MACRO Level:

• PRCS will develop, with partners, a Technical Working Group on Loss and Damage Finance in Pakistan.

• One (1) joint research study with PRCS partners to identify loss and damage in PRCS/partner project sites, quantification of Loss and Damage, and policy options for the disbursement mechanisms in preparation for upcoming Loss and Damage Fund.

• Coordinate with partners for the inclusion of the PRCS and its partners on the National Climate Change Council of Pakistan, as well as relevant provincial Climate Change implementation committees, to enable changes to legislation and policy.

• Coordinate with partners and relevant stakeholders at all levels to develop Local Adaptation Plans based on the National Adaptation Plan (2023) and aim to secure funding for joint ventures on climate smart DRM.

• Participation in and holding major national, regional, and international events on climate change and DRM. 

• Building and maintaining close relationships with current and potential donors by sharing success stories, reporting and organizing annual meetings.      

MESO Level:

• One (1) Training workshop/ year on the climate change strategy, and minimum standards

• One (1) Annual Training workshop for PRCS on proposal development and climate finance 

• Field schools for testing the tools and instruments within PRCS project sites 

• Building linkages to the IFRC membership unit for resource mobilization and strengthening of financial management through regional peer-to-peer learning 

MICRO level:

• Mapping and analysis of all PRCS projects for the integration of climate-sensitive DRM measures 

• Support the climate-smart DRM practices through PRCS ongoing DRM projects at local /community level as model for local government and communities for replication.

• Support the climate-smart DRM practices through PRCS ongoing DRM projects at local /community level as model for local government and communities for replication.

The following are the beneficiaries of the project:

Direct target groups

•  70 Staff from government institutions and NGOs/INGOs

• 150 students from various institutions trained on climate change. 

Meso level (Pakistan Red Crescent) 

•  300 PRCS staff at national, provincial and district levels trained on various aspects of climate-smart DRM; 

•  500 volunteers from the national federation and the selected provincial and district federations have knowledge in the field of climate-smart DRM.   

Micro level (municipalities) 

• Approximately 2,000 members of the selected PRCS projects participate in the awareness-raising activities. 

• Approximately 1,000 students participate in awareness activities. 

• Approximately 1,500 people participate in international days/ events at the national and provincial levels. 

2. Evaluation purpose and users 

2.1 Purpose

The mid-term evaluation aims to assess the SSF program's progress from January 2025 to date, ensuring the intervention remains on track to meet its final December 2027 targets.

The evaluation will prioritize:

• Strategic Adjustment: Identifying enabling factors and barriers to refine project design within Pakistan’s current socio-political and climate context.

• Policy Integration: Assessing the practical application and institutionalization of guidelines and climate policies developed during the first and second phases.

• Collaborative Learning: Facilitating a joint space for PRCS and GRC to reflect on implementation challenges and agree upon the necessary course corrections to maximize the impact of this final phase.

2.2 Users of the evaluation

This MTE is primarily intended for two major stakeholders, PRCS at both the National and provincial levels and GRC. 

3. Task description

3.1 Evaluation scope

The MTE will assess the implementation status of the final phase of the SSF program from January 2025 to the commencement of this assignment. The scope covers all participating regions and involves engagement with all target groups to determine how well the project is tracking toward its December 2027 goals and what adjustments are needed to ensure a successful conclusion.

The evaluation shall provide PRCS and GRC with evidence-based answers to the following:

• To what extent is the program on track to achieve its intended results and objectives by the end of this final phase?

• Do the current objectives remain aligned with the evolving national context, PRCS priorities, and the overarching SSF program goals?

• Which internal and external factors are currently enabling or hindering progress, and is the intervention design still appropriate for the remainder of the phase?

The consultant is expected to provide actionable recommendations to optimize the remaining project duration, focusing on:

• Adjusting ongoing interventions and targets to ensure all final objectives are met.

• Strengthening the practical use and integration of existing guidelines and climate policies within PRCS’s core programming.

• Identifying and addressing systemic or structural or process related challenges to improve delivery efficiency for the final years.

The consultant has to utilize findings from this exercise, global/RCRC best practices, comparative research and stakeholder feedback. A critical component of the scope is facilitating a joint workspace/ workshop for PRCS and GRC staff to review findings, discuss challenges, and collaboratively agree upon final adjustments to finish the program successfully.

 3.2 Evaluation criteria including specific evaluation questions related to the project/program

1. Relevance 

• To what extent are the objectives and key interventions of phase III still relevant with regards to the climate change policy/advocacy field in Pakistan, PRCS´ priorities/strategy, and the SSF program objectives? 

• Is the intervention design (from activities to outputs to objectives) still appropriate at the macro, meso and micro levels to deliver the remaining results by the planned end of the project?  

2. Effectiveness

• To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?  Are indicators relevant and on track? 

• Which internal and external factors are currently enabling or hindering progress, and which constraints need the most urgent attention from the project management team?

3. Efficiency

• To what extent were project resources (financial, human, and material) used economically to deliver results?

• Was the project implemented according to the planned schedule, and were delays adequately managed?

• Could the same results have been achieved with fewer resources or through more cost-effective implementation strategies?

4. Sustainability & Connectedness

• What measures are currently being put in place to ensure the benefits and capacities developed under phase III are sustained and integrated into PRCS’s core programming after funding ends? 

• What factors are most likely to strengthen or threaten sustainability in the short, medium, and long-term?

5. Coherence 

• To what extent is the project aligned with national climate policies and coordinated with sub-national actors to ensure synergy?

• How effectively has the project integrated with other RCRC and PNS initiatives to strengthen the PRCS’s climate-smart DRR programming?

• Beyond formal MOUs, how effectively has the project collaborated with the Government and civil society to achieve shared goals?

4. Evaluation design and methodology 

The team composition as well as the design and methodology of the evaluation are subject matters of the negotiations with the evaluator/s. 

4.1 Evaluation team

In line with the GRC Strategy 2030 and the RCRC Minimum Standard Commitments on Gender and Diversity, a gender-balanced evaluation team is required to gender-sensitive data collection and impartial evaluation. Furthermore; we encourage to have balanced evaluation team considering the evaluation methodology e.g. qualitative data management, reporting, and evaluation experts. At minimum, the team should have:

• Evaluation design expert, 

• Field expert having extensive experience of data management (qualitative & quantitative),

• Climate change professional having knowledge and experience of managing relevant projects, 

All team members must have the relevant qualification and experience to perform the assigned responsibilities of the assignment. 

 4.2 Participation of stakeholders 

The steering committee for the mid-term evaluation will consist of the Head of Office/Program Coordinator CACRA, DD Climate Change (CACRA) and DD PMER PRCS to support the review by clarifying questions, providing documents for the desk review, reviewing, and providing feedback on the inception, preliminary and final reports. Provincial focal persons will support the set-up of interviews with relevant stakeholders, supporting field logistics and organizational aspects of the kick-off and validation workshop.

4.3 Sources of information 

The evaluation team will have access to all relevant project documents like project proposals, project management documents (log frame, activity plan, budget), monitoring tools, project reports (narrative and financial), and PRCS relevant policies/set of standards on climate change/climate smart/sensitive DRM, etc. All documents are confidential but can be cited and used in the mid-term evaluation process. The information which could harm any stakeholder if published should be treated confidentially. The decision about the publication is the right of GRC and PRCS.

Further sources of information include project stakeholders (GRC, PRCS HQ, provincial-level staff, climate champions, and key external stakeholders listed in the sections above) that are to be interviewed by the consultants.

4.4 Methodology

The evaluation team should use the available secondary data for analysis. For the collection of primary data, participatory approach should be applied. The bidders must explain detailed approach and techniques in their proposals considering the nature of the project. 

The IFRC standards for evaluation* should be respected and are the framework and basis for any evaluation activity executed by a consultant under GRC contract.

5. Evaluation process with timetable and deliverables 

5.1 Timetable

The consultancy assignment needs to be completed within 24 days from the signing of the contract. The bidders have to submit detailed workplan in their technical proposals. It must include; introductory meeting, desk review of relevant documents, inception report along with tools, meeting with project team on inception report, data collection, analysis & initial reporting, finding validation workshop, and final report. We have plans to complete whole exercise by end of mid of August 2026.

5.2 Deliverables

All deliverables need to be submitted in English language.

5.2.1 Inception report

The review team is expected to deliver an inception report (max. 5 pages and based on the format of the final report chosen by the consultants) in which they detail how they understand and plan to execute the task after having analysed the available secondary documentation. It offers the opportunity for both sides to clarify the ToR, in particular scope, questions, methodology and expected results, and agree on potential adjustments. The inception report should contain:

• Key data of the review exercise (related to the project, commissioning agency, main purpose of the review etc.)

• Feedback on and suggested amendments to the ToR (scope, questions etc.)

• Proposed approach (design, methods, limitations, sources of information, details on data collection process etc.)

• Draft data collection, analysis approaches and tools. 

• Details on the execution of the review (timetable, team roles, distribution of tasks, deliverables, support required etc.)

• Observation of ethical standards and data protection aspects

• Further aspects as needed

The inception report will be discussed with evaluation steering committee. Any changes of the ToR need an agreement of both parties because they might change the conditions and, thereby, the contract between GRC and the evaluation team. 

5.2.2 Preliminary report

All findings, conclusions and recommendations including the evaluation methodology should be described and presented by the evaluator/s in a short preliminary evaluation report. The results of the preliminary report will first of all be discussed with evaluation steering committee and will serve as basis for the preparation of the evaluation workshop. The report will be presented by the evaluator/s in the evaluation workshop.

5.2.3 Validation workshop 

Representatives of stakeholders and the evaluator/s will come together in the evaluation workshop. The workshop will be organized in order to discuss and validate findings, lessons learned and recommendations proposed by the evaluator/s. Stakeholders might formulate additional recommendations if necessary. Possible content of an evaluation workshop:  

• Presentation and discussion of the preliminary evaluation report 

• Validation of lessons learnt and recommendations by all stakeholders 

• Collection of additional observations or recommendations

It is expected that the evaluator/s present a structure for the workshop as part of their preliminary report. GRC and PRCS are responsible for the workshop preparation and all related logistics.

5.2.4 Final report

The final report should consider the stakeholders' validation during the validation workshop. The consultant will give his/her recommendations but should incorporate the validation process during the workshop in the final report, including additional recommendations from the workshop participants. The report will have to be approved by evaluation steering committee. 

The final report should, as a minimum, include the following elements:

• Factsheet with key data of the evaluation, incl. main findings and recommendations (1 page)

• Executive summary – a tightly drafted, to-the-point, free standing document (minimum 2 page & max 5 pages) with the following, fixed structure: 

1. Short project description

2. Purpose, scope, & Methodology 

3. Key findings - (Structured (if applicable) along the OECD DAC criteria: Relevance / Effectiveness / Efficiency / Sustainability / Impact) 

4. Lessons learned 

5. Major recommendations (Mainly general recommendations)

• Introduction – with purpose of the evaluation, scope, key questions, short description of the project to be evaluated and relevant framework conditions.

• Evaluation design and methodology

• Key findings with regard to the questions pointed out in the ToR 

• Conclusions based on evidence and analysis

• Recommendations as expected in the ToR, which are relevant and feasible and targeted to the respective audience

• Lessons learnt, as generalizations of conclusions for a wider use.

• Annexes (ToR, list of consulted persons/organisations, List of documents reviewed, literature, etc.)

The steering committee will analyse the final report, especially the feasibility of the recommendations proposed by the reviewer/s.  

5.3 Responsibilities and duties 

The GRC office in Pakistan will:

• Review the applications received, select and contract the consultant/s

• Ensure payments in line with the agreed schedule/deliverables.

• The Head of Office (GRC) / Program Coordinator (GRC) will chair the steering committee. 

• Approve the final report. 

• Address the queries/questions of potential bidders received through email. 

The PRCS HQ, provincial team and GRC Islamabad will provide:

• All necessary/required project documents.

• Liaison with stakeholders, provincial branches for meetings, FGDs etc.

The consultant…

• Will be responsible for the implementation of the assignment as per agreed details.

• Will follow the timeframe agreed in the consultancy agreement and shall communicate any unforeseen changes as soon as possible to the evaluation steering committee. 

• Will prepare and facilitate the validation workshop.

• Will timely deliver the draft and final reports to the steering committee.

• Will submit invoices timely to GRC procurement department as per agreement. 

6. Evaluation quality and ethical standards

The evaluator/s should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the assignment 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 assignment is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted transparently and impartially, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability, adhering to the IFRC Standards for Evaluations.

7. Dissemination of evaluation results and their application

• The final report will be disseminated among GRC, PRCS, and BMZ for information and decision making. 

• The executive summary of the report will be published on the GRC webpage. 

• GRC and PRCS shall use the accepted recommendations to improve the implementation process of the project's remaining period. The follow-up should be organized, and a respective plan should be developed and implemented in an agreed timespan to ensure the application of the recommendations by the user group of the assignment.

8. Application details

1. Consultant/firm eligibility

Firm: It must have valid registration in country of assignment, have experience in evaluating development programs/projects, the evaluation of climate change programs/projects is preferred. 

Individual: The potential lead consultant has the following qualification and experience: 

• A university degree in a relevant field of study (climate change, development, disaster management, social sciences, monitoring, and evaluation)

• Proven experience in evaluating development programs, preferably programs aimed at achieving change at different levels (government, civil society, community).

• Knowledge and experience in the field of climate change policy and programming, preferably knowledge of the climate change context and policy arrangements in Pakistan

• Sound knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its way of working is an asset.

• Knowledge of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and social structural funding is an asset.

2. Proposal submission 

The interested consultant/firm must submit the following. 

1. Technical proposal: 

• It includesa Statement of eligibility including details of similar assignment,

• 02 sample reports (complete or summary),

• proposed design, methodology,

• consultancy workplan

• team details along with their responsibilities in this assignment, and updated CV (s

• In-case of firm, the brief profile must be submitted along with proposal. 

2. Financial proposal: The duly signed financial proposal as a lump sum fee in PKR (not split into parts like travel, accommodation, per day, etc. Please use the table below for your financial proposal), covering all associated costs of the consultancy.

Note: The offer should be inclusive of all travel and other associated cost to complete the assignment except the validation workshop which will be PRCS and GRC responsibility.  

3. Selection/Awards:

The selection of the consultant/firm will be completed in two steps: 

1. Shortlisting based on the initial review of submitted proposals by following criteria mentioned under section 8.4 

2. Presentation / discussion with 3 to 5 top scorer consultants/firms. 

Note: The bidders are prohibited from presenting new documents that were not submitted with the offer. Presentations may not exceed 30 minutes including question & answers. 

GRC & PRCS reserves the right to continue further communication for any clarification after the submission of quotes via a combination of media (e.g., post, email, phone). GRC & PRCS may but is not obliged to ask each tenderer individually for clarification regarding their quote within a reasonable time limit, to be determined by the evaluation committee.

4. Evaluation criteria

The decision for the award of the contract will be determined via credit points assigned to the dossiers submitted according to the following criteria: 

• The financial proposal/offered price: 40% (the lower the price gets more points).

• Technical Proposal and Presentation: 60%. 

1. 25% Statement of eligibility with details of similar assignments. 

2. 25% Design, Methodology. 

3. 10% Presentation