Description de l'offre

CRISIS RESPONSE WITH THE FOCUS ON FOOD SECURITY, WASH INTERVENTIONS, AND HEALTH CARE IN WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA
FUNDED BY [GFFO]

SUMMARY TABLE
Country Office Name    Cameroon
Contract Number    M2C
GFFO reference number: PF-2Team2-321.50/AFR/REG/AcF/2023/01
Partners (if applicable)    Health Districts
Location (country/ies, region/s)    Cameroon
Project title     Rapid response to basic needs and nutrition security for populations affected by the crisis in West & Central Africa.
Sector(s)     Health and Nutrition (HN); Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS)
Duration    3 Years 
Starting Date    July 2023
Ending Date    June 2026
Donor    GFFO
Evaluation Type    External Final Evaluation
Evaluation Dates    29 May 2026 to 30 July 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS    3
1.    PROJECT BACKGROUND    4
2.    PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION    6
3.    EVALUATION SCOPE    10
4.    EVALUATION APPROACH AND QUESTIONS    10
•    EVALUATION CRITERIA TABLE    11
5.    METHODOLOGY    12
•    QUANTITATIVE COMPONENT – HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (INCLUDING FMSNA)    13
•    QUALITATIVE COMPONENT – FGDS, KIIS, OBSERVATIONS    14
•    IMPORTANT METHODOLOGICAL DISTINCTION    14
•    FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTATION    14
6.    KEY DELIVERABLES    15
7.    MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKPLAN    16
•    TENTATIVE WORKPLAN    17
8.    PROFILE OF THE EVALUATOR    17
9.    LOGISTIC AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS    18
10.    CONSTITUTION OF THE TENDER    18
11.    LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS    19
12.    ANNEX    19


ACRONYMS 
ACF    Action Contre la Faim
AAP    Accountability to Affected Populations
CMAM    Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition
ICCM+    Integrated Community Case Management Plus
DAC    Development Assistance Committee (OECD)
FCS    Food Consumption Score
FGDs    Focus Group Discussions
FMSNA    Focused Multi-Sectoral Needs Assessment (led by ACF)
FSL    Food Security and Livelihoods
GBV    Gender-Based Violence
GFFO    German Federal Foreign Office
HDDS    Household Dietary Diversity Score
HHS    Household Hunger Scale
HN    Health and Nutrition
IDPs    Internally Displaced Persons
KIIs    Key Informant Interviews
LCSI    Livelihood Coping Strategy Index
M&E    Monitoring and Evaluation
MEAL    Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
MHPSS    Mental Health and Psychosocial Support
MSNA    Multi-Sectoral Needs Assessment (IOM/CHINGO)
NGO    Non-Governmental Organization
OECD    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PLW    Pregnant and Lactating Women
RCSI    Reduced Coping Strategy Index
RRM    Rapid Response Mechanism
SAM    Severe Acute Malnutrition
ToR    Terms of Reference
UN    United Nations
WASH    Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
1.    PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Project Objectives
Objective of the project       The objective of the project is to contribute to the reduction of morbidity and mortality and improved well-being for crisis-affected populations.
Expected outcomes and indicators     The outcomes of the planned project are as follows: 
Outcome 1: To improve access to basic shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition & health services through life-saving rapid response programs for displaced populations.
    Ind 1: % of target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices. Target: 20% improvement.
    Ind 2: % of beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex, age and diversity) reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible and participatory manner. Target: >80%.
    Ind 3: Recovery rate of SAM Case Management. Target: >75%.
    Ind 4:% of targeted population reporting access to safe health services at mobile clinics and health facilities. Target: 75%.

Outcome 2: To improve nutrition security of crisis-affected populations and resilience to future shocks through community-based approaches.
    Ind 1: of households that reduced their rCSI score after intervention. Target: 70%.
    Ind 2: % of targeted population benefiting from mental health activities show an improvement in their well-being by the end of the intervention. Target: 85%.
    Ind 3: % of households reducing their Household Hunger Scale (HHS) between the beginning and end of the intervention. Target: 70%.
Main activities implemented      The project aims to improve access to emergency shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition and health services, and to increase overall food security for vulnerable populations in acute crises and shocks through emergency life-saving programs. ACF participates in national rapid response mechanisms (RRMs) in all four countries. The integration of specific emergency health, WASH, food, and nutrition interventions into the joint RRM framework is based on existing needs that are not being met by RRM interventions in targeted areas. The proposed interventions will enable the provision of a full package of services to displaced and host populations and broaden the range of assistance to crisis-affected populations to reduce the need for humanitarian assistance and improve the resilience of populations to future shocks through community-based approaches. 
1.    Improving access to emergency shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene, and nutrition and health services through life-saving emergency assistance programs for displaced people 
Improving access to emergency shelter, WASH facilities, and nutrition and health services through life-saving emergency assistance programs for displaced populations.
In Nigeria, approximately 5,000 people will benefit from emergency water supply through water trucking by installing storage tanks/bladders with standpipes for users in formal and informal camps. Approximately 20,000 people recently displaced or affected by communicable diseases/floods will benefit from rapid rehabilitation of existing water supplies. Only in rare, severe cases where water needs are very high and there is no other alternative, will ACF provide safe water by truck with an appropriate exit strategy. Similarly, emergency sanitation services will be provided through the construction of gender-specific emergency latrines, rehabilitation/repair/sludging of existing latrines. ACF will train a gender-balanced group of community volunteers to work with project staff to facilitate access to female beneficiaries. Recently displaced IDPs, returnees, and host communities from formal or informal IDP camps will be targeted through the distribution of gender-sensitive hygiene kits, shelter kits, and NFI kits as recommended in the RRM strategy. 
Rapid response to nutritional, health, and mental health emergencies for displacement affected populations and vulnerable host communities through mobile clinics and in health facilities 
In Chad and Cameroon, specific emergency health and nutrition interventions will be implemented alongside the joint Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) framework, as the needs in the targeted areas are not covered by RRM interventions. The proposed interventions will enable the provision of a full package of services to the displaced and host populations with mobile clinics. Through these mobile clinics and support to health facilities, the project will also improve the coverage of primary health care needs for the host population. In addition, the project will support health facilities in implementing Phase 1 of the National Health Coverage Strategy through a model of performance-based financing for supported health facilities in maternal, newborn, and infant health services. In addition, donations of drugs and medical supplies, monitoring and supervision of drug management, joint epidemic preparedness and response workshops, and epidemiological surveillance training will be provided. Patients who show signs of severe malnutrition when treated by community health workers are referred to the health center, and patients who show signs of severe malnutrition when treated by mobile clinics are referred to the district hospital. SAM- children (severe acute malnutrition) and their caregivers receive treatment kits and instructions on how to use them. 
2.    Improving the food security of crisis-affected populations and resilience to future shocks through community-based approaches. 
Community-based approaches to treating simple childhood illnesses, prevention, and health and nutrition surveillance are strengthened in affected populations. 
In Cameroon, the project will strengthen ACF's ongoing community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) together with integrated community-based case management for malnutrition (ICCM+), ensuring continuity of the current AA-funded pilot. Based on the need assessment and implementation by partners, ICCM+ will be expanded to new health areas. In the health areas currently funded by the AA, lessons learned will be shared with the health district, ensuring the provision of resources by national agencies. 
People affected by the crisis receive high-quality psychological and psychosocial care and improve their well-being 
In Cameroon, ACF will partner with the RRM team to implement MHPSS interventions for emotional stabilization and psychological resource strengthening, delivered in groups for children over 6 (girls and boys) and adults (men and women), with a special focus on pregnant and lactating women (PLW). Domestic violence has continued to increase dramatically, according to GBVIMS. To reduce this vulnerability among the population, ACF plans to establish psychosocial support groups targeting children, adolescents, women, and men.
In the Central African Republic, ACF will provide tailored psychological support to communities affected by the shock. The proposed intervention aims to address needs not covered by the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM). It is primarily intended to complement the activities of the Rapid Response Mechanism by addressing the mental health and psychosocial needs of crisis-affected communities. 
Meeting the immediate food and recovery needs of people affected by the crisis. 
In Chad, ACF will implement emergency food assistance activities (mainly during the lean season), complemented by a package of activities to support early livelihood recovery for communities regularly affected by displacement, insecurity, and climate shocks. In the Central African Republic, food assistance and early livelihood recovery interventions are being implemented in response to the unstable situation by distributing agricultural inputs to households affected by the shocks. The proposed intervention aims to address needs not covered by the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM), which currently only provides support in the form of household essential items and WASH. However, under this new project, ACF intends to support communities that are in dire need of food but do not have the meet the usual criteria of the RRM.

The project logframe is attached in Annex I.

•    An external final evaluation of the previous GFFO-funded project “Multisectoral Emergency Response in Shelter, Nutrition and Health, and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), for populations affected by crises in the Lake Chad Basin in Cameroon and Nigeria was conducted in 2023. A report is available.

1.2 Project Current Status
The project is currently in its final phase of implementation, approaching closure in June 2026. Overall, implementation has progressed in line with initial planning, although some delays have been observed due to security constraints, access limitations to certain areas, and operational challenges related to logistics and coordination across multiple countries. Some activities, particularly those relying on community-based approaches (such as iCCM+ and MHPSS interventions), experienced localized delays in scale-up due to capacity constraints and contextual factors. However, these delays were partially mitigated through adaptive management measures.

Several outputs have been successfully achieved or are on track to be achieved before the end of the project, particularly in terms of service delivery (health, nutrition, WASH) and emergency response interventions. Minor adjustments have been made to implementation modalities in response to contextual changes (e.g. access constraints, population movements), while the overall objectives of the project have remained unchanged. 

2.    PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
2.1 Rationale for the Evaluation

This evaluation is conducted at the end of the project to assess its overall performance, results, and added value. It aimed to provide an opportunity to inform decision-making for future programming cycles and affected populations, local partners, ACF teams, and the donor (GFFO).

The evaluation is also driven by a dual objective of accountability and learning. On the one hand, it aims to provide credible, independent, and evidence-based findings on the extent to which the project has achieved its intended objectives. On the other hand, it seeks to capture lessons learned and identify good practices that can inform the design and implementation of future emergency and resilience interventions in the targeted sectors.

In addition, the evaluation will include a complementary objective related to the implementation of a targeted ACF- led Focused Multi-Sectoral Assessment (FMSNA). The aim of this assessment is to identify critical gaps and vulnerabilities within the most vulnerable IDP, returnee, and host community populations, with a specific focus on hard-to-reach areas and zones most impacted by the ongoing crisis.  This will provide specialized data on ACF’s core sectors to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the crisis's multi-dimensional impact in the most affected communities, and enrich the external evaluation. 
To minimize duplication of efforts and reduce survey fatigue among affected populations, the FMSNA will be carefully designed to be geographically and thematically complementary to the existing assessments, prioritizing underserved/Crisis areas and key information gaps.
2.2 Objectives of the Evaluation
The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the overall performance of the project against its intended outcomes and outputs, using the OECD DAC evaluation criteria.

Specifically, the evaluation aims to:
     Assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and coherence of the intervention;
     Analyze the quality and appropriateness of the integrated multi-sectoral approach
     Identify key achievements, challenges, and factors influencing performance
     Assess cross-cutting issues including gender, disability, protection, inclusion of vulnerable groups, and accountability to affected populations
     Provide actionable and evidence-based recommendations for future programming
     Deliver credible, rigorous, and operationally useful findings that can directly inform decision-making and improve future interventions.
In addition, the evaluation will include a complementary objective regarding the FMSNA:
     Generate updated, gap-focused  and sector-specific data through a targeted Focused Multi-Sectoral Assessment, in order to strengthen the evidence base on remaining needs for stakeholder advocacy and ACF ‘s strategic planning. 
The FMSNA component will be fully aligned with the evaluation design and integrated within the overall data collection strategy.
Sector
(FMSNA -  Far North)    Key domains of analysis    Indicative data collection methods
WASH    Access to water (including barriers); hygiene knowledge and practices; sanitation; gender roles in water collection    Household survey, FGDs
HEALTH    Access to and use of health services (including barriers); vaccination; main health issues; coping strategies    Household survey, KIIs
NUTRITION    Infant and young child feeding practices (including breastfeeding); access to nutrition services; dietary diversity (PLW and children)    Household survey
FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS    Food access constraints; FCS, HDDS; Food and Livelihood coping strategies (rCSI, LCSI)    Household survey
MENTAL HEALTH & PROTECTION    Safety and security concerns; access to services for people with disabilities; perceived well-being    FGDs, KIIs, self-reporting tools
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND ANTICIPATORY ACTIONS
    Key risks and shocks affecting affected populations
Community knowledge, access to, and trust in local early warning, anticipatory action, and crisis response mechanisms    HH Survey, KIIs

The above domains are indicative and may be refined by the evaluator during the inception phase, based on data availability, complementarity with assessment reports, and identified preliminary priority information gaps.

2.3 Use and users of the Evaluation 
The External final evaluation findings will be used for multiple purposes:
     Instrumental use:
    To inform the design of future programmes and potential scale-up of successful approaches
    To adjust strategic orientations in emergency response and resilience programming.

     Process use:
    To strengthen internal reflection, learning processes, and programme quality improvement across sectors covered
    To improve MEAL practices and adaptive management approaches.

     Conceptual use:
    To deepen understanding of integrated approaches (health, nutrition, and MHPSS) in emergency contexts like the intervention zones in Cameroon
    To contribute to organizational and sectoral knowledge.

     The main users of the evaluation include:
    ACF country office teams (programme, MEAL, coordination)
    ACF headquarters technical advisors and ACF Germany
    Donor (GFFO);
    Local authorities and partners.

Users will be involved through participation in key stages of the evaluation process, including validation of the methodology, participation in data collection (KIIs), and feedback on draft findings. 

2.4 Dissemination plan
The dissemination of evaluation findings aims to promote learning, support accountability, and inform decision-making. Findings will be shared internally and externally through appropriate channels and formats to maximize uptake and use.

Audience    Objective    Tools used for dissemination    Forum    Who will be in charge?    Timeline
Identify who will be interested in the evaluation final product? Who needs to be informed about the main findings?     What do we expect from sharing the main evaluation findings? Share information? Contribution to knowledge? Creating changes? Actions?     I.e. report sharing, briefings, meetings, articles, presentations, and discussion, etc.     Do we identify existing forums (i.e. country office coordination meetings) that could be used to disseminate the findings?     Who is responsible for ensuring the dissemination?     When will the dissemination happen? 
ACF Country Team    Improve programme quality and decision-making    Presentation, full report    Coordination meetings
Dedicated Meeting    MEAL Coordinator
Evaluation lead     After validation
ACF HQ and ACF Germany    Inform global learning and strategy    Executive summary, report    Technical meetings
Dedicated Meeting    Evaluation lead    After validation
Donor (GFFO)    Accountability and reporting    Final report, summary    Formal submission    Country Director/Deputy Country Director    As per ACF Germany and Donor deadline
Local authorities    Share key findings and recommendations    Summary report    Online sharing/ Physical transmission    Field Coordinator/ Deputy Field Coordinator    After validation of Country Director
Partners (Local health authorities)    Strengthen collaboration and learning    Summary report    Online sharing / Physical transmission    Field Coordinator/ Country Director    After validation of Country Director


 
3.    EVALUATION SCOPE
3.1. Elements covered by the evaluation
The evaluation will cover the entire project implemented in Cameroon, with a focus on intervention areas in Mayo Sava, Mayo Tsanaga, and Mayo Danay.  The primary level of analysis for statistically significant findings will be the overall project level. Findings may be further disaggregated at sub-national level (per health district/or health area) to provide contextual insights, although such disaggregation will remain indicative due to sample size limitations. 

All technical sectors will be included: Health, Nutrition, and MHPSS. The evaluation will assess the full results chain, including inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Attention will be given to key approaches such as mobile clinics, community-based approaches, and integrated service delivery.

The evaluation will include both direct beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders (community members, local authorities, and health partners).

In addition, the evaluation will draw on secondary data from the partners assessments reports and will integrate a complementary Focused Multi-Sectoral Assessment (FMSNA) to fill identified sectoral and geographic gaps. These elements will contribute to strengthening the overall evidence base and ensuring a comprehensive understanding of needs, outcomes, and contextual factors.

 3.2. Cross-cutting issues
The evaluation will systematically assess cross-cutting issues in line with ACF policies, including:
     Gender equality and women’s empowerment
     Protection and GBV risk mitigation
     Inclusion of persons with disabilities and vulnerable groups
     Accountability to affected populations (AAP), including feedback and complaints mechanisms;
     Conflict sensitivity and “Do No Harm” principles
     Environmental considerations where relevant.
4.    EVALUATION APPROACH AND QUESTIONS
The evaluation will be guided by OECD DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, and coherence).
Criteria    Assessment     Assessment questions
coherence    Assess in which measure the project intervention was aligned with the needs and priorities of affected populations and local health system. Were targeting and design appropriate? Was intervention adapted to context changes?
Assess whether the project is compatible with existing ones, as well as with international and national policies and strategies, to ensure overall coherence, optimize synergies, and minimize duplication.
Relevance     Assesses whether the intervention is aligned with local priorities and needs (as well as with national and local health policies, thereby increasing ownership, accountability and cost-effectiveness).
Efficiency    Assess the extent to which resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are cost-effectively converted into results. Were activities implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner? How efficient were delivery mechanisms?
Effectiveness    Assess the extent to which the objectives of the interventions have been achieved, considering their relative importance and demonstrating the effectiveness of the approach adopted by ACF. What factors enabled or hindered achievement? How effective were integrated approaches?
Assess whether the interventions address the need to reach key population groups whose lives are at risk, wherever they may be
Sustainability and impact    Assesses whether the benefits of the project are likely to endure after the withdrawal of donor funding and the official cessation of activities. The first signs of positive and negative effects, primary and secondary, in the short, medium or long term, produced by this intervention, whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally
An additional perspective to consider
Contribution Analysis and Explanatory Mechanisms         What change mechanisms contributed to the achievement or non-achievement of the expected results? 
     What contextual, institutional, operational, or security-related factors influenced the observed outcomes and effects? 
     To what extent can the observed changes reasonably be attributed to the intervention, considering the influence of external factors?
Learning         What strategic lessons can be drawn from the implementation of this intervention to inform the design and implementation of future similar programmes? 
     Which approaches, practices, or implementation modalities proved most effective and should be replicated, adapted, or scaled up? 
     What key challenges and innovations emerged during implementation, and how can they inform future humanitarian programming?

     EVALUATION CRITERIA TABLE
The evaluation will adopt a qualitative assessment approach structured around the OECD DAC criteria. Instead of assigning numerical scores, the evaluator will provide an evidence-based analysis for each criterion. A summary matrix will be included in the report (in the executive summary and/or main body), presenting the following elements for each evaluation criterion:
Criteria    Key Findings    Strengths    Limitations / Challenges    Supporting Evidence    Implications / Recommendations
Coherence                    
Relevance                    
Efficiency                    
Effectiveness                    
Sustainability & Impact                    
Accountability (cross-cutting criteria)                    

 Nota bene: The evaluator may adapt the evaluation criteria and questions, but any fundamental changes should be agreed between the ACF team and the evaluator and reflected in the inception report.

5.    METHODOLOGY
5.1 Data Collection methodology 
This evaluation will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data from both primary and secondary sources. The collected data will be structured and analyzed in alignment with the specific evaluation criteria established for this mandate. In accordance with professional ethical standards, the methodology transversally integrates equity and gender considerations (this includes disaggregation of data by Sex, Age, and Disability), Attention will be paid to gender-segregated focus groups where appropriate. This approach ensures full and safe participation of women, marginalized groups.
To ensure the robustness of the findings, data collection could be structured around five core pillars:
     Desk Review: An in-depth analysis of project framework documents, including action plans, progress/achievement reports, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data (Baseline; satisfaction survey; feedback days reports; Logframe follow-up; Activities progress reports; etc.). Findings from the 2023 final evaluation of the previous GFFO-funded project “Multisectoral Emergency Response in Shelter, Nutrition and Health, and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), for populations affected by crises in the Lake Chad Basin in Cameroon and Nigeria” should be taken into account. Relevant outputs from the last MSNA database will be included as part of the desk review and secondary data analysis.
     Semi-Structured Interviews: In-depth individual interviews with key stakeholders, including ACF (ACF) implementation teams, as well as institutional and technical partners.
     Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Targeted group discussions with direct, indirect, and non-beneficiaries, as well as community leaders and representatives of internally displaced persons (IDPs).
     Direct Observation and quantitative Household survey: Field visits to villages, communities, and IDP sites to contextualize project achievements in the ground. The profiles sought for the household surveys will be those identified at the start of the project: displaced persons, people living far from community health centres; vulnerable people; etc. Where relevant, the household survey tools will incorporate selected modules aligned with the FMSNA to capture priority indicators not covered by existing datasets. 
Primary field data will be enriched and cross-referenced through institutional and sector-specific interviews with:
     Local Authorities and Community Leaders: Village chiefs, and IDP representatives; Local health authorities.
     Humanitarian Actors: ACF program coordination and base teams, Sectoral Cluster Leads (specifically Health and Nutrition).
     State Technical Services in charge of public health; social affairs or women and family.
To guarantee the validity and reliability of the conclusions, a double triangulation strategy will be applied:
     Triangulation of Sources: Cross-examining the perspectives of direct beneficiaries against those of key informants and institutional stakeholders.
     Triangulation of Methods: Comparing quantitative data (household surveys or available data) with qualitative findings (focus groups and direct observations).
Particular attention will be paid to ensuring complementarity of primary data collection expected (including the FMSNA), minimizing respondent burden. The FMSNA component will therefore remain targeted, focusing on priority information gaps and, where possible, different geographic areas. The FMSNA is not intended to generate fully representative results at sub-national level but to complement evaluation findings with targeted, operationally relevant data across ACF sectors of intervention.
The implementation of this methodology is subject to external constraints that will require mitigation:
     Potential unavailability of certain target groups or institutional officials.
     Geographical or security access constraints in reaching specific direct and indirect beneficiary groups (the survey could rely exclusively on qualitative data collection).
     The risk of non-response or reluctance to participate from certain key stakeholders.
5.2. Sampling
To ensure both robustness and depth of analysis, the evaluation will adopt a mixed sampling strategy, clearly distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.
     Quantitative component – Household Survey (including FMSNA)
The household survey, including modules related to the FMSNA, will follow a probability-based sampling approach. This approach aims to:
    ensure the statistical robustness and credibility of quantitative findings
    allow for valid inference at the overall project level
    generate reliable data on key outcome indicators, beneficiary perceptions, and sectoral needs.

A multi-stage cluster sampling strategy (or equivalent probability-based method) will be applied, depending on feasibility and updated sampling frames. The final sample size and clustering approach will be mutually agreed during the inception phase, taking into account:
    population size and distribution
    planned level of precision and confidence
    operational constraints (access, security, time).
The FMSNA component will be fully integrated within the household survey, using selected modules to capture priority indicators not sufficiently covered by existing datasets. The sampling design will ensure that:
    data collection remains complementary to ongoing assessments
    duplication of efforts is minimized
    coverage prioritizes relevant intervention areas and key information gaps.
     Qualitative component – FGDs, KIIs, Observations
Qualitative data collection will follow a purposive sampling approach, designed to capture diverse perspectives, experiences, and contextual insights.
This includes:
    Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
    Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
    Direct observations.

Participants will be selected based on their relevance to the evaluation objectives, ensuring inclusion of different population groups and stakeholder categories.

Homogeneous group composition will be applied for FGDs (e.g., by gender, age, or displacement status), in order to:
    create safe and non-intimidating environments
    ensure participation of women and vulnerable groups
    improve data quality and depth of discussion.
     Important methodological distinction
The evaluation design explicitly distinguishes between:
    Probability-based sampling for the household survey (quantitative) to ensure statistical validity
    Purposive sampling for qualitative components, aimed at generating in-depth and context-rich insights.
This distinction ensures methodological rigor and avoids ambiguity between analytical purposes and levels of inference.
     Flexibility and adaptation
The evaluator is expected to refine and validate the sampling strategy in the inception report, including:
    sample sizes and allocation
    cluster selection and geographic coverage
    integration of FMSNA modules within the quantitative survey.
Adjustments may be made based on:
    security and access constraints
    availability of communities and stakeholders
    complementarity with MSNA coverage.
Note: The evaluator is expected to adjust, refine, and formalize the final sample sizes, targets, methodologies and geographic clusters within the Inception Report based on available project information, security and access constraints as well as security and access constraints. 
5.3 Selection and Inclusion Criteria
To ensure validity and avoid arbitrary bias, the evaluator will apply a structured set of selection criteria:
    Vulnerability & Demographic Status: Proportional inclusion of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), host communities, female-headed households, and persons with specific vulnerabilities (elderly, disabled).
    Level of Exposure to Project Benefits: Categorization of respondents based on the type of assistance received (e.g., direct beneficiaries of Project Intervention vs. indirect beneficiaries).
    Geographic Variation: Selection of intervention sites based on operational realities—contrasting easily accessible/peri-urban sites with remote, hard-to-reach, or highly conflict-affected communities.
5.4 Sampling Matrix and Scenarios

Data Collection Tool    Sampling Approach    Key Purpose    Target / Inclusion Criteria
Household Survey (incl. FMSNA modules)    Probability-based (cluster sampling or equivalent)    Generate statistically robust quantitative data at project level    Households in intervention areas; focus on vulnerable groups (IDPs, host communities, etc.)
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)    Purposive sampling    Capture perceptions, experiences, and community dynamics    Homogeneous groups (gender, age, displacement status); beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)    Expert purposive sampling    Gather institutional, technical, and operational insights    ACF staff, local authorities, cluster leads, technical partners
Observations    Criterion-based sampling    Contextual understanding of implementation and service delivery    Selected sites reflecting different operational realities

5.4 Risk Mitigation: Convenience vs. Purposive Scenarios
    Best-Case Scenario (Strict Purposive Sampling): The consultant will work with ACF program lists beforehand to identify and invite specific profiles (e.g., "MHPSS beneficiaries; SAM children guardian; Pregnant women who benefit from ANC; Breastfeeding mothers who benefited from PNC; CHW; Health personnel; etc."). This ensures high-quality, targeted data.
    Worst-Case Scenario (Convenience & Snowball Sampling): In the event of sudden insecurity, road closures, or low community availability, teams will pivot to convenience sampling (interviewing accessible individuals at health centers supported or in a safe place). To mitigate bias, snowball sampling will be used—asking initial respondents to point out less visible or more marginalized neighbors to ensure the evaluation does not only hear from the most vocal community members.
Inception Report Expectation: The evaluator must review ACF’s actual field data and security constraints during the inception phase. The final Inception Report will define the exact number of planned surveys, FGDs, and KIIs per location based on this purposive framework.
6.    KEY DELIVERABLES
The following are the evaluation deliverables the evaluator will deliver to ACF: 

Deliverables    Provisional Deadlines
Inception Report (including the evaluation questions mapping tool)     28 June  2026
Draft Evaluation Report    13 July 2026
Final Evaluation Report    23 July 2026
Evaluation restitution    28 July 2026

All outputs must be submitted both in English and French and follow the format shared by ACF. 

A steering committee will be set up to ensure rigorous follow-up and validation of this activity. Its composition is as follows:

Member of Steering Committee    Function    Comments
MEAL Coordinator (Evaluation Lead)    Lead of the survey    Overall coordination of the evaluation process ensures methodological quality and compliance with ACF MEAL standards on evaluation. 
Liaises with the consultant, collect all the feedback, and pass it on to the consultant.
MEAL Manager    Technical Field support    Provides operational guidance, support the consultant in accordance with the methodology and key deliverables, share M&E relevant project data
Projects Manager    Program coordination    Organize with support departments the consultants field Mission, facilitates access to field teams and local stakeholders, review reports
Sectoral Heads of Departments    Technical inputs    Provide sector-specific expertise and contribute to the validation data collection tools, findings and recommendations
Field Coordinator/ Deputy Field Coordinator
Deputy country Director/ Country Director    Global Coordination    Ensures that the activity is effectively implemented, approves the final deliverables and ensures that the evaluation results are disseminated both internally and externally

The quality of the deliverables will be assessed by, discussed with and approved by the Steering Committee, with the strong participation of technical referents at HQ and ROWCA level. 
7.    MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKPLAN
     The evaluator will directly report to the evaluation lead. 
     The evaluator will submit all the evaluation outputs directly and only to the evaluation lead. The evaluation lead will forward a copy to the steering committee for comments/feedback/review. The evaluation lead will consolidate the comments and send these to the evaluator by date agreed between the steering committee and the evaluator or as soon as the comments are received from the steering committee. 
     The evaluator will consider all comments to finalize deliverables and will submit it to the evaluation lead for a second review. If the steering committee still has comments/feedback, others back and forth will be done. Then, the evaluation lead will share the final version of the report with the steering committee and relevant stakeholders (according to the dissemination plan).
     Tentative Workplan
Activities    Evaluator Working Days    Dates
Design of the ToRs and evaluation questions mapping    3 Days    29 May 2026
Set up of the steering committee and identification of the evaluation lead     2 Days    2 June 2026
Identification of the evaluator    10 Days    19 June 2026
Drafting and signing of the contract with the selected evaluator    4 Days    23 June 2026
Evaluator briefing (at Maroua Base)    0,5 Day    24 June 2026
Desk review and prepare Inception Report    Min. 4 Days    28 June 2026
Data collection    Min. 10 Days    29 June- 8 July 2026
Draft Report and Processed database    Min. 5 Days    13 July 2026
Back and forth between the consultant and ACF country office team     Min. 7 Days    17 July
Report finalization and validation by ACF Country and HQ Teams    Min. 3 Days    23 July 2026
Restitution meeting     0.5 Days    28 July  2026
Min Total of days (without double counting days):    44 Days    

8.    PROFILE OF THE EVALUATOR
The consultant should be an individual or a moral person. The principal background requested is:  
     Diplomas: at least Master level in Monitoring and Evaluation, social sciences; rural sociology; public health; project evaluation; a specialization in health, nutrition, anthropology or psychosocial field is an asset. 

     Experience and assets:  at least 2 years of experience in the provision of similar services with a good knowledge of the intervention zone and the Country health system. Experience in assessment of health projects in Cameroon or African context is a major asset. Added value if experience in evaluating GFFO-funded projects.

Fluent in French and English is an asset, both writing and speaking is mandatory. Knowledge of local language is an asset.

     Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation;
     Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work);
     Understanding of donor requirements;
     Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines;
     Independence from the parties involved.

9.    LOGISTIC AND SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 
The consultant must comply with the principles of ACF as mentioned in the "Procurement Policies"; with the security rules and its ethical code of data protection and safeguarding. The consultant evaluator will receive a security briefing from dedicated ACF staff upon arrival in Yaounde and Maroua base.  

10.    CONSTITUTION OF THE TENDER 
The tender file must consist of a technical and financial offer detailed as follows: 
 
The technical bid will briefly present (70%): 
     Brief description of the understanding of the terms of reference (10%) 
     Review and/ or inputs of the Methodology and approaches proposed for this survey (25%)
     Work plan including a provisional timetable (15%)
     Brief presentation of the consultant and, if applicable, his/her collaborators with their professional experience (Curriculum Vitae attached and university degrees)
     References with proof of delivery and acceptance of the work in target project area would be an advantage (20%). 
 
The financial and administrative offer will present (30%): 
For financial offer:  
     Details of the cost of the consultant's fees
     Details of the consultant's per diem and travel costs
     Various costs to produce working documents and reports as well as communication requirements and the proposed payment terms if applicable.  
 
For administrative component (Consultants/service providers who submit incomplete or outdated documents will be disqualified if not completed within 48 hours of the relevant notification):   
     Tax compliance certificate (up to date)
     Registration certificate (with taxpayer number)
     Location map
     Bank details
     Trade register. 
 
NB: the consultant will directly cover all support costs related to data collection (including payment of enumerators recruited by the consultant, vehicle rental, allowances for local guides and facilitators, as well as per diem and accommodation for ACF staff involved in data collection in the supported health areas).
The consultant will be responsible for covering all travel costs from his/her place of residence to Maroua and return, as well as all personal living expenses during the field mission. The financial proposal submitted by the consultant must therefore include costs related to national travel to Maroua, living expenses, professional fees, logistics costs (data collectors; car renting; etc.) and any other costs necessary for the proper implementation of the assignment within the defined timeframe.
  
The offers shall be transmitted, in electronic version with the subject "Administrative, Technical and Financial Offer-External Final Evaluation-ACF 2026" at the latest on 17th  June 2026 to the following address:  appel-offre@cm-actioncontrelafaim.org 


11.    LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS
The ownership of the draft and final documentation belongs to ACF. ACF is to be the main addressee of the evaluation, and its results might impact both operational and technical strategies. ACF is likely to share the results of the evaluation with the following groups:
•    Donor(s)
•    Governmental partners
•    Various coordination bodies

The consultant selected will not have any links to project management, or any other conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the evaluation.