Find the Complete folder TD 2026 1247_ Evaluation WHCA with all supporting documents including the Terms of Reference and Tender Dossier: NLRC TD 2026-1247 Evaluation WHCA.docx
Please note that NLRC expects to launch an open tender in June 2026 for the establishment of Framework Agreements for Monitoring and Evaluation Services. Interested bidders are encouraged to retain this proposal and all supporting documentation, as many of the required submission documents are expected to remain the same.
Introduction
Water at the Heart of Climate Action (WHCA) is a programme designed to address systemic issues in early warning systems for water related hazards, stemming from a lack of community-centric early warning systems, a lack of investment in hydro-meteorological capacity, and a lack of coordination and siloed approach in planning and decision making. To address this, a consortium of United Nations and Red Cross Movement partners, in collaboration with national counterparts and government actors in five countries in the Eastern Africa region are implementing the WHCA programme between 2023-2028. The programme is structured around five Technical Focus Areas (TFAs): 1) water related disaster risk knowledge and governance, 2) observations, monitoring, analysis and forecasting of water related hazards, 3) water specific early warning systems, disseminations and communications, 4) anticipatory action and locally led adaptation, 5) crosscutting activities. Through the combined focus areas, the programme aims to increase the resilience in communities most impacted by water related disasters in Eastern Africa.
This evaluation will take place during programme implementation and aims to assess
- The validity of the intervention logic (Theory of change at global level and country levels).
- The added value of the consortium partners (in breaking down the siloed approach in early warning systems).
- Early indications of successes or best practices, challenges and related recommendations for the remainder of the programme and/or future initiatives.
The final evaluation report is to be submitted to NLRC by 30th April 2027.
2. Context & Background
WHCA is a unique collaboration of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC), the Red Cross Climate Centre (“the Climate Centre”), the Systematic Observations Financing Facility (SOFF), the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and is well positioned to integrate their ways of working and collaborate with governments and communities to reduce climate vulnerability in Ethiopia, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda for end-to-end community-centered Early Warning Systems (EWS). The consortium aims to achieve the objective of accelerating and scaling up water actions to reduce impacts and increase resilience of vulnerable communities in the five selected countries through an integrated, systemic, silo-breaking approach.
Five technical focus areas are central to the consortium-level theory of change:
TFA 1: Water-related risk knowledge and governance – Weather- and water-related disaster risk information system(s), established through participatory and inclusive processes, and effectively applying local, national and global level data, inform(s) decision-making to support affected communities with community-centered solutions for risk management.
TFA 2: Observations, monitoring and forecasting of weather- and water-related hazards – Improved production of and access to climate, weather and water observation, monitoring and impact-based forecasting/prediction products in order to deliver flood and drought warning services to various stakeholders for decision-making.
TFA 3: Water-specific early warning systems dissemination and communication – Most at-risk communities access relevant, timely, understandable, and actionable water-related alert/early warning messages that could enable them to take actions to protect lives, livelihoods and critical infrastructure.
TFA 4: Anticipatory action and locally led adaptation – Strengthened preparedness to take anticipatory action in response to warnings and enhanced locally led water-related climate adaptation capacities that could contribute to the reduction of water-related risks.
TFA 5: Cross-cutting – Cross-cutting enabling activities are implemented to ensure effective community and stakeholder engagement, response to protection-gender-inclusion needs, strong inter-TFA linkages, a cross-fertilization of learning, efficient knowledge management and high-quality actions.
These outcomes have guided the country context-specific intervention plans, with contextualized definitions of success and a country-level theory of change. The details of this contextualization show that WHCA will be implemented in some countries with an existing stronger framework of policies and practices in which the programme intervention will be embedded (Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda). In other countries WHCA will support the very foundation of establishing structures for Early Warning Systems (South Sudan) or the programme will be implemented in a context of active conflict (Sudan) where previous EWS achievements have suffered and are in need of supporting structures to serve people with EWS messages facing security and climate risks.
The consortium partners further agreed on priorities for regional alignment:
- Regional and international climate policy events and stakeholder alignment
- Regional capacity strengthening and facilitation of cross-country learning
- Basin perspective
- Interoperable systems for early warning
- Contribution to EW4All initiative
- Alignment with other regional EWS programmes.
3. Purpose & Scope
The evaluation will take place during programme implementation. The programme implementation is until 2028. As a result, it is not expected to evaluate outcomes and impact of the programme intervention, but rather to provide inputs and recommendations for the remainder of the programme (are we on the right track) and any future initiatives. That is not to say that there aren’t any results to be evaluated, but the main focus will be on:
Key Objectives
- Assess the validity of the intervention logic (Theory of change at global level and country levels).
- Assess early indications of the added value of the consortium collaboration in breaking down the siloed approach in early warning systems.
- Analyse early indications of successes or best practices, challenges and related recommendations for the remainder of the programme and/or future initiatives.
Outcome harvesting techniques (or a similar method) to assess the programme’s current progress and intermediate results shall be used to substantiate findings in all three key objectives. As such, we still aim to structure the evaluation along OECD-DAC criteria where possible and relevant.
The scope of the evaluation is mainly at global level. The evaluation is designed as a global‑level synthesis, with country‑level evidence serving as the primary means of analysis. Country cases are used to substantiate, explain, and triangulate global findings, rather than to produce a set of stand‑alone country evaluations. While findings specific to individual country contexts are important and should be documented (e.g. in case study chapters or annexes), the main evaluative judgments, findings, and conclusions will be drawn at the global level through cross‑country aggregation and synthesis. This analytical approach will be made explicit in the proposed methodology.
To be accountable to the countries and communities of implementation, the donors and stakeholders, and for the partnership to learn for future programming, the evaluation shall be conducted by an independent external consultant or firm with no prior involvement in the planning or implementation of the Partnership. The final evaluation report will be shared within the partnership and with NL MoFA and (relevant aspects) on the WHCA website.
The evaluation should take into account the ongoing developments during the running of the evaluation, up to the point of the submission of the draft report (70% version). Any developments and changes in the programme taking place after the submission of the draft report do not need to be included (unless mutually agreed upon) in the final report.
4. Key Questions
The final evaluation will aggregate and analyse the achievements and challenges across WHCA global and country level actions, using the criteria. The key questions relate to one or more of the key objectives listed in section 3. Proposed key questions include but are not limited to:
Relevance
- How was the intervention designed to address priorities for different stakeholders and end-users (both policy priorities at government and needs at community level – including the specific needs of women, girls, persons with disabilities, and other marginalised groups) and how well are these needs articulated in the theory of change (both at country and programmatic level)? (key objective 1)
- How relevant was the inclusion of the river basin approach for the design of the programme? (key objective 1)
- How has the intervention managed to collaborate with relevant stakeholders at country and global level, and to what degree was this influenced by the partners in the consortium? (key objective 2)
- How has the intervention shown to be able to be responsive in the context or adapt over time? (key objective 3)
- To what extent were the design and implementation of the programme informed by participatory assessments with marginalized groups (e.g., women, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities), and how were their priorities reflected in the Technical Focus Areas (TFAs)?
Effectiveness
- To what extent do the intermediate results contribute to the objectives in the Theory of Change (at global level and country levels) including progress towards equitable access to early warning systems for women, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups? (key objective 1, 3)
- To what extent has the river basin approach and locally led adaptation approach been effectively used and integrated in the programme design (at global level and country levels)? (key objective 1)
- To what extent does the consortium have effective management and collaboration structures in place at global and country level? (key objective 2)
- Have the partners effectively strengthened (internal) capacities at global and country level to implement the WHCA programme – including capacities to mainstream Protection, Gender and Inclusion across all TFAs, and developed learning mechanisms to establish and share best practices? (key objective 1, 2, 3)
- Do intermediate results indicate programme objectives are realistic within the programme timeframe? (key objective 3)
Efficiency
- How timely is the intervention in the relevant country contexts? (key objective 1, 3)
- How efficient is the setup of the consortium, are resources (HR, budget, time) well targeted, including allocations specifically dedicated to Protection, Gender and Inclusion and Community Engagement (part of Locally Led Adaptation approach)? (key objective 2)
- Is the intervention on track in terms of expenditure and timeline in relation to the budget and workplan? (key objective 3)
Coherence
- How coherent is the programme in the context of EWS initiatives at global level (best practices, global frameworks and commitments – for example EW4All) and at relevant country levels? (key objective 1)
- What is working well in the collaboration as consortium, what has been challenging, and what measures have been taken to overcome those challenges? (key objective 2)
- To what extent has coherence and synergy with other internal (specifically the integration of TFAs at country and global levels and use of a river basin approach) and external interventions and stakeholders been sought (including engagement with other non-governmental and private sector stakeholders)? (key objective 2)
Impact
- Are there any intermediate results attributed to the programme design and partnership, for example its ability to attract funding, momentum, buy-in, or related developments? (key objectives 1, 2, 3)
- How significant is the programme design and collaboration in the current global developments (key objectives 1, 2)
- Has the programme so far contributed to any unexpected changes (unintended positive or negative impacts)? (key objective 3)
Sustainability
- How has the programme design included designs for a sustainable intervention, including strategies to ensure long-term participation/engagement with communities, women, persons with disabilities and other marginalised groups in EWS governance? (key objective 1)
- Has the consortium partnership (management) shown signs of continued or wider collaboration outside of the programme, including additional funding opportunities and engagement with different donors? (key objective 2)
- To what extent have intermediate results been sustainably achieved – how have the current activities taken sustainability on board in their design and implementation? (key objective 3)
Learning
- What are main findings and challenges related to the design of the programme and intervention logic, and monitoring an evaluation setup? (key objective 1)
- What are main learnings in collaborating in the consortium? (key objective 2)
- How are knowledge and experiences shared between countries (regional peer to peer learning) and global level? (key objectives 2, 3)
- What are main findings, challenges and related recommendations for the project activities – what best practices can be distilled at this stage? (key objective 3)
- Specifically in relation to locally led adaptation approach: what are key recommendations for this and future programmes to better address the needs of women, persons with disabilities, other marginalised groups in the design, implementation, and sustainability of early warning systems? (key objective 3)
5. Methodology
The final evaluation is expected to use mixed, quantitative and qualitative methods if possible, using triangulation with primary and secondary data sources. The following methods (or selection of methods) are proposed to be included:
- Desk review of key documents.
- A short EWS literature review to indicate how the programme falls within wide global EWS frameworks and best practices (for example but not limited to: early warning for all, global frameworks such as Sendai and others).
- (Aspects of) Theory based evaluations to test the validity of the Theory of Change.
- (Aspects of) Process evaluations or Real-Time evaluation methods to test ongoing processes, collaboration, and implementation.
- Outcome harvesting methodologies and contribution analysis to capture intermediate results to substantiate findings in all three key objective areas.
- Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and/or survey with WHCA implementing partners and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff and relevant external stakeholders at global level and country level. Indicative: 35-45 KIIs across countries and organisations*.
- Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with WHCA implementing partners and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff and relevant external stakeholders at global level and country level, as well as community level. Indicative: 5-10 FGDs*.
- Participatory workshops or validation sessions to establish the plan of action and final evaluation methodologies, and final findings and recommendations.
* KII and FGD numbers are indicative only; exact numbers, lists of staff/stakeholders are dependent on the consultants/firm chosen methodologies and will be established during inception phase. Some KIIs may be done online/remote.
A detailed methodological framework is to be elaborated by the consultant/ firm, with the possibility to refine or prioritise methods and questions listed above, during the inception phase. In the offered approach, the consultant/firm can deviate from the suggested methodology above, as long as the proposal offers clearly outlined alternatives and how these relate to the key objectives and key questions.
The consultant/firm is expected to focus and relate key findings to global level as much as is required, but findings specific to country contexts will also be valuable input for the ongoing implementation of the programme. Any global level findings should be well grounded in country level observations. As such, we request to start data collection at country level and move to global level for validation and aggregation of findings. Field work shall take place in implementing countries. At country level specifically, the integration of the various TFAs is an important consideration.
In relation to climate and environmental impact (section 9), and making use of local expertise, this is preferred to be via a setup of lead evaluator (global level and contract holder for the evaluation), and in-country partners managed by the lead evaluator. Other setups are also possible and should be clearly stated in the consultant/firm’s proposal.
6. Deliverables
September 2026: Inception Report
The inception report should address the key evaluation questions as specified in this ToR, outline the methodology, data collection strategy, and analysis approach that will be employed. It should also include a comprehensive reporting plan with clearly defined deliverables, a desk review strategy, draft data collection tools. Additionally, the report needs to provide a detailed breakdown of roles and responsibilities within the evaluation team as well as a description of the support required from the Evaluation Management Team (EMT).
The inception report will be reviewed by the EMT and with involvement of other relevant stakeholders. The review process may involve multiple rounds of revision and will be allocated a maximum of two working weeks per round. Should further revisions be necessary, NLRC and the consultant/ firm will agree on the timeline and process accordingly.
February 2027: Draft Report (70% version)
The report should be written in English and ideally not exceed 30 pages, including a concise executive summary, but excluding annexes. The report must include:
- Executive summary;
- Description of the methodology used including limitations;
- Findings corresponding with the questions under the seven selected OECD-DAC criteria; 1) at country level for relevant findings specific to country contexts, 2) at global partnership level for general findings and conclusions.
- Well-supported actionable recommendations; 1) at country level for relevant recommendations specific to country contexts, 2) at regional and global partnership level for general recommendations.
- An overview of data sources;
Alternatively, the country specific findings and recommendations can also be provided in separate country annexes to limit the length of the overall report and improve readability. The main report will then focus only on partnership level findings, conclusions and recommendations, with the annexes detailing country specific results.
The revision process for the draft report will follow the same procedure and timeline as established for the inception report, with a maximum of 2 review rounds.
March 2027: Draft Report (90% version)
Following the feedback on the 70% version, the consultants shall provide a revised draft report (90% version) with the same setup as the 70% version. The revision process for the draft report will follow the same procedure, with a maximum of 2 review rounds.
April 2027**: Presentation**
The consultancy firm will deliver a presentation of the final evaluation outcomes to NLRC and relevant stakeholders, including a dedicated Question & Answer (Q&A) session. This could also include a separate session in validation workshop format.
End April 2027**: Final Report**
The consultant is expected to address the comments received on the draft report and submit the final report, which will serve as the basis for the final payment. NLRC retains all rights to the final report, including copying and distribution, with the understanding that the report will be shared internally within the partnership and with NL MoFA.
7. Profile of the Desired Team
0.0.Team composition a) Team leader;
b) Data analyst;
c) Data collectors;
d) or similar roles that can fulfil the requirements.
e) Translators if required
0.1 Education a) Team members should hold University degrees or substantial experience in lieu;
b) Also, qualifications in humanitarian studies or a related area.
0.2 Team Experience a) One member of the team needs to have in-depth knowledge of the ways of working and principles of the RCRC Movement;
b) One member of the team needs to have in-depth knowledge of the ways of working and principles of the United Nations (UNDRR, WMO, SOFF);
c) Experience with evaluating large humanitarian programmes and preferably partnerships (consortia);
d) At least seven years of experience working with humanitarian aid organisations for the lead consultant or a combination of 15 years of experience for the team;
e) Experience in Early Warning Systems, or similar, is a strong asset;
f) Experience with evaluations for the RCRC movement and/or UN is a plus.
0.3 Skills a) Fluency in English language;
b) Fluency in languages relevant to implementing countries is required; either through local consultancies, or via inclusion of independent translators, included in the evaluation team
c) Ability to write concise, yet comprehensive reports;
d) Excellent interpersonal skills;
e) Ability to work effectively in intercultural settings;
f) Ability to meet deadlines;
g) Self-supporting in working with computers (word processing, spreadsheets, statistical software, online surveys, and Microsoft teams).
0.4 Knowledge a) Knowledge of NL MoFA policies is desirable;
05. Team characteristics a) Independent (no prior involvement in the partnership)
b) Impartial (without a vested interest in the result of the evaluation)
c) A global team with existing presence or partnerships with country-level evaluators is a strong asset.
8. Planning
The final evaluation report should be submitted to NLRC by April 2027 at the latest. The inception report should therefore be submitted by September 2026 and the draft reports by February 2027 (70% version) and March 2027 (90% version). These dates indicated latest deadlines. The proposal should include the proposed planning from the consultant/ firm.
The consultant/ firm will determine the implementation plan of the final evaluation, the number of required days and the exact dates of deliverables, after reviewing and refining the TOR post contractual phase.
9. Climate & Environmental Impact
The NLRC has signed the Climate and Environment Charter. As we work towards ensuring that all our operations coincide with this new agreement, we must also demand that any collaborations we have with external parties also fall within the parameters of this charter.
Any additional requirements for the service provider to try to adhere to (e.g. working remotely, not flying large teams to countries, proof of company’s own environmental commitments) will be taken into account.
10. Vendor Code of Conduct
NLRC is committed to upholding the highest sustainability standards and requirements (ethical, social, environmental and quality) in all our business providing high-quality services and products. Complying with all laws and regulations and ensuring fair competition are fundamental to this commitment.
The NLRC Vendor Code of Conduct – Annex 3, expresses the expectations we hold for all of NLRC vendors. The Vendor Code of Conduct outlines the behaviours expected of Vendors who commit to uphold these standards and prevent misconduct. It is legally binding and forms an integral part of the contract between the Vendor and the NLRC. The winning applicants will be requested to sign this Code of Conduct at contract stage.
11. Responsibilities & Lines of Communication
This final evaluation is commissioned by the Consortium Coordinator of WHCA. The evaluation process will be overseen by the Evaluation Management Committee (EMT), comprising of 3 or 4 people; the Consortium Coordinator, the Consortium MEAL Lead, and one or two other representatives from either the MEAL WG, Regional WG or Technical WG, with support from designated partner and other stakeholders as needed.
The EMT will provide input and guidance, particularly during the inception phase and other key milestones identified in the consultant’s or firm’s inception report. It will also be responsible for overseeing the evaluation’s management, design, implementation, and quality assurance.
In addition, a reference group will be established. The reference group will consist of 3 or 4 people (Red Cross/Red Crescent, United Nations partners). The reference group provides guidance and advice to the EMT during key moments of the evaluation process; evaluator selection, inception report and draft final report.
The consultant or firm will be selected through an open tender process. The NLRC Logistics Officer will circulate the ToR and request expressions of interest from at least three qualified parties. Using a comparative bid analysis tool, the EMT will make the final selection.
How to apply
Bids Submission Guidelines
By submitting a tender, the applicant fully and unconditionally accepts the terms of this procedure, acknowledges that NLRC is not a contracting authority (Aanbestedende Dienst), and accepts that procurement law does not apply to this tender. This process is conducted at NLRC’s sole discretion and does not create any obligations under procurement law.
- Offers must be submitted electronically to logistics@redcross.nl
- Email subject line: TD 2026-1247 -Evaluation WHCA – <Company Name>.
- All tender documents must be submitted in English.
- The bid must be complete and received before the stated deadline of June 30th, 2026; late or incomplete submissions will be rejected.
- Clarification questions may be submitted until June 21st, 2026 with the subject line TD 2026-1247 – Questions – <Company Name>.
- NLRC may request clarifications from bidders but will not permit material changes to the offer after the submission deadline.
Required Documents
Bidders shall submit, at minimum, the following documents:
- Vendor registration form: Completed Registration Details Part 1 & 2 attached with requested documentation.
- Cover Letter: clearly summarising the experience of the consultant team leader as it pertains to this assignment, daily rate, and contact details for three professional referees;
- Curricula Vitae: team leader and members;
- Technical Proposal;
- Financial Proposal, including daily rates and fee structure;
- Previous Samples: Applicants must provide at least one, and up to two, samples of previous written work similar to that described in the ToR (early warning systems), with any sensitive information redacted. If the applicant has/had previous experience with either Netherlands Red Cross, IFRC, UNDRR, WMO, SOFF, examples of that work (even if not related to early warning system evaluations) has to be shared, in addition to one, and up to two, samples of other work.
- Client references: at least two contactable ones for comparable work;
Application materials are non-returnable, and incomplete applications will not be considered.
Evaluation Criteria
The winning bid will be the one deemed the most economically advantageous (quality of technical proposal and previous work vs. value of financial proposal). The detailed criteria used for weighing the proposal are listed below.
See NLRC TD 2026-1247 Evaluation WHCA.docx for details on the evaluation criteria and grid.
Any attempt by an applicant to influence the evaluation committee during the examination, clarification, evaluation, or comparison of tenders; to obtain information on the progress of the procedure; or to influence NLRC’s award decision will result in immediate rejection of the tender. Inclusion of any NLRC email address other than the one specified in this tender will also lead to automatic disqualification.
Selection Process
The selection process will be carried out by an evaluation committee and will include the following stages:
- administrative compliance check;
- technical evaluation;
- financial evaluation;
- clarification requests, where necessary;
- shortlist interviews, if deemed useful by the evaluation committee;
- final ranking and award recommendation.
