Terms of Reference/Request for quotations

Consultancy for Mid-Term Evaluation of German Federal Foreign Office-funded Project in Ukraine 

Project Title: “Lifesaving WASH, MHPSS and Winterization assistance to vulnerable households and war/flood affected communities in southern Oblasts and institutional strengthening of Ukrainian humanitarian first responders”      

Submission for proposals to AWO International until 19th October 2025 COB to [email protected].

1. Introduction

The project is being implemented by a consortium consisting of arche noVa (consortium leader) and AWO International. The project is being implemented by Ukrainian national partners Charitable Organization “Charitable Foundation “Rokada” and Charity Organisation “Charitable Foundation” New Way”.

arche noVa (AN) from Germany has been present and registered in the region for 9 years now and has experience in the implementation of emergency aid projects as well as transitional aid and development cooperation project. The project activities included / includes: WASH measures incl. rehabilitation/ construction and equipment of communal WASH infrastructure (e.g. rehabilitation of sewage systems, construction of watertowers, equipment of water laboratories,…), rehabilitation/ construction of WASH facilities in social infrastructures (e.g. toilets and washrooms in schools and kindergardens), distribution of food and NFIs, rehabilitation/renovation of shelters and capacity building for locai partners. At thè beginning AN focussed on thè East of thè country (Donetsk and Luhansk) and worked dose to thè frontline. With thè outbreak of thè war in February 2022 arche noVa also strengthened its presence in thè North and South.

AWO International from Germany is the Workers’ Welfare (Arbeiterwohlfahrt) Association for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Action. The overall goal of AWO International’s work is to contribute to the improvement of peoples’ living conditions in a sustainable manner and to enhance their own initiative. We support people/communities to develop their own life perspectives, to gain access to necessary resources and services to improve the social participation of disadvantaged social groups such as children and adolescents, women, migrants, indigenous people and elderly or sick people. The intention is to strengthen the social structures in which people act at different levels so that they actively participate in political and social processes. In our work, we consistently proceed from a human rights approach. AWO International’s cross-cutting issues (gender equality, inclusion and climate change and environmental protection) are addressed in all projects. AWO International has been working in Ukraine since 2022 and implementing several projects funded by different donors, e.g. Aktion Deutschland Hilft (ADH / German Relief Coalition), BMZ and GFFO in cooperation with Ukrainian partner NGOs in Kyivska, Lvivska, Chernihivska, Sumska, Zhytomyrska, Mykolaivska and Khersonska oblasts.

AWO International and arche noVa invites consultants to conduct a Mid-Term Evaluation based on project proposal, logframe, budget and interim report.

This Terms of Reference outlines the scope and responsibilities for the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE). The evaluation aims to assess the overall performance of the project, its contribution to improved WASH, winterisation and social infrastructure renovation outcomes, and its strategic relevance and sustainability in the context of humanitarian and transitional programming.

This Terms of Reference (ToR) outlines the scope, objectives, and responsibilities for an external Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the above-mentioned project. The commissioning organizations are undertaking this evaluation to assess progress to date, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of project implementation, and derive lessons to improve delivery in the remaining project period. The project is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) with co-funding from the implementing organization, and is being evaluated mid-way through its implementation. The MTE will be carried out by an independent consultant/team and will employ a hybrid approach (remote and in-person methods). It will result in actionable recommendations for course correction and enhanced impact in the project’s second phase. This ToR is intended for public announcement to solicit proposals from qualified evaluators, and all evaluation deliverables and communications will be in English.

2. Background

The project is a humanitarian response initiative in southern Ukraine, specifically targeting Mykolaivska and Khersonska Oblasts that have been severely affected by armed conflict and subsequent flooding. In June 2023, the destruction of a major dam led to catastrophic floods in Kherson region, compounding the hardships caused by the ongoing conflict. As a result, communities in these areas suffer from disrupted water/sanitation services, damaged infrastructure, displacement, and psychosocial trauma.

The project, implemented by a consortium consisting of arche noVa (consortium leader) and AWO International in collaboration with local partners and authorities, aims to address these multi-faceted needs. Its full title – “Lifesaving WASH, MHPSS and Winterization assistance to vulnerable households and war/flood affected communities in southern Oblasts and institutional strengthening of Ukrainian humanitarian first responders” – reflects a comprehensive approach to both immediate relief and capacity-building.

Project duration: 15 August 2024 – 14 August 2026.

Project summary: The action provides life-saving humanitarian aid across several sectors:

• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH): Repair and rehabilitation of communal water supply and sewage systems, restoration of WASH facilities in public institutions (such as social care centers, hospitals or shelters), and distribution of hygiene kits to vulnerable households. These activities aim to ensure war- and flood-affected communities have access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation despite infrastructure damage.
  
  
• Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS): Provision of community-based MHPSS services including psychological first aid, individual and group counseling, and protection of vulnerable groups’ rights. In tandem, the project improves living conditions for affected populations by supporting light/middle repairs and providing essential equipment to social protection institutions (e.g. elderly homes, disability centers). This helps residents cope with trauma and improves their safety and dignity.
  
  
• Winterization Assistance: Distribution of solid fuel (firewood or coal) and sustainable off-grid heating solutions to the most vulnerable households to help them survive the harsh winter months. Many homes in these areas have been damaged or lack reliable heating due to the conflict, so this assistance is critical for winter survival.
  
  
• Capacity Strengthening of Local Responders: Training and capacity development for local service providers, first responders, and community volunteers on topics such as psychosocial support, humanitarian principles, Sphere standards, gender-based violence prevention, and inclusion. The project works closely with local NGOs and government emergency services to enhance their ability to respond to the crisis. Strengthening local humanitarian actors ensures greater sustainability and community ownership of the response.

Target population: The project targets vulnerable households and individuals in war-affected and flood-affected communities of Mykolaiv and Kherson. This includes internally displaced persons (IDPs), returnees, the elderly, people with disabilities, women and children, and other at-risk groups identified through needs assessments. In total, several tens of thousands of people are expected to benefit directly or indirectly (through restored services) from the project’s interventions. In addition, staff of local partner organizations and municipal institutions are beneficiaries of capacity-building activities.

The project began on 15 August 2024 and is scheduled to run for 24 months until 14 August 2026. By the mid-term point (approx. 12 months into implementation), most planned activities have been initiated, with substantial progress in infrastructure repairs, distributions, and trainings. The external mid-term evaluation will review activities implemented from project start up to the evaluation date. It will focus on the two target Oblasts, and include select project sites (communities or facilities) within those regions for project visits. The evaluation is being commissioned by AWO International to fulfill both an accountability function (ensuring objectives are being met for the funds provided) and a learning function (informing adjustments for the remainder of the project). The findings will be shared with the donor (GFFO), project stakeholders, and may inform broader humanitarian programming in Ukraine.

3. Evaluation Objectives and Scope

Evaluation Objectives: The mid-term evaluation will examine the project’s performance to date and provide forward-looking recommendations. Specifically, the evaluation will:

• Measure progress against the project’s intended results (outcomes and outputs) as stated in the project logframe. This includes assessing the extent to which planned outputs have been delivered and whether the project is on track to achieve its outcome of improved well-being and resilience for the target population.
  
  
• Assess key evaluation criteria – namely the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, potential impact, and prospects for sustainability – in the context of the operating environment at mid-term. (These criteria are further detailed through specific evaluation questions in Section 4.)
  
  
• Identify good practices, innovations, and lessons learned so far. This will highlight what is working well, unexpected successes, or approaches that could be replicated or scaled up in the remaining implementation period or in future projects.
  
  
• Assess the project’s management and partnership approach, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the organizational structure and consortium arrangements. Given the project involves local partners and coordination with authorities, the evaluation will consider how well these arrangements are functioning and contributing to results.
  
  
• Provide actionable recommendations for course correction or enhancement. Based on findings, the evaluator will propose practical suggestions to improve project performance, address any shortcomings, and adapt to any changes in context for the remaining project duration. These recommendations should be specific, feasible, and oriented toward maximizing the project’s impact and sustainability.

Scope of the Evaluation: The evaluation will cover the first half of the project’s implementation (Aug 2024 – October/November 2025) across all components (WASH, MHPSS, winterization, capacity building) and all target locations (Mykolaivska and Khersonska Oblasts). It will include both operational and contextual aspects, examining not only what the project has achieved so far, but also how it has been implemented. Key parameters of the scope include:

• Geographic scope: All project sites in the two target Oblasts. This encompasses community-level interventions (e.g. repaired water systems in villages, distributed supplies to households) as well as institutional sites (e.g. social protection centers that received support). If security and access permit, the evaluator is expected to visit a sample of these sites in person; otherwise, remote data collection will be used with the assistance of local staff.
  
  
• Thematic scope: The evaluation will consider the full range of project objectives as outlined in the project design. It will evaluate each of the major result areas (WASH, MHPSS, winter support, and capacity strengthening) and how they interrelate. Cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability inclusion, and conflict sensitivity will be examined within each thematic area.
  
  
• Temporal scope: Activities and results from project start up to the time of evaluation. The evaluation is not expected to assess activities prior to project inception. However, it will take into account baseline data and the context prior to project launch (from the needs analysis) to judge changes over time. It will also consider plans for the second half of the project insofar as assessing sustainability and forward-looking relevance.
  
  
• Stakeholder scope: The evaluation will gather input from a broad range of stakeholders, including project beneficiaries (community members, IDPs, etc.), local partner organizations, local authorities (e.g. water utility companies, social services, health departments), project field staff, and the donor representation if applicable. The consultant must ensure that voices of vulnerable groups (women, elderly, persons with disabilities) are included, using appropriate methods and safeguards.

The evaluator should be mindful of the ongoing conflict context, which may impose limitations on data collection (e.g. access restrictions, security risks, trauma among respondents). These limitations should be acknowledged, and methods adapted accordingly to ensure credible findings.

4. Evaluation Questions (Scope of Work)

To meet the above objectives, the evaluation will be guided by a set of key questions organized according to the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria. The questions will help structure the inquiry and ensure all critical aspects of performance are examined. The evaluator is expected to refine these questions in the inception phase, but at minimum, the evaluation should answer the following:

Relevance – Examining the extent to which the project design and objectives are suited to the priorities and needs of the target population and context:

• To what extent was the project design appropriate for the needs of the target populations (war-affected and flood-affected communities)? Are the activities (WASH repairs, psychosocial support, winter assistance, etc.) well-aligned with the most urgent needs and local socio-cultural conditions?
  
  
• How well did the intervention align with local and national priorities, including those of affected communities, local authorities, and coordination frameworks? For instance, does the project support or complement government recovery plans or the Ukraine Humanitarian Response Plan, and were communities involved in planning to ensure relevance?

Effectiveness – Assessing the extent to which the project is achieving its intended outputs and outcomes:

• To what extent have the planned outputs and interim outcomes been achieved so far? This includes quantitative progress (e.g. number of water systems repaired, beneficiaries reached with aid) and qualitative results (e.g. improved well-being or coping capacity among beneficiaries). Is the project on track to meet its targets by project end?
  
  
• Were there any unanticipated positive or negative outcomes to date? For example, did the project generate any unintended benefits (such as improved community cohesion or spill-over effects to non-target areas) or unintended harms (such as tensions over aid distribution or environmental impacts)? How has the project team addressed any unexpected issues?

Efficiency – Evaluating how well resources (funds, staff, time) are being used to achieve results:

• Were inputs (funds, expertise, time) used efficiently to achieve the outputs? Given the challenging context, assess whether the project has managed to deliver services in a cost-effective way (e.g. leveraging local materials, avoiding delays, minimizing overhead costs).
  
  
• Were the management and coordination structures of the project fit for purpose? This looks at whether the implementation arrangements – including the project team’s composition, decision-making processes, and coordination with partners – support timely and efficient delivery. Could the project be managed with fewer resources or in a simpler way without compromising quality?

Coherence – Considering how well the project coordinates with and complements other interventions in the same context:

• How did the intervention complement, coordinate with, or duplicate other humanitarian or recovery efforts by local, national, or international actors? Determine if there were overlaps or gaps – for instance, is the project working in synergy with other NGOs or UN agencies in the area (avoiding duplication), and is it filling critical gaps in assistance?
  
  
• How aligned is the project with relevant policies and strategies (e.g. Government of Ukraine humanitarian policies, local authorities’ plans, cluster coordination strategies)? Does the project design take into account existing frameworks, standards, and guidelines (such as WASH Cluster strategies, MHPSS guidelines, etc.), ensuring a coherent approach with wider efforts?

Impact (prospective) – Though it is early to measure long-term impact at mid-term, the evaluation should identify any emerging changes and the potential impact trajectory:

• What observable changes have occurred in the target communities or institutions as a result of the project? Consider both intended changes (e.g. improved access to clean water, improved psychological well-being, warmer homes in winter) and any unintended changes (either positive or negative) that communities report.
  
  
• How has the intervention contributed to improved resilience or coping capacity of the beneficiaries? For example, are communities better prepared to handle the coming winter or future shocks due to project activities? Are local first responders better equipped and organized to assist people because of the training provided? Although full impact cannot be measured at mid-term, the evaluator should discuss the likely longer-term effects if current progress continues.

Sustainability – Assessing the likelihood that the benefits of the project will continue after external support ends, and the measures in place to support this:

• Are the project’s benefits and services likely to continue beyond the project’s funding period? Evaluate whether there are exit or handover strategies for each component (e.g. are repaired water systems maintained by local authorities or communities? Will psychosocial support groups continue with local counselors? Have winterization measures created any lasting assets?).
   
• What systems or capacities have been established to support sustainability of outcomes? This includes looking at whether local institutions and communities have been sufficiently involved and trained to take ownership. For instance, have local water utility technicians been trained to maintain infrastructure? Have local NGOs or government departments increased their capacity to continue MHPSS services or emergency responses on their own? Identify any risks to sustainability (such as ongoing conflict or resource constraints) and how the project is mitigating them.
  
• What’s the role of the BMZ TDA-funded project of AWO International in the Mykolaivska Oblast which is considered together with this project as a NEXUS Chapeau Approach?

These questions provide a framework for the evaluation. The evaluator may add sub-questions or refine wording in the Inception Report, but any significant deviation from these key lines of inquiry should be agreed upon with AWO Int. in advance. Each evaluation question should be answered with evidence and analysis in the evaluation report, leading to conclusions and recommendations.

5. Methodology

The evaluation methodology should be rigorous, mixed-method, and participatory, ensuring that findings are credible and useful. Bidders should propose a detailed methodology in their technical proposal, but the approach is expected to include the following elements:

• Desk Review of Documents: A thorough review of project documents and data will be conducted. This includes the project proposal and logframe, baseline or needs assessment reports, monitoring reports (quantitative output tracking, qualitative monitoring logs), prior evaluation or situational analysis documents, and any relevant external research or coordination meeting minutes. The desk review will provide context and help refine evaluation instruments.
  
  
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Semi-structured interviews will be held with key stakeholders. At a minimum, this will involve project management and field staff, representatives of local partner organizations, local government officials involved in WASH or social services, and community leaders or committee members in the target areas. Cluster  coordinators may also be interviewed if relevant. Interviews may be conducted remotely (e.g. via Zoom/phone) or in-person during field visits, depending on accessibility.
   
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): The evaluator will conduct FGDs with project beneficiaries where possible, segmented by stakeholder group (e.g. separate groups for women, men, etc., or for those who received specific services). For instance, an FGD with community members who received hygiene kits, or with staff of a social institution that benefitted from repairs, can generate qualitative insights on project effectiveness and relevance. Participatory techniques should be used to facilitate open and safe dialogue, taking into account power dynamics and sensitivities (especially for MHPSS topics). 
  
  
• Field Observations: During field travel to Mykolaiv and Kherson regions, the evaluator should visit a sample of project sites (e.g. a repaired water pump station, a healthcare facility where water systems were fixed, a center where counseling is provided, households that received solid fuel) to observe the outputs firsthand. Direct observation will be used to verify reported achievements (for example, confirming that a water system is functional and being used) and to assess the quality of infrastructure works and appropriateness of materials provided.

The evaluation must adhere to principles of rigor and impartiality. The evaluator is expected to use appropriate sampling strategies for selecting interview and FGD participants (ensuring representation of different locations and sub-groups). The sample size and selection rationale should be explained in the inception report. Likewise, the evaluator should describe the analytical methods (e.g. coding of qualitative data, statistical analysis if any quantitative data are used) to be employed.

Given the hybrid nature of this evaluation, the methodology should leverage both remote and on-site approaches: Some interviews may be conducted remotely, while critical on-ground data collection in Ukraine will be done through project visits. The evaluator should plan for necessary travel to Mykolaiv and Kherson Oblasts) if security permits. AWO International will assist with access, introductions, and adherence to security protocols, but the evaluator bears responsibility for their own travel logistics and safety precautions. 

Prior to the start of data collection, the evaluator will prepare an Inception Report detailing the refined methodology, data collection tools (interview guides, survey questionnaires, etc.), sampling plan, and a work plan. The Inception Report will also identify any limitations foreseen (e.g. possible non-response, access issues) and propose mitigation strategies. Only upon approval of the Inception Report will the evaluator proceed to full data collection in the field.

Throughout the evaluation, the approach must be inclusive and conflict-sensitive. This means ensuring the participation of women and marginalized groups, providing translation to local language if needed, obtaining informed consent from all participants, and being mindful of not exacerbating any tensions or trauma. The evaluator should incorporate gender and inclusion lenses in the methodology – for example, by having female facilitators for women’s FGDs or including questions about whether the project met the specific needs of vulnerable sub-groups.

In summary, the evaluation methodology is expected to be comprehensive, transparent, and robust, yielding findings that stakeholders recognize as valid. Bidders should demonstrate in their proposal how their chosen methods will effectively answer the evaluation questions while adhering to these principles.

AWO International will provide available project data and documents to support the evaluation, but the consultant is expected to be self-sufficient in conducting the study. All data collected by the evaluator will remain confidential and should be stored securely. The evaluator must also be prepared to present preliminary findings to project stakeholders for validation before finalizing the analysis (see Deliverables section).

6. Deliverables and Timeline

The consultant is expected to deliver the following outputs, in English and Ukrainian, according to the tentative schedule below. The timeline can be adjusted in the inception phase by mutual agreement, but any changes to key dates must ensure the evaluation’s utility for informing the remainder of the project:

• Inception Report – A detailed report (max 6 pages excluding annexes) outlining the evaluation design, including refined questions, methodology, sampling plan, data collection tools, and a work plan with a schedule. The inception report should also include a brief literature review/context update and any revisions to the theory of change or evaluation matrix. An annotated table of contents for the final report may be provided.
   
• Data Collection– Upon approval of the inception report, the evaluator will conduct data collection over an estimated 2-3week period. This includes remote interviews (before and/or after project travel) and visits to project sites in Mykolaiv and Kherson, subject to security clearance. 
  
  
• Debriefing Presentation – A presentation (PowerPoint or similar) of preliminary findings, delivered to AWO International and arche noVa and key stakeholders (e.g. via online meeting). This should occur shortly after data collection is completed. The debrief will summarize initial findings, conclusions, and tentative recommendations, allowing for validation and feedback from the project team.
   
• Draft Evaluation Report – A comprehensive draft report documenting the evaluation process, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The draft should be written in a clear and accessible manner. It must include at least: an Executive Summary (2-3 pages), Background and Context, Methodology (incl. limitations), Findings organized by evaluation criteria/questions, Conclusions, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations. Annexes should contain the ToR, data collection tools, list of people interviewed, and any other relevant technical detail (e.g. data tables). The draft will be reviewed by AWO International and arche noVa, who will provide feedback and comments.
  
  
• Final Evaluation Report – The final report (max ~25 pages main text) incorporating feedback on the draft. The final version should address or acknowledge all comments received and be of publishable quality. It should include a standalone Executive Summary summarizing key findings and recommendations.

The report should include:

• Executive summary (max. 3 pages)
• Background and context
• Methodology
• Findings by evaluation criterion
• Conclusions and lessons learned
• Actionable recommendations
• Annexes (tools, ToR, data tables, etc.)

All written deliverables are to be submitted in English and Ukrainian, in MS Word format (and PDF for final versions). The evaluator is responsible for editing and quality control of language. The final report will be the property of AWO International.; however, appropriate credit will be given to the evaluator in any publications. The evaluator may not publish the report or any data without prior permission from AWO International.

• Proposed Timeline: (the following timeline is indicative and will be finalized with the consultant)
• Proposal submission deadline: 19th  October 2025 (see “How to Apply” section)
• Interviews with shortlisted consultants 22nd October
• Contract award: 28th  October 2025
• Inception phase: Online Kickoff Workshop on 30th October;  inception report due on 6th November)
• Data collection (remote + project sites): 10th to 28th November (including minimum 7 working days at the project sites)
• Preliminary findings debrief: First week of December (
• Draft report submission: 11th December
• Participation and presentation of findings at offline one-day workshop in Kyiv (week of 15th to 18th December)
• Final report submission: 4th January 2026 

7. Consultant Qualifications

AWO International invites proposals from individual consultants or teams with demonstrated expertise in humanitarian program evaluation. The lead evaluator (or evaluation team collectively) should meet the following minimum qualifications:

• Professional Evaluation Experience: At least 5 years of experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian assistance projects or similar relevant experience. Experience evaluating projects in WASH, public health/MHPSS, emergency response, or disaster risk reduction sectors is highly desirable, given the scope of this project. Familiarity with evaluation of capacity-building or organizational development components will be an asset (due to the institutional strengthening aspect).
  
  
• Technical Knowledge: Strong substantive knowledge of humanitarian principles and quality standards. Specific expertise in WASH programming (e.g. water supply, sanitation in emergencies) and MHPSS programming in post-conflict settings is required. Knowledge of winterization interventions and emergency relief logistics is an advantage. The evaluator should also be well-versed in cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, protection, and inclusion of vulnerable groups.
  
  
• Regional/Country Experience: Prior working experience in Ukraine is highly preferred, or at minimum demonstrated understanding of the Ukrainian humanitarian context. This includes familiarity with the ongoing conflict dynamics, cultural norms, and the operating environment for NGOs in Ukraine. Ability to speak or understand Ukrainian would be a strong asset (if not, the team should include local personnel or plan for translation).
  
  
• Methodological Skills: Proven capacity to design and implement evaluations using mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative). The consultant should be skilled in designing interview guides, leading focus groups sensitively, and analyzing data. Experience with participatory evaluation approaches and remote data collection tools is important. The proposal should highlight evaluations of a similar nature that the consultant has successfully completed.
  
  
• Donor and Quality Standards Familiarity: Familiarity with GFFO (German Federal Foreign Office) requirements and reporting standards is an asset, as the project is GFFO-funded. Likewise, knowledge of OECD/DAC evaluation criteria and ALNAP guidance on evaluating humanitarian action is expected.
  
  
• Strong Analytical and Writing Skills: The evaluator must have the ability to analyze complex information, draw out key findings, and write clear, concise, and insightful reports in English. A sample of a recent evaluation report authored by the applicant will be required (see How to Apply). Excellent command of written and spoken English is mandatory.
  
  
• Independence and Ethics: The consultant must be independent of the project (no prior involvement or conflict of interest) and adhere to ethical standards (see Section 8). If a team is proposed, team members’ roles and contributions should be clearly defined, and the team leader must have demonstrated leadership in managing evaluations.
  
  
• Academic and Professional Background: An advanced university degree (Master’s or higher) in a relevant field (e.g. international development, humanitarian affairs, public health, social sciences, water engineering, psychology, etc.) is required. Relevant professional certifications (such as in evaluation or project management) and membership in evaluation societies will be viewed favorably. The consultant/team should also have the necessary business registration to work as an independent contractor (and be able to invoice for services).
  
  
• Availability: The team must be available to start by the proposed timeline and commit the necessary time to complete the evaluation within the schedule. Given the mid-term timing, any other commitments must not interfere with delivering the outputs on time.

9. Payment Terms

Payments will be made against invoices to a bank account with the following modalities:

• 30% upon signing the contract
• 70% upon approval of the final mid term evaluation report including annexes.

10. Application

Submission until 19th October COB, 2025 to [email protected].

Interested persons/firms shall send their technical and financial proposal (indicating the full gross amount of their compatible consultancy fee in EUR as a lump sum figure covering a) fees (provide break down of daily rate per consultant), b) travel expenditures for the project visits and c) other costs, if reasonably justified). The technical proposal may not exceed six pages (Arial, 10) and must cover the methodological proposal and clear descriptions of (1) technical, methodological, organizational and other capacities of relevance; (2) composition of the expert team including description and division of roles and tasks for all team members; (3) statement of independence for all involved consultants. The curriculum vitae shall be annexed.

Proposals will be assessed taking into account the technical proposal (50%) and financial offer (50%).

AWO International encourages female consultants, female headed firms and members of marginalised communities to apply, because AWO International supports a working environment of diversity based on justice and mutual respect.