Final Evaluation of the “Burundi Integrated Health and Protection” project / Final evaluation of the “Integrated Health and Protection of Burundi” project At Finnish Red Cross

Leave a Comment / Burundi / By

In French below

Terms of Reference: Final Evaluation of the “Burundi Integrated Health and Protection 2022-2025” project

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose: Assess the project against the OECD-DAC criteria with a particular focus on generating actionable recommendations for future programming

1.2 Audience: Finnish Red Cross (FRC),Burundi Red Cross (CRB), Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, RCRC Movement

1.3 Commissioner: This external evaluation is commissioned by the Finnish Red Cross in compliance with the FRC learning and evaluation framework.

1.4 Duration of evaluation: The total working time in days is to be offered by the consultants. A minimum of 5 days should be allocated to field work.

1.5 Time frame: The evaluation is expected to be conducted between February – March 2026 (preparation, desk review, field work, analysis and reporting), with the final report ready in April 2026.

1.6 Locations: Home/desk-based work with fieldwork in Burundi (Muramvya and Kiganda communes).

2.Background

In Burundi, the FRC is supporting community-based health in a bilateral cooperation with the CRB. The program is being implemented between 2022-2025 by the CRB in the Muramvya Province in central Burundi.

The programme is based on CRB’s behavioural change approach called “the model household approach” (MHA). The MHA is based on eleven objectives aimed at promoting good health, education, hygiene and sanitation, nutrition, environmental protection, social cohesion and livelihoods. The approach focuses on promoting healthy communities through the assistance of CRB volunteers, whose knowledge and skills is strengthened throughout the project. The main objective of the programme is to improve the health of the communities in terms of nutrition, sexual and reproductive health, prevention of epidemics and endemic diseases and to prevent sexual and gender-based violence through support and advice provided by trained volunteers. The programme also contains components on disaster risk reduction, at both community and local levels, strengthening local capacities in disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation. Sustainable support is provided to households living in conditions of extreme vulnerability, as well as support to community structures to improve community livelihoods. These activities are implemented in line with the CRB Model Household approach, to ensure sustainability and behaviour change within households. Finally, the programme aims to strengthen the capacities of the CRB and support its decentralized structures to manage and sustain its resources. The programme also places special focus on disability inclusion and cooperates with a local disability organization.

Overall, the programme outlines three objectives:

  1. The health and well-being of women, children, older people, victims of SGBV, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are improved by strengthening the provision of quality community-based services in sexual and reproductive health (SRH), the prevention of endemic and epidemic diseases and by supporting the prevention of gender-based violence
  2. Community capacities are strengthened in disaster preparedness, risk identification, and implementation of climate change adaptation measures, while also improving the capacity of the Branch and volunteers to respond effectively in the event of disasters
  3. The Muramvya branch of the CRB and its communal and hillside structures have technical and operational capacities with professionalised, motivated, and better supervised volunteers to provide services sustainably to the communities

At the beginning of the programme a baseline assessment was conducted, and the endline assessment in December 2025. A light internal review of the programme was conducted in October 2025.

3. Evaluation Objectives

This evaluation aims to assess the project against the OECD DAC criteria with a particular focus on generating actionable recommendations for future programming. The general objective of this evaluation is to:

  • Assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project to date, including key achievements and challenges
  • Assess the reasons for achievement/non-achievement of project results

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

  1. Assess programme relevance and inclusiveness: how well did the programme design align with community needs and priorities, including strategies for reaching the most vulnerable groups
  2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the integrated health approaches, including reviewing the extent to which community-based health and first aid (CBHFA) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) components were implemented and contributed to health outcomes
  3. Analyze capacity-building efforts: assess the adequate and effectiveness of training, tools, and support provided to volunteers and community health workers in fulfilling their roles in health promotion, referrals and behavior change. This should specifically examine whether planned CBHFA and SRH training curricula were delivered, or what was used in their place and whether that knowledge is retained.
  4. Review behavior change strategies and community engagement, including how the interventions were designed and implemented and their effectiveness in influencing priority health behaviors.
  5. Analyze nutrition programming and sustainability, including the effectiveness of the nutrition interventions, including its linkages to maternal and child health, and assess the sustainability of it
  6. Assess community assessment processes and ownership, evaluate the extent to which communities participated in identifying their own health priorities, risks, solutions and assess the degree of community ownership over programme design and implementation.
  7. Evaluate cross-cutting issues, including how well protection, gender and inclusion (PGI), disability inclusion and menstrual hygiene management were integrated across interventions.
  8. Review partnership and capacity development, e.g. how the partnership approach contributed to strengthening CRB’s institutional and operational capacity for sustainable service delivery.

The scope of the evaluation is:

  • Time period: 2022 – 2025 (2022 focus on the project’s preparation phase, while the project officially launched in 2023)
  • Geographic scope:All districts covered by the project. The evaluator can propose a sample to be focused on for the evaluation.

4. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions

The evaluation will examine the following evaluation criteria and key questions:

  1. Relevance: Did the intervention implement actions that are relevant to the community?
    1. To what extent did communities participate in identifying and prioritising their own health needs and risks? Was the initial assessment conducted in a participatory manner?
    2. How well did the programme respond to the health and protection needs identified in the initial VCA and evolving community priorities? What mechanisms were in place to adapt the programme, and how was this done?
    3. To what extent did the programme design ensure inclusivity, particularly for landless households, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups?
  2. Coherence: What is the synergy of the intervention with the overall planning of CRB?
    1. How well did the intervention complement other actions by CRB in the country, and other actors’ efforts in the same region?
    2. Did the FRC support bring added value to the National Society among other partners providing support?
  3. Effectiveness: Is the intervention achieving its objectives?
    1. To what extent were the intended outputs and outcomes of the project achieved? Were there other outcomes achieved?
    2. How did changes in activity implementation affect the achievement of the intended outcomes? Were decision making and technical oversight processes adequate?
    3. How effectively were the CBHFA and SRHR components integrated into programme delivery? Were planned CBHFA and SRHR training curricula delivered to volunteers (review curricula)? What were the key challenges in this approach?
    4. Were volunteers and community health workers adequately trained and equipped to deliver health promotion and referrals? Can volunteers demonstrate knowledge of key health topics covered in training curricula?
    5. How effective were the behavior change strategies in influencing priority health behaviors (e.g. family planning, maternal health)
    6. How consistently were Model Household certification standards applied? Were households that did not meet all the criteria certified?
  4. Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
    1. How well have the resources (financial, material, HR, time) been used to produce achievements and results?
    2. What were the delays, bottlenecks or challenges that affected implementation?
    3. Were monitoring and reporting systems effective in identifying gaps and informing decisions?
  5. Impact: What difference does the intervention make?
    1. What tangible changes occurred in community health, nutrition and protection as a result of the programme?
    2. What were the factors that enabled or hindered the intended project impact?
    3. Did the programme contribute to broader community empowerment or resilience beyond Red Cross activities? Specifically, has the programme built community capacity to identify and assess their own health risks, develop locally-owned solutions, and sustain behaviour change independently?
  6. Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
    1. Which programme components are likely to continue after project closure?
    2. What mechanisms or partnerships exist to sustain benefits?
    3. How sustainable are nutrition interventions and maternal health linkages?
    4. For vulnerable households excluded from the MHA (e.g. landless households), what mechanisms exist to address their needs sustainably?
  7. Cross-Cutting Issues
    1. How well were PGI principles, disability inclusion and menstrual hygiene management integrated into health and WASH interventions? Were technical resources adequate?
    2. Did the programme address barriers to participation for women, youth, and persons with disabilities
  8. Partnership and capacity building
    1. How did the partnership approach strengthen CRB’s technical and operational capacity?
    2. How effective was the partnership approach in ensuring technical continuity and capacity strengthening
    3. What lessons can be drawn for future capacity development strategies?

5. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation will be carried out by an external evaluation team/consultant in a transparent manner, making sure that all relevant stakeholders participate as appropriate.

The primary language of this evaluation will be conducted in French, with some deliverables expected in English. Deliverables expected in English are the proposal and a comprehensive executive summary of the report. Contracting and related communication will take place in English. All other deliverables, communications, and materials to review will be in French. The primary language spoken at the community level is Kirundi. CRB/FRC is able to support in arranging a translator/interpreter, if needed.

The detailed evaluation methodology and work plan are left to the evaluators to propose but the evaluation should consider the views of programme beneficiaries and volunteers and different levels of CRB structures and other relevant stakeholders in the country. It is expected that multiple participatory methods are used, both quantitative and qualitative. Validation of results must be done through multiple sources and the final evaluation methodology used explained in the inception report and in the final evaluation report.

The key documents to be analysed shall be made available by the FRC, and include, amongst others: Original programme plan, baseline and endline assessments, quarterly reports, annual reports and the internal health review report.

6. Proposed Timeline

The evaluation is expected to take place between January – April 2026 with the field trip taking place during February-March 2026. The final report must be submitted to the Finnish Red Cross by no later than 24th of April 2026.

In the consultants’ offer, a detailed timeline is to be presented including a breakdown of working days into following three evaluation phases: a) Inception phase (incl. preparatory discussions between the consultant and stakeholders, scoping meeting and desk review); b) Field work phase (incl. travel days and briefing/debriefing workshop); c) Final reporting phase (incl. time for review and revision of the report, and final presentation of findings).

7. Deliverables

The evaluation team/consultant will provide:

  1. Proposal must be submitted in English and French.
  2. An inception report in French following the desk work and prior to the mission to demonstrate a clear understanding and realistic plan of work for the evaluation. The inception report outlines how s/he will lead the evaluation, presents the work plan and the planned methodology.
  3. Briefing with CRB management and project stakeholders in Bujumbura to discuss the field data collection methods and selection of sample locations, prior to commencement of fieldwork.
  4. A debriefing workshop in country to the CRB management and key project stakeholders at the end of the mission to discuss the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations.
  5. A draft final evaluation report in French two weeks after return from the field visit. The draft will be shared with CRB and other relevant stakeholders for comments. The comments from the FRC and the relevant stakeholders are to be forwarded to the Consultant within two weeks after receiving the draft. A comprehensive executive summary in English must be included in the draft report.
  6. A final (corrected) evaluation report in French is to be submitted to the FRC within two weeks of receiving the comments. The report will have a maximum length of 30 pages, including a comprehensive Executive Summary in English. The report will include recommendations to the CRB, the Finnish Red Cross and possibly to other stakeholders. Approval for the report from the FRC and the CRB.
  7. A presentation of the evaluation report by the Consultant to CRB and FRC in French.

8. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards.

The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards of the IFRC.

The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:

  • Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
  • Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
  • Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
  • Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
  • Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
  • Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
  • Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
  • Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.

9. Evaluation Team and Qualifications

The evaluator/evaluation team shall have:

  • University degree/s at the post-graduate level in relevant field of study (e.g. health, water and sanitation, disaster management, social development, social sciences, management).
  • Previous experience with technical knowledge in community-based health activities and community-based development activities in other relevant fields (WASH, DP/DRR).
  • Working experience in development co-operation. Such experience from Burundi is an asset.
  • Proven experience in evaluating development co-operation programmes or projects, incl. analyzing development impacts. Preferably at least 2-3 reference evaluations, each reference being at least 20 days long.
  • Solid knowledge and experience in utilizing participatory and community-based methodologies and approaches
  • Knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement preferred.
  • Good knowledge of written and spoken English and French is a must. Knowledge of Kirundi is a strong asset.

10. Selection Criteria

The evaluation team will be selected on the received offers. Contracts are awarded on the basis of the best price-quality ratio, taking into account the price, qualifications and evaluation methodology, according to weighed points as follows:

  • Price: 30 points
  • Technical expertise and qualifications: 30 points
  • Evaluation expertise, incl. quality of technical proposal and methodology: 30 points
  • Knowledge of Red Cross/Crescent Movement: 10 points

——

Terms of reference: Final evaluation of the project “Integrated Health and Protection in Burundi 2022-2025”

  1. Résumé

1.1 Objective: To evaluate the project according to OECD-DAC criteria, with a particular focus on generating concrete recommendations for future programs

1.2 Public: Finnish Red Cross (FRC), Burundi Red Cross (CRB), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, RCRC Movement

1.3 Commissioner: This external evaluation is commissioned by the Finnish Red Cross in accordance with the FRC learning and evaluation framework.

1.4 Duration of the evaluation: The total working time in days must be provided by the consultants. A minimum of 5 days should be devoted to fieldwork.

1.5 Timetable: The evaluation should be carried out between February and March 2026 (preparation, document review, fieldwork, analysis and report), with the final report ready in April 2026.

1.6 Locations: Home/office work and field data collection in Burundi (Muramvya and Kiganda communes).

2. Context

In Burundi, the Finnish Red Cross (FRC) supports community health through bilateral cooperation with the Burundi Red Cross (BRC). This program is being implemented between 2022 and 2025 by the BRC in the province of Muramvya, specifically in the communes of Muramvya and Kiganda, according to the former administrative divisions.

The program is based on the CRB’s behavioral change approach called the Model Household Approach (MHA). The MHA is based on eleven criteria aimed at promoting good health, education, hygiene and sanitation, nutrition, environmental protection, social cohesion, and livelihoods. This approach aims to foster healthy communities with the support of CRB volunteers, whose knowledge and skills are strengthened throughout the project. The program’s main objective is to improve community health in terms of nutrition, sexual and reproductive health, prevention of epidemics and endemic diseases, and prevention of sexual and gender-based violence through support and guidance provided by trained volunteers. The program also includes components on disaster risk reduction at both the community and local levels, by strengthening local capacities for disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation. Sustained support is provided to households living in conditions of extreme vulnerability, along with support for community structures to improve community living conditions. These activities are implemented in accordance with the CRB’s Model Household approach to ensure sustainability and behavioral change within households. Finally, the program aims to strengthen the CRB’s capacity and support its decentralized structures in managing and maintaining its resources. The program also places particular emphasis on the inclusion of people with disabilities and collaborates with a local organization dedicated to people with disabilities.

Overall, the program defines three objectives:

  1. The health and well-being of women, children, the elderly, victims of gender-based violence, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities are improved by strengthening the provision of quality community-based sexual and reproductive health services, prevention of endemic and epidemic diseases, and support for the prevention of gender-based violence.
  2. The capacities of communities are strengthened in terms of disaster preparedness, risk identification, and implementation of climate change adaptation measures, while also improving the Branch’s and volunteers’ capacity to respond effectively in the event of disasters.
  3. The CRB branch in Muramvya and its communal and hillside structures have the technical and operational capacities, with professionalized, motivated, and better-supervised volunteers, to provide sustainable services to the communities.

At the start of the program, a baseline assessment was carried out, and the final assessment is to be carried out in December 2025. A light internal review of the program was conducted in October 2025.

3. Evaluation Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the project according to the OECD DAC criteria, with a particular focus on generating concrete recommendations for future programs. The overall objective of this evaluation is to:

  • Evaluate the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project to date, including key achievements and challenges
  • Evaluate the reasons for the success or failure of the project results

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

  1. Assess the relevance and inclusiveness of the program: to what extent did the program design align with the needs and priorities of the community, including strategies for reaching the most vulnerable groups
  2. Evaluate the effectiveness of integrated health approaches , including by reviewing the extent to which the components of community health and first aid (CBHFA) as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) have been implemented and have contributed to health outcomes
  3. Analyze capacity-building efforts: assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the training, tools, and support provided to volunteers and community health workers in fulfilling their roles in health promotion, referral, and behavior change. This should specifically examine whether planned CBHFA and SRH training programs were delivered, or what was used instead, and whether this knowledge is being retained.
  4. Examine behavior change strategies and community engagement , including how interventions were designed and implemented and their effectiveness in influencing priority health behaviors.
  5. Analyze nutrition programs and sustainability , including the effectiveness of nutrition interventions, their links to maternal and child health, and assess their sustainability
  6. Evaluate evaluation processes and community ownership, assess the extent to which communities have participated in identifying their own health priorities, risks and solutions, and assess the degree of community ownership in the design and implementation of programs.
  7. Assess cross-cutting issues , including the extent to which protection, gender and inclusion (PGI), disability inclusion and menstrual hygiene management have been integrated across interventions.
  8. Examine the development of partnership and capacity , for example how the partnership approach has helped to strengthen the institutional and operational capacity of the CRB for sustainable service delivery.

The scope of the evaluation is as follows:

  • Period: 2022 – 2025 (2022 focused on the project preparation phase, while the project was officially launched in 2023)
  • Geographic scope: All districts covered by the project. The evaluator may propose a sample to focus on for the evaluation.

4. Evaluation criteria and key questions

The evaluation will examine the following evaluation criteria and key questions:

  1. Relevance: Does the intervention implement actions that are relevant to the community?
    1. To what extent were communities involved in identifying and prioritizing their own health needs and risks? Was the initial assessment conducted in a participatory manner?
    2. To what extent did the program address the health and protection needs identified in the initial VCA and evolving community priorities? What mechanisms were in place to adapt the program, and how was this done?
    3. To what extent did the program design ensure inclusivity, particularly for landless households, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups?
  2. Coherence: How does the intervention synergize with the overall planning of the CRB?
    1. To what extent was the intervention complemented by other CRB actions in the country, as well as the efforts of other actors in the same region?
    2. Has the FRC’s support provided added value to the National Society compared to other partners who have supported it?
  3. Effectiveness: Would the intervention achieve its objectives?
    1. To what extent were the project’s expected and anticipated results achieved? Were any other results achieved?
    2. How did the changes in the implementation of activities affect the achievement of expected results? Were the decision-making and technical oversight processes adequate?
    3. To what extent were the CBHFA and SRHR components effectively integrated into program implementation? Were the planned CBHFA and SRHR training programs delivered to volunteers (review programs)? What were the main challenges of this approach?
    4. Have volunteers and community health workers been adequately trained and equipped to promote health and referrals? Can volunteers demonstrate knowledge of the main health topics covered in the training programs?
    5. How effective have behavior change strategies been in influencing priority health behaviors (e.g., family planning, maternal health)?
    6. To what extent were the model household certification standards consistently applied? Were households that did not meet all the criteria certified?
  4. Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
    1. To what extent were resources (financial, material, HR, time) used to produce successes and results?
    2. What delays, bottlenecks, or challenges affected implementation?
    3. Have the monitoring and reporting systems been effective in identifying shortcomings and informing decisions?
  5. Impact: What difference does the intervention make?
    1. What concrete changes have occurred in community health, nutrition and protection as a result of the program?
    2. What factors enabled or hindered the expected impact of the project?
    3. Has the program contributed to community expansion or resilience beyond Red Cross activities? More specifically, has the program strengthened communities’ capacity to identify and assess their own health risks, develop local solutions, and support behavior change independently?
  6. Sustainability: Will the project’s impact be long-lasting?
    1. Which elements of the program are likely to continue after the project’s closure?
    2. What mechanisms or partnerships exist to ensure the sustainability of the action?
    3. To what extent are nutritional interventions and their links to maternal health sustainable?
    4. For vulnerable households excluded from the MHA (e.g., landless households), what mechanisms exist to sustainably meet their needs?
  7. Cross-cutting issues
    1. To what extent have the principles of gender protection and inclusion (GPI), disability inclusion, and menstrual hygiene management been integrated into health interventions and efforts to combat healthcare? Were technical resources sufficient?
    2. Did the program address barriers to participation for women, young people, and people with disabilities?
  8. Partnership and capacity building
    1. How has the partnership approach strengthened the technical and operational capacity of the CRB?
    2. How effective has the partnership approach been in ensuring technical continuity and capacity building?
    3. What lessons can be learned for future capacity development strategies?

5. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation will be carried out by an external team/consultant in a transparent manner, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders participate where necessary.

The primary language of this evaluation will be French, but some deliverables will also be in English. These include the proposal and an executive summary of the report. Contractualization and administrative communications will be in English. All other deliverables, communications, and documents for review will be in French. The main language spoken within the community is Kirundi. The CRB/FRC can provide translation or interpretation services, if required.

The detailed evaluation methodology and work plan are left to the evaluators, but the evaluation must consider the perspectives of program beneficiaries, volunteers, various levels of the CRB structure, and other relevant stakeholders in the country. Several participatory methods , both quantitative and qualitative, are expected to be used. Validation of the results must be carried out through multiple sources, and the final evaluation methodology used must be explained in both the inception and final evaluation reports.

The key documents to be analyzed must be made available by the FRC, and include, among others: the original program plan, baseline and end-of-game assessments, quarterly reports, annual reports and the internal health review report.

6. Proposed Calendar

The evaluation should take place between January and April 2026, with a field visit between February and March 2026. The final report must be submitted to the Finnish Red Cross no later than April 24, 2026.

The consultants’ proposal must include a detailed schedule, including a breakdown of working days into the following three evaluation phases:

a) Initiation phase: this involves preparatory discussions between the consultant and stakeholders, a scoping meeting and completion of the document review;

b) Field data collection phase: including travel days and the briefing/debriefing workshop are included in this phase;

c) Final reporting phase: including the time for review and revision of the report, as well as the final presentation of the results.

7. Deliverables

The evaluation team/consultant will provide:

  1. Applications must be submitted in English and French.
  2. An introductory report in French, following the preliminary office work and prior to the mission, demonstrates a clear understanding and a realistic work plan for the evaluation. The introductory report describes how the incumbent will conduct the evaluation and presents the work plan and methodology.
  3. Briefing with CRB management and project stakeholders in Bujumbura to discuss field data collection methods and sample location selection, prior to the start of fieldwork.
  4. A debriefing workshop in the country with CRB management and key project stakeholders at the end of the mission to discuss initial findings and recommendations.
  5. A draft final evaluation report in French will be submitted two weeks after the consultant’s return from the field visit. This report will be shared with the FRC, the CRB, and other relevant stakeholders for comment. Comments from the FRC and other relevant stakeholders must be submitted to the consultant within two weeks of receiving the draft report. A full executive summary in English must be included in the draft report.
  6. A final evaluation report, including comments, must be submitted to the FRC within two weeks of receiving them. The report will have a maximum length of 30 pages, including an executive summary. The report will include recommendations to the CRB, the Finnish Red Cross, and potentially other stakeholders. The final report will be approved by the FRC and the CRB.
  7. Presentation of the evaluation report by the consultant to the CRB and the FRC in French.

8. Evaluation of quality and ethical standards .

Evaluators must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and well-being of the individuals and communities to which they belong, and to guarantee that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted transparently and impartially, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team must adhere to the IFRC evaluation standards.

The IFRC’s assessment standards are:

  • Usefulness : Assessments must be useful and used.
  • Feasibility : Assessments must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible and cost-effective manner.
  • Ethics and legality : Evaluations must be conducted ethically and legally, with particular regard to the well-being of the people involved and affected by the evaluation.
  • Impartiality and independence : Evaluations must be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
  • Transparency : Evaluation activities must reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
  • Accuracy : Assessments must be technically accurate, providing sufficient information on the methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation so that their value or merit can be assessed.
  • Participation : Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process where possible and appropriate.
  • Collaboration : Collaboration between key operational partners in the evaluation process enhances the legitimacy and usefulness of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven fundamental principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.

9. Evaluation team and qualifications .

The evaluator/evaluation team must possess:

  • Postgraduate university degrees in a relevant field of study (e.g., health, water and sanitation, disaster management, social development, social sciences, management).
  • Prior experience with technical knowledge in community health activities and community development activities in other relevant fields (WASH, DP/DRR).
  • Professional experience in development cooperation. Such experience in Burundi is an asset.
  • Proven experience in evaluating development cooperation programs or projects, including development impact analysis. Preferably at least 2 to 3 baseline evaluations, each lasting at least 20 days.
  • Solid knowledge and experience in using participatory and community-based methodologies and approaches
  • Knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement is a privilege.
  • A good command of written and spoken French as well as English is essential. Knowledge of Kirundi would be a major asset.

10. Selection criteria

The evaluation team will be selected based on the bids received. Contracts will be awarded based on the best value for money, taking into account price, qualifications, and evaluation methodology, according to the following weighted criteria:

Price: 30 points

Expertise technique et qualifications: 30 points

Expertise in evaluation, including the quality of the technical proposal and methodology: 30 points

Knowledge of the Red Cross/Crescent movement: 10 points

How to apply

11. Application procedure

The offer shall consist of two parts: the evaluation offer and the price offer.

A maximum of 4-page evaluation offer, separately in English and French, shall include the following:

  • A technical proposal of expressing an understanding and interpretation of the ToR, the proposed evaluation methodology, activities and their schedule
  • Evaluation work plan including a breakdown of evaluation days into evaluation phases (see above item 6.)
  • Proposed team and responsibilities among the team members. The offer must clearly outline whether the consultant/a team member can speak Kirundi, or support is needed from CRB/FRC in securing a translator/interpreter.
  • Annexed to the evaluation offer (either in English or French): CVs of each proposed team member, possible evaluation references and at least one example of an evaluation report the team leader/evaluator was part of

The price offer shall include the allocation of fees per expert (fee/expert/day) per each evaluation phase as well as breakdown of any additional costs, considered as fixed costs. The FRC/CRB will cover the cost during the field trip (visa fees, flights, accommodation) as per FRC travel regulations, but estimates of these are to be included in the price offer. The consultants are expected to assume full responsibility for adequate travel insurance coverage and costs and for paying any social chargers due to a consultancy fee.

All prices must be stated in euros (€) and exclusive of value-added tax (VAT 0%) but shall include all other taxes and levies. If no price is indicated, the tender will be excluded from the competitive bidding. The evaluation of the price tender is based on the lump sum, covering fees and all other costs. This total amount (lump sum) of the consultancy services will be subject to price evaluation. All the costs will be paid against invoices.

During the tendering procedure, the tenderers may request clarification or additional information by emailing their questions to procurement@redcross.fi. Subject of the e-mail must have the reference “Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Questions”. Please submit your written questions by no later than 21.01.2026. The queries will be answered by e-mail to all tenderers by end of day 23.01.2026.

The applicants are requested to submit the evaluation and price offer to procurement@redcross.fi by 30.01.2026 at 4.00 pm (Eastern European Time, UTC +2) latest. The message shall be marked with the reference “Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Offer”. Offers submitted after the deadline will not be considered.

The FRC reserves the right to exclude tenderers with serious breaches of Red Cross Code of Conduct in previous assignments.

The offer can be rejected if the service provider is encumbered by a mandatory or discretionary exclusion criterion referred to in national or EU legislation on public procurement or a sanction imposed by the European Union or the United Nations or other above-mentioned restrictions, such as Russian nationality or establishment in Russia or if the implementation of the agreement involve bribery or corresponding unlawful activity.

The tenderer is subject for screening against any potential records on financial sanctions and terrorist listings software by the FRC. In case of illegal or corrupt practices have related to the award of the execution of the Tendering actions or Contract, the Finnish Red Cross has the right to cancel/terminate any tendering actions or Contract by giving notice of the termination in writing to the supplier.

—–

11. Application Procedure

The offer must consist of two parts: the evaluation offer and the price offer.

A maximum 4-page evaluation proposal, presented separately in English and French, must include the following elements:

  • A technical proposal expressing an understanding and interpretation of the treatment conditions, the proposed assessment methodology, the activities, and their timeline
  • Evaluation work plan including a breakdown of evaluation days into evaluation phases (see point 6 above).
  • Proposed team and responsibilities among members. The offer must clearly state whether the consultant/team member speaks Kirundi, or if CRB/FRC support is needed to find a translator/interpreter.
  • Attached to the evaluation proposal (either in English or French): CV of each proposed team member, possible evaluation references, and at least one example of an evaluation report in which the manager/evaluator participated.

The price quote will include the allocation of fees per expert (fee/expert/day) for each evaluation phase, as well as the allocation of additional costs, which will be considered fixed costs. The FRC/CRB will cover expenses during the mission (visa fees, flights, accommodation) in accordance with FRC travel regulations, but estimates of these items must be included in the price quote. Consultants must assume full responsibility for obtaining adequate travel insurance coverage and costs, as well as for paying any social security contributions due on their consulting fees.

All prices must be quoted in euros (€) and exclude value-added tax (VAT 0%), but include all other taxes and levies. If no price is quoted, the tender will be excluded from the competitive tendering process. The price offer will be evaluated based on a lump sum, covering fees and all other costs. This total amount (lump sum) for consulting services will be subject to a price assessment. All costs will be invoiced.

During the tendering process, bidders may request clarifications or additional information by sending their questions via email to procurement@redcross.fi. The subject line of the email must include the reference “Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Questions”. Please submit your written questions no later than January 21, 2026. All questions will be answered by email to all bidders by the end of January 23, 2026.

Candidates are invited to submit their evaluation and price offer to procurement@redcross.fi no later than 4:00 PM (Eastern European Time, UTC +2) on January 30, 2026. The email must include the subject line “Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Offer”. Offers submitted after the deadline will not be considered.

The FRC reserves the right to exclude bidders who have had serious violations of the Red Cross Code of Conduct during previous missions.

The offer may be rejected if the service provider is subject to a mandatory or discretionary exclusion criterion mentioned in national or European legislation on public procurement, or to a sanction imposed by the European Union or the United Nations, or to other aforementioned restrictions, such as Russian nationality or establishment in Russia, or if the implementation of the agreement involves corruption or a corresponding illegal activity.

The bidder is subject to a check by the FRC’s software to detect any records relating to financial sanctions and terrorist lists. In the event of illegal or corrupt practices related to the awarding or execution of procurement activities or the contract, the Finnish Red Cross reserves the right to cancel or terminate any procurement activity or contract by sending written notice of termination to the supplier.