Contracting of consulting services for the preparation of the Final Evaluation Report of the Program At Pan American Development Foundation

Terms of Reference (TOR)

Contracting of consulting services for the preparation of the Final Evaluation Report of the Program

“PECEL: State Program for Clean Economic Compliance” MFIP 4303

Consulting technical specifications

Title of the consultancy: Consulting services for the preparation of the Final Evaluation Report of the PECEL program.

Type of contract: Fixed price contract against delivery of products.

Estimated contract duration: Between 8 and 12 weeks (approx. 3 months)

Geographic scope: Mexico City

Work modality: Hybrid (remote work + in-person work)

Publication date: 01/05/2026

Closing date: 11/05/2026

Who can apply?: Individuals or legal entities; consulting firms; with demonstrable experience in the evaluation of international cooperation programs, impact evaluation or results evaluation, applied social research, institutional analysis, security, justice, combating money laundering, asset recovery, anti-corruption, international cooperation or strengthening the rule of law.

Working languages: Spanish and English

1. Background

The Pan American Development Foundation (“PADF”), in partnership with GovRisk and the Basel Institute on Governance , implemented the “State Program for Clean Economic Compliance” (PECEL), funded by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the United States Department of State —INL—, aimed at strengthening the institutional capacities of the Mexican State to investigate, analyze and contribute to the prosecution of the crime of Operations with Illicitly Sourced Resources —ORPI— and other manifestations of financial crime linked to macro-criminal networks.

In the final stage of the program, PADF requires the preparation of a Final Evaluation Report that allows for the assessment, with quantitative and qualitative evidence, of the main results achieved by PECEL, the changes generated in technical and institutional capacities, the practical utility of the technical assistance provided, the lessons learned from its implementation, and the sustainability conditions of its products, tools, and recommendations.

2. Project Context

Through this initiative, PECEL contributes to dismantling illicit finances and developing Mexico’s capacity to investigate criminal networks and seize illicit assets. In line with INL’s overall mission, the project strengthens the rule of law in Mexico by providing targeted support to the country’s law enforcement and judicial institutions.

The PECEL program is structured around two fundamental objectives aimed at strengthening state-level capacities to address complex financial crimes in Mexico. First, the program seeks to improve the capacity of state financial intelligence units and analysis and investigation personnel to strengthen effective investigations and prosecutions related to operations involving illicitly obtained funds (ORPI) or money laundering, ensuring that cases are built with sufficient evidence for judicial proceedings.

Secondly, PECEL aims to strengthen the competence of state investigators, prosecutors, and financial intelligence analysts in the collection, preparation, and presentation of evidence in complex ORPI investigations to state and federal authorities.

During its implementation, PECEL developed institutional and technical assessments, virtual and in-person training processes, specialized technical assistance, institutional development tools, recommendations for standardizing state capacities, spaces for inter-institutional coordination, and products aimed at strengthening the generation and use of asset, economic, and financial intelligence. The final evaluation should assess not only the completion of activities but also the program’s contribution to observable changes in knowledge, institutional practices, coordination, and the appropriation of tools and capacities to investigate, document, and support cases related to asset forfeiture, financial crimes, asset recovery, and macro-crime.

3. Objectives and scope of the consultancy

3.1 General objective:

Prepare the Final Evaluation Report of Results of the “State Program for Clean Economic Compliance (PECEL)”, using a mixed methodology that allows analyzing the program’s contribution to strengthening the institutional, technical and operational capacities of the participating institutions in the area of ORPI investigation, asset, economic and financial intelligence, asset recovery, inter-institutional coordination and combating macro-criminal networks.

3.2 Specific objectives:

Evaluate the degree of compliance with the objectives, results and indicators of the PECEL program , according to the logical framework, work plan, programmatic reports, deliverables and available evidence.
Analyze the changes generated in institutional and technical capacities of the participating institutions, including knowledge, skills, tools, methodologies and practices related to ORPI, financial intelligence, asset and economic analysis, asset recovery and case building.
To assess the usefulness, relevance and practical applicability of the products and technical assistance developed by PECEL , including diagnoses, institutional development manuals, improvement plans, comparative reports, training, recommendations and other generated tools.
Identify evidence of institutional adoption, appropriation, or use of program products , including changes in internal processes, coordination, analysis criteria, institutional planning, information exchange, or research development.
Evaluate the program’s contribution to strengthening inter-institutional coordination between UIPEs, state prosecutors, federal authorities and actors specializing in ORPI, financial intelligence and asset recovery.
Documenting good practices, success stories, testimonials, and enabling factors that demonstrate how PECEL contributed to strengthening research on ORPI and improving relevant institutional capacities, practices, or conditions.
Identify limitations, risks, institutional barriers, and external factors that have affected the implementation or the achievement of the expected results.
Analyze the potential sustainability of the program’s results and products , including installed capacities, institutional continuity, formal or informal adoption of tools, replication possibilities, and future technical assistance needs.
Formulate strategic, viable and actionable recommendations for PADF, INL, implementing partners and participating institutions, aimed at consolidating, replicating or scaling up the program’s learnings.

3.3 Scope

The evaluation must cover the comprehensive implementation of the PECEL program throughout its entire execution period, considering at least:

Review of the programmatic design , including objectives, expected results, indicators, theory of change, assumptions and logic of intervention.
Implementation analysis , including activities carried out, institutional coverage, stakeholder participation, products delivered, technical assistance provided, and main adjustments made during implementation.
Evaluation of results , considering progress against the logical framework, indicators, products, deliverables and changes reported by beneficiary institutions.
Impact assessment or contribution to impact , understood as the verifiable or reasonably attributable changes to PECEL in technical, institutional, operational and coordination capabilities.
Sustainability analysis , including institutional appropriation, adoption of tools, continuity of installed capacities and conditions for replicability or scaling up.
Documentation of good practices, testimonials and success stories , especially those that demonstrate concrete changes in the way institutions analyze, investigate, coordinate or structure cases related to ORPI and financial crime.
Identification of limitations, risks and contextual factors , including institutional turnover, access to information, heterogeneity of IUI models, regulatory restrictions, coordination limitations and other external factors that have affected the results.

4. Methodological approach and technical considerations

4.1 Suggested approach

The methodology should combine document review, indicator analysis, semi-structured interviews, participant surveys, focus groups or feedback sessions, analysis of change histories, systematization of testimonies, and triangulation of evidence. Given that this is a final evaluation of an institutional strengthening program, the consultancy should use a contribution evaluation approach , recognizing that changes in investigations, prosecution, coordination, and asset recovery also depend on factors external to the program. The methodological proposal should include an evaluation matrix that links: evaluation questions, indicators, information sources, data collection techniques, analysis criteria, and expected deliverables.

A mixed methodology (quantitative and qualitative) is expected, incorporating at least the following components:

A structured survey or questionnaire assessing the perceptions of program beneficiaries, including staff from UIPEs, prosecutors’ offices, federal authorities, and other participating institutions, ensuring representative coverage of the various institutional profiles and program components.
Semi-structured interviews with key informants (federal and state institutions).
Document review (programs, statistics, diagnoses and secondary sources)

4.2 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation must consider, at a minimum, the following criteria:

Relevance: program relevance to the institutional needs and priorities of INL/PADF.
Effectiveness: degree of compliance with objectives, results, indicators and products.
Efficiency: appropriate use of resources, time, coordination and implementation capabilities.
Impact or contribution to impact: identifiable changes in capabilities, practices, coordination, use of tools and institutional strengthening.
Sustainability: probability of continuity, adoption or institutionalization of products and capabilities.
Coherence: alignment with INL priorities, PADF, bilateral cooperation, rule of law, combating illicit finance and institutional strengthening.
Learning and replicability: identifying good practices, areas for improvement, and scalability possibilities.

4.3 Ethics and safeguards

Given that the evaluation may involve sensitive information regarding institutional capabilities, investigations, financial intelligence, inter-institutional coordination, and public safety, the consultancy must establish strict protocols for confidentiality, anonymization of testimonies, secure database protection, and responsible handling of classified or sensitive information. No finding should reveal operational information, case names, personal data, or details that could compromise investigations, participating institutions, or individuals.

4.4 Analysis

The final report must include, at a minimum:

Analysis of program objectives, results and indicators.
Analysis of institutional coverage and profile of beneficiaries.
Analysis of changes in knowledge, skills, and technical competencies.
Analysis of the usefulness and applicability of training, manuals, diagnostics, recommendations, and technical assistance.
Analysis of institutional adoption or appropriation of program products.
Comparative analysis between different types of participating institutions, when information allows.
Analysis of the program’s contribution to observable changes in coordination, financial intelligence generation, case building, and asset recovery.
Identification of good practices, success stories and relevant testimonials.
Sustainability analysis and recommendations for continuity, replication, or scaling.

5. Main activities

The consultancy must perform, at a minimum, the following activities:

Kick-off meeting with PADF, GovRisk and Basel Institute; review of the project’s logical framework, results and indicators.
Development of a detailed methodological proposal.
Design/adaptation of instruments (survey, interview guides, focus group guides).
Validation of instruments with PADF equipment. Review and systematization of existing programmatic evidence, including weekly, monthly or quarterly reports, logical framework, indicators, attendance lists, training evaluations, technical products, diagnoses, manuals, technical assistance reports, success stories and closing documents.
Information gathering with institutions and individuals benefiting from the program, including—as applicable—participating state and federal authorities, UIPEs, prosecutors’ offices, trained personnel, implementing partners, the PADF team, and other key stakeholders. This gathering may be conducted remotely, in a hybrid format, or in person, depending on availability, the sensitivity of the information, costs, and logistical feasibility.
Processing and analysis; triangulation of results.
Presentation of preliminary results and feedback with the project team.
Preparation of the final evaluation report, annexes and instruments; delivery of the database.

6. Participating States and Institutions

The evaluation must consider the institutions participating in the program, including those from the states of Oaxaca, Yucatán, Quintana Roo, Nayarit, Baja California Sur, Querétaro and other federal entities or institutions that have participated in substantive activities of the program, in accordance with the available program documentation and the final scope defined by PADF.

7. Profile of the consulting team

7.1 Minimum experience required

At least 5 years of verifiable experience in program evaluation, results evaluation, impact/contribution evaluation, applied research or monitoring and evaluation of international cooperation projects, justice, security, rule of law, anti-corruption, money laundering, asset recovery or institutional strengthening.

It will be especially valued if the person or consulting team has:

Experience in evaluating programs funded by international cooperation, particularly from the United States government, INL, USAID or multilateral organizations.
Knowledge of the Mexican criminal justice system, prosecutors, financial intelligence, ORPI, asset forfeiture, asset recovery or combating organized crime.
Experience in handling sensitive information and interviewing public authorities.
Ability to produce executive reports in Spanish and English.
Experience in designing assessment instruments, qualitative analysis, descriptive statistical analysis, and systematization of institutional evidence.

7.2 Competencies

Mastery of mixed methodologies, sampling, and instrument design.
Ability to analyze statistics and qualitative data.
Drafting technical reports and executive presentations.

7. Products and delivery schedule (proposed)

Percentages and dates may be adjusted according to internal guidelines; a deliverables versus products structure is proposed.

Product 1
- Description: Work plan, evaluation matrix, methodological proposal, timeline, and preliminary instruments
- Estimated delivery: Week 2
- % payment: 20%
Product 2
- Description: Presentation of interview results, preliminary findings matrix, and initial draft of the final report
- Estimated delivery: Week 7
- % payment: 30%
Product 3 (final report)
- Description: Final Evaluation Report of the PECEL program
- Estimated delivery: Week 9
- % payment: 50%

8. Suggested Structure of the Final Report

Executive Summary (objective, methodology, main findings, key conclusions and recommendations).
Program description (background, objectives, actors involved and main activities implemented).
Objective and Methodology of the evaluation (approach, sources of information, techniques used and evaluation and selection criteria).
Program Implementation Analysis.
Results achieved in relation to the Logical Framework and indicators.
PECEL’s contribution to capacity building.
Usefulness and applicability of the program’s products.
Inter-institutional coordination and added value of the program.
Context, limitations, risks, and relevant external factors.
Evaluation findings (expected results, achieved results).
Impact analysis (project contribution to results, potential sustainability of impact).
Conclusions and strategic recommendations.

9. Proposal evaluation criteria

Understanding of the Terms of Reference, the program and the evaluation approach (25%)
Methodological quality, evaluation matrix and analysis plan (30%).
Experience of the team/person in evaluating international cooperation programs, justice, security, AML/CFT, anti-corruption or institutional strengthening (25%).
Work plan and logistical feasibility (10%).
Economic proposal and cost-efficiency relationship (10%).

10. Presentation of proposals

The evaluation should go beyond simply measuring activities carried out or people trained. It should analyze the extent to which PECEL contributed to building capacity, modifying institutional practices, strengthening coordination among authorities, improving the use of intelligence, and creating conditions for more robust investigations related to organized crime, asset recovery, and combating criminal networks.

Proposals must include (at least):

Technical proposal (methodology, instruments, analysis plan, schedule).
Financial proposal. (*Include travel expenses if data collection is required in the field)
CV and verifiable experience (product examples).

Send to: pherrera@padf.org Deadline: 11/05/2026

How to apply

The tender can also be found here: Procurement and Grant Opportunities – Pan American Development Foundation