Terms of Reference for consultancy services for the final evaluation of the Finance for Inclusive Growth in Somalia (FIG Somalia) programme Consultancy NEW

1. About FIG Somalia

Finance for Inclusive Growth in Somalia (FIG –Somalia) is a pilot programme component under the European Union-funded Inclusive Local and Economic Development (ILED) programme in Somalia. The FIG programme is funded by the EU under the Trust Fund. The programme started the implementation in September 2020 and will run until December 2025. The programme is implemented by the African Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF) in partnership with six Somali financial institutions (FIs): MicroDahab MFI, IBS Bank, Sombank, Amana MFI, Maal MFI, and Raas MFI.

The programme objective is to revitalise and expand the local economy with a focus on livelihood enhancement, job creation and broad-based inclusive growth for Somali women, youth, and producers1 through:

• Designing and offering appropriate and sustainable financial products and services to clients through two Somali Financial Institutions (FI) and ensuring targeted clients are growing and becoming more bankable.
• Catalyzing a sustainable increase in lending to economic actors in Somalia, youth, women, and producers.
• Building the capacity of the partner financial institutions to increasingly provide appropriate financial services for a wider scope of customers living in urban centers, and rural and decentralized areas in Somalia.
• Building the capacity of targeted end clients to profitably use the financing for business

The programme consisted of two phases and initially partnered with two financial institutions— MicroDahab MFI and IBS Bank. Each of these financial intermediaries received €1 million in returnable capital as a revolving fund and matched this amount with their own €1 million each.

In the second phase, the programme expanded its impact by collaborating with four additional financial institutions: Sombank, Maal MFI, Amana MFI, and Raas MFI. Each of these institutions received €350,000 in returnable loan funds (RLF) and matched that amount 1:1 with their own funds

for on-lending to the programme’s target clients, which include 40% women, 30% youth, and 30% producers.

The programme’s activities expanded to all regions of the country, including:

State/Region

Districts (FIG activity Locations

Benadir Regional Administration

Mogadishu (All Districts)

Jubaland

Kismayo, Beled-hawo, Bardhere

Southwest State

Baidowa, Afgoye, Walawayn

Galmudug

Dhusamareeb, Abudwar, Adado, Galkaio (South)

Hirshabelle

Beledwayne, Bula-burde, Balcad

Puntland

Bossaso, Garowe, Gardo, Galdogob, Galkaio (North)

Somaliland

Hargeisa, Borama, Dila, Gabilay, Wajale, Berbera,

Bur’o, Erigavo, Las’anod, Buhodle.

The programme encompasses three major components: the revolving fund, a partial guarantee fund, and technical assistance for MFI staff and their clients. The RFL budget was set at €3.4 million, with an additional €3.4 million matching contributed by the six MFIs, bringing the total available fund during the programme duration to €6.8 million, which is set to be revolved twice and the Partial Guarantee Fund (PGF) budget of €0.332 million.

Overall, the programme aims to achieve the following results during its duration:

Activity

Target(s)

Financial Institutions partnered.

6

MSMEs financed (40% women)

16,000

Training Courses Delivered

12

Training Modules to be Developed

12

Loan Products to be Developed

18

Marketing Fairs to be Conducted

10

MFIs Staff Trained

120

Private funds leveraged through matching Funds

€6.8 Million

# of Loans Disbursed by the MFIs/Guaranteed by the programme.

€13.6 Million

2. Evaluation purpose and scope

• Objective of the evaluation

The final evaluation of the FIG programme will provide a thorough assessment of its overall impact against the Theory of Change, emphasizing its effectiveness in achieving established objectives and the positive changes experienced by target groups. The evaluation will provide a clear and detailed overview of the programme’s successes, the challenges encountered, and any gaps in implementation. In addition, the evaluation will assess the lessons learned throughout the programme, providing insights that can inform future initiatives. It will also evaluate the sustainability of the programme’s outcomes, identifying strategies to ensure that the benefits endure beyond the programme’s duration.

The objective of the final technical review is to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the measures and activities implemented in the programme, and evaluate its achievements against the programme impact matrix.
2. Identify and analyze the underlying causes for any objectives that were not fully achieved (if).
3. Identify Progress made on gaps identified in the Mid-Term Evaluation of the
4. Provide Lessons Learned and offer recommendations for future

• Scope of the evaluation

The scope of the Final Evaluation is to provide the programme and its stakeholders with an independent assessment of all programme components and the progress made towards the outlined objectives. The Final Evaluation will review the Relevance of design, Effectiveness, Efficiency of planning and implementation, Impact, and Potential for Sustainability and Replication. Issues or factors that have impeded or accelerated the implementation of the programme or any of its components, including actions taken and resolutions made, should be highlighted. The evaluation will go beyond reporting the quantitative outcomes and examine how results were measured, particularly at the beneficiary level. It will analyze the robustness of the methodologies used to estimate indirect job creation, household income, and examine assumptions applied that influenced the measurement approach.

3. Evaluation and guiding questions

This Final Evaluation will be carried out in conformity with the AECF Evaluation standards and will use the widely accepted OECD/ DAC Evaluation criteria. An initial set of questions that should guide the Final Evaluation in assessing the Programme against each given criterion has been developed as follows:

Criteria

Evaluation Questions

Relevance

· To what extent was the Programme relevant to the needs and priorities in Somalia and the relevant stakeholders?

· To what extent were the objectives of the Programme valid to address the identified problem?

· To what extent has the programme design supported the increased access to finance for women and young people in productive sectors in Somalia?

· To what extent has the programme been impacted by government policies affecting lending in Somalia, and what can be done by the FGS, EU and other stakeholders to improve the financial business environment?

Coherence

· How effectively was the Programme integrated with existing national and regional policies?

· To what extent did the Programme complement or duplicate other donor-funded initiatives in the same sector?

· What mechanisms were in place to ensure alignment with external actors (government, donors, NGOs, private sector)?

· Did the activity build sufficiently on findings and outcomes of the Mid-Term Evaluation of FIG?

Effectiveness

· To what extent has the Programme achieved its intended objectives and targets?

· What progress has been made towards key Programme outcomes and indicators?

· What factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of intended results?

· How effectively were Programme strategies adjusted based on real-time feedback and learning?

· How flexible was the Programme in adapting to emerging needs and challenges during implementation?

· How did Programme management, governance, and decision-making structures contribute to effectiveness in implementation?

· Have the financial intermediaries disbursed the funding made available?

· Who has been reached with concessional financing?

· Has the technical assistance training provided to the MFIs staff been effective in addressing identified capacity gaps?

· Has the technical assistance provided to end beneficiaries improved business performance and improved repayment rates?

· Was the PGF effective in de-risking lending and incentivizing MFIs to reach target groups?

Criteria

Evaluation Questions

· Does the programme generate the expected development impact on end beneficiaries?

Efficiency

· How efficiently were financial and human resources allocated and utilized?

· Were the Programme’s interventions cost-effective compared to alternative approaches?

· Were there any areas where resources could have been used more effectively?

· How did Programme management, governance, and decision-making structures contribute to efficiency in implementation?

Impact

· What are the direct and indirect effects of the Programme?

· To what extent has the Programme met its goals?

· How confident can we be that Programme activities contributed to the perceived changes?

· How could the Programme’s impacts have been increased?

· What have been the development impacts achieved to date for the various categories of beneficiaries, particularly on the number of jobs created and the average income generated per beneficiary?

· How has the programme impacted the business performance of the six financial intermediaries? This should focus on their revenues, profits, jobs, branches, geographic coverage, products, technology, etc.

· How were indirect jobs at the beneficiary level measured and validated?

· Which types of micro enterprises contribute significantly to indirect job creation, and what factors explain this variation?

Sustainability

· Is there an exit strategy, and to what extent has it been implemented? If not, what can still be implemented to ensure sustainability?

· Did the Programme contribute to lasting capacities or other benefits for the local MFIs and their clients?

· Based upon existing plans and observations made during the evaluation, what are the key strategic options for future Programmes (e.g. exit, scale down, replicate, scale-up, continue business-as-usual, major changes to approach)?

· How likely are the Programme’s benefits, skills, and resources to be sustained after funding ends?

· To what extent have local MFIs taken ownership of interventions?

· What measures were in place to ensure accountability and transparency in Programme implementation? Could they be improved? If so, how?

· What strategies were put in place to ensure institutionalisation and long-term sustainability?

· What are the key risks or barriers to sustaining Programme outcomes, and how can they be mitigated?

Cross-cutting objectives:

Gender, youth,

vulnerable

persons

· To what extent did the Programme influence gender equality, youth participation, and inclusion of vulnerable persons in the financial sector?

· Did the chosen approaches enhance the rights and inclusion of women, youth and vulnerable persons affected by the Programme? How well? Could the approaches be improved? How?

Learning & Adaptation,

Scaling Up & Replication:

· What best practices and lessons can inform future programme design and implementation?

· What are the best practices worth replicating in similar Programmes?

· How can collaborative learning approaches be enhanced to support continuous improvement?

· What elements of the Programme have been most effective and scalable?

· What challenges need to be addressed before expanding the intervention to new areas or communities?

· How can the measurement of results, especially indirect job creation and gender outcomes be improved for future programs?

4. Evaluation audience

• The AECF LLC
• The European Union
• IBS Bank
• MicroDahab MFI
• Sombank
• Amana MFI
• Maal MFI
• Raas MFI
• Somali Microfinance Association (SOMMA)

5. Methodology

During this final evaluation, the selected evaluation firm is invited to assess the Programme and its different components according to the evaluation criteria and specific evaluation questions listed above. The methodology described in this section is indicative, and the applying evaluation teams are expected to adapt, elaborate and integrate the approach and propose adjustments needed to undertake the assignment. These can include additions to the evaluation design, approaches to be adopted, appropriate sampling strategy, data collection and analysis methods, and an evaluation framework. The proposals should also refer to methodological limitations and mitigation measures. At all times, evaluators are to adhere to the ‘principles for ensuring quality evaluations’ according to OECD/ DAC quality standards. Mixed data collection methods are recommended. The evaluation will be rolled out in three phases:

• Inception phase: The evaluator(s) will review key Programme documents and engage with the AECF/ FIG team to finalize the evaluation objectives, questions, criteria and Against the above, the evaluator(s) will identify appropriate evidence that needs to be gathered and synthesized to fully inform the evaluation process, as well as sources of information, including key individuals to be interviewed. The output of this phase will be an inception report, which will include a methodological note and an evaluation matrix presenting how each evaluation question will be addressed, data sources and data collection methods that will be used to gather additional information needed and a set of criteria to rate the strength of the evidence collected. The inception report should not exceed 10 pages.
• Data collection and analysis phase: The second phase will further assess the programme and collect information and evidence responding to the objectives and criteria set in this ToR and in alignment with the scope refined during the inception phase. The evaluation matrix should be the guiding tool in order to collect data through different methods relating to the evaluation questions. A mixed-method approach will be used to combine qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. At the end of this phase, it is expected that the evaluator(s) present their preliminary findings to the key audience for this evaluation.
• Reporting and dissemination phase: The third phase will include reporting, validating and prioritizing findings and recommendations, and disseminating the results to AECF and its stakeholders. The evaluator(s) will submit a final evaluation report in Word and PDF. The final report should not exceed 25 pages and clearly and transparently demonstrate links between review questions, data collection, analysis, findings and conclusions. The conclusion and recommendations presented in the final report should be underpinned by a strong set of evidence and will be further explained during the final presentation.

6. Timelines and evaluation scope

The evaluation will assess six partner financial institutions of the programme, as well as a sample of end clients. The consultant will review relevant programme documents, Programme Audit reports, donor annual reports, and the mid-term review (MTR) report.

The evaluation will cover the full implementation period, from 11th September 2020 to 31st December 2025.

7. Deliverables

The consultant will produce the following deliverables:

• Inception report: A report outlining the evaluation methodology, data collection tools, stakeholder engagement process, and updated work plan.
• Draft report: A report presenting the evaluation findings, conclusions, and
• Final report: A report incorporating feedback from the
• Presentation of findings: A presentation of the evaluation findings and recommendations to the AECF, the EU, and other relevant stakeholders.

8. Duration of service

The service is expected to be completed within three (3) months. From January 1st, 2026, the assignment is expected to be completed by or before March 31st, 2026.

9. Reporting

The consultant will be accountable and report to the FIG programme manager.

10. Consultancy qualifications

AECF seeks:

• A consultancy firm with substantial experience (5–7 years) in conducting development research, monitoring, and evaluation assignments in fragile or developing contexts, particularly within East Africa and Somalia.
• A team leader with an advanced degree in a relevant field such as economics, development studies, monitoring and evaluation, or a related discipline.
• A multidisciplinary team of experts with strong technical backgrounds in programme evaluation, economics, finance, and monitoring and evaluation.
• Demonstrated experience in applying participatory and evidence-based evaluation methodologies, in line with recognized international evaluation standards and best practices.
• Proven experience in evaluating or assessing development and financial inclusion programmes, including initiatives that support MSMEs, youth, and women-led enterprises.
• A solid understanding of Somalia’s socioeconomic and financial landscape, including market systems and value chain development.
• Prior experience implementing or evaluating donor-funded programmes in the region (experience with EU-funded projects will be considered an added advantage).
• Excellent communication, analytical, and reporting skills, with the ability to present complex findings and recommendations clearly to diverse stakeholders.

11. Pricing

The AECF is obliged by the Kenyan tax authorities to withhold taxes on service contract fees as well as ensure that VAT, is charged where applicable. Applicants are advised to ensure that they have a clear understanding of their tax position with regards to provisions of Kenya tax legislation when developing their proposals.

12. Guidelines

The consultant will be expected to take responsibility for all the activities identified in the Terms of Reference (ToRs). The Technical and Financial Proposal should contain:

• Consultant’s interpretation of the
• Complete description and elaborate explanation of the proposed
• Names and qualifications of allocated personnel and any other resources that the consultant will make available to execute the assignment and achieve the objectives.
• The financial proposal should stipulate the consultancy fees and all associated costs for the assignment, expressed in US$ and inclusive of taxes.
• A detailed work plan within the stipulated

13. Proposal submission guidelines

Interested and qualified consulting firms are invited to submit their proposal(s) comprising the following:

• An understanding of the consultancy
• Methodology and work plan for performing the
• Detailed reference list indicating the scope and magnitude of similar
• Relevant services that have been done in the past five (5) years preferably in Somalia.
• Signed letters of reference from 3 previous institutions/programmes.
• Registration and other relevant statutory
• The technical and financial proposals are to be submitted separately in pdf format.
• The financial proposal clearly shows the budgeted cost for the work to be conducted by the consulting firm under the scope of the work above.

14. Evaluation criteria

MANDATORY EVALUATION CRITERIA.

Mandatory Requirements for firms: –

1. Company profile
2. Trading license or Certificate of incorporation or Certificate of Registration and other statutory documents
3. . Valid Tax Compliance certificate or its equivalent

N/B: FAILURE TO ATTACH AND ADHERE TO THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION.

The proposal will be assessed by an AECF evaluation committee. All members will be bound by the same standards of confidentiality. The vendor should ensure that they fully respond to all criteria to be comprehensively evaluated. The AECF may request and receive clarification from any vendor when evaluating a proposal. The evaluation committee may invite some or all the vendors to appear before the committee to clarify their proposals. In such an event, the evaluation committee may consider such clarifications in evaluating proposals.

In deciding the final selection of qualified bidders, the technical quality of the proposal will be given a weighting of 70% based on the evaluation criteria. Only the financial proposal of those bidders who qualify technically will be opened. The financial proposal will be allocated a weighting of 30% and the proposals will be ranked in terms of total points scored. The mandatory and desirable criteria against which proposals will be evaluated are identified in the table below.

No.

Criteria for Assessment

Marks

1

Understanding of the terms of reference

10

Description of the service to be provided

5

Understanding of what AECF is expecting from the work

5

2

Methodology and work plan

20

Relevance of the methodology proposed to the needs of the assignment

10

Adequacy of the work plan, including key deliverables and capacity to deliver within a realistic timeline based on the consultancy days designated for the task

10

3

Technical experience of staff offered

40

Relevant tertiary level qualification and years of professional experience of the proposed team; and demonstrated Team Leader’s expertise in one of the technical areas, as well as expertise and demonstrated experience in designing evaluation

methodology and data collection tools, and demonstrated experience in leading similar reviews/evaluations.

5

Prior experience in evaluating programmes of a similar nature and scope, including a

reference list indicating the scope and magnitude of similar assignments.

10

Experience in conducting programme evaluations for donor-funded programmes, including demonstrated experience in evaluation report writing.

10

Evidence of similar previous experience, at least 7 years, in the financial inclusion sector, MSMEs in Somalia or a similar context, with demonstrable competence in

private sector investments, access to finance for women, youth and producers.

10

Provide the registration and tax clearance certification from the country where the

The assignment will take place.

5

4

Financial Proposal

Clarity, relevance, reality to the market of value/value for money of cost for the assignment (inclusive of any applicable tax)

30

Total Score

100

Terms of Reference for consultancy services for the final evaluation of the Finance for Inclusive Growth in Somalia (FIG Somalia) programme – AECF

Tagged as: Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund, Somalia