**Terms of Reference (ToR)**

**Country Programme Evaluation: South Sudan, and Area (A1)**

1. **Background**

South Sudan has continued to grapple with recurrent humanitarian crisis since independence in 2011. This is mainly triggered by the ongoing political and inter-communal tensions that have left over 7.8 million people in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Persistent displacements have destabilised communities, damaged the economy and crippled the government capacity to provide basic services. The collapse of the power-sharing agreement, delays in the implementation of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan have also contributed to the humanitarian crisis. Moreover, persistent human rights abuse amid the ethnic mobilisation and political grievances, widespread arming and repression of civic freedoms have exacerbated the instability. Deep mistrust, resource-driven conflicts, and focus on power hinder reconciliation and endangering fragile peace efforts.

DanChurchAid (DCA) has been operating in South Sudan since 2007, providing humanitarian support to the most vulnerable communities across Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, Upper Nile, Unity, and Greater Pibor Administrative Area States of South Sudan. DCA is also implementing humanitarian response programme in the regions (A1). DCA’s Country Office programming is guided by the three global goals: save lives, build resilient communities, and fight extreme inequalities.

The programme is implemented through two diverse approaches namely, partner-led implementation with greater technical backstopping, and direct implementation (mainly for the humanitarian mine action activities). In the current strategy period, DCA has collaborated with nine local partners in South Sudan and four local partners in the regions. DCA is part of efforts to strengthen localisation and has continued to strengthen the capacity of the local and faith-based actors. In line with DCA's focus on localization and increased focus on the survivor and community-led responses, humanitarian, development, mine action, and peacebuilding responses are largely implemented through local and national partners.

DCA developed a four-year Programme Strategy (2023-2026) for South Sudan aimed at guiding the Country Office (CO) efforts in aligning with the organisational goals, responding to the local needs, and driving impact over the years. The main objective of the programme strategy is to ensure people are self-reliant and have access to basic goods and services, live in dignity in peaceful and resilient communities and enjoy equal rights. This is centred around the three goals of save lives, build resilient communities, and fight extreme inequality, achieved through the following sub-objectives:

1. Support communities through improved, coordinated, timely and high-quality humanitarian assistance that enables them to recover from disaster and conflict.
2. Increase access for crisis-affected communities -including displaced and returnees to basic services, food and livelihood opportunities.
3. Support the development of peaceful communities with equal opportunities for all through community-based initiatives.

The programme aims to achieve these objectives through a range of sectoral focuses. The primary focus areas include cash assistance, protection, livelihoods, peacebuilding, climate and disaster risk reduction, and humanitarian mine-action, among others. DCA South Sudan, and A1 is approaching the end of the 2023-2026 country programme strategy. The next country programme strategy shall be developed in the third quarter of 2026 and will incorporate lessons learned from the last four years.

**2. Overview of the Country Programme**

The strategic focus of the Country Programme is to build self-reliance while ensuring access to basic goods and services, dignity, peaceful and resilient communities, and equal rights for all. It prioritizes immediate relief (cash-based and protection measures, shelter assistance) alongside long-term resilience (village savings and loan associations, market linkages, value chains, and sustainable natural-resource management), with a focus on localization, inclusive governance, and accountability. The approach links conflict sensitivity, climate adaptation, and crisis-modified governance to reduce vulnerability and support systemic peace, while empowering communities, partners, and local authorities and promoting dialogue with duty-bearers and evidence-based advocacy on climate impacts.

In South Sudan, the short-term focus of the country programme is on supporting the vulnerable households to meet their basic needs through cash assistance and increasing area under agriculture production by clearing ERWs and ensuring that the cleared land is utilised for agricultural production (*From Hazard to Harvest*). In the medium and longer term, the programme seeks to strengthen community-led protection approaches, including through mainstreaming and integrated protection, diversity, and inclusion practices, while DCA's human rights-based approach aims to increase community safety and peaceful coexistence.

The programme also aims to increase the inclusion of gender-based violence survivors in targeting frameworks and strengthen its support for a community-led response approach (sclr/GCT). Diversifying livelihoods to increase income through agricultural production and market linkages, income-generating activities, the Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA), and community-managed disaster risk and reduction (DRR) will increase the individual, household and resilience. The resilience-building activities focus on adopting the agroecological practices, value chain analysis, and DRR.

DCA equally seeks to integrate conflict sensitivity analysis throughout the programme cycle, support policy dissemination at the community level, support vocational and life skills training, strengthen access to gender and protection services, financial inclusion, and promote inclusive participation in the decision-making process. This is aimed at addressing unequal power relationships and decision-making structures. DCA South Sudan works with other agencies to build the national authorities' capacity to coordinate and support non-state service providers.

In the Regions, DCA has continued to respond to the food security needs by providing multi-purpose cash, agricultural inputs and market support; shelter/settlements support, protection (EORE and protection), and integrated natural resource management (INRM). This focuses on supporting both the IDP and host communities in the response to Sudan war that broke out in April 2023. In addition, the programme contributes to the core services by supporting humanitarian coordination. The operational environment is expected to continue to be challenging, as the arrival of returnees and the political uncertainty stretches existing systems and resources in both regions.

DCAs Programme in South Sudan, A1 primarily targets conflict affected populations including IDPs, refugees, returnees and the host communities; women and girls at the risk of gender-based violence; children; persons with disabilities and other marginalised groups; smallholder farmers, pastoralists and rural households; and survivors of violence including SGBV. Secondary stakeholders include local communities and leaders, government authorities, faith actors, NGOs, UN agencies, donors and supporters, service providers, and humanitarian clusters, who coordinate, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and monitor outcomes.

DCA has made substantial progress towards achieving the key strategic objectives and outcomes. This has been demonstrated through the following:

- *Food security and livelihoods:* DCA collaborated with the local partners to address the food security and livelihood needs of the vulnerable communities through the market and cash-based interventions, as well as promoting agro-ecology principles in farming
- \*Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA):\*DCA focused on building safer communities and saving lives by clearing landmines and explosive remnants of war and raising safety awareness through explosive ordnance risk education. Specifically, DCA employed an integrated approach to Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA), combining with food security under the theme “from Hazard to Harvest.”
- \*Peace and conflict mitigation:\*DCA supported the local partners working with community structures to prevent and mitigate conflict through peacebuilding and social cohesion activities in conflict-prone areas.
- \*Saving lives through community-led response:\*In response to the humanitarian needs of disaster-affected households, DCA has continued to support the local structures in developing and implementing action plans for timely and appropriate responses. This focuses on helping the communities to become more resilient to future disasters.
- \*Women’s empowerment:\*Through local partners, DCA has continued to promote women’s economic, political, and social empowerment in South Sudan/A1. This involves supporting organisations that aid victims and survivors of gender-based violence and rape, including providing psychosocial support. DCA has also worked with traditional leaders and other stakeholders to foster a sustainable attitude change towards women and girls.

The programme faces a convergence of volatile contexts that threaten implementation: ongoing conflict, institutional weakness, and ethnic and political tensions that fuel displacement and limit civilian access; a collapsing economy with hyperinflation, capital shortages, and reduced public spending that undermines service delivery and project sustainability; climate shocks and recurrent flooding that disrupt livelihoods, infrastructure, and markets; a deteriorating humanitarian crisis with millions in need and persistent protection risks, including gender-based violence; and operational constraints such as restricted access and potential policy changes affecting NGOs, coupled with landmine/ERW risks in some areas. These factors create fragility, erratic resource availability, volatile regulatory environments, and complex coordination challenges across local authorities, partners, and displacement sites, all which risk delaying delivery, reducing effectiveness, and jeopardizing sustainability.

DCA South Sudan, and A1 works through the local partners, ensuring that community knowledge drives the programme design and continues to shape implementation and monitoring. Each partner is anchored in the communities they serve, with local offices that strengthen mandates, relationships, and understanding with the people they aim to assist. DCA’s role is to enhance partners’ technical and organizational capacities, provide financial and contract management support, and share best practices and learning to improve local practices and reduce rural communities’ sense of isolation.

**3. Purpose, Objective and Evaluation Questions**

**3.1 The purpose**

DCA’s country programme in South Sudan, and A1 is coming to the end of a 4-year cycle in 2026. DCA is seeking to carry out a consolidated external evaluation of the country programme during the 2023 to 2026 programme cycle for learning and accountability purposes. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation will provide substantial guidance to the design of the next country programme cycle starting January 2027 and will contribute to organisational learning at the global and country levels of the organisation.

**3.2 The objective of the evaluation**

To assess the performance of DCA’s country programme in South Sudan, and A1, with a specific focus on the contribution of the programme to DCA’s global goals of Save Lives, Build Resilient Communities and Fight Extreme Inequality. The evaluation should also assess programme performance and learning with a nexus lens, examining outcomes against set goals, but also how the programme has been designed and implemented to contribute to collective humanitarian, development, and peace outcomes through complementarity in DCA’s country programme in South Sudan, and A1. The evaluation shall also assess the extent to which the programme has succeeded in achieving the triple nexus goals, and enhancing humanitarian, development and peace outcomes through an integrated approach.

The evaluation shall be conducted against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact and sustainability with a view to drawing conclusion on the programme’s overall impact and effectiveness and to informing lessons and make recommendations for future programme periods at country and global levels.

The evaluation is expected to generate findings for organisational and programmatic learning on DCA’s global approaches, organisational commitments and thematic priorities. In particular, DCA is keen to understand how the adoption of the PANEL principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment, and linkages to the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to development and humanitarian work, and the country programming approach (including use of Theory of Change) have contributed to the performance of the country programme and the achievement of the objectives, hereunder how the programme has been able to adjust after the ToC critical reflection workshops together with implementing partners. The evaluation should generate findings and learning on how the implementation of DCA’s fundamental principles and cross-cutting commitments have contributed to programme results.

**3.3 Standard DCA country programme evaluation questions and criteria**

The Programme evaluation should be guided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) criteria and Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) criteria for evaluating humanitarian actions of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact, and sustainability criteria). *These questions are not exhaustive, and DCA will further review the questions with the successful bidder at the inception phase.*

**Relevance**

*Key question:*

1\. To what extent is the country’s programme strategy relevant to the needs identified?

*Sub questions*:

1. To what extent is the intervention aligned with international human rights instruments and principles (including relevant international law for humanitarian and disaster response), and with national and local frameworks that advance human rights, gender equality, and social inclusion, in terms of programme design, implementation, and outcome?
2. To what extent was the programme design aligned with the identified gaps in the humanitarian preparedness, capacities, and coordination mechanisms?
3. To what extent are climate adaptation and mitigation appropriately reflecting the needs in the country programme and well-integrated in the programme?
4. To what extent has the country programme considered drivers of violent conflict and integrated transformative approaches and what are lessons learnt?
5. How relevant and adequate were the life-saving measures to the immediate requirements and priorities of communities affected by disaster and conflicts?
6. To what extent have the communities been involved in the planning and implementation of the programme?
7. To what extent is the country programme’s portfolio (partners, projects, etc.) relevant to the country programme objectives?

*Sub-questions:*
8. To what extent are the partners and projects contributing to the country programme theory of change pathway? In what way do the partners and projects complement each other in achieving the country programme goals (geographically, targeting, thematically, etc.)?
9. Are there added values and relevance of using the ToC approach with partners for planning and as a yearly programme reflection and programme management tool?
10. How has the country programme engaged with faith-based and other civil society actors in programme outcomes, inclusivity, advocacy, and sustainability? How have partnerships changed/developed in the country programme in terms of localisation and local leadership?

**Effectiveness**

*Key question:*

3.To what extent were the country programme objectives achieved at the outcome level, including changes in rights-holders’ empowerment and systemic outcomes identified in the CO’s pathway of change?

*Sub questions:*

1. Which specific marginalised rights-holders have been supported by the programme? To which extent were life-saving services provided in a timely, safe, and efficient manner?
2. To what extent were the participation and accountability mechanisms inclusive and sustainable to be used effectively at engaging rights-holders?
3. What results were achieved in terms of reducing the underlying causes of inequality and discrimination? What were the key factors that contributed to the achievement?
4. To what extent has the programme tested and adopted innovative approaches, and how has this contributed to programme effectiveness?
5. To what extent have the interventions contributed to the empowerment of rights-holders to claim or access their rights and entitlements and of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations?
6. To what extent is the country’s programme embracing a double or triple nexus approach? How is that contributing to the programme’s effectiveness?
7. To what extent has the DCA programme been able to adapt and support delivery of humanitarian response when needed according to established quality and accountability standards (CHS and Sphere)?
8. How effective has DCA's humanitarian mine action integrated approach of saving lives by clearing landmines and explosive remnants of war and raising safety awareness through explosive ordnance risk education been?

*Key Question:*

4\. How have partnerships been enhanced as a result of the country programme? (DCA and partners, partners and rights holders, rights holders and duty bearers, and partners among themselves?)

*Sub questions:*

1. How are the partners involved in decision making and what are their decision-making powers in the planning and implementation of the country programme including the cross-cutting activities?
2. How well has DCA handled the partnership requirements in relation to due diligence, capacity sharing plans, contractual agreements, and memorandum of understanding with partners?
3. To what extent does DCA deliver adequate capacity for project implementation and organisational strengthening, particularly regarding capacity sharing with the partners involved in the country programme, and is DCA responsive to needs identified by partners e.g. with annual capacity in the field of interest?
4. Do the partners have the skills, commitment and constituency to contribute to the achievement of the country programme ToC?
5. To what extent has the country programme enabled the partners’ and DCA’s advocacy work with other relevant actors, e.g., facilitation of networks?
6. Localisation: What are the challenges and opportunities in strengthening/supporting localisation and local leadership in the programme? How did DCA contribute to reinforcing the ability of local and national actors and partners to deliver on needs in an effective and timely way?
7. Did the programme result in new locally led processes and changes?
8. How effectively did DCA and partner organisations address any challenges or conflicts that arose during the partnership? How satisfied are the partners with the level of transparency and trust?

**Efficiency**

*Key question:*

5\. To what extent has the country programme integrated DCA’s Value for Money efficiency considerations into its programme cycle?

*Sub questions:*

1. To what extent were the interventions cost-effective, and the resources used in an efficient way and according to the programme’s objectives and comparative advantage?
2. Where relevant, what are the key learnings from working in partnerships vs. self-implementation?
3. To what extent has DCA (CO and HQ) been an efficient manager of the country programme (strategic planning, staffing, resource management, monitoring, partnerships, etc.)?
4. Did the programme adhere to the established timelines and milestones?
5. Were there any unexpected challenges or obstacles that affected the programme efficiency?

**Impact**

*Key question:*

6\. What has been the positive and negative impact at rights-holders' and duty bearers’ level (outcome) directly or indirectly, including systemic and sustainable changes?

*Sub questions:*

1. What evidence is there that the interventions contributed to rights-holders increasing their access to and claiming their rights, of duty-bearers better performing their duties and obligations, and of accountability mechanisms being strengthened?
2. What evidence is there of changes in gender and social inequalities e.g. in access and use of resources, in decision-making, in division of labour etc.?
3. What is the magnitude and significance of observed changes?
4. Were there any unintended effects on groups (either included or not included in the intervention)? What measures have been and can be taken to eliminate or reduce the unintended effects?

**Coherence**

*Key Question:*

7\. Does the programme support or undermine other initiatives?

*Sub-questions*

*Internal coherence*

1. Does the programme complement other actions and policies in DCA?

***External coherence***

1. Complementarity: Does the programme complement the actions of other organisations and actors in the same sector or country?
2. Coordination: How well are the intervention's actions harmonized with those of other stakeholders?
3. Avoidance of duplication: Does the programme create duplication of efforts, or does it add value and avoid overlap?
4. Undermining effects: Does the programme undermine or conflict with other relevant interventions or policies?

***Policy coherence***

1. Policy alignment: To what extent is the programme aligned with relevant national and international policies, norms, and standards such as international humanitarian standards, CHS, national mine action standards, among others?
2. Consistency with international agreements: Does the programme align with international conventions or agreements that DCA South Sudan is part of such as the Charter for change, and CHS alliance, among others.

**Sustainability**

*Key question:*

8\. To what extent can the effects of the programme be expected to last beyond the lifecycle of the programme?

*Sub-questions:*

1. To what extent has the intervention furthered institutional changes (changes in laws, policies, practices, and resource levels) for furthering human rights, gender equality and social equality? To what extent are these changes sustainable?
2. To what extent has the intervention strengthened citizen claiming and monitoring of human rights, gender equality and social equality? To what extent is it likely to continue once the programme ends?
3. How resilient are the outcomes of our interventions to potential external shocks such as conflicts, climate shocks or changing contexts in South Sudan, and A1?
4. Does the country programme carry out regular risk assessments and keep an updated risk management plan to inform programming design and implementation? Are there any factors threatening the sustainability of the programme outcomes?
5. To what extent was the programme able to connect short-term interventions to medium-term strategies and longer-term perspectives?
6. To what extent did the programme adopt different approaches towards environment-sensitive protection programming? What are the concrete adjustments applied both operationally and programmatically
7. To what extent did the programme build the capacity of the local recipients and structures in contributing to the exit strategy? How feasible is the exit strategy considering the context and capacities?

**Lessons learned**

1. What are the key lessons learned from the implementation of the Country programme, and what evidence supports them?
2. What best practices should be adopted, and what recommendations are needed to guide programme improvements?

**4. Scope of the evaluation**

The evaluation assignment shall cover the DCA South Sudan, and A1 country programme period running from 2023 to 2026. Geographically, the evaluation shall cover 6 States in South Sudan including Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, Upper Nile, Pibor Greater Administration Area (GPPA), and Unity State. Moreover, A1 Programme shall cover 12 counties in the regions where DCA has been working through the local partners. The evaluation shall broadly assess the key achievements of the long-term changes and outcomes outlined in the country office strategy results framework. A strong emphasis shall be placed on determining the extent to which the key results have been achieved and whether there were unexpected outcomes, determining the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the programme. Besides, the evaluation shall document the key challenges, lessons learned and recommendations for the next strategy period. The evaluation shall take place between April and June 2026 with the final report expected by 13th July 2026.

Access to certain programme locations, especially in the Regions may be restricted due to security concerns. DCA will work closely with the Consultant to provide routine security updates and guidance if some locations remain inaccessible.

1. **Approach and Methodology**

It is expected that the consultants will further develop the methodology to be applied within this consultancy. However, the consultants should be guided by the OECD DAC criteria and the UNEG quality standards during the methodology design, data collection and report writing. A mixed-methods design and analysis is recommended to ensure comprehensive triangulation and validation of evidence.

In addition, the following key elements should guide the development of the proposed methodology. Participatory methodologies must be employed to the extent possible to ensure that the right holders targeted by the programme effectively participate throughout the evaluation process. The method developed must also be gender sensitive and inclusive and adhere to the PANEL principles. The focus should be on collecting a mix of data that is usable to answer the above questions and provide concrete recommendations to the country programme.

The methodology used and the final evaluation report should adhere to the minimum standards of the quality of evidence outlined in BOND Evidence Principles Checklist, including voice and inclusion, appropriateness, triangulation, contribution, and transparency.

**Data privacy and protection**

The Evaluator is expected to sign an understanding to ensure protection of personal data collected during this assignment. The Evaluator in the (inception report) needs to elaborate on how participant data will be collected and protected; what equipments will be used to store the data, and how long this data will be stored. It is the Evaluator’s responsibility to ensure that all staff involved have a clear understanding of the purpose of the evaluation. Translators, if needed, must be organized by the Evaluator and should strictly comply with the above measures. It is the role of the Evaluator to ensure that interviewers are trained in confidentiality procedures. The proposed staff should have experience in programme monitoring, surveying, and data collection and effectively use technology-based analysis software to collect and analyze data. The Evaluator should prepare all manuals, guides, and training materials used to train data collectors. All the tools should be designed in English and approved by DCA Country Office and HQ.

1. **Outputs**
2. Description of the planned objectives of the evaluation following a meeting with DCA Country Office and relevant Head Office advisors at the start of the process. This meeting should be facilitated by the evaluation team, prior to the development of the inception report (point 5 in timeline below)
3. Inception report, which comprises initial findings of document review, fully developed methodology, data collection tools and evaluation matrix for the evaluation, and workplan for the evaluation. (point 6 in timeline below)
4. Write-up of overview of research, field work and interviews undertaken. (point 7 in timeline below)
5. A list of the most significant findings and recommendations to be shared and discussed at a debriefing session with the DCA Country Office and advisors in the Head Office when the evaluation has been carried out. (point 8 in timeline below)
6. Draft and final evaluation reports in 1-3-25 format which makes use of the suggested report structure below as agreed with the evaluation manager. (point 9 and 11 in timeline below)
7. Presentation containing the main findings and recommendations to be shared at a meeting with DCA Country Office and Head Office advisors. (point 14 in timeline below).

**7. DCA’s 1-3-25 Report Structure**

The evaluation report prepared for DCA should follow the standard 1-3-25 format:

1. Start with one page of main messages including main findings and recommendations
2. Follow that with a 3-page executive summary
3. Present findings in no more than 25 pages of writing.

Further details are below and outlined in the DCA’s MEAL policy and DCA’s Mandatory Evaluation Procedures.

- 1 Final Recommendations (once report is finalised)
- 3 Executive Summary
- 25 The structure of the report is flexible but should include the following sections:
- Background to programme
- Introduction to evaluation
- Description of methods and process
- Overview of evaluation findings
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Lessons Learnt
- Include visual graphics in the report as appropriate.

Annexes as needed. To include as a minimum:

- Final ToR
- Inception Report
- Tools for data collection
- Index, list of abbreviations

**8. Suggested Schedule and Milestones for Evaluation**

**DCA**

- Publication of Request for Proposals (including this ToR as Annex 1): (due dates: 02.04.2026 – 20.04.2026)
- Selection of evaluation team by the Procurement Committee and negotiation of contract (due dates: 20.04.2026 – 24.04.2026)
- Provision of initial documentation pack to evaluation team (due dates: 28.04.2026 - 30.04.2026)
- Briefing meetings with DCA and consultants and initial literature review (due date: 04.05.2026)
- Feedback and approval of inception report (due date: 20.05.2026)
- 1st Feedback to evaluation team (due date: 26.06.2026)
- 2nd Feedback to evaluation team (due date: 08.07.2026)
- Evaluation finalised and approved by DCA (due date: 13.07.2026)
- Preparation of management response and action plan (due date: 17.07.2026)

**Consultant**

- Meeting led by evaluation team prior to inception report (due date: 08.05.2026)
- Inception Report submitted to DCA (due date: 15.05.2026)
- Research, field work and interviews (due date: 05.06.2026)
- Debriefing session with DCA CO team (and partners as appropriate) and head office advisors (due date: 08.06.2026)
- First draft evaluation report (due date: 22.06.2026)
- Second draft evaluation report (due date: 03.07.2026)
- Present the main findings and recommendations to DCA country offices and head office staff (due date: 15.07.2026).

**9. Evaluation Management**

The evaluation will be managed by the Country Office Head of MEAL (Victor Onama). DCA will manage the contract and engagement with the Consultant in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Consultant shall make the necessary arrangements and coordinate with DCA prior to the field work for proper logistical coordination. The relevant contacts will be shared with the Consultant. The summary of the roles and responsibilities are outlined as below:

\*\*\*Evaluation Commissioner (Head of Programme):\*\*\*Commissions/authorizes the evaluation study, the main user of the evaluation results.

\*\*\*Evaluation Manager (Head of MEAL):\*\*\*Overall management of the evaluation and technical support where needed. In particular, the Head of MEAL will provide technical support during the evaluation process to ensure that the evaluation is of the required quality and standard, maintain day-to-day coordination and communication with the Consultant during the entire evaluation process.

\*\*\*External Evaluator/Consultant:\*\*\*Responsible for carrying out the evaluation as agreed upon in the ToR (and the Inception Report).

\*\*\*Logistical support (Head of Procurement and Logistics):\*\*\*Make sure that the evaluation administration regarding the finances and procurement is compliant with the existing donor/organisation’s regulations.

**10. Evaluation Criteria**

The evaluation method will be quality and cost-based selection. A two-stage procedure shall be utilised in evaluating the Proposals, a technical evaluation and a financial evaluation. Proposals will be ranked according to their combined technical (*St*) and financial (*Sf*) scores using the weights of 75% for the Technical Proposal; and 25% for the offered price. Each proposal’s overall score shall therefore be: St X 75% + Sf X 25%.

**Technical evaluation**

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

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

**Technical Evaluation (50 points)**

Expertise of the Candidate submitting the proposal

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

**Proposed organisation and methodology (50 points)**

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

**Interviews**

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

**Financial evaluation**

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

Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which

Sf is the financial score

Fm is the lowest price and

F is the price of the proposal under evaluation

**11. Team Composition and Qualifications**

Academic and professional qualifications of the core team in DCA programming areas:

- ***Emergency response and protection:*** Graduate degree (master’s or higher) in International Development, Political Science, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, and specialized fields like international disaster management, humanitarian response and preparedness, emergency livelihoods and early recovery, cash-based interventions, conflict prevention and peacebuilding and protection.
- ***Food security, livelihoods, and economic empowerment:*** Graduate degree (master’s or higher) in Agricultural Economics, Agriculture, Economics, Development Studies, Sociology, or related social sciences. Required technical competencies in livelihoods and resilience, market systems development, and economic empowerment, disaster risk reduction and management.
- ***Advocacy and human rights-based programming:*** Graduate degree (master’s or higher) in International Relations or Affairs, Human Rights or International Humanitarian Law, International Development, Political Science, Public Administration or Policy, and related fields

The team leader of the evaluation should possess the following expertise:

- Graduate degree (master’s or higher) in any of the academic and professional qualifications described above.
- Over 10 years’ experience with strategic and multi-sectoral programme evaluations, reporting and design processes, including skills such as indicator development, sampling, participatory evaluation methodology etc.
- The core team members must possess at least 5-10 years’ experience in the relevant field
- All the team members with extensive experience from international NGO and NGO based development and humanitarian assistance in South Sudan, Sudan.
- Technical expertise and skills in the organisational commitments such as human rights-based approach, localisation/local leadership, gender equality, young people and climate and environmental sustainability.
- Experience with partner-based organisations (including faith-based partners)
- Organisational quality management and accountability
- Organisational capacity development.

**Annex 1: PROPOSAL OUTLINE**

Interested consultants and evaluation teams should submit a proposal using the structure and main sections identified below.

**1. Rationale**

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

**2. Strategy and methodological approach**

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

1. Ethical considerations when conducting the evaluation

**3. Timetable of activities**

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

**4. Key experts**

- The proposal should include a detailed description of the role and duties of each of the key experts or other non-key experts, who are proposed as members of the evaluation team. The CV of each key expert shall be included highlighting their experience in the specific field of the services and their specific experience in the country/region where the services are to be performed.
- The proposal should clearly state existing commitments of experts which may affect their availability to participate in the evaluation to the extent possible.
- The proposal should clearly state any conflicts of interest which may compromise the objectivity of the experts in the evaluation. (e.g. involvement in the programme being evaluated and/or employment by DCA and/or DCA partners.)
- The proposal should include 1 or 2 examples of previous work from evaluation assignments or similar.

**5. Financial Offer**

The financial offer should be presented in the USD.