Integrated Multisectoral response to Populations Affected by Conflict in Territories (IMPACT) of Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu and Tanganyika Long-term contract

1.1 Background Context

Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is characterised by a protracted and complex humanitarian crisis driven by persistent armed conflict, intercommunal violence, and deep-rooted structural vulnerabilities. Provinces including North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri continue to experience cyclical displacement, widespread protection risks, and severely constrained access to basic services.

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) and vulnerable host communities face acute and multidimensional needs across key sectors, including shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), food security, livelihoods, and protection. Recurrent displacement, insecurity, and limited access to livelihood opportunities further exacerbate vulnerability levels, undermine coping capacities, and hinder pathways toward recovery and self-reliance.

Within this context, humanitarian actors are required to adopt integrated and adaptive approaches that address both immediate needs and longer-term resilience outcomes. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) has been implementing integrated, multisectoral interventions in eastern DRC aimed at delivering life-saving assistance while strengthening resilience and supporting affected populations in progressing towards durable solutions.

1.2 NRC’s activities and presence

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) has maintained a sustained operational presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, delivering humanitarian assistance to populations affected by conflict, displacement, and chronic vulnerability.

NRC’s programming is structured around its core competencies, including Shelter and Settlements, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance (ICLA), and Education. These sectoral interventions are systematically complemented by cross-cutting approaches, notably protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected populations (AAP), and the use of cash and market-based modalities, in line with global humanitarian standards and NRC programme policy.

In eastern DRC, NRC operates across key crisis-affected provinces, including North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri. The organisation delivers integrated, multisectoral responses designed to address immediate humanitarian needs while enhancing the coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness of assistance. This integrated approach aims to respond holistically to the complex and overlapping vulnerabilities faced by internally displaced persons and vulnerable host communities.

1.3 NRC’s intervention specific to the evaluation

The project under evaluation is designed to address the urgent and multidimensional humanitarian needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and vulnerable host communities through an integrated, multisectoral programming approach. The intervention combines key sectors—Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Shelter and Settlements, and Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance (ICLA)—alongside complementary support mechanisms, including cash and market-based assistance.

The intervention aims to achieve a set of interrelated outcomes, notably: (i) improved and equitable access to essential services; (ii) enhanced household recovery and self-reliance capacities; and (iii) strengthened community resilience in contexts characterised by recurrent displacement, insecurity, and limited service provision.

Activities implemented under the project include unconditional and/or conditional cash transfers, sector-specific service delivery, and legal and protection support, delivered in alignment with the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)’s core competencies. The integrated design is intended to generate synergies across sectors, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of assistance, and better respond to the complex and overlapping needs of affected populations.

This evaluation will therefore assess not only the performance of individual sectoral interventions, but also the added value and outcomes of the integrated programming approach, including its contribution to resilience and self-reliance pathways.

2.1 Overarching purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to generate robust and actionable evidence on the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the intervention, with a particular focus on the performance of the delivery modalities (including cash and in-kind assistance), transfer mechanisms, and complementary multisectoral interventions in achieving intended outcomes.

The evaluation will assess the extent to which the integrated programming approach adopted by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) has contributed to improving access to services, enhancing household recovery and self-reliance, and strengthening resilience among targeted populations.

In addition, the evaluation will:

• Identify and document innovative practices and operational approaches;
• Analyse key enabling and constraining factors affecting implementation, including contextual dynamics;
• Generate evidence-based lessons learned on integrated and cash-based programming in protracted crisis settings.

The evaluation will produce actionable, context-specific recommendations aimed at informing strategic decision-making, programme design, and implementation of future interventions, particularly in similar displacement-affected and high-risk environments.

2.2 How will the evaluation be used?

The evaluation is intended to support evidence-based decision-making, organisational learning, and accountability to affected populations. Its findings will be systematically used to inform both current programme adjustments and the design of future interventions.

At the operational level, evaluation results will be presented and validated through a structured learning and reflection workshop involving key stakeholders. Agreed priority actions will be formalised and monitored through a management response and evaluation action tracker, ensuring follow-up, accountability, and integration into programme improvement processes.

In line with commitments to Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP), a context-adapted summary of key findings will be translated into relevant local languages and shared with project participants and community stakeholders. Community feedback and validation sessions will be organised to:

• Present key findings in an accessible format,
• Facilitate dialogue on results and recommendations,
• Jointly identify priority actions and improvements.

At the strategic and external level, evaluation findings will contribute to broader learning and sectoral dialogue. Dissemination will include:

• Humanitarian coordination platforms (e.g. cluster forums),
• Policy briefs and learning products,
• Peer-reviewed publications and technical blogs,
• Conferences, seminars, and restitution workshops.

This multi-level dissemination approach is intended to ensure that learning is institutionalised within the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and shared with the wider humanitarian community to inform best practices in integrated and cash-based programming in protracted crisis contexts.

2.3 Who will it be used by?

The evaluation findings will be used by a range of internal and external stakeholders at different levels, each with distinct roles in decision-making, programme design, and learning.

Internal stakeholders (Norwegian Refugee Council):

• Country Office Senior Management Team (SMT): to inform strategic direction, portfolio prioritisation, and future funding decisions.
• Programme and Technical Teams (Core Competency Specialists, Programme Managers, Area Managers): to refine programme design, improve implementation modalities, and strengthen the integration of multisectoral approaches.
• MEAL and Programme Quality Units: to enhance monitoring systems, evaluation practices, and evidence generation frameworks, including approaches to measuring resilience and self-reliance.
• Partnership and Grants Teams: to inform proposal development, donor reporting, and positioning for future funding opportunities.

External stakeholders:

• Donor (BHA): to assess the performance, value for money, and strategic relevance of the intervention, and to inform future funding priorities.

  
  

• Implementing partners: to strengthen implementation practices, coordination, and joint learning.

• Local authorities and coordination bodies: to inform planning, coordination, and alignment with local and national priorities.

  
  

• Humanitarian actors and clusters: to contribute to sectoral learning and inform best practices in integrated and cash-based programming.

• Project participants and affected communities: to ensure transparency, accountability, and inclusion in decision-making processes through feedback and validation of findings. Overall, the evaluation is designed to ensure that evidence is used at strategic, programmatic, and community levels, supporting both upward accountability (to donors) and downward accountability (to affected populations), while strengthening organisational learning and adaptive programming.

  
  
  3 Scope and lines of inquiry
  

  3.1 Scope:

  The evaluation will assess the project across its full implementation period and geographic coverage, with a focus on the performance of the integrated multisectoral response in achieving intended outcomes as defined in the BHA-funded intervention.

  It will examine:

  
  

• The effectiveness of sectoral interventions (Shelter, WASH, ICLA),

• The performance of delivery modalities (particularly cash and market-based approaches),

  
  

• The added value of integration in addressing overlapping needs and supporting recovery pathways.

The scope will also consider how contextual dynamics (insecurity, displacement patterns, market functionality) have influenced implementation and results.

3.1.1. Geographic Scope

The evaluation will cover selected implementation sites in North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri, with site selection based on purposive sampling to reflect key operational typologies under the project, including:

• Active displacement settings,
• Return/reintegration areas,
• Host community environments.

Sampling should enable comparative analysis across contexts, particularly regarding:

• Modality performance (cash vs. in-kind),
• Access constraints,
• Differential outcomes across population groups.

3.1.2 Sectoral Scope

The evaluation will cover all sectors implemented under the project:

• Shelter and Settlements
• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
• Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance (ICLA)

In line with the project design, particular emphasis will be placed on:

• Assessing sector-specific outcomes, and
• Evaluating the coherence, complementarity, and sequencing of interventions across sectors.

The evaluation will specifically analyse:

• The effectiveness of cash and market-based assistance as a delivery modality across sectors,
• The extent to which integrated programming contributed to improved household-level outcomes (e.g., access, recovery, reduced vulnerability).

Cross-cutting components embedded in the proposal will be assessed, including:

• Protection mainstreaming,

• Accountability to affected populations (AAP),

  
  

• Gender, age and disability inclusion (GADI).

  
  
  

  3.1.3 Time Scope

• The evaluation will cover the entire duration of project implementation, including any no-cost extension period (if applicable under the BHA award).

• The evaluation will be conducted prior to project closure to allow for:

  
  

• Timely data collection while activities are still recent,

• Integration of findings into programme adjustments and future design.

  
  

• The consultant will be contracted at least three months prior to project end.

• 
  
  

  3.1.4Target Population

  
  

• The evaluation will include perspectives from key stakeholder groups:

• Project participants (IDPs and vulnerable host communities),

  
  

• Community leaders,

• Local authorities,

  
  

• Implementing partners.

• Sampling must ensure inclusive representation, with deliberate attention to:

  
  

• Women, men, girls and boys,

• Youth and older persons,

  
  

• Persons with disabilities,

• Individuals with specific protection risks (aligned with ICLA/protection components in the proposal).

  
  

• The evaluation should assess differential outcomes and access across these groups.

• 
  
  

  3.1.5 Project: Integrated Multisectoral response to Populations Affected by Conflict in Territories (IMPACT) of Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu and Tanganyika, DRC

  
  

3.1.6 Donor: BHA

3.2 Lines of inquiry

1. Relevance

• To what extent was the intervention design appropriate to the priority needs, vulnerabilities, and preferences of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and host communities, including across age, gender, disability, and other vulnerability criteria?
• To what extent were targeting approaches and vulnerability criteria effective in identifying and reaching the most vulnerable populations?
• To what extent were contextual factors (e.g., insecurity, displacement dynamics, market conditions, access constraints) adequately considered and integrated into programme design and adaptation?

2. Effectiveness (Outcomes)

• To what extent did the intervention achieve its intended outcomes in terms of:
• Improved access to essential services (Shelter, WASH, ICLA),
• Enhanced household recovery and self-reliance,
• Strengthened resilience of affected populations?
• To what extent did unintended positive or negative results emerge during implementation, and how did they influence the overall effectiveness of the intervention?
• To what extent did the project deliver equitable results for women, men, girls, and boys, including individuals with specific vulnerabilities?

3. Effectiveness of the Integrated Approach

• To what extent did the integration of Shelter, WASH, ICLA, and cash-based interventions generate complementarity and synergies?
• How did the integrated approach influence:

The quality and timeliness of assistance

• Household-level outcomes,
• The ability to address overlapping needs?
• What added value (or limitations) can be attributed specifically to the integrated multisectoral design, compared to standalone interventions?

4. Efficiency

• To what extent were resources (financial, human, time, and material) used efficiently in delivering results?
• How effective and efficient were the delivery modalities, particularly cash and market-based approaches, compared to alternative modalities (e.g., in-kind support)?
• To what extent did implementation arrangements (e.g., coordination, targeting systems, delivery mechanisms) support timely and cost-effective delivery?

5. Sustainability

• To what extent has the intervention contributed to sustainable outcomes, including the ability of households and communities to maintain benefits after assistance ends?
• To what extent did the project strengthen self-reliance capacities and resilience, particularly in contexts of recurrent displacement?
• What enabling or limiting factors affect the sustainability of results (e.g., market access, service availability, institutional linkages)?

6. Accountability, Inclusion and Cross-Cutting Issues

• To what extent were principles of Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) effectively applied, including participation, feedback, and responsiveness?
• To what extent did the intervention ensure inclusive and equitable access, particularly for women, children, persons with disabilities, and other at-risk groups?
• How effectively were protection, gender, age, and disability considerations integrated across sectors and modalities?

7. Learning and Adaptation

• What were the key innovations, good practices, and lessons learned from the implementation of the integrated approach?
• To what extent did the programme demonstrate adaptability to evolving contextual dynamics?
• What strategic and operational recommendations can inform future programming in similar contexts?

8. Impact

Given the timing of the evaluation, it will assess the project’s contribution to broader, longer-term changes, rather than attempting to establish direct attribution.

• To what extent has the intervention contributed to improvements in the overall well-being, dignity, and living conditions of affected populations?
• To what extent has the project contributed to reducing vulnerability and reliance on negative coping mechanisms among targeted households?
• To what extent has the intervention contributed to improved access to rights, legal security, and protection services, particularly for vulnerable groups?

To what extent has the project contributed to creating conditions conducive to durable solutions (e.g., safer return , local integration, or improved settlement conditions)?

This evaluation will use a mixed-methods performance evaluation approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data.

Quantitative analysis will draw on household and individual surveys, with baseline and endline findings compared to assess program effectiveness. Qualitative components will be incorporated through the evaluation matrix to further explore issues identified in quantitative results, including sustainability, integrated programming, and self-reliance, which are not fully captured through survey data alone.

Qualitative data collection tools will include semi-structured and in-depth interviews, key informant interviews, the Most Significant Change technique, and participatory methods such as the H-frame and Photovoice. Direct observation will also support data triangulation.

The evaluation will draw on additional secondary data sources, including activity performance monitoring data from partners (e.g., Environment and Nature Conservation departments of each Health Zone), NRC’s Global Outputs and Outcomes Reporting System (GORS), IOM DTM statistics, REACH assessments, project and activity reports, post-distribution monitoring, post-construction monitoring, and after-action reviews. The Q-methodology, a mixed-methods approach, will be used to analyze participant perspectives by having respondents rank and sort statements representing different viewpoints.

The quantitative sample will be drawn from project participants and will use a two-stage cluster sampling design with Probability Proportional to Size (PPS). Power calculations will be based on the following assumptions: Power = 0.80; Minimum Detectable Effect = 0.10; ICC (Intra-Cluster Correlation Coefficient) = 0.01; Loss to Follow-Up = 10%.

For qualitative data, saturation will guide sample size. Existing literature suggests saturation is typically reached within approximately 9–17 interviews or 4–8 focus group discussions. These benchmarks will be adapted to the project context to ensure diversity across sites with differing characteristics. Participants will be purposively selected based on project targeting criteria to ensure adequate representation.

The evaluation will respect the rights, safety, and dignity of all participants. Confidentiality and informed consent will be ensured, and data collection tools will be pre-tested. All evaluators and enumerators will be trained on NRC’s and partners’ Safeguarding Policy and Code of Conduct. Data storage and protection procedures will be clearly defined.

Data analysis will be gender-responsive and ensure appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics (e.g., means, medians, correlation and association tests) are used to highlight trends and correlations. The consultant will analyze associations and contribution pathways related to self-reliance and resilience. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis techniques.

A key limitation of this evaluation is attribution. In the absence of a counterfactual, the evaluation will not quantify causal impact; however, it will credibly assess the project’s contribution to observed changes (self-reliance and resilience) among IDPs and host communities.

The evaluation will serve as a key mechanism to strengthen organisational learning, adaptive programming, and accountability. Its findings and recommendations will be systematically used to inform both ongoing programme adjustments and the design of future interventions.

The consultant will facilitate the development of a management response to ensure that evaluation recommendations are systematically reviewed, prioritised, and translated into actionable measures. These will be documented in an evaluation action plan/tracker, with clearly assigned responsibilities, timelines, and follow-up mechanisms to ensure accountability and effective implementation.

In addition, a comprehensive dissemination and learning plan will be developed to ensure that key findings are effectively communicated, internalised, and utilised across multiple levels.

• Internal learning: integration into programme design, strategic planning, and technical guidance within the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC);
• Operational learning: feedback to programme teams to improve implementation practices and integration approaches;
• External sharing: dissemination through coordination platforms (e.g., clusters), learning products, and sectoral exchanges to contribute to broader humanitarian practice.

In line with Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) commitments, evaluation findings will also be shared back with communities in an accessible format, and their feedback will be incorporated into follow-up actions where feasible.

This structured approach ensures that the evaluation moves beyond knowledge generation to practical application, continuous learning, and measurable programme improvement.

Overall responsibility for ensuring that this evaluation is conducted rests with the Evaluation Steering Committee. The Assessment, Learning and Reporting (ALR) Coordinator will lead the process internally, act as the Evaluation Manager, and serve as the primary focal point for the evaluation team.

An Evaluation Steering Committee (SC) will be established by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) to provide strategic oversight and quality assurance throughout the evaluation process. The Steering Committee will comprise:

• NRC Evaluation Manager
• Relevant Core Competency Specialists
• A representative of project participants
• A partner representative

The Steering Committee will not interfere with the independence of the evaluation, including its methodology, analysis, findings, or recommendations. Its role is to ensure that the evaluation is conducted in a timely, transparent, and quality-assured manner.

• Key Functions of the Steering Committee
• Approve the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the evaluation;
• Participate in the selection of external evaluator(s) in line with NRC procurement procedures;
• Review and provide technical feedback on the inception report, including methodology and evaluation design, and approve the proposed evaluation approach;
• Review and provide comments on the draft evaluation report, ensuring quality and factual accuracy (without influencing conclusions);
• Support the development of a dissemination and utilisation strategy;
• Monitor overall progress of the evaluation process and ensure adherence to agreed timelines.

The Evaluation Manager (ALR Coordinator) will ensure day-to-day coordination, facilitate access to relevant documentation and stakeholders, and support logistical arrangements, while safeguarding the independence and integrity of the evaluation process.

• Inception report, including evaluation matrix, methodology, tools, and work plan,
• Draft evaluation report (including Photovoice outputs),
• Final evaluation report,
• Cleaned datasets,
• Management Response Plan.

The evaluation will be conducted prior to the completion of project implementation to ensure that findings can inform final decision-making and learning.

The contract with the external consultant(s) will be signed at least three months before the project end date, allowing sufficient time for the inception phase, data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Planning activities—including the establishment of the Evaluation Steering Committee and the finalisation of the Terms of Reference (ToR)—will commence at least two months prior to the contracting of the consultant(s).

Following contract signature, the consultant(s) will undertake an inception phase, after which data collection will commence approximately one month later, subject to approval of the inception report.

The evaluation process, including final reporting, is expected to be completed by the end of July 2026.

The evaluator (individual or firm) should demonstrate the following qualifications and competencies:

• An advanced university degree (Master’s or equivalent) in humanitarian or development studies, social sciences, statistics, or a related field;
• A minimum of five years of relevant experience conducting performance evaluations in humanitarian contexts, preferably for multi-sectoral and donor-funded programmes;
• Demonstrated expertise in mixed-methods research, including strong quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis skills;
• Proven experience in evaluating programmes related to forced displacement, including protection, Shelter and Settlements, and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH);
• Familiarity with integrated programming approaches and cash and market-based interventions is highly desirable;
• Prior experience working in complex emergency settings, with familiarity with the context of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo considered an asset;
• Excellent analytical, report writing, and communication skills, with fluency in both English and French (written and spoken);
• Demonstrated experience in applying participatory, inclusive, and gender-responsive evaluation approaches, including engagement with vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations.

Interested consultants (individuals or firms) are invited to submit a technical and financial proposal demonstrating their capacity to undertake the evaluation.

10.1 Application Package

The application should include the following components:

A. Technical Proposal

The technical proposal should clearly outline:

• Understanding of the assignment, including key evaluation objectives and challenges;
• Proposed evaluation methodology, including:
  • Data collection methods (quantitative and qualitative);
  • Sampling strategy;
  • Data analysis approach;
  • Approach to assessing integrated programming and cash-based interventions;
  
  
• Integration of ethical considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection;
• Approach to ensuring inclusion and participation of diverse groups (gender, age, disability);
• Proposed work plan and timeline, aligned with the ToR;
• Risk mitigation strategies related to access, security, and data quality.

B. Financial Proposal

• A detailed budget breakdown (professional fees, travel, accommodation, data collection costs, etc.);
• Clear indication of daily rates and level of effort (number of days per phase);
• Any assumptions or cost-related considerations.

C. Consultant(s) Profile

• Updated CV(s) of key personnel, highlighting relevant evaluation experience.
• Description of the team composition and roles (for firms);
• At least two references from previous similar assignments.

D. Sample Work

• At least one recent evaluation report (preferably in a similar humanitarian context or sector).

10.2 Evaluation of Applications

Applications will be assessed based on the following criteria:

• Technical quality of the proposal (understanding, methodology, feasibility);
• Relevant experience and expertise of the consultant(s);
• Quality of previous work (evaluation samples);
• Cost-effectiveness of the financial proposal.

How to apply

Submission Details

For any additional information, please write to cd.procurement.bn@nrc.no

Submission of Bids:

Bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked and delivered to the NRC offices at the following address: 37 Avenue du Rond Point, Lyn Lusi Street, Les Volcans District, Goma, North Kivu.

Or

Applications must be submitted electronically to CD.RFQ@NRC.NO no later than 2th of May 2026.

Incomplete applications or those received after the deadline will not be considered.

Tagged as: Agriculture, Food Security and Livelihoods