Lifesaving Primary Health Care (PHC), Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS), Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and Trauma Healing for The Tigray’s Conflict Affected Population

1 February 2023 to 31 July 2024

Project Reference No: NDICI CRISIS FPI/2022/437-322

 

Médecins du Monde (MdM) is a French international NGO founded in 1980 with 17 chapters worldwide. Our work centers around health programming, focusing on Migration and Displacement, Emergency and Crisis, Sexual and Reproductive Health, Harm Reduction, Health Systems, and Environment and Health. We also prioritize gender, Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS), empowerment, and vulnerable childhood in all our projects.

In Ethiopia, MdM has been active since 1986, providing both humanitarian aid and long-term development programs across various regions. Our humanitarian efforts aim to strengthen the local health system, ensuring people in crisis-affected areas have access to integrated healthcare services. We focus especially on Sexual and Reproductive Health, including nutrition, MHPSS, and support for GBV survivors.

Currently, MdM, along with several local partners, is providing integrated primary healthcare as part of humanitarian assistance in the Afar and Tigray regions. We’re delivering essential medical aid to communities impacted by the ongoing crisis. Similarly, since 2017, MdM in collaboration with a local partner – NIKAT is implementing a long-term intervention “Harm-Reduction” in the Semera – Afar region for female sex workers to reduce the instances of GBV.

MdM is seeking at least two qualified consultants to conduct the final evaluation of the « Lifesaving Primary Health Care (PHC), Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS), Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH), and Trauma Healing for The Tigray’s Conflict Affected Population » project. This evaluation will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and integration of cross-cutting issues such as gender and social inclusion.

We are looking for consultants with advanced degrees in public health, social sciences, or related fields. Candidates should have extensive experience in evaluating projects related to health and peacebuilding interventions. Expertise in health service delivery, MHPSS, and peacebuilding is essential. The consultants should also have strong analytical, writing, and presentation skills. Additionally, familiarity with the challenges in conflict-affected regions, preferably in Ethiopia, is highly desirable.

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FINAL EVALUATION

Project Title: Lifesaving Primary Health Care (PHC), Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS), Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and Trauma Healing for The Tigray’s Conflict Affected Population.

Sectors: Health and peacebuilding

 

Region and Country: Ahsea, Adwa and Naeder woredas (districts) of Tigray region – Ethiopia

Project Period: 1 Feb 2023 – 31 July 2024.

Local Partner: Ethiopian Institute of Peace (EIP)

1. Background

Context of the humanitarian crisis: In 2022, the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia worsened significantly due to ongoing conflict, violence, and climatic shocks like prolonged drought. According to the 2022 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), over 20 million people in Ethiopia urgently needed humanitarian aid, and the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) more than doubled in a year, reaching 5.8 million.

The long-standing conflict between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Ethiopian Government, which began in northern Ethiopia in November 2020, spread to neighboring regions of Afar and Amhara. This conflict caused massive displacements, loss of life, injuries, disruption of livelihoods and markets, psychosocial distress, and the collapse of basic social services, including the health system.

In Tigray, the most pressing issues included limited fuel availability, which affected the transport of humanitarian aid, difficulty accessing Tigray by road from Afar, and a lack of operational cash due to an unrecovered banking system. This impacted local payments, including staff salaries, and restricted communications, leading to shortages of products in local markets and non-functional basic services and health systems. Populations in hard-to-reach areas, especially in active conflict zones like Central, North-western, Eastern, South-eastern, and Southern Tigray, faced major concerns. According to HRP 2022, about 5.3 million people in Tigray needed humanitarian aid. The existing needs were exacerbated by the conflict, worsening vulnerabilities. Resuming access to life-saving and basic health services—such as curative services, reproductive, maternal, and child health, mental health and psychosocial support, immunizations, malnutrition treatment, and disease management—became crucial.

After MdM France’s exploratory mission, an emergency response was designed with the Ethiopian Institute of Peace (EIP). This project aimed to respond to the humanitarian crisis following the two-year Tigray war. The response had two components: integrating primary healthcare services, including MHPSS and GBV, and peacebuilding initiatives. MdM France was responsible for the health component, while EIP handled peacebuilding initiatives.

Project implementation was delayed due to the Tigray war and only became possible in early 2023 after the cessation of hostilities agreement in 2022 between the Ethiopian Federal Government and Tigray Liberation Front. The revised timeline and intervention areas were communicated and approved by the donor. The project also had to shift its strategy from mobile clinics to supporting static health units. This change was primarily because during the conflict large population was displaced and the project was to provide support to the displaced population through mobile health teams, however, after the war, the population returned to their areas of origin which necessitated the change i.e. to support static health centers. Following that MdM France selected two health centers and eight health posts in Ahsea woreda in consultation with Regional Health Bureau and Regional Health Clusters. EIP also revised its intervention areas which included Ahsea, Adwa and Naedar woredas in central Tigray. Before the start of the intervention, MdM carried out fresh needs assessment in March 2023 that was followed by the implementation of the response from May 2023.

In March 2023, the MdM and EIP team carried out a fresh assessment in the Ahsea, Adwa, and Naeder Woreda areas of central Tigray. This assessment was recommended by the Tigray Regional Health Bureau and the Tigray Disaster Risk Management Bureau due to the urgent need for humanitarian support in these regions. At that time, no international humanitarian organization was implementing health activities in this area.

The Regional Health Bureau suggested strengthening the system by supporting existing health structures and providing training and capacity building for the identified health facilities. The assessment covered two health centers in Ahsea woreda and six health posts. The findings revealed a severely fractured healthcare situation, which had either remained dire or worsened. Issues included damaged healthcare infrastructure, a lack of medical supplies, inadequate services (especially for SGBV and MHPSS care), high maternal mortality rates, and a shortage of motivated healthcare workers, many of whom had not been paid for years.

2. Description of the project

In the light of the context presented above, MdM and its partner EIP implemented an intervention to improve access to health services, focusing on primary health care (PHC) and sexual and reproductive health services (SRH) with a mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) component, associated with community trauma healing, resilience, and peacebuilding. The health component was implemented by MdM in Ahsea Woreda and included support to 2 health centers (Ahsea and Debraharmaz) and associated 8 health posts (HPs) whereas EIP was responsible for the realization of peacebuilding initiatives in Adwa, Ahsea and Naeder woredas. Both organizations worked collaboratively and complemented each other response, particularly for sensitization and managed referrals related to MHPSS and GBV.

MdM assistance enabled the provision of access to the integrated health services including MHPSS, PHC, SRH services, and lifesaving referrals, for affected communities. For strengthening of health system and improved quality service delivery, trained health staff working in supported health centers, provision of free essential medical supplies and equipment, infrastructure rehabilitation, strengthening of lifesaving referral pathways, community sensitization sessions on general health, MHPSS and GBV issues. The action also provided necessary SRH services, and SGBV services (including identification and referrals of SGBV cases), while actively integrated mental health and psychosocial support services into the medical care.

On the other hand, EIP peacebuilding implemented a response related to the impact of the war in terms of trauma and strengthened/revitalized the conflict resolution institutions. For that EIP conducted a rapid war impact assessment in selected woredas and identified the issues related to war-induced trauma and capacities assessment of stakeholders. EIP conducted a series of training, with a curriculum adapted to the participants (for example formal and informal institutions), and defined objectives. EIP set-up peace committees consisting of both male and female representatives for peace-building measures and trained them to prevent and deal with local conflicts. EIP worked closely with the inter-religious council in peacebuilding given their large following and central role. EIP facilitated community dialogue and improved communal trauma recovery and resilience. The community-based mechanisms provided a strong base to complement the capacity-building and advocacy of the local structures. To foster resilience and recovery, EIP produced Trauma Informed Recovery and Resilience manual, along with training on the topic within the communities and information dissemination through different channels (radio, video, etc.). EIP organized the dialogue sessions on peacebuilding facilitated.

Objectives of the project: To contribute to the reduction of the conflict- induced health access barriers and to address conflict-induced trauma on the community of Tigray.

Duration: 1 Feb 2023 – 31 July 2024

Implementation areas: Adwa, Naeder, and Ahsea Woredas – Central Tigray, Ethiopia.

3. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

The purpose of this final evaluation is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the humanitarian response project implemented by MdM and co-partner EIP, with the aim of improving access to health services and improving community resilience and peacebuilding in Adwa, Naeder, and Ahsea Woredas – Central Tigray, Ethiopia.

• Specific objectives

1. Assess the Impact and Effectiveness of Integrated Health Services

• Evaluate the extent to which MdM’s intervention improved access to integrated health services, including primary health care (PHC), sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, and mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in Ahsea Woreda.
• Assess the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives for health staff and community volunteers in supported health centers and posts, and their impact on the quality-of-service delivery.
• Determine the impact of the provision of essential medical supplies and equipment, infrastructure rehabilitation, and the strengthening of lifesaving referral pathways on health outcomes for the affected communities.

 

1. Evaluate the Outcomes of Peacebuilding and Community Resilience Activities

• Examine the impact of EIP’s peacebuilding initiatives in Adwa, Ahsea, and Naeder woredas, focusing on the establishment and effectiveness of peace committees in preventing and managing local conflicts.
• Assess the outcomes of the rapid war impact assessment and subsequent training programs on trauma recovery and resilience building within the communities.
• Analyze the effectiveness of community dialogue sessions, facilitated by EIP in collaboration with the inter-religious council, in promoting communal trauma recovery and resilience.

 

1. Measure the Sustainability of the Intervention

• Evaluate the sustainability of the health system strengthening efforts, including the integration of MHPSS and GBV services, the establishment of lifesaving referral pathways, and the ongoing capacity and resilience of local health centers and posts.
• Assess the long-term impact and sustainability of peacebuilding measures, including the revitalization of conflict resolution institutions, the adoption of the Trauma Informed Recovery and Resilience manual, and the effectiveness of community-based mechanisms.

 

1. Assess complementarities and synergies between both project components

• Assess complementarities and synergies between both project components and potential opportunities for further coordination
• Examine the collaborative efforts between MdM and EIP, particularly in sensitization and managed referrals related to MHPSS and GBV, and their impact on community health, resilience, and recovery.

 

1. Identify Lessons Learned and Best Practices

• To identify lessons learned and best practices from the implementation of the project, providing valuable insights for future interventions and improvements. The evaluation will highlight successful strategies and areas for enhancement to inform the design and implementation of similar projects in the future.

 

• Scope of the Evaluation

Coverage (geographical):  Tigray Region, Central Zone, Ahsea, Nader, and Adwa Woredas (specifically in 2 health centers and 6 health posts).

Thematic: Health and Peacebuilding

Period to be evaluated: 1 Feb 2023 – 31 Jul 2024

 

• Key evaluation questions

Effectiveness and Impact of Health Service Interventions

• To what extent has the intervention improved access to primary health care (PHC) and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in Ahsea Woreda?
• How effective was the integration of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) and gender-based violence (GBV) components into the health services?
• What impact did the capacity-building training for health workers and community volunteers have on the quality of health service delivery?
• How adequate and utilized were the essential medical supplies and equipment provided to the health centers and health posts?
• What improvements, if any, were observed in health outcomes due to infrastructure rehabilitation and strengthened referral pathways?
• What is the degree of satisfaction from users?

Outcomes of Peacebuilding and Community Resilience Activities

• How effective were the peacebuilding initiatives in Adwa, Ahsea, and Naeder woredas in preventing and resolving local conflicts?
• What impact did the rapid war impact assessment and subsequent training programs have on trauma recovery and resilience within the communities?
• How effective were the peace committees in their roles, and how inclusive was their composition (e.g., 30% female participation)?
• What role did the inter-religious council play in the peacebuilding efforts, and how effective were they in facilitating community dialogue and trauma recovery?
• What were the outcomes of community dialogue sessions and information dissemination efforts on promoting communal trauma recovery and resilience?

Sustainability and Long-term Impact

• How sustainable are the health system strengthening efforts, including the integration of MHPSS and GBV services and the establishment of lifesaving referral pathways?
• What evidence is there of the ongoing capacity and resilience of local health centers and posts?
• How sustainable are the peacebuilding measures, including the revitalization of conflict resolution institutions and the adoption of the Trauma Informed Recovery and Resilience manual?
• How effective were the community-based mechanisms in supporting capacity-building and advocacy efforts?

Collaboration and Synergy between MdM and EIP

• How much both project components managed to complement and synergize to bring more impact?
• How effective was the collaboration between MdM and EIP in implementing sensitization and managed referrals related to MHPSS and GBV?
• What impact did the collaborative efforts have on community health, resilience, and recovery?
• How much this project was implemented in coordination with other projects from the same FPI package implemented in the North of Ethiopia?
• What lessons can be learned from the partnership between MdM and EIP for future projects?

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

• What were the major challenges encountered during the implementation of the project, and how were they addressed?
• What best practices emerged from the project that can inform future interventions?
• What are the key recommendations for improving the design and implementation of similar projects combining health and peace components in the future?

 

• Evaluation Criteria and Questions

Relevance

• How well did the project’s objectives align with the needs and priorities of the targeted communities?
• To what extent were the interventions designed to address the specific health and peacebuilding challenges identified in the initial assessments?
• Were the selected strategies and activities appropriate for the context and needs of the beneficiaries?
• How effectively did the project adapt to any changes in the local context or emerging needs?
• Did the project address the most pressing needs of the affected communities, particularly in terms of health and peacebuilding?
• How relevant were the outcomes of the project to the initial goals and objectives?
• How well did the project respond to the evolving needs and priorities of the communities throughout its implementation?

Effectiveness

• Were the project’s goals and objectives clearly defined and realistic?
• Were the planned activities and outputs logically linked to the intended outcomes?
• To what extent were the planned activities implemented as intended?
• How effectively were the project’s resources (human, financial, material) utilized to achieve the objectives?
• To what degree were the project’s objectives and expected results achieved?
• What were the main factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the project’s objectives?
• What lessons can be learned about the project’s design and implementation that could improve future interventions?

Efficiency

• Was the project design cost-effective in terms of resource allocation?
• Were there clear mechanisms for monitoring and controlling project expenses?
• How efficiently were the project activities and resources managed?
• Were there any significant delays or cost overruns, and how were they addressed?
• Did the project achieve its objectives within the planned budget and timeline?
• How did the efficiency of the project compare to similar interventions?
• What improvements could be made to enhance the efficiency of similar projects in the future?

Impact

• What long-term changes were anticipated as a result of the project?
• Were there mechanisms in place to measure and monitor impact?
• How were the project’s activities designed to achieve long-term impact?
• Were there any unintended positive or negative impacts observed during the implementation?
• What are the most significant changes or impacts that can be attributed to the project?
• How have the project’s outcomes affected the targeted communities and stakeholders?
• What are the key lessons regarding the project’s impact that can inform future interventions?

Sustainability

• Were sustainability considerations integrated into the project design?
• Were there plans for the continuation of activities and benefits after the project’s end?
• How effectively were local stakeholders and beneficiaries involved in the project?
• What strategies were employed to ensure the sustainability of project outcomes? What else could have been done to strengthen sustainability?
• To what extent are the project’s benefits likely to be sustained over the long term?
• What are the main factors influencing the sustainability of the project’s outcomes?
• What recommendations can be made to enhance the sustainability of future projects?

Cross-cutting Issues

• How internal and external coordination was managed by the project?
• How well were cross-cutting issues such as gender, environment, and social inclusion integrated into the project design?
• Were there specific strategies to address these issues?
• How effectively were cross-cutting issues addressed during the implementation of the project?
• Were there any challenges or successes related to the integration of these issues?
• To what extent were the objectives related to cross-cutting issues achieved?
• How did addressing these issues impact the overall success of the project?
• What lessons can be learned about the integration of cross-cutting issues into the project?

 

• Evaluation Methodology
  • Approach and Methodology

The evaluation will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the project’s outcomes, impacts, and processes. This approach will allow for triangulation of data, enhancing the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data Collection Methods

• Document Review: Review of project proposals, reports, training materials, monitoring data, and other relevant documents. Analysis of secondary data sources such as health service records and peacebuilding activity reports.
• Surveys and Questionnaires: Structured surveys targeting project beneficiaries to collect quantitative data on health service utilization, satisfaction levels, and perceived changes in peacebuilding and resilience. Questionnaires were administered to health workers, community volunteers, and peace committee members to gather data on capacity building, service delivery, and conflict resolution effectiveness.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs: In-depth interviews with project staff, health center officials, local authorities, and representatives from the inter-religious council. KIIs with EIP and MdM staff to understand the implementation process, challenges, and collaborative efforts.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs: FGDs with community members, including beneficiaries of health services and peacebuilding activities, to gather qualitative insights on the project’s impact and community dynamics. Separate FGDs with specific groups such as women, youth, and peace committee members to capture diverse perspectives.
• Direct Observations: Field visits to health centers, health posts, and sites of peacebuilding activities to observe the infrastructure, service delivery, and community engagement firsthand. Observations of community sensitization sessions and dialogue meetings to assess participation and effectiveness.

 

• Data Analysis Methods

• Quantitative Analysis: Descriptive statistics to summarize survey and questionnaire data. Comparative analysis to evaluate changes in key indicators before and after the project intervention. Trend analysis to identify patterns in health service utilization and conflict resolution outcomes.
• Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews and FGDs to identify common themes, insights, and narratives. Content analysis of documents and reports to extract relevant information and contextual understanding. Triangulation of qualitative data with quantitative findings to validate results and ensure robustness.

 

• Impact Assessment

Contribution analysis to assess the extent to which observed changes can be attributed to the project interventions. Counterfactual analysis using available data to compare with similar non-intervened areas where possible.

• Stakeholder Involvement

• Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement: Identification of key stakeholders including project beneficiaries, community leaders, local authorities, health workers, peace committee members, MdM and EIP staff, and donors. Engagement of stakeholders through interviews, focus groups, and participatory workshops to ensure their inputs are considered.
• Feedback Mechanisms: Regular feedback sessions with stakeholders during the evaluation process to validate findings and gather additional insights. Presentation of preliminary findings to stakeholders for their feedback and validation.
• Inclusivity and Representation: Ensuring diverse representation in data collection methods, including gender, age, and other relevant demographics. Special focus on vulnerable groups such as women, youth, and those directly affected by conflict and trauma.
• Ethical Considerations: Adherence to ethical standards in data collection, including informed consent, confidentiality, and sensitivity to the context of conflict and trauma. Use of culturally appropriate and non-intrusive methods to engage with stakeholders, particularly those who have experienced trauma.

 

• Deliverables

• The initial consolidated report, including the evaluation plan, methodology, preliminary findings, and stakeholder engagement strategy, will be submitted within two weeks of the start of the evaluation.
• A draft of the consolidated report, incorporating detailed findings and initial recommendations, will be submitted four weeks after the completion of data collection for stakeholder review and feedback.
• The final consolidated evaluation report, revised to incorporate stakeholder feedback and present comprehensive findings, conclusions, and recommendations, will be submitted two weeks after receiving feedback on the draft report.

Executive Summary

• To provide a concise overview of the evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations for a broad audience.
• Brief introduction to the project and evaluation purpose.
• Key findings related to each evaluation criterion.
• Major conclusions and recommendations.
• Summary of lessons learned and best practices.
• The executive summary will be included in both the draft and final evaluation reports.

Presentations

• To share the evaluation findings with key stakeholders and facilitate discussion and feedback.
• Overview of the evaluation process.
• Summary of key findings and conclusions.
• Detailed presentation of recommendations.
• Q&A session to gather stakeholder feedback and discuss implications.
• Initial presentation of draft findings (e.g., PowerPoint) at a stakeholder workshop.
• Final presentation of the evaluation results at a dissemination event or meeting.
• Presentation materials will be prepared for the draft findings review workshop and the final dissemination event.

One-pager on best practices and lessons learned

• To share with relevant stakeholders working on these topics for learning, accountability and communications purposes.
• Document should meet quality standards.

 

• Timeframe

The evaluation will be conducted over a period of 10 weeks. The tentative detailed timeline for each phase of the evaluation is outlined below:

Week	Description
1-2	Contract finalization, kick-off meeting, document review, initial stakeholder meetings. Develop methodology and tools, submit Inception Report
3-6	Data collection, field visits, preliminary analysis
7	In-depth data analysis, submission of Draft Evaluation Report for review and feedback
8	Incorporate feedback, prepare Final Report and Executive Summary
9	Submit Final Evaluation Report and Executive Summary
10	Prepare for presentation and dissemination and Present findings to stakeholders, disseminate the final report

 

• Qualifications and Experience

The evaluation team should be composed of at least two experts:

 

Consultant/Expert 1 on health

• Advanced degree (Master’s or PhD) in Public Health, Social Sciences, International Development, or a related field.
• At least 10 years of experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian and development projects, particularly in the health sector.
• Experience in evaluating health programs, with specific expertise in primary health care (PHC), sexual and reproductive health (SRH), mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), and GBV.

 

Consultant/Expert 2 on peacebuilding

• Advanced degree (Master’s or PhD) in Peace-Building or related fields
• Experience in evaluating peacebuilding and conflict resolution projects, with a specific focus on community resilience, trauma healing, and the establishment of peace committees and conflict resolution institutions.
• At least 10 years of experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian and development projects, particularly in the peacebuilding sector.

 

Common requirements

• Extensive experience in designing and implementing mixed-methods evaluations.
• Strong skills in developing data collection tools (e.g., surveys, interview guides, focus group discussion protocols).
• Proficiency in data collection, analysis, and reporting.
• Proven ability to manage complex evaluation projects and coordinate a multidisciplinary team.
• Strong organizational skills and attention to detail.
• Ability to manage timelines and deliver high-quality reports within set deadlines.
• Excellent skills in engaging and communicating with diverse stakeholders, including project beneficiaries, community leaders, local authorities, and donor agencies.
• Experience in conducting participatory evaluations and facilitating workshops.
• Require strong written and verbal communication skills in the English language, with the ability to present findings clearly and concisely. Knowledge of the local language Tigraynia will be an asset.
• Sensitivity to cultural, social, and political contexts of the evaluation.
• Ability to work effectively in diverse and multi-cultural settings.
• Experience in conducting evaluations in conflict-affected or post-conflict areas is an asset.

 

• Ethical Standards

• Commitment to upholding high ethical standards in evaluation, including informed consent, confidentiality, and respect for participants.
• Familiarity with ethical guidelines and best practices in conducting research and evaluations.
• The evaluation team will be selected based on their combined expertise and experience to ensure a comprehensive and high-quality evaluation of the project.

 

• Budget and Resources

The detailed budget proposal showing costs broken down by expense item is to be submitted using the below matrix and the total must be inclusive of all taxes.

	Unit (State*)	Unit cost (Euros)	Total (Euros)	Comments
Remuneration		€	€
– Fees		€	€
Transport		€	€
– International		€	€
– Domestic		€	€
Accommodation		€	€
Interpreting		€	€
Translation costs		€	€
Communications		€	€
Other (detail)		€	€
TOTAL INC. TAX		€	€

 

Resources Provided by the MdM France:

MdM France will provide the following resources to support the evaluation:

• Budget allocation for the evaluation activities, including personnel costs, travel expenses, and other related expenses.
• Transparent and timely disbursement of funds to cover evaluation costs as per the agreed budget.
• Coordination and logistical support for field visits and data collection activities, including arranging transportation and accommodation.
• Access to project documents, reports, and relevant stakeholders for the evaluation team.
• Support from project staff and key stakeholders in providing necessary information and facilitating data collection efforts.
• Assistance in arranging meetings, workshops, and presentations as part of the evaluation process.
• MdM security focal person will brief the consultant on specific security considerations and protocols.

Consultant Responsibility: 

• The Consultant is responsible for arranging their own travel to Addis Ababa whereas MdM and EIP will help with the travel to the project location, the logistic cost will be borne by the consultant.
• The consultant is responsible for obtaining any required visas. This is particularly important for international consultants who may face delays in securing documentation.

 

• Coordination

Key Person involvement:

• MDM France – General Coordinator: Takes the lead on managing the evaluation process.
• EIP – Executive Director: Provides local support and guidance to the Consultant.
• Equipment: No specific equipment is available for the
• Means of communication: No specific means of communication is available for the The consultant must bring their tools and will likely communicate through standard channels.

 

• Submission of Proposals

Cover Letter: Brief introduction of the proposed organization or team. Statement of interest in conducting the evaluation and understanding of the project context.

Technical Proposal: Detailed methodology for conducting the evaluation, including approach, data collection methods, and analysis techniques. Proposed timeline and work plan outlining key activities and milestones. Team composition and qualifications of team members, including CVs. Description of any previous experience conducting similar evaluations. Approach to stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

Financial Proposal: Itemized budget detailing all anticipated costs associated with the evaluation. Justification for each budget item and explanation of cost estimates. Any relevant cost-sharing or cost-saving measures.

References: Contact information for at least three professional references who can attest to the proposing organization or team’s experience and capabilities.

Submission Deadline:

• The submission deadline for proposals is 15 July 2024. Late submissions and/or incomplete applications will not be considered.
• Apply electronically to the provided email address ethiopia@medecinsdumonde.net, and reflect « ETH/Final Evaluation to MdM France – Ethiopia Mission Coordination Office » in the subject line.
• File Size: Ensure individual emails and attachments do not exceed 10MB. If larger, send multiple emails with appropriately named files.
• Shortlisting: Only shortlisted, qualified candidates will be contacted

 

The evaluation committee will review all proposals against these criteria and select the most qualified candidate or team based on the overall strength of their proposal. Shortlisted candidates may be invited for further discussions or clarification.