Log In
Sign Up
Apply for job
Apply For This Job
Date of issue: 23/02/2026
Reference no.: RO77-01/Evaluation
Title: DCA Libya Programme Evaluation
Closing date: 15/03/2026
Contracting Authority: DCA // Contact person: Amy Greiner Email: [email protected]
We would be grateful if you inform us by email of your intention to submit a proposal.
DanChurchAid (DCA) Libya invites candidates to submit a proposal for a programme evaluation.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Service is required for a Programme Evaluation conducted by DCA. Please find enclosed the following documents which constitute the Request for Proposal:
A – Instructions
B – Annexes
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Annex 2: Proposal Outline
Annex 3: Proposal Submission Form (to be completed by the Candidate)
Annex 4: General Terms and Conditions for Service Contracts – Ver3 2020 (available upon request with full RFP)
Annex 5: Code of Conduct for Contractors (available upon request with RFP)
Upon request, a complete copy of the above documents can be forwarded in a PDF or WORD format for electronic completion. It is forbidden to make alterations to the text.
We would be grateful if you inform us by email of your intention to submit a proposal.
A. Instructions
In submitting a proposal, the Candidate accepts in full and without restriction the special and general conditions including annexes governing this Contract as the sole basis of this procedure, whatever his own conditions of services may be, which the Candidate hereby waives. The Candidates are expected to examine carefully and comply with all instructions, forms, contract provisions and specifications contained in this Request for Proposal.
A1. Scope of services
The Services required by the Contracting Authority are described in the Terms of Reference in Annex 1.
The Candidate shall offer the totality of the Services described in the Terms of Reference. Candidates offering only part of the required Services will be rejected.
A2. Cost of proposal
The Candidate shall bear all costs associated with the preparation and submission of his proposal and the Contracting Authority is not responsible or liable for these costs, regardless of the conduct or outcome of the process.
A3. Eligibility and qualification requirements
Candidates are not eligible to participate in this procedure if they are in one of the situations listed in article 33 of the General Terms and Conditions for Service Contracts – Ver3 2020.
Candidates shall in the Proposal Submission Form attest that they meet the above eligibility criteria. If required by the Contracting Authority, the Candidate whose proposal is accepted shall further provide evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Authority of its eligibility.
As a rule, the timely arrival of a proposal with the Contracting Authority is the Candidate’s responsibility. Irrespective of the reason, proposals arriving after the deadline for the submission of proposals will be considered late and thus rejected.
Candidates are also requested to certify that they comply with the Code of Conduct for Contractors.
A4. Exclusion from award of contracts
Contracts may not be awarded to Candidates who, during this procedure:
are subject to conflict of interest
are guilty of misrepresentation in supplying the information required by the Contracting Authority as a condition of participation in the Contract procedure or fail to supply this information
A5: Documents comprising the Request for Proposal
The Candidate shall complete and submit the following documents with this proposal:
Proposal Outline (As seen in Annex 2)
Proposal Submission Form (as seen in Annex 3) duly completed and signed by the Candidate
CV highlighting the Candidate’s experience in the specific field of the Services and his/her specific experience in the country/region where the Services are to be performed.
The proposal and all correspondence and documents related to the Request for Proposal exchanged by the Candidate and the Contracting Authority must be written in the language of the procedure, which is English.
A6. Financial proposal
The Financial Proposal shall be presented as an amount in USD in the Proposal Submission Form in Annex 3. The remuneration of the Candidate under the Contract shall be determined as follows:
Global price: The Candidate shall indicate in his/her proposal his/her proposed global remuneration for the performance of the Services. The Candidate shall be deemed to have satisfied himself as to the sufficiency of his/her proposed global remuneration, to cover both his/her fee rate, including overhead, profit, all his/her obligations, sick leave, overtime and holiday pay, taxes, social charges, etc. and all expenses (such as transport, accommodation, food, office, etc.) to be incurred for the performance of the Contract. The proposed global remuneration shall cover all obligations of the successful Candidate under the Contract (without depending on actual time spent on the assignment) and all matters and things necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Services and the remedying of any deficiencies therein.
VAT and/or any sales tax applicable to the purchase of services shall be indicated separately in the proposal.
A7. Validity
Proposals shall remain valid and open for acceptance for 30 days after the closing date.
A8. Submission of proposals and closing date
Proposals must be received at the address mentioned on the front page by email not later than the closing date and time specified on the front page.
A9. Evaluation of Proposals
The evaluation method will be the quality and cost-based selection. A two-stage procedure shall be utilised in evaluating the Proposals, a technical evaluation and a financial evaluation.
Proposals will be ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights of <70>% for the Technical Proposal; and <30>% for the offered price. Each proposal’s overall score shall therefore be St X <70>% + Sf X <30>%.
Technical evaluation
For the evaluation of the technical proposals, the Contracting Authority shall take the below criteria and weights into consideration.
The Contracting Authority reserves the right to discard offers below a technical score of 75 points.
A. Expertise of the Candidate submitting proposal
1 Availability of quality assurance procedures for data collection and analysis 10 pts
2 Organisation/candidate’s specialised knowledge and experience in the field of assignment (humanitarian mine action, emergency response, etc). 15 pts
3 Candidate’s relevant experience (evaluations including participatory methodologies, reporting and design processes, and appreciative inquiry methods) 10 pts
4 Organisation/Candidate’s experience in Libya e.g. knowledge of local language, culture, administrative system, government etc. 10 pts
5 Organisation/Candidate’s reports and previous assignments submitted 5 pts
Sub-total Candidate and/or Organisation <50>
B. Proposed Organisation and Methodology
1 To what degree does the proposal show understanding of the task? 10 pts
2 Have the Terms of Reference been addressed in sufficient detail? 15 pts
3 Is the proposed methodology adopted appropriate for the task? 15 pts
4 Is the sequence of activities and the planning logical, realistic and promising efficient implementation to the Contract?10 pts
Sub-total Organisation and Methodology <50>
Total Technical Score <100>
Interviews
The Contracting Authority reserves the right to call to interview the Candidates having submitted proposals determined to be substantially responsive.
Financial evaluation
Each proposal shall be given a financial score. The lowest Financial Proposal (Fm) will be given a financial score (Sf) of 100 points. The formula for determining the financial scores shall be the following:
Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which
Sf is the financial score
Fm is the lowest price and
F is the price of the proposal under evaluation
Negotiations
The Contracting Authority reserves the right to contact the Candidates having submitted proposals determined to be substantially and technically responsive, to propose a negotiation of the terms of such proposals. Negotiations will not entail any substantial deviation to the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal, but shall have the purpose of obtaining from the Candidates better conditions in terms of technical quality, implementation periods, payment conditions, etc.
Negotiations may however have the purpose of reducing the scope of the services or revising other terms of the Contract to reduce the proposed remuneration when the proposed remunerations exceed the available budget.
A.12. Award criteria
The Contracting Authority will award the Contract to the Candidate whose proposal has been determined to be substantially responsive to the documents of the Request for Proposal and which has obtained the highest overall score.
A13. Signature and entry into force of the Contract
Prior to the expiration of the period of the validity of the proposal, the Contracting Authority will inform the successful Candidate in writing that its proposal has been accepted and inform the unsuccessful Candidates in writing about the result of the evaluation process.
Within 5 days of receipt of the Contract, not yet signed by the Contracting Authority, the successful Candidate must sign and date the Contract and return it to the Contracting Authority. On signing the Contract, the successful Candidate will become the Contractor, and the Contract will enter into force once signed by the Contracting Authority.
If the successful Candidate fails to sign and return the Contract within the days stipulated, the Contracting Authority may consider the acceptance of the proposal to be cancelled without prejudice to the Contracting Authority’s right to claim compensation or pursue any other remedy in respect of such failure, and the successful Candidate will have no claim whatsoever on the Contracting Authority.
A14. Cancellation for convenience
The Contracting Authority may for its own convenience and without charge or liability cancel the procedure at any stage.
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Country Programme: Libya
Country Programme period: 2023-2026
Timing of evaluation: 30 March – 25 June 2026
Background
DCA is an international humanitarian and development non-government organization (NGO) working with local partners in 19 countries under national country programme frameworks. Guided by a human rights-based approach (HRBA) and a strong commitment to localization, DCA works across the humanitarian–development–peace nexus to Save Lives, Build Resilient Communities, and Fight Extreme Inequality.
The DCA Libya Country Office was established in 2011 and since then has conducted a wide range of mostly humanitarian activities. In Libya, DCA is widely recognized and accepted for its constructive relationships with authorities and communities and has had a wide range of past and present local partners as well as national personnel across the country from Tripoli to Misrata and Sirte to Benghazi and Derna in both the West and East of the country, transcending political divides.
The overall goal of the DCA Libya Country Programme is to contribute to a safe and secure Libya without the threat of explosive remnants of war (ERW), where communities can safely rebuild and regenerate their livelihoods. To achieve this, DCA Libya has implemented more than a dozen projects in the current country programme period, that include the following activities: the survey and clearance of ERW, explosive ordnance risk education (EORE), psychosocial support (PSS), capacity strengthening of local partners, renewable energy, emergency response, and quick impact projects.
2. Overview of the Country Programme
The DCA Libya Country Programme is implemented in alignment with DCA’s Global Goals (Save Lives, Build Resilient Communities, and Fight Extreme Inequality) guided by fundamental principles and cross-cutting commitments, including HRBA, triple nexus, localization, gender equality, and environmental sustainability.
Since the 2011 Revolution, Libya has suffered widespread contamination from landmines and ERW. Successive waves of conflict, including the occupation of several key towns and cities by Islamic State/Daesh in 2016 and the subsequent battles to liberate them in 2017, fighting in 2019/2020 between the Russian-backed Eastern forces and the internationally recognized government in Tripoli, and renewed fighting in May and June 2025, have created overlapping layers of ERW, turning whole areas of land into ‘no-go’ zones. The presence of ERW across many major cities, particularly Tripoli, Benghazi, and Sirte, constitute a physical and psychological barrier to development. Schools and health facilities cannot operate safely, electricity and water networks cannot be fully reconnected, and the reconstruction of homes, roads, and markets is slowed or halted. Fertile land that could contribute to local food production remains unusable, worsening economic hardship and food security issues. Communities living in affected areas face a daily reality of restricted mobility, loss of livelihoods, and limited access to services, all of which fuel frustration and undermine prospects for long-term stability.
Within this context, the DCA Libya Programme addresses urgent needs through both self- and co-implementation with local partners in order to see a safe and secure Libya without the threat of ERW, where communities can safely rebuild and regenerate their livelihoods. Operating in an environment of ongoing geopolitical instability, the programme combines humanitarian mine action (HMA) with capacity strengthening of partners, enabling both immediate risk reduction and longer-term resilience.
The country programme engages a wide range of beneficiaries and strategically selected stakeholders. DCA Libya’s activities aim to target the most vulnerable, including those displaced by conflict and natural disasters as well as returnees, both of whom include, in particular, women including female-headed households and girls, young people, and people living with disabilities. DCA Libya has built long-standing relationships with the Libyan Mine Action Centre (LibMAC), Municipal Councils, the Libyan Airports Authority, the Ministries of Transport and Defence, the Civil Society Commissions (East & West), the Libyan Red Crescent (LRC), the Libyan Scouts, NGOs, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and development actors such as United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) which often help link DCA’s humanitarian work to development projects, strengthening the triple nexus and contributing to greater impact.
Partnership and localization are central to DCA’s approach. Over time, DCA Libya has built strong relationships with national NGOs and CSOs, such as Al Thiqa Al Amina (TAD) Nana Maren, and the International Organization for People and Children with Disabilities (IOPCD) as well as semi-governmental actors such as the Libyan Red Crescent (LRC) and Libyan Scouts. Over the years, DCA has provided organizational and technical capacity strengthening support to these partners, enabling them to deliver EORE, PSS, and other activities, either in partnership with DCA or independently, increasing national ownership across the humanitarian and mine action sectors.
A concrete example of DCA’s commitment to localization is the support provided in 2022 to establish TAD as a national HMA organization. Today, TAD operates as a fully functioning national actor aligned with international mine action standards, contributing to a gradual shift from internationally led implementation to nationally managed systems.
Due to our network of partnerships and working relationships with various authorities, DCA is able to rapidly respond to sudden-onset emergencies. In 2023, following Storm Daniel (September 2023), DCA was the first international NGO to establish a presence in Derna, which was severely affected by flooding and widespread destruction. This rapid response was made possible through DCA’s extensive national footprint, with experienced Libyan staff, both past and present, based across the country, including Tripoli, Misrata, Sirte, Benghazi, and Derna. DCA Libya’s localization approach, long-standing partnerships with national actors, particularly the LRC, enabled swift access to affected areas, strong contextual understanding, and high acceptance in Derna.
Efforts to advance gender equality are visible across the programme. The establishment of all-female EORE teams and Libya’s first all-female survey and clearance team challenges traditional gender norms in a male-dominated sector. These roles provide women with professional skills, increasing their employability and financial independence. These women serve as visible role models, demonstrating women’s leadership and technical capacity and encouraging other women and girls to consider roles in humanitarian, technical, and peacebuilding sectors. Finally, all-female teams also enable wider community reach, facilitating greater inclusion of women and girl’s perspectives, and ensuring their specific needs and priorities related to ERW are heard and addressed.
DCA also strives to set an example when it comes to environmental sustainability, ‘greening’ operations and reducing the organization’s carbon footprint in Libya. One way the country programme achieves this is by, when possible, destroying explosive ordnance in situ, reducing the need for transportation. DCA has also adopted solar powered renewable energy in its Tripoli office and accommodation, reducing reliance on diesel powered generators during power cuts. One of DCA’s most notable contributions in this regard has been the installation of solar power systems in schools for children with special needs in Tripoli as well as medical clinics and the LRC office and adjacent medical facility in Derna. Most recently, the programme has provided solar powered irrigation pumps for farms in Sabha to reduce reliance on diesel, improve farmers’ livelihoods, and increase local food production.
3. Purpose, Objective and Evaluation Questions
3.1 The purpose
DCA’s country programme in Libya is coming to the end of a 4-year cycle in 2026. In accordance with DCA’s Evaluation Policy and practice, a consolidated external evaluation of the country programme should take place for learning and accountability purposes. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation will provide substantial guidance to the design of the next country programme cycle and will contribute to organizational learning at the global and country levels of the organization.
3.2 The objective of the evaluation
The evaluation will assess to what extent the DCA’s country programme in Libya fulfilled its goals and how it contributed to DCA’s global goals of Save Lives, Build Resilient Communities and, to a lesser extent, Fight Extreme Inequality. It should also assess programme performance and learning through a nexus lens, examining how the programme has been designed and implemented to contribute to collective humanitarian, development, and peace outcomes.
The evaluation is expected to generate findings for organizational and programmatic learning on DCA’s global approaches, fundamental principles, and organizational commitments as mentioned in Section 2 above. In particular, DCA is keen to understand how DCA’s country programming approach (including use of theory of change) have contributed to the performance of the country programme and the achievement of its objectives. The evaluation should also generate findings and learning on how the implementation of DCA’s fundamental principles and cross-cutting commitments have contributed to programme results in the Libya context.
The evaluation should be conducted against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact and sustainability with a view to draw lessons and make recommendations for future programme periods at country and global levels.
3.3 Standard DCA country programme evaluation questions
Upon answering the below questions, it is important for the evaluation team to, when relevant, refer to the action guides and other guidance documents on the DCA Programme and Project Manual (PPM) and the extent to which the country programme has followed them.
Relevance
Key question:
1. To what extent is the country programme approach relevant to the needs identified in the context analysis?
Sub questions:
To what extent is the country programme aligned with international human rights standards and principles (including relevant international laws for humanitarian and disaster response), and with national and local frameworks that advance human rights, gender equality, and social inclusion, in terms of programme design, implementation, and outcomes?
To what extent has the country programme been effective in strengthening national or local systems, capacities, and coordination for humanitarian preparedness? What lessons have emerged for future responses?
How relevant and adequate were life-saving measures (e.g. survey/clearance, explosive ordnance disposal, EORE, PSS, provision of search and rescue equipment, food, non-food items) to the needs and priorities of communities affected by disaster and conflicts?
To what extent are climate adaptation and mitigation approaches aligned with country needs and effectively integrated into the country programme?
To what extent is the country programme’s portfolio (partners, projects, etc.) relevant to the country programme goals?
Sub-questions:
To what extent do partners and projects contribute to the country programme theory of change (e.g. key assumptions, pathways, and intended outcomes)?
In what ways do the partners and projects complement each other in achieving the country programme goal?
How have partnerships changed/developed in the country programme in terms of localisation and local leadership?
Effectiveness
Key question:
3.To what extent were the country programme objectives achieved at the outcome level, including changes in rights-holders’ empowerment and systemic outcomes identified in the country programme’s pathway of change?
Sub questions:
Which specific marginalised rights-holders have been supported by the programme? To which extent were life-saving services provided in a timely, safe and efficient manner?
To what extent were the participation and accountability mechanisms inclusive and sustainable and used effectively to engage rights-holders?
What results were achieved in terms of reducing the underlying causes of inequality and discrimination? What were the key factors that contributed to the achievement?
To what extent has the programme tested and adopted innovative approaches, and how has this contributed to programme effectiveness?
To what extent has the country programme contributed to the empowerment of rights-holders to claim or access their rights and entitlements and of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations?
To what extent is the country’s programme embracing a double or triple nexus approach? How is that contributing to the programme’s effectiveness?
To what extent has the country programme been able to adapt and support delivery of humanitarian response when needed according to established quality and accountability standards (CHS and Sphere)?
Key Question:
4. How have partnerships been enhanced as a result of the country programme?
Sub questions:
How are the partners involved in decision making and what are their decision-making powers in the planning and implementation of the country programme?
To what extent does country programme deliver adequate capacity for project implementation and organizational strengthening, particularly with regard to capacity sharing with the partners involved in the country programme? Is the country programme responsive to needs identified by partners?
Do the partners have the skills, commitment, and constituency to contribute to the achievement of the country programme goal and intended outcomes?
How did country programme contribute to reinforcing the ability of local and national actors and partners to address identified needs in an effective and timely way?
What are the challenges and opportunities in strengthening/supporting localization and local leadership in the programme?
Did the programme result in new locally led processes and changes.
Efficiency
Key question:
5. To what extent has the country programme integrated DCA’s Value for Money efficiency considerations into its programme cycle?
Sub questions:
To what extent did the country programme’s overall resource allocation reflect efficient and cost-effective strategic choices aligned with programme objectives?
Where relevant, what are the key learnings from working in partnerships vs. self-implementation?
To what extent has DCA (both Country Office and Headquarters) been an efficient manager of the country programme (strategic planning, staffing, resource management, monitoring, partnerships, etc.)?
Impact
Key question:
6. What has been the positive and negative impact at rights-holders’ and duty bearers’ level (outcome) directly or indirectly, including systemic and sustainable changes?
Sub questions:
What evidence is there that the country programme contributed to rights-holders increasing their access to, and claiming their rights, or of duty-bearers better performing their duties and obligations, and of accountability mechanisms being strengthened?
What evidence is there of changes in gender and social inequalities? What is the magnitude and significance of observed changes?
Were there any unintended effects on groups who are either included or excluded in the country programme?
Coherence
Key Question:
7. Does the programme support or undermine other initiatives?
Sub-questions
Internal coherence
Does the programme complement other interventions and policies in DCA?
External coherence
Complementarity: Does the programme complement the interventions of other organisations and actors in the same sector or country?
Coordination: How well are the country programme’s actions harmonized with those of other actors?
Avoidance of duplication: Does the programme create duplication of efforts, or does it add value and deconflict?
Undermining effects: Does the programme undermine or conflict with other relevant interventions?
Policy coherence
Policy alignment: To what extent is the programme aligned with relevant national and international policies, norms, and standards?
Consistency with international agreements: Does the programme align with international conventions or agreements that the country is part of?
Sustainability
Key question:
8. To what extent can the effects of the country programme be expected to last beyond the lifecycle of the programme?
Sub-questions:
To the extent possible and considering the country context how has the programme contributed to further human rights, gender equality, or social equality?
To what extent are the programme outcomes able to withstand or adapt to potential external shocks or changing contexts?
Does the country programme carry out regular risk assessments and keep an updated a risk management plan to inform programming design and implementation?
4. Scope
The evaluation will assess the DCA Libya country programme for the period 2023–2026. It will cover mine action projects implemented in Tripoli, Benghazi, and Sirte; emergency response activities implemented in Derna following Storm Daniel; and selected renewable energy projects implemented in Tripoli, Derna, and/or Sabha.
The evaluation should assess whether the next phase of the DCA programme could meaningfully and realistically include/enhance new technical or cross-cutting areas.
The evaluation is expected to be conducted primarily through remote and online modalities, with a possible in-country visit to Tripoli, subject to security conditions and approvals. Field visits to Sabha, Derna, Benghazi, and Sirte are unlikely due to access constraints and the lengthy processes required for security clearance and official permissions.
5. Approach and Methodology
It is expected that the consultant(s) will further develop the methodology to be applied within this consultancy. However, the consultants should be guided by the OECD DAC criteria and the UNEG quality standards during the methodology design, data collection and report writing.
The below key elements should also guide the development of the proposed methodology. The evaluation is expected to adopt a mixed-methods approach combining document review and primary data collection. A document review will form a key component of the evaluation, including programme documents and reports.
The evaluation will adopt a participatory approach to the extent feasible, while taking into account the operational realities of the Libyan context, including sensitivities around information sharing and limitations on access to communities and authorities. Data collection is therefore expected to rely primarily on Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the LibMAC, local partners, and past and present DCA country office personnel.
Additional methods such as small group consultations may be considered, subject to access, official permissions, security, and ethical considerations. The final methodology will be refined in consultation with the selected consultant during the inception phase.
The methodology developed must also be gender sensitive and inclusive and adhere to the PANEL principles. The focus should be to collect a mix of data that is usable to answer the above questions and provide concrete recommendations to the country programme.
6. Outputs
Description of the agreed objectives of the evaluation following a meeting with DCA Country Office and relevant Head Office advisors at the start of the process. This meeting should be facilitated by the evaluation team, prior to the development of the inception report (point 5 in timeline below)
Inception report, which comprises initial findings of document review, fully developed methodology, data collection tools and evaluation matrix for the evaluation, and workplan for the evaluation. (point 6 in timeline below)
Write-up of overview of research, field work and interviews undertaken. (point 7 in timeline below)
A list of the most significant findings and recommendations to be shared and discussed at a debriefing session with the DCA Country Office and advisors in the Head Office when the evaluation has been carried out. (point 8 in timeline below)
Draft and final evaluation reports in 1-3-25 format which makes use of the suggested report structure below as agreed with the evaluation manager. (point 9 and 11 in timeline below)
Presentation containing the main findings and recommendations to be shared at a meeting with DCA Country Office and Head Office advisors. (point 14 in timeline below)
7. DCA’s 1-3-25 Report Structure
The evaluation report prepared for DCA should follow the standard 1-3-25 format:
Start with one page of main messages including main findings and recommendations
Follow that with a 3-page executive summary
Present findings in no more than 25 pages of writing.
Further details are below and outlined in the DCA’s MEAL policy and DCA’s Mandatory Evaluation Procedures.
1 Final Recommendations (once report is finalized)
3 Executive Summary
25 The structure of the report is flexible but should include the following sections:
Background to programme
Introduction to evaluation
Description of methods and process
Overview of evaluation findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Lessons Learnt
Include visual graphics in the report as appropriate.
Annexes as needed. To include as a minimum:
Final ToR
Inception Report
Tools for data collection
Index, list of abbreviations
8. Evaluation Timeline and Responsibilities
1. Publication of Request for Proposals
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: Approximately 3 weeks
Deadline: 15 March 2026
2. Selection of Evaluation Team and Contract Negotiation
Responsibility: DCA (Procurement Committee)
Timeframe: 7 days
Deadline: 23 March 2026
3. Provision of Initial Documentation Pack
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: As soon as contract is signed
4. Briefing Meetings and Initial Literature Review
Responsibility: DCA and External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: Half day
Deadline: 30 March 2026
5. Pre-Inception Meeting (Led by Evaluation Team)
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: Half day
Deadline: 2 April 2026
6. Submission of Inception Report
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: 5 days
Deadline: 9 April 2026
7. Feedback and Approval of Inception Report
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: 3 days
Deadline: 14 April 2026
8. Research, Field Work, Interviews, and Data Cleaning
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: 14 days
Deadline: 12 May 2026
9. Debriefing Session with DCA Country Office Team and Advisors
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: Half day
Deadline: 20 May 2026
10. First Draft Evaluation Report
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: 10 days
Deadline: 2 June 2026
11. First Feedback to Evaluation Team
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: 4 days
Deadline: 8 June 2026
12. Second Draft Evaluation Report
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: 3 days
Deadline: 11 June 2026
13. Second Feedback to Evaluation Team
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: 4 days
Deadline: 17 June 2026
14. Evaluation Finalised and Approved
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: 3 days
Deadline: 22 June 2026
15. Presentation of Findings and Recommendations
Responsibility: External Evaluation Team
Timeframe: Half day
Deadline: 25 June 2026
16. Preparation of Management Response and Action Plan
Responsibility: DCA
Timeframe: 6 days
Deadline: 28 June 2026
9. Evaluation Management
The evaluation will be managed by the Head of Programmes and Country Director.
10. Evaluation Criteria
A two-stage procedure shall be utilized in evaluating the Proposals, a technical evaluation and a financial evaluation.
Proposals will be ranked according to their combined technical (St) and financial (Sf) scores using the weights of 75% for the Technical Proposal; and 25% for the offered price. Each proposal’s overall score shall therefore be: St X 75% + Sf X 25%.
Technical evaluation
For the evaluation of the technical proposals, DCA will take the below criteria and weights into consideration.
DCA reserves the right to discard offers below a technical score of 75 points.
A. Expertise of the Candidate submitting proposal
1 Availability of quality assurance procedures for data collection and analysis 10 pts
2 Organization/candidate’s specialized knowledge and experience in the field of assignment (humanitarian mine action, emergency response, etc.). 15 pts
3 Candidate’s relevant experience (evaluations including participatory methodologies, reporting and design processes, and appreciative inquiry methods) 10 pts
4 Organization/Candidate’s experience in Libya e.g. knowledge of local language, culture, administrative system, government etc. 10 pts
5 Organization/Candidate’s reports and previous assignments submitted 5 pts
Sub-total Candidate and/or Organisation <50>
B. Proposed Organisation and Methodology
1 To what degree does the proposal show understanding of the task? 10 pts
2 Have the Terms of Reference been addressed in sufficient detail? 15 pts
3 Is the proposed methodology adopted appropriate for the task? 15 pts
4 Is the sequence of activities and the planning logical, realistic and promising efficient implementation to the Contract? 10 pts
Interviews
DCA reserves the right to call to interview the Candidates having submitted proposals determined to be substantially responsive.
Financial evaluation
Each proposal shall be given a financial score. The lowest Financial Proposal (Fm) will be given a financial score (Sf) of 100 points. The formula for determining the financial scores shall be the following:
Sf = 100 x Fm/F, in which
Sf is the financial score
Fm is the lowest price and
F is the price of the proposal under evaluation
11. Team Composition and Qualifications
The team leader of the evaluation should possess the following expertise:
Extensive experience with strategic and multi-sectoral programme evaluations, reporting and design processes, including skills such as sampling, participatory evaluation methodology and appreciative inquiry methods.
Experience with international NGO and NGO based humanitarian assistance and development in Libya.
Expertise on the organizational commitments and fundamental principles such as PANEL+, HRBA, localization, and triple nexus.
Experience with DCA is an asset
Further, the team should have expertise in the following areas
Humanitarian mine action, humanitarian response and preparedness, early recovery, and climate adaptation
Gender equality, youth engagement, and climate and environmental sustainability
Organisational quality management and accountability
Organisational capacity development
^
Click to access qualitystandards.pdf
How to apply
Annex 2: Proposal Outline
Interested consultants and evaluation teams should submit a proposal to the contact person (Amy Greiner, [email protected]) using the structure and main sections identified below in addition to completing the information requested in Annex 3: Proposal Submission Form (below).
1. Rationale
Any comments on the Terms of Reference of importance for the successful execution of activities, its objectives and expected results, thus demonstrating the degree of understanding of the Contract. Detailed list of inputs, activities and outputs. Any comments contradicting the Terms of Reference or falling outside their scope will not form part of the final Contract.
An opinion on the key issues related to the achievement of the Terms of Reference and expected results.
2. Strategy and methodological approach
An outline of the approach and methodology proposed for the evaluation.
An outline of the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the contract objectives.
A brief description of the backstopping support that will be available to the evaluation team from the contractor if relevant.
A brief description of subcontracting arrangements foreseen (e.g., for enumerators, local consultants and/or interpreters) if required, with a clear indication of the tasks that will be entrusted to a subcontractor and a statement by the Candidate guaranteeing the eligibility of any subcontractor.)
Ethical considerations when conducting the evaluation
3. Timetable of activities
The timing, sequence and duration of the proposed activities considering mobilization time.
The identification and timing of major milestones in conducting the evaluation, including an indication of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports particularly those stipulated in the Terms of Reference.
4. Key experts
The proposal should include a detailed description of the role and duties of each of the key experts or other non-key experts, who are proposed as members of the evaluation team. The CV of each key expert shall be included highlighting their experience in the specific field of the services and their specific experience in the country/region where the services are to be performed.
The proposal should clearly state existing commitments of experts which may affect their availability to participate in the evaluation to the extent possible.
The proposal should clearly state any conflicts of interest which may compromise the objectivity of the experts in the evaluation. (e.g. involvement in the programme being evaluated and/or employment by DCA and/or DCA partners.)
The proposal should include 1 or 2 examples of previous work from evaluation assignments or similar.
5. Financial Offer
The financial offer should be presented in the format noted Annex 3: Proposal Submission Form below.
Annex 3: Proposal Submission Form
My financial proposal for my services is as follows:
Global price
Currency USD
Amount
Global price (fees and expenses)
VAT or other tax on services
Total price incl. taxes
Candidate or Company information
Company (legal name)
Street name and no.
City
Postal code
Country
Phone no.
Website
Director (name)
REFERENCES
Name and country of client
Type of contract
Value
Contact name
Phone/fax and email
Include details of the experience and past performance on contracts of a similar nature within the past five years and information on other contracts in hand and/or future commitments including details of the actual and effective participation in each of such contracts, description of the Candidate’s assignments and periods of engagement. Additional documents can be attached to the above form.
The proposal is valid for a period of 30 days after the closing date in accordance with the article
A.7. Validity.
After having read the Request for Proposal no. RO77-01/EVALUATION for DCA Libya Programme Evaluation dated 23 February 2026 and after having examined the Request for Proposal, I/we hereby offer to execute and complete the services in conformity with all conditions in the Request for Proposal for the sum indicated in our financial proposal.
Further, I/we hereby:
Accept, without restrictions, all the provisions in the Request for Proposal including the General Terms and Conditions for Service Contracts – Ver3 2020 and the draft Service Contract including all annexes.
Certify that I/we do not support terrorists or terrorism activities, and do not condone the use of terrorism.
Provided that a contract is issued by the Contracting Authority I/we hereby commit to perform all services described in the Terms of Reference, Annex 1.
Certify and attest compliance with eligibility criteria of article 33 of the General Terms and Conditions for Service – Ver3 2020.
Certify and attest compliance with the Code of Conduct for Contractors in Annex 5.
The above declarations will become an integrated part of the Contract and misrepresentation will be regarded as grounds for termination.
Signature and stamp:
Date and signed by:
The Candidate
Name of the company
Address
Telephone no.
Name of contact person