivities integrated in the project?

· How well this project include ethnic people/ socially excluded

· What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in the response?

· How did the humanitarian response promote cash and vouchers assistance as a potential approach within the humanitarian toolbox of IR?

· What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future response?


· To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

· What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?

To access and download the original tender documents please access the link beneath;


Related Posts

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: