Evaluation: the Netherlands Red Cross’ (NLRC) contribution to the Israel and the Occupied Territories (ILOT) response (2023-2025) At Netherlands Red Cross

Leave a Comment / Netherlands / By

Complete Terms of Reference to be found in the following folder: ToR – 2025-1085_Final_NLRC_ILOT_Evaluation.pdf

  1. Background

Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Netherlands Red Cross Partnership 2022-2026

This evaluation is planned under the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NL MOFA) and Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC) Partnership 2022-2026. The Partnership is carried out by NLRC through both bilateral collaborations, primarily with other Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC) National Societies (NSs), and multilateral efforts, mainly in cooperation with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The Partnership addresses the unprecedented scale and complexity of current humanitarian crises worldwide with a multi-hazard, locally driven approach that adapts disaster response tools, strengthens NSs and ensures inclusive, community-centred humanitarian assistance.

The design of the NL MoFA-NLRC Partnership 2022-2026 has taken into account humanitarian trends and innovations, respects Grand Bargain commitments, applies lessons learned from the previous NL MoFA grants, based on the humanitarian values and fundamental principles of the RCRC Movement, with the ultimate vision of “People, communities, local authorities and Red Cross Red Crescent Movement partners, are more resilient and can better anticipate, cope with and respond to crises. To deliver:

  • Long-Term Objective 1: Provide Humanitarian Assistance and Protection to Populations in Acute and Chronic Crises
  • Long-Term Objective 2: Create an Effective Humanitarian Response System: Strengthening Localisation Through Preparedness, Accountability, Risk Sharing, and Innovation

ILOT crisis

In response to the escalation of violence in Gaza from October 2023, the Netherlands Red Cross mobilized significant support to contribute to the wider Movement response, funded by two top ups (2023, 2024) of the ongoing partnership between NLRC and MoFA. The ILOT top up support took multiple forms, including bilateral contributions to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and other relevant Host National Societies (e.g. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), financial and in-kind support through the IFRC Emergency Appeal, and technical or surge deployments (a more detailed overview of all ILOT top up activities will be shared with the selected consultant).

The crisis in Gaza and the wider region has created an exceptionally difficult environment for humanitarian programming. Severe access restrictions, shifting frontlines, and insecurity have limited the ability of organizations to plan and implement activities in a predictable manner. Humanitarian actors have frequently had to revise operational plans at short notice, with delays in obtaining clearances and sudden changes in access corridors disrupting the continuity of assistance. The persistent targeting of humanitarian personnel and assets has further constrained the scale and modality of interventions, forcing agencies to adopt contingency approaches, reduce visibility, and prioritise lifesaving activities over longer-term or community-based programming.

2. Objectives of the review

  1. To assess the relevance, impact, effectiveness and efficiency of NLRC’s support (financial and non-financial) to the Gaza crisis response across bilateral and multilateral channels.
  2. To analyze the coherence and relevance of different support modalities (e.g. bilateral to PRCS and the Lebanese Red Cross (LRC), multilateral via IFRC, surge support to Host NSs), and their alignment with the MOFA partnership objectives as well as RCRC strategies.
  3. To identify enabling and constraining factors that affected the relevance, timeliness, effectiveness and coordination of NLRC-supported efforts and formulate key recommendations for the ongoing response.

3. Key Questions

This evaluation will analyse the achievements and challenges across the various forms of support across the Middle East, using the OECD DAC criteria. Proposed key questions include, but are not limited to:

Relevance

  • Reconstruction of NLRC’s response:
  • What was supported, where, how, and through which channels?
  • How were funding decisions made and adapted over time?
  • What criteria were used to determine decision making on the exact allocation of funds?
  • To what extent is the programming in line with humanitarian needs as well as NLRC, IFRC and NSs needs, priorities and preferences?
  • How was NLRC support perceived by PRCS, Host NSs, and IFRC?
  • To what extent was the NLRC approach/ strategy clear to the supported RCRC movement partners and successfully implemented?

Coherence

  • To what extent were various types of support aligned with another, with wider movement plans/ needs, and with the wider humanitarian sector/ response?
  • How well have the different types of support reinforced each other towards reaching their objectives?
  • How effectively did Movement partners coordinate planning, decision-making, and implementation?
  • To what extent were Humanitarian Diplomacy efforts coordinated within the movement?
  • To what extent were logistics for the humanitarian corridor from Egypt coordinated well effectively?

Effectiveness

  • To what extent was the MOFA partnership objective for acute crisis met, namely to ‘provide direct multilateral and bilateral aid delivery to cover basic needs and provide protection to populations in acute crisis’?
  • To what extent was the MOFA partnership objective for chronic crisis met, namely for ‘multilateral and bilateral responses to prolonged crises address underlying causes and bring about sustainable longer-term benefits while also saving lives’
  • To what extent was the MOFA partnership objective for the ‘Expert pool’ met, namely: ‘Short term deployment of humanitarian professionals to support national societies’ with emergency support’?
  • What evidence is there of improved humanitarian response and localisation, in terms of strengthened capacities and positioning of NS’?
  • To what extent were Humanitarian Diplomacy efforts from movement partners effective? How did the Netherlands MOFA perceive these efforts?
  • What were the most important constraints that impacted the effectiveness of the response?

Efficiency

  • Was the intervention timely?
  • To what extent were funding and approval mechanisms to respond to the fast developing/ changing developments in Gaza and the wider region efficient?

Impact

  • What are the most important changes the various types of support have generated, either intended or unintended?
  • What are the key factors that have contributed to positive changes in the provision of humanitarian assistance and the strengthening of the humanitarian response system?
  • What structural or strategic changes are needed to improve support in similar crises?

Sustainability

  • Are the outcomes of the intervention likely to be maintained over time?
  • To what extent have the supported activities/ projects strengthened local capacities to manage and maintain interventions independently?
  • What recommendations can be made to movemetn partners to ensure that future support is not only relevant in acute crises but also contributes to longer-term resilience and preparedness?
  • Based on lessons from the preparedness, launch, and early response, what concrete measures should PNSs (NLRC, IFRC, etc.), PRCS, and Host NSs adopt to strengthen operational readiness for upcoming phases (ceasefire or renewed escalation)?

4. Methodology

The evaluation is expected to use mainly qualitative methods, using triangulation, with primary and secondary data sources. The following methods are proposed to be included:

  • Desk review of key documents, including project proposals, reports, surge deployment records), IFRC EA updates, relevant PRCS or Host NSs communications, and any available partner reports or evaluations.
  • Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with the Netherlands MOFA focal points, NLRC, bilateral partner NSs, IFRC (Interview questionnaires tailored to the person/ position being interviewed, particularly with external stakeholders). Depending on the location of the consultant, KIIs can be conducted in person or remotely.
  • Participatory session(s) with involved staff to shape the evaluation framework and detailed methodology during the Inception Phase.
  • Participatory workshop with key stakeholders to validate the findings at the Final Report Phase.

A detailed methodological framework is to be elaborated by the consultant/ firm, with the possibility to refine or prioritise questions during the inception phase based on availability of data.

5. Key deliverables

  • Inception report, including a desk review and detailed methodology
  • Visualization: Mapping/ timeline of NLRC’s overall contribution across different countries (oPt, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan), support types (funding, surge, coordination), and modalities (bilateral, multilateral).
  • Raw data: KII notes (anonymized)
  • Internal validation session (virtual or in-person) to validate emerging findings with NLRC and key stakeholders.
  • Draft Report
  • Final Report with clear lessons, strategic recommendations (15–20 pages)
  • Executive Summary (1-2 pages)
  • Presentation (including slides for internal use)

6. Timeline/ Planning

  • Start date: (Latest by) 1/11/2025
  • Inception report: 15/11/2025
  • Draft report: 15/12/2025
  • Final report: 30/1/2026

7. Consultant profile

  • Experience/ familiarity with International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement structures
  • Knowledge of NL MoFA policies is desirable
  • Proven experience in strategic learning reviews, evaluations, or humanitarian research, specifically with qualitative tools and analysis.
  • Proven experience working with humanitarian aid organisations
  • Proven experience with emergency response as well as Humanitarian Diplomacy
  • Previous working experience in the Middle East (oPt, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)
  • Demonstrated ability to synthesize fragmented inputs into coherent analysis
  • Strong understanding of humanitarian access issues, localization, and conflict sensitivity
  • Fluency in English; knowledge of Arabic is desirable
  • Ability to write concise, yet comprehensive reports
  • Excellent interpersonal skills
  • Ability to work effectively and in intercultural settings
  • Ability to meet deadlines
  • Self-supporting in working with computers (word processing, spreadsheets, statistical software, online surveys, and Microsoft teams).

8. Management and oversight:
The consultant will report to the PMEAL team of the Netherlands Red Cross.
NLRC will provide access to internal documents and facilitate stakeholder introductions.
Input from all key stakeholders will be sought strategically and respectfully, ensuring findings are also useful to them and their time is used efficiently.

How to apply

For the complete ToR with Details on Evaluation Criteria: ToR – 2025-1085_Final_NLRC_ILOT_Evaluation.pdf

Bid Requirements & Analysis Criteria

Interested consultants/ firms should submit their technical and financial offers to NLRC’s Logistics Department.

Bids Submission guidelines

In submitting an offer, the applicant accepts in full and without restriction the special and general conditions governing this contract as the sole basis of this competitive procedure, whatever their own conditions of sale may be – NLRC General Purchasing Terms and Conditions.pdf.

Submission Deadline

The proposal shall be submitted before the deadline for reception of applications on the 19th October 2025 at 12:00 (Amsterdam Time).

Submission Method

  • Proposals must be submitted electronically by email at logistics@redcross.nl with dmulder@redcross.nl in cc.
  • For any questions in relation to the tender process or content of this assignment sent to the same addresses mentioned above, please indicate in the email subject: RFP LOG 2025 1085 – Questions + [Name of the bidder].

Bid Format

  • Email subject must be RFP LOG 2025 1085 – Proposal Submission + [Name of the bidder].
  • All the bidding documents will be attached to the same email.
  • The attachments to be included are described in the next section.
  • Language: All documents shall be submitted in English.

The application should include:

  1. Cover Letter: clearly summarising the experience of the consultant as it pertains to this assignment, daily rate, and contact details for three professional referees;
  2. Curricula Vitae
  3. Technical Proposal
  4. Financial Proposal (budget, the maximum amount available is €30.000);
  5. Previous Samples: Applicants must provide at least one, and up to two, samples of previous written work similar to that described in the ToR (such as prior evaluations), with any sensitive information redacted.
  6. Vendor Registration Form: Bidders are required to complete the [NLRC_Vendor Registration Form.docx] and submit all relevant supporting documentation referenced in the form (Administrative checklist, Part 1).
  7. Commitment Note: if the engagement under this ToR requires travel outside the vendor’s country of residence, the selected bidder will be required to sign [NLRC_Personal Commitment Note Non-RC staff.docx] prior to departure. Provided during the tender process for review and acknowledgement.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Incomplete applications will not be considered. NLRC appreciates your understanding that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. Failure to satisfy all aspects of the tender dossier may lead to the offer being rejected without further reason being given.
  • A round of interviews might take place as part of the selection process.
  • The contract will be awarded to the bidder with the highest total weighted score, based on a combination of quality, compliance, and price. This will be deemed the most economically advantageous offer.
  • The detailed criteria used for weighing the proposal are listed in the following link Section 9: ToR – 2025-1085_Final_NLRC_ILOT_Evaluation.pdf for details of

Vendor Code of Conduct

NLRC is committed to upholding the highest sustainability standards and requirements (ethical, social, environmental and quality) in all our business providing high-quality services and products. Complying with all laws and regulations and ensuring fair competition are fundamental to this commitment.

The [NLRC_Vendor Code of Conduct NLRC.pdf], expresses the expectations we hold for all of NLRC vendors. The Vendor Code of Conduct outlines the behaviours expected of Vendors who commit to uphold these standards and prevent misconduct. It is legally binding and forms an integral part of the contract between the Vendor and the NLRC. The winning applicants will be requested to sign this Code of Conduct at contract stage.