Consultancy for Final Project Evaluation

1. Context and Background

1.1 Introduction

In accordance with the grant agreement Annex 4- project budget item 7.1 signed between the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and SNV Netherlands Development Organisation for the implementation of the Sustainable Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SWaSSH4A) project, an end of project (final) evaluation was required. The evaluation exercise will be undertaken by an evaluation team who will be procured through a competitive bidding process. It is on this basis that these Terms of Reference (TOR) are prepared. The TOR sets out the requirements and expectations for the end of project evaluation of the project implemented by SNV. The SWaSSH4A project started implementation in November 2022, and it is in its final year of implementation, concluding officially in October 2025. The evaluation process must follow the guidance specified in this TOR.

1.2 About SNV  

SNV is a mission-driven not-for-profit global development organisation aiming to strengthen capacities and catalyse partnerships that transform water, agri-food, and energy systems across Africa and Asia for sustainable and equitable lives. Founded in the Netherlands in 1965 and established in Uganda in 1989, SNV deeply understands local context and dynamics.

Operating through a decentralised approach with a country office in Kampala and regional offices in Fort Portal, Jinja, Lira, and Mbarara, SNV implements donor-funded activities across more than 100 districts in Uganda, ensuring broad and diverse impact. SNV leverages its expertise and technical assistance to drive sustainable development, generating employment, increasing income, and improving access to essential services. SNV's long-term commitment, decentralised approach, sectoral focus, and collaborative partnerships contribute to its impactful presence in Uganda.

SNV enjoys an excellent reputation in the water sector in Uganda and can operationalise complex issues like climate resilience or sustainable operation and maintenance in water sector interventions with high quality. Based on a solid implementation methodology and well-documented on-ground results attained in close collaboration with district and local governments, SNV builds a bridge to the national level and impacts sector-wide used approaches.

SNV´s overarching ambition in the water sector is water security for all - the reliable availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks. SNV realises this ambition through 4 strategic areas of intervention, as summarised below – more information can be found  https://www.snv.org/sector/water  

Equitable Water Resource Management whereby SNV strengthens multi-level water governance, improves the availability and use of global and local data, calls for greater accountability for water use, extraction, and pollution, and introduces improved financing and investment models for water resource management and maintaining grey and green investments. SNV’s Sustainable Inclusive Irrigation approach is a holistic, multi-scale approach for groundwater and surface water irrigation applied at different scales: large, medium, small-scale irrigation, and individual extraction. It addresses irrigation governance, the performance of scheme management, services for farmers for field-level irrigation, and the quality and transparent construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure.

To create Sustainable Urban Water Cycles; SNV uses a holistic approach to improve water security in urban contexts, integrating water supply, sanitation, solid waste, and drainage. We work with stakeholders to strengthen governance and regulation, services, finance and investment, effective behavioural change interventions, treatment, circularity, and city-wide flood and drought management. For SNV, achieving city-wide water security requires increased attention and investment in low-income areas.

Most relevant for Uganda is SNV´s institutional know-how on Climate Resilient Rural WASH as the approach is and has been used in several programmes in Uganda, including Sustainable Sanitation and Hygiene For All (SSH4A), Uganda Sanitation for Health Activity (USHA), Scaling up WASH SDG efforts (WASH FIRST), and Improving Water Supply Sustainability (IWAS) programmes (see past track record summary table below). SNV’s approach is area-wide, assisting governments and local stakeholders in realising the human rights to water (supply) and sanitation, improving the climate resilience of services, and reducing vulnerabilities of rural populations to water-related risks. We strengthen WASH governance, rural service providers' performance, and infrastructure construction and rehabilitation quality. By strengthening consumer supply chains and financing, we develop rural WASH markets and support evidence-based behavioural change

1.3 Project Background

Economic, social and political context: Sector performance figures indicate that the Lango sub-region faces challenges in meeting the national water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) targets enshrined in Uganda´s National Development Plan III. The relatively small climate footprint and low political weight of populations in predominantly rural districts led to a de-prioritisation of water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) over the past decade. The targeted districts have numerous centres that are transitioning from a rural to a more urban context. WASH is essential for the climate resilience of people, healthy populations and sustained economic development. Climate change exacerbates the WASH challenges as prolonged dry periods affect water availability for people's demands, worsened by environmental destruction. Lango borders Lake Kyoga and River Nile to the south, and as more concentrated rainfall is forecasted, some areas will suffer from flooding from Lake Kyoga, Lake Kwania, the Nile and surrounding wetlands/swamps. This threatens the durability of WASH infrastructure and increases the risk of pollution to groundwater sources.

Project background: SNV Uganda is implementing a three-year project - Sustainable Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene for All (SWaSSH4A) - with Austrian Development Cooperation (ADC) funding of €1,500,000 (€1.665.000 inclusive of co-funding). SWaSSH4A started in November 2022 and builds on two successful phases of “Improving Water Supply Sustainability” IWAS I 2014-2017 and IWAS II 2019-2021. The project covers four districts in the Lango sub-region of Northern Uganda: Lira, Alebtong, Dokolo and Kole.

As indicated in the project Logical framework, SWaSSH4A contributes to the sustainable reduction of poverty, vulnerability, and inequality in Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts (impact level) through increased sustainable access to inclusive, climate resilient and safe water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services in the rural areas of the Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts (outcome level).

SWaSSH4A uses a Climate-Resilient Rural WASH (CRRWASH) approach, which is area-wide, assisting local governments in realising the human rights to water (supply) and sanitation, improving the climate resilience of services and reducing vulnerabilities of rural populations to water-related risks. The project strengthens WASH governance, rural service providers' performance, and infrastructure construction and rehabilitation quality. Preventive maintenance ensures a reliable water supply and ultimately saves money. By strengthening consumer supply chains and financing, SNV develops rural WASH markets and supports evidence-based behavioural change.

The five-component CRRWASH approach is mirrored in the output areas that SWaSSH4A plans to achieve, in addition to a sixth learning one, while aligning to national approaches and systems and the underlying strategic documents:

• Output 1: Strengthened inclusive WASH governance, in particular around Gender, Equity, and Social Inclusion (GESI) and climate resilience in Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts.
• Output 2: Improved operation and maintenance of water supply services in the rural areas of the Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts
• Output 3: Improved quality and pace of rehabilitation of water points in the rural areas of the Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts
• Output 4: Increased availability of affordable and durable sanitation products and services for rural households in Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts
• Output 5: Increased outreach and quality of sanitation and hygiene behavioural change interventions in Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira districts
• Output 6: Improved coordination, learning and documentation

The specific targets at outcome level are:

• 237,500 additional people with access to basic drinking water supply in compliance with quantity, quality, accessibility, and reliability norms
• 50,000 additional people with access and use of basic sanitation (JMP definitions)
• 40,000 people gaining access to basic hand washing with soap (JMP definitions)

Within the 6 output areas, SWaSSH4A aims to achieve:

Output 1:

• Score 2 for all four districts and 2 for at least 22 of the 34 SWSSBs (using SNV´s score card approach) in quality and regularity of multi-stakeholder alignment and coordination on climate resilience and WASH at district and sub-county levels (District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committee-DWSCC and Subcounty Water Supply and Sanitation Boards SWSSBs)
• Score 2 for all 4 districts (using FGD with female members and non-members of the DWSCC) on participation and influence of women
• Score 1 for all 4 districts (using FGD with female members and non-members of the DWSCC) on influence of person with disability.
• At least 102 women in leadership positions in the 34 SWSSBs and 12 on the DWSCCC.

Output 2:

• At least 80% of the 950 Water Sources have functional committees (with 30% of committee members being women) At least 80% of the 950 Water Source Committees (WSCs) have active, capable caretakers (a total of 1,900 caretakers- per each of the 950 water sources)
• At least 80% of the 140 Hand pump mechanics- HPMs are capable and equipped to perform their roles (assessed through Hand Mechanics Associations and their members).
• At least 760 water points (out of 950) under the project have downtime below threshold value (from household survey & endline survey results).

Output 3:

•  At least 140 boreholes rehabilitated across the four (4) project districts; as per the pragmatic data/progress reports.
• Number of water and sanitation contractors in the 4 districts with good understanding of climate resilience of WASH infrastructures, measured through Focused Group Discussions (FGD) during endline survey,

Output 4:

•  At least 10 trained masons and 2 hardware shops active in sanitation hardware and services through baseline and endline survey results.
• At least 1 affordable (basic) sanitation option per district, through baseline and end line survey findings.
• At least 2500 households have durable latrines (baseline and end line survey data)

Output 5:

•  At least 237,500 people reached with sanitation and hygiene messages (baseline and survey results).
• Sanitation and hygiene behavioural change messages are recalled in similar levels by different social groups (men/women, age groups, wealth groups, ethnic groups) in all the four project districts (from baseline and endline survey data).
•  At least Number of districts and sub-counties with capacity to steer sanitation and hygiene behavioural change interventions at scale and with quality.
• All the 4 districts and 34 sub-counties have technical capacity to steer sanitation and hygiene behavioural change interventions at scale and with quality (through self-assessment by DWSCC and SWSSB).

Output 6:

•  At least 7 national, regional events supported and attended by the project (from secondary data- e.g. events reports).
• The project team is represented/participated in at least 3 Sector Working group (SWG) meetings with learning objectives held (based on progress reports).

 Midline Survey and assessment of governance and capacity related Indicators

At the onset of the project (May 2024), the underlisted governance and capacity related indicators were assessed using a standardised scorecard approach:

1. Progress in the capacity of local governments or line agencies to steer sanitation demand creation processes, with quality, in their area.
2. Progress in the capacity of local government or line agencies to steer the development of rural water supply, with quality, in their area.
3. Progress on the influence of women, in rural WASH programmes (logical framework indicator 1.2)
4. Progress on the influence of people with disability in rural WASH programmes (logical framework indicator 1.2)
5. Progress towards professionalised and viable post-construction support mechanisms for rural water supply
6. Strength of systems and organisation of the Sub- County Water Board
7. Performance of the Board on maintenance and water safety
8. Progress towards financially sustainable water supply services at WSC level
9. Improved performance and accountability of WASH contractors (for infrastructure and software)
10. Progress of responsible line agencies to institutionalise BCC for WASH
11. Progress in availability of affordable sanitation options for the poorest wealth quintiles
12. Progress on the influence of poor households in rural WASH programmes
13. Progress in the affordability of water supply tariffs to the poorest wealth quintiles
14. Quality and regularity of multi-stakeholder alignment and coordination on climate resilience and WASH at district and sub-county level (logical framework indicator 1.1)

Furthermore, a midline (ML) household survey was conducted (in August 2024) to assess progress at outcome level since baseline (conducted in August 2023). Results showed that, 192,642 people (81%) gained access to a safe water supply, 170,258 people (341%) gained access to improved sanitation (at basic and safely managed sanitation levels), while 22,073 people (55%) gained access to basic handwashing with soap. Survey findings and recommendations were disseminated through workshops held at regional and national levels.

Project Stakeholders

The project stakeholders comprise of national, regional, district, subcounty, parish and village level stakeholders. National level stakeholders include relevant ministries/line agencies  (e.g. Ministry of Water and Environment-MWE, Ministry of Health-MOH, etc), Austrian Development Agency (ADA), Uganda Water and Sanitation Network (UWASNET), e.tc., while regional level stakeholders include staff from the Ministry of Water and Environment’s Rural Water and Sanitation Regional Centre 1 (RWSRC1), WASH Civil Society organisations (CSOs) operating in Lango Sub-region, etc. District level stakeholders include technical and political leaders from the four project districts (i.e. Alebtong, Dokolo, Kole and Lira), WASH CSOs, Community based organisations (CBOs), disabled persons organisations (DPOs), the media, etc. Subcounty-level stakeholders include subcounty-based technical staff and political leaders, Hand Pump Mechanics (HPMs), Masons, etc. Stakeholders at the parish level include parish chiefs and parish councillors. At the village level, the key stakeholders are water users (project beneficiaries), traditional, cultural and religious leaders, Local Council 1 Executives, etc. Project beneficiaries comprise direct and indirect beneficiaries. Direct beneficiaries comprise at least 237,500 people residing in the project villages and therefore use the 950 water sources under the project, while indirect beneficiaries comprise people who are not permanently resident in the project villages.

2. Purpose and objectives of the evaluation

Mandate for conducting evaluation: SNV has implemented SWaSSH4A since 2022 and is, as a partner of the Austrian Development Agency, mandated and interested in conducting a final project evaluation. As per the project document (section 7.2), the end-of-project evaluation will be outsourced. The TOR at hand describe the corresponding assignment for which SNV seeks to hire a consulting team.

Purpose of the evaluation: The main purpose of this evaluation is learning and accountability for better project design and implementation in the future.

Users of the evaluation: SNV will use the evaluation results for learning and designing future projects. ADA is the second main user of the evaluation results.

The key objectives of the final evaluation are:

1. To assess the project's Relevance, Effectiveness and prospects for Sustainability
2. To identify facilitating and hindering factors for results achievement
3. To document lessons learned and good practices, and good practices, and
4. To provide practical recommendations based on the findings.

3. Scope

This evaluation will assess the relevance, effectiveness and prospects for sustainability of the SWaSSH4A from the project design phase (end 2020 to October 2022) to its implementation up to the end of data collection of this evaluation (November 2022 to early October 2025). The evaluation will cover all output areas of the project as summarised under section 1.3 (project background).

Geographical scope: The evaluation will generally cover all 4 districts where the project is being implemented, with a deeper analysis in a sample of the 34 project sub-counties (Table 1).

Project districts and Subcounties

Alebtong:    Omoro, Adwir, Angetta, Amugu, Abako, Awei, Aloi, Akura, Abia and Apala

Dokolo:       Kangai, Adeknino, Kwera, Okwongodul, Dokolo, Okwalongwen, Bata, Amwoma,   Agwata & Adok

Kole:           Akalo, Bala, Ayer, Aboke, Okwerodot and Alito

Lira:            Awiodyek, Agali, Itek, Bar, Ogur, Agweng, Aromo and Ayami

Applicants for this assignment are asked to suggest, in their technical offer, a sampling strategy that ensures sampled Subcounties and villages are equally spread over the 4 project districts. The sampling strategy should start from the 51 villages with rehabilitated boreholes under the project combined with other criteria such as flood-prone areas, hard to reach areas, and high demand water sources. Beyond the villages with rehabilitated boreholes, the sampling strategy should also include villages with water sources that were repaired or have benefited from Operation and Maintenance Systems. The sampling strategy will be refined during the inception phase. Data collection in the field includes a minimum of 10 villages.

In terms of evaluation criteria assessed, the evaluation will be limited to relevance, effectiveness and prospects for sustainability of the SWaSSH4A project. As part of the assessment of relevance, effectiveness and sustainability, the evaluation will also assess how the project contributed to gender equality (OECD-DAC policy marker on Gender equality (Marker 1) and how and with which results (and against which challenges) it applied the Gender, Equity, and Social Inclusion (GESI), The OECD-DAC evaluation standards as well as the ADA PP Evaluation Guidelines are to be used as framework for this evaluation.

4. Evaluation Questions

Relevance:

1. To what extent does the project address the specific WASH needs of vulnerable groups (women, persons with disabilities, poor households) and the affordability of services for the poorest wealth quintiles in the project districts?
2. How well has the project aligned with Uganda’s National Development Plan III, national WASH targets, and the climate resilience of WASH infrastructure by local governments and how could the contribution/relevance to national WASH priorities and goals have been enhanced/be enhanced in future?

Effectiveness:

1. To what extent have the project’s intended results been achieved, and what factors influenced (non-) achievements and how? Can unintended results be identified. and if so, which ones?
2. To what extent and how has the project enhanced women and girls’ access to water, sanitation and hygiene, promoted their participation in decision-making processes and enabled them to equally exercise their rights?
3. To what extent and how has the project strengthened the capacity of the district and subcounty local governments and line agencies (MWE Rural Water and Sanitation Regional Centre 1) to lead and institutionalise quality sanitation demand creation and rural water supply development, including Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) for WASH?
4. How effective are the Water Source Committees and other supportive structures (Handpump Mechanics/ Association) in ensuring proper Operation and maintenance of water facilities, as well as ensuring water safety and service continuity? What good practice and challenges can be identified in this context?

Prospects for sustainability:

1. What is the likelihood that the responsible governance structures (DWSCCs, SWSSBs, WSCs, HPMA) and established multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms, will continue to sustain achieved results after project closure and why?
2. To what extent are water supply services financially sustainable at the WSC level, and are water tariffs affordable and accessible to the poorest households (short-, mid- and long term and how can challenges in this context be addressed?
3.  How resilient are the WASH systems and infrastructure to climate-related risks such as flooding and drought, and what measures are in place to ensure their durability and continued service delivery?

5. Design and Approach

The evaluation will follow ADA evaluation guidelines and OECD/DAC norms and standards, as well as common ethical criteria for evaluations, ensuring the highest levels of integrity and accountability. The evaluation should be gender sensitive, participatory and respect the rights and dignity of all involved and promote a learning approach. Stakeholder and community engagement should be done by applying the principles of informed consent, confidentiality, transparency, and a focus on the common good. The consultant/s will propose a methodology and are expected to deploy multiple methods, drawing on different sources and triangulating information to successfully deliver this assignment. A human rights-based approach (HRBA), ADC’s cross-cutting issues, as well as the basic principles and quality standards applying to ADA’s programme and project design, should be incorporated in the methodology.

The following data collection methods are suggested and deemed sufficiently rigorous to allow for a complete, fair and unbiased assessment. In the technical proposal, the evaluators will suggest how to use these (and others) to conclude the assessment with the utmost quality.

1. Document Review (secondary Data): The evaluators will review: the baseline and midline reports, project proposal (budget, log frame), workplans, project reports (technical and financial), programmatic monitoring data collected and analysed using a data management platform, project publications (conference contributions, technical briefs and case studies) and any other documents deemed critically important for the evaluation
2. Onsite visual observation: In conjunction with other methods, the evaluator will observe community water use conditions and O&M-related activities, household sanitation and hygiene facilities, ask questions, visit communities, water sources, sub-counties and districts and make sketches, take photographs or videos, etc)
3. Key informant interviews: Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with key informants (groups or individuals) including project staff, SNV´s local partners staff, sub-county and district officials, Water User Committee (WUC) members, Sub-county Water and Sanitation Board (SWSSB) members, ADA staff, Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) officials at RWSC 1, local leaders of the target communities, beneficiaries, Hand Pump Mechanics (HPMs) and representatives of their associations, spare parts dealers, other development partners and organisations as relevant.
4. Focus Group Discussions (max. of 4-8 people each group): including community members across wealth and social groups, women and men, people with disabilities, the elderly and youth.

In their technical proposal, the evaluation team may suggest which methods are used to assess which areas of analysis and gather information from groups of informants. Specifically, the evaluators should review the evaluation questions and add from their experience as well as indicate how the data and information to answer the questions will be obtained and analysed. The Evaluation report (in an annex) should capture all details of the evaluator's own data and information collection (questionnaires, group compositions). All documents gathered and generated, including photos, will be handed over to SNV at the end of the assignment in a well-structured manner.

For the assessment of outputs, the evaluation can use the project´s programmatic monitoring data and the results and data of the baseline and midline surveys. Surveys to collect WASH coverage data at individual households are thus not foreseen under the evaluation. It should be mentioned that an endline survey is planned following parallel with the evaluation, and drawing on its draft results might be possible.

6. Timeline and Deliverables

6.1 Timeline

The evaluation is expected to be conducted between end of August to end of October 2025.

The following deliverables are to be produced and submitted as part of this assignment:

• Draft and final inception report with a work plan, refined and based on technical proposal (maximum 10 pages, excluding annexes), in line with the structure and content requirements of Annex 5 of the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Project evaluations.
• Presentation of preliminary findings (virtual meeting)
• Draft and final evaluation report (not more than 30 pages excluding annexes), in line with the structure and content requirements of Annex 6 of the ADA Guidelines for Programme and Project evaluations.
• Completed Result-Assessment Form (RAF), submitted together with the draft evaluation report
• Physical Presentation of final evaluation results at regional and national dissemination workshops

The inception report, evaluation report, and RAF need to fulfil ADA standards for program and project evaluations and will be quality checked by SNV and ADA before approval.

The estimated number of working days needed for this assignment are 100. For details see below:

Milestones/deliverables and timeline

1. Evaluation kick-off/Inception meeting (1) by Mid September

2. Document Review, Preliminary Interviews and Draft and Present Inception Report (12) by Mid-September

3. Finalise Inception Report, addressing feedback by SNV and ADA (during meeting and in written on the report) (3) by End September

4. Data collection in the field (District, Subcounty, Village Levels) and Virtual (60) by October

5. Data processing and analysis (7) by October

6. Presentation of Preliminary Findings and submission of Draft evaluation report with Results Assessment

Form (RAF) (12) by End October

7. Finalise evaluation report with RAF addressing Feedback by SNV and ADA (5) End October

The evaluation team is responsible for preparing a comprehensive report which presents findings to address the evaluation questions, highlight key changes as a result of the project intervention draw out lessons learned, present findings and recommendations. The report should reflect comments and feedback received from stakeholders. The evaluation team should refer to the ADA guidelines for the structure of the evaluation reports (Annex 5). The language of the report should be English, with no jargon and with specialist terms explained.

The recommendations must be related to the conclusions without replicating them. A recommendation derives directly from one or more conclusions. Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the project, and of the resources available to implement them. They could concern policy, organizational and operational aspects for both SNV and ADA.

The evaluation deliverables to be generated by the evaluation team include:

1. Draft and Final Inception report

The evaluators will prepare an inception report which details the evaluator’s understanding of the evaluation and how the evaluation questions will be addressed. This is to ensure that the evaluators and the stakeholders SNV and ADA have a shared understanding of the evaluation. The inception report will include the evaluation matrix summarising the evaluation design, methodology, evaluation questions, data sources and collection analysis tool for each data source and the measure by which each question will be evaluated. (for structure and content requirements, see Annex 5 on quality checklist for Inception Report). The draft inception report will be reviewed by SNV and ADA, and the Final Inception Report should be submitted two (2) weeks from the date of contract signing.

2. Draft and final evaluation report

The evaluation team will prepare a draft Evaluation Report for the project, cognizant of the proposed format of the report and checklist used for the assessment of evaluation reports (for structure and content requirements, see Annex 6 of ADA guidelines). The draft report (max. 45 pages excluding Annexes) will be reviewed by SNV and ADA to ensure that the evaluation meets the required quality criteria. The report will be produced in English. The consultant needs to prepare a presentation of the preliminary findings and share it with SNV and major stakeholders.  A completed Results- Assessment Form (RAF) must be submitted together with the draft evaluation report (Annex 9 of the guidelines). Report to be coherently structured with a logical flow       

3. The final report (30-50 pages) for the project will include comments from SNV and ADA and will be submitted 5 days after receiving all the comments. This will be submitted to SNV through the SWaSSH4A Project Manager for validation. It will include recommendations (for future programming and to inform policy) and conclusions. (See Annex 6 of ADA guidelines for Quality Checklist for Evaluation Report). The end of project evaluation report should be by 23rd October 2025.

Payment Schedule

The consultant will be paid in three instalments as indicated below.

Payment                           Deliverable to trigger payment                    % of contract amount payable

1st Instalment                   Inception report for the assignment                                      30%

2nd Instalment                  Draft evaluation report                                                          40%

3rd Instalment                   Final evaluation report                                                          30%

The contract price will be fixed regardless of changes in the cost components.

7. Evaluation Management Arrangements

The evaluation will be managed by SNV in collaboration with a review panel that includes representatives from SNV and ADA, with the SWaSSH4A project manager serving as the main focal point, supported by the project team, to ensure that all deliverables meet the Terms of Reference. The evaluation management team will uphold the OECD/DAC principles, particularly impartiality and independence, throughout the process.

It is SNVs responsibility to avail data and documents as listed above and assist the evaluators in getting in touch with the relevant key informants and provide contacts and information to organise group discussions. It is the responsibility of the evaluators to follow up, plan and schedule for the activities. The evaluators are responsible for logistics arrangements (travel, accommodation). SNV shall not bear any cost.

Responsibilities of the Team Leader

1. Finalise the evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan in consultation with the evaluation manager.
2. Review background materials and conduct initial research and analysis.
3. Develop a detailed schedule for fieldwork and other activities, including time for unexpected delays.
4. Assign roles and responsibilities within the evaluation team, ensuring gender balance and efficient use of time.
5. Coordinate with SNV and other partners to ensure timely and high-quality fieldwork.
6. Lead the fieldwork, including interviews, focus group discussions, and other data collection methods.
7. Keep the evaluation manager and stakeholders informed, especially if there are changes or challenges, as well as a list of people to be interviewed, planned visits, and team member responsibilities.
8. Analyse the data collected and develop findings, conclusions, and practical recommendations.
9. Present preliminary findings to the evaluation manager, SNV, and other relevant teams.
10. Prepare and revise the final report, executive summary, and annexes based on feedback from SNV and ADA.
11. Ensure the evaluation process is objective, inclusive, and meets quality standards.
12. Lead the writing of all reports and ensure they are delivered within the agreed timeframe.
13. Participate in regional and national-level dissemination

Responsibilities of SNV (Evaluation Manager)

1. Participate in the kick-off meeting to ensure everyone understands the purpose, scope of the evaluation and ensure standard templates are used.
2. Provide all relevant background documents, including previous evaluations, reports, studies, existing data and information that will support the evaluation.
3. Provide information on SNV´s approach to using score cards to assess progress in governance through facilitated discussion and scoring in groups and with key informants
4. Write an official letter to introduce the evaluation expert or team to key stakeholders.
5. Review and give feedback on the draft inception report and formally approve it before data collection starts.
6. Participate in meetings with the evaluation team to monitor progress and provide technical guidance.
7. Ensure the evaluation remains independent and objective throughout the process.
8. Facilitates dissemination workshops at the regional and national level (outside this assignment, expert/team participates only).

8. Requirements for the Evaluators

Eligibility: the evaluators must not have been involved in the design or implementation of the programme or project being evaluated.

A team of consultants or a consulting company can apply for this consultancy. The evaluation team should consist of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 members and must be gender diverse.

The team leader has to be nominated with full responsibility for conducting the evaluation.

All team members must contribute to all phases of the evaluation ensuring deliverables are availed within the time frame and with quality.

Key specific requirements to be fulfilled by the evaluation team:

Team Leader:

• Demonstrated experience in leading and conducting independent, external evaluations of similar size and thematic area of development cooperation projects (leading at least 1, contributing to at least 3)
• Relevant International working experience in countries with comparable setting.

All team Members:

• Demonstrated experience in contributing to independent, external evaluations of similar size and thematic area of development cooperation projects

• Demonstrated experience in designing and conducting qualitative data collection and analysis in the context of WASH and including in rural communities.
• Demonstrated expertise in WASH and related environmental and climate change issues.
• Project design, implementation and monitoring experience in development cooperation.
• Expertise and experience in human rights-based WASH and gender-responsive approaches
• Familiarity with Uganda and its national WASH sector
• High level of professionalism and ability to work independently and within deadlines
• Strong communication and meeting/workshop facilitation skills
• Excellent computer skills, ability to draft well-formatted presentations and documents, including compelling tables and graphs that support the presentation of results
• Language skills: excellent spoken and written English

Requisite documentation for the consultant

• Company Legal registration documents (Articles of Association and Powers of Attorney)
• Tax Compliance Certificate
• Valid trading license
• Company profile
• CVs of all the proposed staff for the assignment
• List of References (with valid contacts) for earlier similar tasks undertaken

Important to Note:

• At least one team member must be fluent in the Local Languages

Familiarity with ADA and SNV is an asset.

9. Specifications for the Submission of Offers

Offers of interested bidders need to consist of a technical and a financial offer.

The technical offer should have a maximum of 10 pages presenting the understanding of the assignment and how the herein proposed scope, evaluation questions and targets, design, approach, including the sampling strategy, will be put into action, as well as a preliminary work plan. In addition, the offer should include the CV(s) of the consultants team as annexes, preferably no longer than 5 pages. CVs of all team members need to be submitted, and a clear attribution of roles must be included in the technical proposal. All the CVs submitted must be signed by the staff proposed for the team.

The financial offer in EUR has to include the fee rate per expert and the estimated number of working days per expert, as well as travel and other expenses broken down in detail and directly related to the conduct of data collection activities. Other reimbursable costs or lump sums are not eligible. It is assumed that data collection can be concluded within max. of 60 working days for the entire team. The cost for dissemination event(s) will be borne by SNV. The net costs for this evaluation are estimated between EUR 35,000 and 40,000.

The detailed CVs should clearly respond to the above-described requirements and include three reference persons (names, phone and email contact). To allow objective assessment of the consultant´s match with the requirements, proofs such as reference review or evaluation reports and other written documents, such as scientific articles, papers (working version also possible), can be submitted (max. three relevant documents). Teams of individual consultants need to specify who the team leader is (responsible for timely delivery at the highest quality) and the sole liable and contractual partner of SNV. All team members must have a significant role in each of the evaluation phases (inception, data collection and analysis, reporting).

Administrative requirements for Firms/companies: For companies, the following shall also be required: Registration documents in Uganda; Valid trading licenses /NGO permit; Memo & articles of association/ constitution; Powers of attorney; CVs of the entire proposed team in response to above requirements and reference assignments. All team members must have a significant role in each of the evaluation phases (inception, data collection and analysis, reporting).

Email submissions of all required documents (Administrative, Technical and financial proposals in compressed folders) clearly indicating “Final evaluation of SWaSSH4A project” in the subject line should be submitted to the email address: ugandatenders@snv.org not later than 10:00 am (Nairobi Time) on 5th September  2025. Any questions requiring clarification shall be sent to the email address above with “Clarification on Final Evaluation of SWaSSH4A project” in the subject line of the mail no later than 29th August 2025.

The Contractor will have to agree that:

• The final product (or excerpts of it or parts of it) will be made public as per the ADA’s Guidelines for Programme and Projects Evaluations
• Photos and videos need to be taken in line with SNV´s guidelines (the required consent form and guidance can be availed from SNV)

Note on value added tax: With reference to Article 24.3 of the Austrian Development Agency General Terms and Conditions of Contract for Consultant Services and Similar Intellectual Services (hereinafter “General Terms”), the Contractor shall only be entitled to charge to the CA value added taxes incurred during the implementation of the Service Contract in the event that, at the time of the submission of the final financial statement, the Contractor can prove that such value added taxes are not recoverable by any means, and it is established that they are effectively borne by him/her.

10. Bid Evaluation/Evaluation Criteria

Bids shall be evaluated through evaluation stages: Preliminary examination, technical evaluation and financial evaluation.

Preliminary examination

Preliminary examination will be based on a pass/fail criteria. It is aimed at checking compliance with the bid requirements such as submission of bid within the stipulated time frame and required format, signing of the bid documents submission letter, legal status of the company (registration certificate, certificate of registration, articles of association), powers of attorney, valid income tax clearance certificate, valid trading license, among others.

Technical evaluation

The technical proposal shall be scored out of 80%. Table 2: Technical evaluation criteria

Financial evaluation

The financial proposal will be scored out of 20% using the formula below.

Fs=Lowest Price considering all proposals (LP) Quated price of the proposal   being evaluated (QP)*20%

Determination of the best bidder

The best evaluated bidder is one that obtains the highest combined scores (CS) for technical score and financial scores, determined as follows:

Cs=T s+Fs

Where:  CS = Combined score, Ts = Technical score and Fs = Financial score.

11. Annexes

These (and other) documents relevant to the project will be shared with the selected team after signing the consultancy agreement and during the inception meeting. The list below just gives an indication as to the type of documents available for the desk review:

Project documents and data

1. Project description (project document including annexes)
2. Grant Agreement
3. Approved work plans
4. Project progress reports
5. Baseline and midline reports
6. Project publications

ADA guiding documents.

• Evaluation Policy of the Austrian Development Cooperation[1]
• ADA Guidelines for Programme and Project Evaluation[2]
• Result-Assessment Form (RAF) for Programme and Project Evaluations[3]

[1] https://www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Evaluierung/Englisch/Evaluationpolicy.pdf

[2] https://www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Evaluierung/Evaluierungs_Leitfaeden/ Guidelines_for_Programme_and_Project_Evaluations_ADA_2020.pdf

[3] www.entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Evaluierung/Evaluierung_Templates/ Annex9_Results_AssessmentForm_Template.xlsx