This Consultancy Services Terms of Reference (ToR) serves as a request for applications from individual consultants or consultancy firms interested in conducting the end evaluation for a humanitarian assistance project.

Background Rationale

Action Against Hunger in collaboration with its Country Offices in South Sudan, Ethiopia,

Somalia and Uganda and its local partners through funding from the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) has been implementing the regional project ‘Multisectoral humanitarian *response to the deteriorating nutrition situation, focusing on severely affected crisis contexts in sub-*Saharan Africa’. The project with a project period from 01.07.2021 to 31.10.2025 targets crisis contexts, which are confronted with food crises in often persistent conflict situations in the four indicated countries. To improve the nutritional status of populations affected by crises, the project is multisectoral and focuses on programming in nutrition, health, WASH, food security, livelihood and advocacy.

1. Summary Table

Implementing Organisation: Action Against Hunger (ACF US)/Horn and Eastern Africa Regional Office (HEARO) and ACF Germany

GFFO Contract Number: S09-41-321.50 AFR/mult/ACF/2021/03

ACF Country Offices: ACF Uganda, ACF Ethiopia, ACF South Sudan, ACF Somalia

Local Partners:

• Ethiopia: Mothers and Children Multisectoral Development Organization (MCDMO).

• Somalia: Juba Foundation; Lifeline Gedo.

• South Sudan: MADA Women South Sudan.

Location (countries, regions)

• Ethiopia: Marsin - Somali and Teltele - Borena

• Uganda: Adjumani and Kiryandongo Districts

• Somalia: Lower Shebelle, Gedo, Sool, Bakool regions, Nugal regions

• South Sudan: Central Equatoria, Warrap and Jonglei States.

Project title: Multisectoral Humanitarian response to the deteriorating Nutrition situation, focusing on severely affected crisis contexts in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Sectors

• Nutrition sector

• Health Sector

• WASH Sector

• Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL)

• Advocacy

Duration: 51 Months (Approx. 4 years)

Project Volume: Approximately 19 million Euros

Starting Date: 01.07.2021

Ending Date: 31.10.2025

Donor: GFFO (German Federal Foreign Office

Evaluation Type: End of Project Evaluation (Project Impact)

Evaluation Dates: 1st September – 18th December 2025

2. Evaluation Purpose, Use and Objectives

The purpose of the evaluation is to establish, document and learn from the impact and effectiveness of project interventions, particularly examining how the project functioned as a multisectoral approach and contributed to improvements in the nutritional situation and to render accountability in line with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) criteria.The evaluation is expected to provide data on the performance and impact of the project interventions. The findings and recommendations will contribute to a learning process that enables ACF and its partners to draw lessons from its experience to improve the quality of its current and future projects. The results of the evaluation will also be used for the Final Report of the GFFO-funded Project. Action Against Hunger will, among others, share the results of the evaluation with the following groups: Donor (GFFO), Project Partners and stakeholders in the four project Countries, Governmental partners in the four implementing countries, Various co-ordination bodies, etc. The ownership of the draft and final documentation belongs to ACF.

The key objectives of the evaluation are summarized below:

1. Objective 1: is to assess both the country-specific and overall project performance against the most relevant outcome and output indicators outlined in the project logframe. The excerpt below is part of the logframe; once the expert is selected, ACF will share the complete logframe as a supporting document. The most relevant indicators will then be discussed jointly with the selected consultant.

Outcome 1: Improved nutritional status of populations affected by crises.

Outcome Indicator 1: Reduced GAM prevalence among the affected population in the targeted areas

Outcome Indicator 2: % of targeted population reporting access to safe health services at primary health care and community level.

Outcome Indicator 3: % of targeted population with access to safe and dignified WASH services.

Outcome Indicator 4: % of the targeted households with acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS).

Output 1.1.: Increased use of malnutrition prevention and treatment services and practices by women of reproductive age and young children in crisis affected communities

Output 1.2. Increased access to and use of essential health services at primary health care and community level

Output 1.3. Increased use of water, sanitation and hygiene services and practices that reduce the likelihood of diseases causing undernutrition Output 1.4. The immediate food needs and adaptive recovery response of crisis affected people are met

Outcome 2: To generate evidence, empower community participation and promote the scale-up of evidence-based, lifesaving approaches to adapt to and mitigate the negative effects of climate change on food and nutrition insecurity and increase accessibility to basic services in targeted humanitarian contexts.

Outcome Indicator 1: % of Humanitarian policies and plans integrating climate resilience response indicators/activities

Outcome Indicator 2: % of vulnerable communities represented in decision making process to advocate for policies that mitigate negative impacts of Climate change Outcome Indicator 3: % of Humanitarian response policies including Family MUAC and ICCM with clear plans and costing.

Output 2.1. Build an evidence base on climate-related food and nutrition insecurity to inform the policies and practices of relevant humanitarian actors (local communities, governments, donors, implementing agencies) for improved climate-resilient response

Output 2.2. Empower vulnerable communities to advocate for policies and programs that mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on their food and nutrition security and increase accessibility to basic nutrition, health and

WASH services

Output 2.3. Promote the scaling up of evidence-based and lifesaving approaches to prevent and treat acute malnutrition (like Family-MUAC and iCCM+)

1. Objective 2 is to evaluate the project in line with the OECD-DAC Criteria in terms of its effectiveness, relevance, coherence, efficiency, sustainability, impact, including learning and replicability with priority on assessing the project's expected results, objectives and overall goal, particularly focusing on the multisectoral project approach and improvements in the nutritional situation.

2. Objective 3 is to identify and document key lessons, challenges, and best practices to be integrated in the final report for the donor and to inform the design and implementation of future multisectoral humanitarian programming improve the nutritional status of populations affected by crises, together with concrete recommendations that can trigger action, changes and/or advocacy.

Evaluation Criteria: Key questions related to the assessment of the three objectives listed above (indicative and subject to finalization with the consultant)

1. Relevance / Appropriateness: To identify if the program was properly designed to meet targeted needs through evaluating and assessing program theory, logic, conceptual components and assumptions.

1. To what extent does the program logic, including the quality of the Theory of Change (ToC), support the achievement of the multisectoral project's objectives and expected results?

2. To what extent did the multisectoral project effectively reach the target group defined in the project proposal?

3. How well were the project objectives and the multisectoral approach tailored to the specific contexts and needs of the target group in the four countries, particularly with respect to nutritional crises and humanitarian situation?

2. Coherence:

1. How was the approaches between all sectors (nutrition, health, WASH, food security, livelihood and advocacy) coherent? What recommendations appear to improve and increase the multisectoral component of such intervention?

2. Did project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors)?

3. Are there better ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?

3. Effectiveness: To assess the progress made towards achieving the project’s goal and objectives based on the log-frame, design and monitoring data. (It is expected that the evaluator will verify the planned impact matrix against the actual project implementation and if necessary, establish an adjusted impact chain).

1. To what extent did the project achieve its targets, outputs, outcomes, and goals (see objective 1)?

2. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achieving of the objectives? Which interventions were most effective in reaching and impacting the target groups, and why?

4. Efficiency: To investigate whether the resources (financial, human, and materials) have been used efficiently and effectively for the wellbeing of the target community.

1. How far did the results achieved justify the resources incurred - were the resources effectively utilized? Could a different approach have produced better results?

2. How efficient and timely has this project been implemented and managed in accordance with the project proposal?

3. Were there any delays, resource gaps, or coordination challenges that affected the efficiency of project implementation, especially during the top-up period?

4. How efficiently were multisectoral delivered in resource-constrained humanitarian contexts, and were synergies across sectors adequately leveraged to avoid duplication?

5. Impact: To assess the potential impact of the program on the targeted communities

1. What are the positive and negative, intended, and unintended changes in nutritional status produced by the project in the targeted communities?

2. Analyze the contribution of the project to any observed impact (intended, unintended, positive, negative) and analyze what other actors and factors contributed to the impact.

6. Sustainability

1. Did the project develop and implement an adequate exit and transition strategy across sectors (Nutrition, Health, WASH, FSL, Advocacy) that promotes continued improvements in nutritional status and reduces risk of dependency?

2. How effective were the project’s phase-out strategies in supporting the integration of multisectoral approaches into local health and nutrition systems, and in sustaining policy dialogue on nutrition and basic services at national and subnational levels??

3. Which specific components of the project (such as community-based nutrition models (e.g. Family MUAC, multisectoral service delivery structures, or local advocacy platforms) are likely to be sustained beyond the project’s end?

7. Learning and Replicability:

1. What are the key lessons learned from implementing a multisectoral approach (Nutrition, Health, WASH, FSL, Advocacy) in crisis-affected settings, and how can these lessons inform the design of future integrated humanitarian programs to improve nutritional status?

2. Which components of the project have shown strong potential for replication or scale-up, and under what conditions?

3. What cross-cutting strategies (e.g. gender equity, climate adaptation, localization) most effectively contributed to improving nutritional outcomes, and what made them successful in different country contexts?

3. Scope of Evaluation, Approach and Methods

The end evaluation of the Multisectoral project must focus on the whole project from the beginning to its planned ending (July 2021-October 2025) in the four countries: South Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia. Even though the project started with seven countries, this evaluation will focus only on the four countries indicated above and that are in the current topup period. The evaluation process will cover project impacts in all the project sectors of Nutrition, Health, WASH, Food security and livelihood (FSL) and Advocacy, including the ACF cross-cutting issues of gender, climate change adaptation and localization. The evaluation is expected to follow provisions provided in the project logframe and proposal with regards to outcomes, outputs, activities and indicators (outcome and output indicators) in all the four mentioned countries and in their respective implementation regions.

Target population: The end of project evaluation will cover the project regions of South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and Uganda where the project activities were implemented. The project targeted a total of 1,303,083 individuals as direct beneficiaries these are broken down per country as Ethiopia 274,202, South Sudan 588,173, Somalia 134,380 and Uganda 306,328. Among others, the target group consists of people who are particularly affected by undernutrition and food insecurity in humanitarian crises, with a special focus on pregnant and lactating women and children under 5 years of age. At the same time, the project supported the vulnerable people in the provision of WASH, Food Security, health and nutrition services. The target population in the project therefore included:

• Frontline Health Workers and Community Health Volunteers in the targeted communities

• Children under the age of 5 with acute malnutrition (MAM/SAM)

• Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW) and Caregivers of MAM/SAM children

• Female-headed vulnerable households and Vulnerable households with elderly members and/members living with a disability

• Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs); Returnees; Refugees (2.7%) and (Host) communities

• Vulnerable households without access to safe water and/or safe sanitation facilities

• Religious leaders and other key persons in communities and households (grandmothers, etc.) for GBV prevention and awareness

• National governments/international key-governments and donors

The evaluation should follow a collaborative and participatory mixed methods approach (e.g. structured surveys, FGDs, KIIs, etc.) that draws on both existing and new quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions, focusing on the 3 objectives listed above. The evaluation should combine evaluation tools based on international standards and guidelines which are OECD DAC Quality Standards for evaluating humanitarian action. The methodology design, tools and questionnaires should be developed by the consultant in consideration of the information outlined in this ToR to ensure accuracy and rigor and in consultation with ACF. The choice of method and sampling must also consider the needs and capacities of the different target groups and stakeholders (see below). The consultant will report to ACF US and ACF Germany. Modalities of communication, feedback mechanisms and contact with stakeholders will be discussed further during the inception phase.

Desk review should be conducted by the consultant/consultancy firm to inform us about the methodology and development of the tools. In addition, the conducted desk review should cover the following documents that will be provided by ACF: project proposal, log frame, budget, MEAL plan, mid-term surveys and existing data collection tools with ACF and among partners. The consultant should additionally identify any other sources for appropriate additional information that may be needed to address three objectives of the evaluation, e.g. scientific papers, evaluation reports by other humanitarian actors and UN agencies.

The sampling strategy will be identified and described by the consultant/consultancy firm and approved by ACF. It should consider the organizational and scientific standards, and the overall sample should be representative and randomized. The sampling process should be identified and described by the consultancy firm as relevant to the target groups and different settings in the different project locations taking into consideration the different target population

Tools for quantitative and qualitative data collection need to be developed appropriately and should be field tested in some selected project locations before application.

Quantitative and qualitative data collection will be performed by the external consultant. Prior to the data collection. Enumerators will be recruited and trained by the consultant (supported by ACF US MEAL team). Data will be entered and analysed in statistical software and cleaned. FDGs/KIIs information will be transcribed as well as analysed by the consultant and its team.

The consultant will have the overall responsibility for the coordination and supervision of the end evaluation, including the data collection at field level, but will be supported by the respective ACF US MEAL and project teams in different countries. There will be a close collaboration with the MEAL team of each of the four country offices and the Project Director. All data sets and documents will be submitted by the consultant to ACF US for recording purposes and data storage. ACF US country MEAL team at country level as part of support and quality check, will also randomly review some of the datasets for validation purposes. All collected documents and data are to be treated as confidential. Any personal data must be handled in accordance with applicable data protection regulations and used exclusively for the purpose of the evaluation. Interviews will generally be anonymized. Respondents will not be quoted in the reports without their explicit consent. No later than one year after the completion of the evaluation (i.e., acceptance of the evaluation report), the contractor shall permanently and securely delete all data and documents in compliance with data protection regulations.

4. Key Deliverables, Tentative Timeline and estimated Expert Days

Detailed methodology and data collection methods should be included in the technical proposal, which will be further defined and fine-tuned during the evaluation´s inception phase. The following are the evaluation deliverables the evaluator will deliver to ACF:

1. Inception Report: The report will outline the evaluation design, methods, tools, samples of questionnaires, and detailed work plan for the entire exercise. Draft questionnaires, interview guides and other data collection tools must be included. As part of the inception report, the consultant must provide a data analysis plan showing the questions and analysis for each of the three objectives. The Inception Report must also outline potential risks and mitigation strategies as well as ethical protocols for working with vulnerable groups. The inception report, incl. methods and tools will have to be approved by ACF and will be reviewed during an inception meeting before data collection starts.

2. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft report should mirror the final version of the evaluation report depicting raw information collected during the data collection exercise. Essentially the draft report will outline the evaluation methodology, analysis, disaggregated findings, lessons learned and recommendations and includes an executive summary as well as limitations and constraints encountered during data collection and analysis. The draft report will be reviewed by ACF to ensure its accuracy, clarity, and alignment with established evaluation TOR (incl. scope of work and objectives). The resulting comments will be provided to the consultant in written form within the agreed timeline in a Validation Meeting. The comments will enable improvement of the final report.

3. Final Evaluation Report: The final evaluation report should address the topics raised in this ToR and correspond to the three evaluation objectives set out above. The report therefore outlines the evaluation methodology, analysis, disaggregated findings, lessons learned and recommendations and includes an executive summary as well as limitations and constraints encountered during data collection and analysis. For better illustration, infographics should also be included. Annexes should include data collection tools, raw data summary, and stakeholder lists. After submission of final report ACF will do a final review for any loose ends and any upcoming comments will be consolidated and submitted to the consolidation for finalisation within agreed timeline.

4. Furthermore, a Summary Fact Sheet (2 pages) must be submitted together with the final report. The fact sheet should include an executive summary of key findings, major recommendations, and one or two infographics for visual clarity.

Tentative Timeline

and estimated Expert Days Deadlines Expert Days (estimated)

Inception Report Sept. 23rd 5 (Preparation and Inception Report)

Inception Meeting Sept. 29th ½ (Inception Meeting with stakeholders)

Data Collection Phase Oct. 1st – Nov. 16th 55 (Selection, Training of

Enumerators, Data Collection, Follow-Up Meetings with ACF after data collection in each country)

Draft Evaluation Report Dec. 1st 10 (Data Analyzing, Feedback with ACF and Draft Report)

Validation Meeting Dec. 8th ½ (Validation Meeting with Stakeholders)

Final Evaluation Report

2 Pager Summary Fact Sheet Dec. 15th 3 (Finalizing of Report and 2-Pager)

Please note that the number of expert days indicated in the ToR is an estimate and intended as a general orientation. We leave it to the applicant to propose their own assessment and calculation of the required days, which should be submitted as part of the proposal.

5. Tasks/Services to be Provided by the Consultant

• Desk Review

• Development of evaluation design, methods, tools, questionnaires, detailed work plan and sample selection (Inception Report)

• Training of enumerators

• Testing of Evaluation Methods and Tools

• Conduct data collection on sight in all four countries

• Apply quality assurance measures to ensure data quality

• Analysis of data with focus on addressing the three objectives of the evaluation

• Compiling of data into a detailed and comprehensive report.

6. Profile of the evaluator The evaluation will be carried out by an evaluator with the following profile:

• Academic qualification/relevant degree in e.g. Social Sciences, M&E/equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken.

• At least 5 years of experience in quantitative and qualitative research with use of social research tools and techniques, statistics, analyses of data and sample survey, preferably with explicit experience in the following sectors: Nutrition, Health WASH, Food and Livelihood Security and Advocacy.

• Previous experience in working in or at least proven knowledge of Horn of Africa Region specifically Ethiopia, South Sudan, Somalia and Uganda (at least five (5) years of experience in similar work).

• Demonstrated experience in the last 5 years with INGOs, International Organizations, Governments or the UN Humanitarian Response and development work.

• Proven significant field experience in research and the evaluation of humanitarian projects (particularly in fragile contexts)

• Excellent communication and writing skills in English.

• Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines.

• To ensure the independence of the evaluation team and to avoid conflicts of interest, the consultant (team) employed by the contractor for the evaluation must not be or have been involved in the planning or implementation of the project to be evaluated, not even in an advisory capacity.

• Strong awareness of cultural and gender norms and cultural sensitivity.

7. Safeguarding and protection

The consultant/Agency will be expected to sign an ACF US safeguarding and protection policy ensuring adherence to high standards of safeguarding protection of its staff, enumerators and people we work with during this exercise. The evaluation will respect the essential ACF US and GFFO ethical guidelines concerning conducting study with children and community members (Adults). It is crucial to ensure that the risks of potential harm to participants resulting from the data collection process are minimized and are outweighed by the potential benefits of the outcomes of the study. The consultant is required to abide by the same ethical principles and guidelines developed by ACF US during this mission.

How to apply

8. Application and selection process

Interested applicants/consultancy firms are requested to submit the following information as part of the technical and financial proposal. These criteria will also be used for evaluating the offers and selecting the consultant.

Technical proposal:

• Profile or/and Curriculum Vitae of the consultant(s)/consultancy firm (at least 4 CVs)

• Brief letter of motivation summarizing relevant experiences and qualifications for the Consultancy. The brief letter of motivation (max. 15 pages) should also demonstrate clarity and understanding of the assignment/interpretation of the ToR and an appropriate methodology (Candidates should clearly outline the technical approach to achieve the assignment and mitigate project risks (qualitative and/or quantitative approaches)).

• Detailed Work plan (provide a detailed breakdown of the data collection timeline (e.g., estimated days per country))

• Three (3) samples of previous works (including a recent evaluation report (authored or coauthored by the applicant)) demonstrate expertise in designing evaluations and writing high quality reports. Where the work samples cannot be shared, please share a list of works and the organizations worked for, with a contact person.

• At least three (3) traceable references and completion certificates in the last five (5) years for similar work conducted.

• If applicable, proof of legal registration, e.g. Valid Registration Certificates; Valid Trading License for consultancy firms.

• Financial proposal:

• The financial proposal should be inclusive of all taxes and should indicate a detailed breakdown of the calculated expert days.

• The financial proposal should include indicative costs for logistics and field visits, including accommodation; the costs for logistics and field visits should be indicated separately.

• Prices should be quoted in US Dollars (USD).

Tender Schedule

Description Date

Advert 23rd July 2025

Closing 6th August 2025

Last Date for clarification 31st July 2025

Tender Opening 7th August 2025

Evaluation 7th - 20th August 2025

Interviews 9th September 2025

Signing of Contract 11th September 2025

Submission Requirements

The consultant shall submit the following documents:

• A cover letter expressing interest and outlining relevant experience.

• Detailed CVs (min. 4) highlighting qualifications and previous work.

• A brief proposal (maximum 15 pages) outlining the proposed approach, methodology, work-plan and budget, including 3 samples of previous work (including a recent evaluation report) as well as 3 references and completion certificates.

• KRA PIN for Kenyan Registered Companies

• A copy of national ID/Passport for owner/director/manager

Proposals should be sent to ACF US [email protected] no later than 17:00Hrs (EAT) on 6th August 2025. Any inquiries for clarification to be sent to [email protected] latest by 31st July 2025. Please note that only shortlisted firms/candidates will be contacted for a short interview in week of 9th September 2025. The consultant will be selected by an evaluation committee, which will also be responsible for the technical oversight of the evaluation process.