[1] Response Innovation Lab (RIL) is a collaborative initiative between World Vision International, Save the Children International, Oxfam International, Civic.co and Danish Refugee Council. RIL convenes stakeholders within the broad humanitarian innovation system to foster ecosystem development. Embracing a collaborative, evidence-based and localized approach, we endeavor to empower the humanitarian innovation system at both local and global level. https://www.responseinnovationlab.com/ 

[2] In the present context, “last-mile” should be interpreted as settlement-based stories and testimonies from crisis-affected populations or from implementing actors and stakeholders.

[3] Example: which type of written products or which type of dissemination channels were more or less impactful; in which forum did the support of the AAP component for refugee engagement led to most meaningful results, etc. 

INVITATION TO TENDER  

Uganda

Tender/SCI/CO/021/2025

 1^st August 2025

TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO CONDUCT U-LEARN EXTERNAL IMPACT EVALUATION

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 12:00 PM ON 11^th August 2025

PRE-SUBMISSION CLARIFICATION MEETING: N/A

QUESTIONS / CLARIFICATIONS: uganda.coprocurement@savethechildren.org 

FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION: BIDDER RESPONSE DOCUMENT

PART 1 : INVITATION TO TENDER

• Introduction to SCI

  • Project Overview and Requirements

  • Award Criteria

  • Instructions & Key Information

PART 2 : CORE REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATION

Detailed description of SCI’s specific requirements (e.g. volumes, delivery dates / locations, product specifications etc).

PART 3 : BIDDER RESPONSE DOCUMENT

Template to be used to submit response to this Invitation to Tender.

PART 1 – INVITATION TO TENDER

1. INTRODUCTION TO SAVE THE CHILDREN

SCI is the world’s leading independent organisation for children. We save children’s lives; we fight for their rights; we help them fulfil their potential. We work together, with our partners, to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives.

Our Vision – a world in which every child attains the right to survival, protection, development and participation.

Our Mission – to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives.

We do this through a range of initiatives and programmes, to:

• Provide lifesaving supplies & emotional support for children caught up in disasters (e.g. floods, famine & wars).

• Campaign for long term change to improve children’s lives.

• Improve children’s access to the food and healthcare they need to survive.

• Secure a good quality education for the children who need it most.

• Protect the world’s most vulnerable children, including those separated from their families because of war, natural disasters, extreme poverty or exploitation.

• Work with families to help them out of the poverty cycle so they can feed and support their children.

For more information on the work we undertake and recent achievements, visit our website.

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW

Further detail on the specific requirements of the project (e.g. volumes, dates, specifications etc.) can be found in Part 2 (Core Requirements & Specifications) of this Tender Pack.

3. AWARD CRITERA

SCI is committed to running a fair and transparent tender process and ensuring that all bidders are treated and assessed equally during this tender process. Bidder responses will be evaluated against four weighted categories of criteria: Essential Criteria, Sustainability Criteria, Capability Criteria, and Commercial Criteria. 

1. ESSENTIAL CRITERIA

Criteria which bidders must meet in order to progress to the next round of evaluation. If a bidder does not meet any of the Essential Criteria, they will be excluded from the tender process immediately. These criteria are scored as ‘Pass’ / ‘Fail’. 

3.2 CAPABILITY CRITERIA (40%)

Criteria used to evaluate the bidder’s ability, skill and experience in relation to the requirements. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria. 

3.3 SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA (10%)

Criteria used to evaluate the impact a supplier has on the environment, local economy and community. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria. 

3.4 COMMERIAL CRITERIA (50%)

Criteria used to evaluate the commercial competitiveness of a bid. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria.

4. VETTING

Successful bidders must be successfully vetted. This involves checking bidders and key personnel against Global Watch Lists, Enhanced Due Diligence Lists and Politically Exposed Persons Lists. 

The vetting of bidders will be completed after the award decision and prior to any contract being signed, or orders placed. If any information provided by the Bidder throughout the tender process is proved to be incorrect during the vetting process (or at any other point), SCI may withdraw their award decision.

5. BIDDER INSTRUCTIONS

6.1 TIMESCALES

Above dates are for indicative purposes only and are subject to change. 

6.2 SUBMISSION FORMAT & BIDDER RESPONSE DOCUMENT

Bidders wishing to submit a bid must use the Bidder Response Document template in Part 3 of this Tender Pack. Any bids received using different formats, or incomplete bids, will not be accepted. 

This document allows bidders to submit all the required information and be evaluated fairly and equally against the Essential, Capability and Commercial Criteria. Bidders may also be required to submit supporting documentation. Further instructions can be found within the document in Part 3 of this pack.

Bids shall be submitted by:

Paper Submission

• One paper copy submitted on headed paper to 

Save the Children International 

First Floor Grand Luthuli House

Plot 15 Luthuli Avenue, Bugolobi

P.O Box 12018, Kampala - Uganda

Tel: 0393 264520.

• Bids should be submitted in a single sealed envelope addressed to “The Procurement Committee-Save the Children International”.

The envelope should clearly indicate the Invitation to tender “PROVISION OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO CONDUCT THE U-LEARN EXTERNAL IMPACT EVALUATION” but contain no other details relating to the bid or the bidder’s name.

• All supporting documentation should be labelled and grouped together (individual envelopes, stapled etc), and then included in a single sealed envelope as per the above.

6.4 CLOSING DATE FOR BID SUBMISSION

Your bid must be received, no later than 12:00 pm on 10^th August,2025.

Bids must remain valid and open for consideration for a period of no less than 60 Working days.

6.5 KEY CONTACTS

All questions relating to the tender should be sent via email to: 

Please be advised local working hours are 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Please allow up to 2 days for a response.

Where the enquiry may have an impact on other bidders within the process, Save the Children will notify all other Bidders to maintain a fair and transparent process.
 

PART 2 – CORE REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS

1. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS / CATEGORY OF GOODS / SERVICES

The Terms Of Reference (TORs) below represent the minimum requirements for this assignment and consultants are advised to suggest any additional cost-effective approaches that will ensure more value addition to the exercise.

1. IMPLEMENTATION LOCATIONS:

Location: Uganda 

Estimated duration of the assignment: 4 Months

2.1 Introduction

The Uganda Learning, Evidence, Accountability, and Research Network (U-Learn) is a principally UKaid-funded programme designed to facilitate improved response outcomes for refugees and host communities in Uganda. In collaboration with the government and a wide range of implementers and stakeholders, U-Learn focuses on facilitating learning, conducting assessments, and amplifying refugee voice and choice in the protracted refugee crisis in Uganda. 

U-Learn's distinctive approach is centred on supporting transformation at the response-level, which sets it apart from most humanitarian programmes which focus on direct aid delivery both within Uganda and on a global scale. U-Learn’s model consists of promoting the adoption of evidence and insights and the inclusion of refugee voice and choice in programmes and policies. Throughout the programme, U-Learn has successfully collaborated with a diverse array of stakeholders and has gained a wide range of support for its work. 

U-Learn was launched in 2020 and is a consortium of three organisations: Uganda Response Innovation Lab (U-RIL)[1] (hosted at Save the Children Uganda) is the consortium lead, in partnership with IMPACT Initiatives (hosted at Acted) and International Rescue Committee (IRC). Initially planned for three years of implementation, U-Learn has been extended several times and is currently in its fifth year of implementation, scheduled to be completed in December 2025. Throughout this period, U-Learn has undergone a systematic and iterative process to create an effective approach.

In 2024, U-Learn completed a self-evaluation process to document the U-Learn model, evaluate its experiences, take stock of its lessons, and reflect on the way forward and on the potential for scale up. The consortium also invested in documenting its institutional memory in the form of After-Action Reviews (AAR) and reports describing some of its flagship workstreams. 

In 2025, U-Learn will complement these internal reflection processes with an external evaluation. This external evaluation will build on the self-evaluation findings as well as other monitoring data collected by the consortium throughout its implementation (such as outcome harvesting and perception surveys). The external evaluation will review a longer implementation period, which is conducive to documenting impact-level results, and bring an independent perspective on the project’s results and effectiveness.   

The focus of the external evaluation is to generate data on how U-Learn has strategically and concretely influenced the refugee response and on documenting last-mile stories of how this influence can improve/has improved the lives of crises-affected populations. 

 "The evaluation process will inform further reflections by the consortium partners and donors who have previously and currently support U-Learn on the efficacy and relevance of the programme. It will also support key stakeholders to consider how future iterations of U-Learn can be adapted and designed to ensure the greatest impact for crises affected populations while responding to emerging themes, including localization" It will also help determine contextual factors and key considerations that would allow the U-Learn model to be replicated, adapted or scaled up to other humanitarian contexts. 

Introduction

     The U-Learn programme is implemented by a consortium which consists of three organisations, each managing a unique component:

1. U-RIL leads the Learning Hub (LH) which implements cross-sectoral learning work 

2. IRC leads on the Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) component

3. IMPACT Initiatives leads the research component. 

U-Learn was launched in 2020 with funding from the UK Government (UKaid). Since 2020 U-Learn has also received additional funding from donors to support individual components:

• for the Learning Hub from USAID/BHA from 2023 to 2025 and from DANIDA since 2024.

• for specific research pieces from ECHO. 

The U-Learn grant has also served as a contractual arrangement for UKaid to support other humanitarian activities in Uganda: the Humanitarian INGO platform (HINGO) and IMPACT’s 2024 Multisectoral Needs Assessment (MSNA). Those activities are not part of the core U-Learn design and are not to be covered by this external evaluation. During the initial design of U-Learn, Independent Verification of response actors’ activities were part of the scope of work. Those were however never implemented and removed from the programme after a redesign exercise. This aspect is also not part of the external evaluation. 

All U-Learn’s work falls under a Thematic Scope (see Figure 1 below) which has been defined and regularly updated through key stakeholder consultations. All of U-Learn’s work is public, accessible to all response stakeholders (see more details on the website: https://ulearn-uganda.org/) and designed based on these stakeholders needs and demand. 

Figure 1: Thematic Scope 

The research component

IMPACT Initiatives, through the research component, tackles evidence and knowledge gaps in the Uganda refugee response. The Research component does this by generating new evidence through yearly in-depth assessments that use data to inform decision-making. The research methodology combines quantitative and qualitative data collected in the field with desk reviews. Topics for research are chosen collaboratively with relevant partners, including United Nations (UN) agencies, national and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), government agencies, and donors and in line with U-Learn’s thematic focus (which is discussed above). Relevant stakeholders are consulted throughout the research cycle, including for the design of the research and the validation of collected data. The insights derived from these thorough assessments are then disseminated in collaboration with the Learning Hub.

The learning component (Learning Hub)

The Uganda Refugee Response Learning Hub (LH) is implemented by U-RIL to facilitate learning exchanges on critical themes within the refugee response. The LH curates, analyses, disseminates and supports the uptake of existing evidence through creative and collectively shaped learning services and outputs. Its services include convening, curating evidence, documentation, synthesis, mapping and visualisation. The LH operates as a public good, accessible to all stakeholders involved in the refugee response. Its commitment to fostering partnerships, promoting inclusivity, and driving adaptations underscores the LH’s transformative potential in shaping practices in the refugee response in Uganda and beyond. Collective learning processes and intentional reflections have prompted several response actors to adapt policies and programmes as well as develop new partnerships to better support self-reliance for refugees and host communities.

The Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) component

IRC, through the AAP component, identifies and addresses gaps in existing mechanisms for engaging crisis-affected populations by supporting and improving AAP culture and integration across the response. The U-Learn AAP team supports the REF community feedback/consultative sessions in the 13 refugee settlements across the country. Similarly, identified partner organizations were supported across the 3 regions of the North, Northwest (West Nile), and Southwest Uganda.  The following activities are implemented by the AAP Component: 

• Support to Refugee Engagement Forum (REF) members prior to and during the REF meetings and CRRF steering group through facilitation support and by facilitating the consultation of constituents in preparation of the representatives’ participation in meetings. 

• AAP training. U-Learn, in collaboration with UNHCR developed an online training module on AAP. 

• Providing practical support through AAP in Action (AAPA). This is a 6 months technical support programme with 5 technical areas that complements the online training. AAPA enables organisations to translate AAP theoretical knowledge into practice to strengthen AAP in their programming, operations, and beyond. 

• Community feedback and consultations sessions. The programme supports already existing Community Feedback Mechanisms (CFM) and safeguarding mechanisms by facilitating community feedback and consultations which enhances the two-way communication with crisis affected persons. 

• From 2025, activities to increase awareness among local actors about Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment (PSEAH) have been added.

Figure 2: U-Learn in figures 

Source: https://ulearn-uganda.org/ulearn-achievements-2020-2024/

The three distinct components have each made unique contributions to the overall success of U-Learn. Their individual accomplishments, as well as their interactions, have played a pivotal role in shaping U-Learn's achievements. The self-evaluation report reviews the output and outcome level achievements of U-Learn and highlights that the consortium has been reaching its intended objectives of response-strengthening by responding to three humanitarian challenges that limit effectiveness of self-reliance and humanitarian-development nexus programmes and policies:

• A lack of accurate, reliable, and unbiased information and evidence on needs and on programme effectiveness,

• Untapped opportunities to learn from and apply evidence when it is available, and

• Gaps in existing approaches for engaging affected populations.

The self-evaluation report further presents both the successes and shortcomings that have emerged over the past five years, considering the performance of each component, as well as the overall model of delivering through an integrated consortium.

In addition, localisation has been identified as a strategic priority for the Uganda refugee response and U-Learn. U-Learn is about to publish a Localisation Assessment which reviews localisation in relation to current AAP, research and learning practices in the Uganda refugee response. It will highlight some areas of potential improvement for U-Learn and similar programmes that can be leveraged during the evaluation. 

Objectives and evaluation questions.

This external evaluation aims to provide a thorough examination of U-Learn’s achievements in terms of influencing and supporting changes in the refugee response through evidence, learning, and AAP. 

U-Learn uses an evidence-based influencing model. U-Learn focuses on creating public goods for refugee response actors through research, learning, and AAP, rather than direct service delivery. Thus, the influence of U-Learn is often indirect, delayed, and mediated through other actors (e.g. donors, coordination platforms, programme teams). The attribution of specific changes to U-Learn would be complex but it is possible to trace U-Learn’s contribution to these adaptations of practices and policies.

Figure 3: U-Learn Theory of Change (TOC) visualized 

The purpose of this evaluation is to build on the analysis conducted for the self-evaluation which 1) documented the U-Learn model and the iterative process that led to it and, 2) confirmed the relevance and general effectiveness of the consortium. The external evaluation intends to be a deeper, broader review, and will also review the self-evaluation findings (corroborate, contradict, nuance), adding an independent point of view to assess and illustrate the contribution of U-Learn to the refugee response and illustrate how this contribution is made in the refugee response. It will contribute to the design of future similar initiatives and to advocacy efforts of partners implementing and/or funding learning, research and AAP. 

The objectives of the external evaluation are threefold:

• Trace and illustrate the influence and impact of U-Learn’s interventions through the identification and documentation of examples of adaptations in the humanitarian response, including last-mile stories.

• Generate forward-looking recommendations for improvement and scale, both for the Uganda refugee response and potential other humanitarian contexts. 

• Support advocacy efforts of stakeholders on learning, research and AAP in humanitarian responses during a time of transformation and funding cuts for humanitarian assistance globally and in Uganda. 

The evaluation questions (to be refined during the methodology development by the selected consultant) can be divided in two categories: 1) Impact and influence and 2) Improvement and scale. The data generated under both set of questions will contribute to advocacy efforts and it needs to be presented with this objective in mind. 

1. Draft evaluation questions on influence and impact of U-Learn

To capture the purpose of U-Learn in a log frame, the consortium and the donor selected the following impact statement and indicator: “U-Learn contributes to an increasing trend of refugees and host communities receiving aid that is relevant to their needs, and that is responsive to their preferences”: “% of refugees / host community reporting satisfaction with aid agencies taking community opinions and preferences into consideration when providing support”.

This measurement of the impact is reported on annually by the consortium. It is a quantitative assessment and could be called a “proxy”, in the sense that it brings to light the results of U-Learn but it does not fully capture the influence it may have in and on the response. The focus of the evaluation is to complement this quantitative measure by demonstrating and illustrating the influence and impact of U-Learn on the refugee response in a qualitative and multidimensional way. The following draft questions will guide this analysis: 

1. What are (the most significant) examples of U-Learn’s influence on the refugee response through its research, learning and AAP work (overall U-Learn and for each component)? How can the return on investment/Value for Money (VfM) of these successes be demonstrated or illustrated? 

   2. How did U-Learn strategically influence policy uptake, shifts in programme design, funding decisions, coordination changes among different types of response stakeholders? (donors, government, implementers, other actor groups). 

   3. What last-mile examples or human-interest stories[2] illustrate U-Learn’s contribution to improved outcomes for crisis-affected populations, and how do they reflect broader influence pathways?

   4. Were there any positive or negative unintended or unexpected consequences of U-Learn’s work?

   5. To what extent is the influence of U-Learn (overall U-Learn and for each component) and the supported changes likely to be sustained after funding ends?

2.2 Draft evaluation questions on improvement and scale opportunities 

This part of the evaluation will focus on generating evidence-based and VfM-sensitive recommendations for the potential future iterations of U-Learn as well as any similar future programmes in the Uganda refugee response or other humanitarian contexts. The focus is on the technical portfolio of activities of U-Learn (rather than its consortium structure) and includes suggestions on activities and interventions to handover, discontinue, maintain, deepen, improve. The following draft questions will guide this analysis:

1. Within each component[3], which activities have been most effective in achieving the intended outcomes and what factors contributed to their success? (comparing activities within the individual components’ portfolios, not between the components). 

   1. Which activities represent the best value for money, as per FCDO’s value for money framework (economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity) and why? What features of U-Learn supported or hindered VfM (overall U-Learn and for each component)?

   2. How has U-Learn evolved to address feedback received on its work and ensure response to users’ demand, including through the perception surveys and feedback forms? 

   3. Which aspects or activities of U-Learn are best suited to be mainstreamed by other actors within the Uganda refugee response, and what would be required for that to happen?

   4. Building on the localisation assessment findings, how can U-Learn or similar programmes better align to theGrand Bargain and Localisation commitments, including in terms of AAP?

   5. What are critical closure readiness actions to take for the current U-Learn programme to ensure maximum impact and sustainability of the work to date? What does ending of funding mean for such an established brand as U-Learn?

   6. What are key contextual factors and considerations that need to be in place for the U-Learn model to be replicated, scaled or adapted to another humanitarian context? 

   7. In what ways could a future iteration of U-Learn adapt to the changing and generally shrinking funding landscape? 

Methodology

A more detailed methodology will be developed by the consultant based on the provided information and will be jointly reviewed and agreed by the U-Learn team. 

Scope

The evaluation will cover the entire five years of U-Learn implementation period (2020-2025).

It may draw data and stories coming from national level and from all refugee-hosting districts (although not all will be covered by data collection). 

Activities excluded from the scope of the evaluation:

• Independent verification (activities halted before their implementation)

• MSNA (MSNA is implemented directly by IMPACT without the LH support for dissemination, which means it falls outside of the regular scope of work through which the evidence is disseminated under U-Learn)

• PSEAH (PSEAH was only included during the Year5 extension period and therefore hard to measure any impact in such a short time frame)

• HINGO (supported contractually through the same agreement since 2024 but separate workstream from the core U-Learn programme)

Target groups for data collection: Include both response actors (institutional actors from various types of organisations), members of the affected populations (hosts and refugees) and their representatives (leaders, REF). 

Target group for dissemination of the findings of the evaluation:

• U-Learn consortium members

• Donors who have provided funding to U-Learn and donors supporting the refugee response more broadly. 

• The REF members and other representatives from affected communities (especially the findings related to AAP).

• Key response stakeholders in the refugee response structure, including the Government of Uganda and coordination mechanisms co-led by UNHCR, umbrella organisations, HINGO

• Other Uganda refugee response actors implementing or interested in supporting response adaptations through research, learning and AAP. 

• Prospective U-Learn partners 

• Humanitarian organisations and donors, likely to replicate or adapt U-Learn in other contexts in East Africa and Globally 

Possible evaluation methods 

The methodology for this evaluation is expected to use a combination of the following methods including desk review and interviews: 

• Outcome harvesting through interviews and document review (with triangulation when possible)

• Mapping and analysing the contribution pathway and the uptake of U-Learn-supported evidence, insights and practices

• Retrospective methods (“asking stakeholder to reflect on before/after conditions”) to capture adaptations in the response and partners/donors’ perception of U-Learn’s role and value

• Collecting examples of uptake or use of U-Learn-supported evidence, insights and practices

• Illustrating examples of uptake and response adaptation with last-mile testimonies and human-interest stories 

• Comparative or normative assessment (with triangulation when possible): explore what alternative outcomes could have happened without U-Learn, what stakeholders believe could be done or have been done differently, what are key considerations for replication or scale, etc. 

Figure 4 - Draft example of U-Learn’s Contribution Pathways – using proxy or indirect indicators to capture influence when data is not directly available: 

It will likely be easier to capture output and outcome level results at the response actor level and more difficult to trace the ultimate influence at the last-mile of implementation (settlement level, community level, field-based partners) but this is one of the key ambitions of this evaluation as it would help demonstrate concretely the impact of U-Learn. 

Scope for the desk review 

The desk review is a critical part of this evaluation even though the number of documents to review is expected to not be very high.

• It will play an important role in informing the understanding of the specific U-Learn conceptual model, which is critical for contribution analysis.

• It will be determinant for the identification of which stakeholders are more likely to share concrete examples and last-mile stories through interviews

The evaluator will be provided with a short Evaluation Guide that outlines the sources of information to review for the assignment and contextualises them. These will include not limited to and at a minimum the below:

• The 2024 self-evaluation report

• The annual perception survey

• The log frame reports 

• The annual self-assessment / annal review reports by U-Learn

• Reports on prior outcome harvesting 

• Spotlight on the Learning Hub

• Spotlight on the AAPA

• REF Good Practice Study

• Localisation Evidence Brief and Localisation Assessment Report 

• Research report example (climate change adaptations in Nyumanzi) 

• Tbc. 

Scope for data collection 

The self-evaluation relied on a very broad desk review and a series of Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with national-level, institutional stakeholders–although government representatives were not well represented. In contrast, to avoid interview fatigue and maximise the synergies, the external evaluation will focus on a limited desk review (very critical documents) and on interviews (KIIs or group consultations depending on the audience) with stakeholders that were not prioritised during the self-evaluation.

Distinction with the self-evaluation 

Figure 6: Summary of differences between past self-evaluation and this upcoming external impact evaluation

Questions already answered by the self-evaluation (which can be leveraged in the evaluation but not replicate):

• How relevant is U-Learn in addressing the humanitarian challenge(s) it focuses on? This included the review of U-Learn’s alignment with the Uganda’s national refugee response policies and strategic plans including needs of the refugee hosting districts

• To what extent did U-Learn achieve its objectives? (effectiveness)?

• What is the U-Learn model? What are its specificities? How has it evolved into what it is today? This includes a description of the innovation journey and the flexible adaptive design of U-Learn which has allowed it to remain relevant in a changing landscape. 

• What are the key learnings on implementation? 

The preliminary identification of stakeholders who could participate in the evaluation include:

• For AAP: representatives from partner organizations who participated in the AAPA training, REF members and other refugee leaders, the REF OPM/UNHCR Focal persons across the refugee settlements, REF Taskforce members, AAP Taskforce members, etc.

• For the LH: CRRF Secretariat, co-hosts of conveners or learning products, technical reviewers of learning products, etc.

• For Research: entities and community leaders who have facilitated in scoping discussions on research design as well as data collection, relevant working group coordinators, donors, and actors who have used research findings to inform programming and decision-making, etc.

• For U-Learn across all components: members of the U-Learn Steering Committee, donors, chairs of coordination working groups, field staff of response implementers, local leaders and community members who can share testimonies that demonstrate the impact of U-Learn. 

The consultant will propose the targeting of individuals to interview and U-Learn to validate. The number of interviews and type of engagement (group or individual) will be determined based on the methodological proposal by the evaluator and agreed jointly with U-Learn. It is expected that a minimum of 10 interviews and 5 group consultations will be organised. Group consultations are not expected to be used only for community-level consultations. For instance:

• Group consultation of the chairs of coordination working groups with which U-Learn has collaboratively collaborated (WorkGreen, Livelihoods and Social Resilience Working Group (LSRWG), Cash)

• Individual interview of field-staff using a U-Learn-supported tool (minimum standards for financial literacy training of the Bank of Uganda) daily for the implementation of a financial literacy programme in a settlement and individual interview of a VSLA member who has been trained using this programme

The District locations for data collection will be selected based on the preliminary identification of where last-mile stories are likely to be collected. For efficiency reasons, it is likely that the settlements to be visited will be the ones where all U-Learn components have implemented activities rather than one component only. The list of settlements where all components have implemented activities in the past three years is: Palabek, Adjumani (Nuyamanzi), Nakivale and Rhino camp.

Ethical considerations

The consultant will be required in coordination with U-Learn study management committee to submit the final research protocol and tools for review and approval from a recognised Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection.  Ethical and safeguarding considerations need to be strongly considered during all stages of this assessment. including respect and confidentiality for all participants. Anonymity, privacy and data security need to be ensured particularly during data collection, analysis, storage and reporting. The consultancy team and all individuals involved to conduct this assignment will be required to sign and comply with SCI safeguarding policies and Code of Conduct, Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Anti-Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying. The study team will be required to adhere to the standard Data Protection and Privacy policies throughout all stages of the assignment.

Deliverables 

1. Inception Report and presentation to U-Learn (Inception meeting) to ensure alignment on the evaluation approach and clarify expectations before data collection begins.  

• Contents:

  • Refined evaluation questions

    • Evaluation framework and methodology

    • Stakeholder engagement plan

    • Detailed work plan and timeline      

     

• Desk review summary and Data collection tools

  • Contents:

    • Analysis of existing documentation, including previous evaluations, programme reports, and strategic plans

    • Summary of initial insights and gaps to guide primary data collection

    • Tools for data collection (interview guides, survey instruments, etc.)

• Stakeholder Engagement Log 

  • Contents:

    • Record of consultations, interviews, and focus groups conducted

    • Summary of key themes emerging during data collection

    • Matrix of stakeholder categories consulted (donors, government, implementers, local actors, affected populations)

    •  

• Intermediary outputs: detailed evaluation outline and/or preliminary findings brief for input by U-Learn and/or for course correction

  • Contents:

    • Early insights and emergent findings

    • Challenges or opportunities that may influence final recommendations

    • About 6 “significant examples of influence” identified which will be developed into short narratives. 

    • About 6 last-mile stories identified which will be developed into short narratives.

    • Draft contribution pathway

• Outline (draft) to be further developed: 

• Executive summary

• Methodology and limitations

• Key findings structured by evaluation themes:

  • Contribution pathway and analysis 

    • U-Learn’s influence and impact (including the significant examples of influence)

      • Stories from the field (human-interest / last mile)

      • Return on investment and VfM

      • Future iteration of U-Learn – strategic evolution and potential for mainstreaming some activities in the refugee response

      • Localisation alignment

      • Closure readiness and final actions

    • Recommendations for U-Learn’s future

    • Annexes: tools, list of stakeholders, data sources, etc.

1. Draft Evaluation Report

   • Around 40 pages (excluding annexes)

2. Presentation of Preliminary Findings/Validation Meeting

   • Format: Slide deck or interactive presentation

   • Audience: Consortium partners, donors, relevant stakeholders, REF

   • Purpose: To validate and collect feedback before finalizing the report
     
      

3. Final Evaluation Report

   • Contents: Revised report incorporating feedback, clearly marked changes

   • Format: Designed for wide dissemination; concise executive summary for decision-makers.

   • Dissemination of findings. 

The evaluation will at the minimum include:

• The identification and write up of 6 examples of U-Learn’s influence and impact

• The identification and write up of 6 “last-mile” stories. Based on consultation with the U-Learn team once the topics are pre-identified, there may or not be overlap between the examples and the stories. 

• The development of a detailed contribution pathway and uptake mapping, with a visual representation 

Review process and timeline

Below is the timeline for the evaluation. U-Learn will endeavour to submit consolidated comments for review. 

The consultant will have weekly meetings with U-Learn. 

The U-Learn Consortium Manager will be the focal point of the evaluator for this work and closely collaborate with and consolidate inputs from the other members of the Consortium Management Unit.

Please note that the consultant(s) might be asked to integrate minor comments that are made after deliverable sign-off at no extra cost. 

Evaluator profile specifications 

This assignment may be conducted by a single evaluator or a team. It requires some in-country interviews and field visits to be implemented in-person. 

The (lead) evaluator is expected to have a post-graduate degree in MEAL, Political Science, Social Sciences, International Development, Administration Management or other relevant subject and a minimum of 10 years of relevant work experience. 

The evaluator needs to:

• Understand complex humanitarian response coordination structures and dynamics, preferably with experience of the Uganda refugee response 

• Have the ability to understand and conceptualize complex issues and be able to work with complex TOC 

• Demonstrate skills and past experience with qualitative evaluation methods including outcome harvesting methodology and contribution pathway analysis 

• Be able to synthetically and analytically present a breadth of information from various sources in writing 

• Have a strong understanding of VfM and return on investment concepts – proven experience conducting VfM analyses and developing methodologies for VfM measurement is an advantage

• Have in-depth, proven experience implementing and/or evaluating humanitarian projects that do not focus on direct aid delivery but rather on: capacity-strengthening, advocacy, learning, and or research. 

• Have an in-depth understanding of Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) and mechanisms to engage crises affected communities 

• Be well-versed in the localisation agenda

• Experience in several of aforementioned fields (learning, research, AAP, localisation) would be preferable. 

• Have strong stakeholder engagement skills and capacity to adapt tools to various audiences from crisis-affected populations to government representatives and donors. 

• Demonstrate appropriate language and cultural competence 

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Once/if ordered, items will need to be delivered to specified locations/districts in Uganda. In such cases delivery may be requested separately using separate quotations/orders. 

PART 3 – BIDDER RESPONSE DOCUMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

    

This document MUST BE USED by Bidders wishing to submit a bid. It is linked into 5 sections detailed below: 

• Section 1 – Essential Criteria

• Section 2 – Capability & Sustainability Questions

• Section 3 – Commercial Questions

• Section 4 – Bidder Submission Checklist

The Bidder is required to sign a copy of the Check list in Section 4 as part of their submission.

2. INSTRUCTIONS

Within each section there are instructions providing guidance to the bidder on what information is required. This guidance details the MINIMUM requirements expected by SCI. If a Bidder wishes to add further information, this is acceptable, but the additional information should be limited to only items that are relevant to the tender. 

• For the avoidance of doubt, bidders are required to complete all items within the Bidder Response Document unless clear instruction is provided otherwise. 

• If a Bidder does not complete the entire Bidder Response document, their submission may be declared void. 

• If a Bidder is unable to complete any element of the Bidder Response Document, they should contact Save the Children through the using the contact details provided for guidance.

By submitting a response, the bidder confirms that all information provided can be relied upon for validity and accuracy.

SECTION 1 - ESSENTIAL CRITERIA

INSTRUCTIONS – Bidders are required to complete all sections of the below table.

SECTION 2 – CAPABILITY & SUSTAINABILITY QUESTIONS

Instructions – Bidders are required to complete all sections of the below table.

The forms below shall be used to provide information on the consultant’s experience and technical staff in relation to this assignment.

1. Experience in previous assignments. the consultant can fill a different form for each different assignment.

2. Composition of the Team and Task Assigned to each Team Member 

    

3. Task assignment as per proposed work plan and activity schedule.

SECTION 3 – COMMERCIAL QUESTIONS

Currency of Costs: ____________________

TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE IN CURRENCY: ____________________

Breakdown of Lump Sum Price Authorised By:

SECTION 4 – BIDDER SUBMISSION CHECKLIST