External Evaluation Consultant

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is one of the world's largest international humanitarian non-governmental organizations (INGO), at work in more than 40 countries and 29 U.S. cities helping people to survive, reclaim control of their future and strengthen their communities. A force for humanity, IRC employees deliver lasting impact by restoring safety, dignity and hope to millions. If you're a solutions-driven, passionate change-maker, come join us in positively impacting the lives of millions of people world-wide for a better future. Project Title: Strengthening Communication, Coordination, and Improving Local Capacities and Partnerships in Libya 1. Background Libya has faced years of political instability, fragmented governance, and restricted civic space, creating significant challenges for humanitarian and development actors. Civil society organizations (CSOs), while critical for promoting rights and democratic participation, continue to operate under severe constraints, including unclear legal frameworks, limited resources, and shrinking operational space. International NGOs (INGOs) also face bureaucratic and security barriers that hinder effective coordination and advocacy. To address these challenges, the Libya INGO Forum (LIF) an independent network of INGOs hosted by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) implemented the project “Strengthening Communication, Coordination, and Improving Local Capacities and Partnerships in Libya” from September 2023 to August 2025. The project was funded by the European Union and designed to safeguard the rights of vulnerable populations by improving coordination among INGOs and CSOs and promoting evidence-based advocacy. The project’s overall objective is to strengthen the space for civil society engagement and coordination in Libya. Its specific objectives include: Promote civil rights, notably for the most vulnerable, through evidence-based advocacy. Strengthen inter-NGO operational, policy and advocacy coordination. Strengthening local capacity through promotion of organizational. Key activities under the project included: Develop analysis and messaging on issues affecting the response and critical challenges to the delivery of principled assistance in Libya Promoting coordinated and local advocacy approaches Development of creative communications materials for dissemination of evidence-based advocacy products Convene regular internal and external coordination meetings to enhance information-sharing, collaboration, and strategic support to local and international organizations. Strengthening information-sharing with LIF members and with external actors on a regular basis, including between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors. Conduct regular surveys of LIF members on key topics to improve coordination and inform joint advocacy. Provide a comprehensive mapping of the legal and regulatory framework for civil society in Libya Promote the inclusion of CSOs in existing international coordination fora. Chair/ Advise the CSO Coordination Group and strengthen its technical operationalization. Expand the localization pilot through mentorship, training, consultations, and development of a Libya localization roadmap to build sustainable CSO capacity and support democratic participation. Through these efforts, the project aimed to create a more coherent, inclusive, and sustainable coordination environment, enabling INGOs and CSOs to advocate effectively for the rights of vulnerable populations and contribute to Libya’s transition toward stability. 2. Scope of the Evaluation The end-line evaluation will be implemented in March–April 2026. The scope of the evaluation is the entire project and should cover achievements across all workstreams: Coordination and information sharing among INGOs and CSOs. Advocacy and policy positioning at national and international levels. Legal and regulatory mapping for civil society in Libya. CSO inclusion in coordination fora and strengthening of the CSO Coordination Group. Localization and capacity-building efforts , including mentorship, Training of Trainers (ToT), and development of the localization roadmap. Given the complex operating environment and potential access constraints, LIF/IRC will inform the consultant about security and feasibility before data collection begins and agree on appropriate methods, including remote options where necessary. 3. Objectives of the Evaluation The overall objective of the evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of project performance and results, generate lessons learned, and offer actionable recommendations for future programming. Specific Objectives of the Evaluation Assess project performance against its logical framework, focusing on outputs, outcomes, and overall objectives. Evaluate relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact, and sustainability of project strategies and activities. Review integration of cross-cutting themes, including accountability, inclusiveness, gender and age sensitivity, disability inclusion, conflict sensitivity, and Do No Harm principles. Document lessons learned and good practices and provide recommendations to strengthen coordination, advocacy, and localization efforts in future initiatives. 4. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation will be guided by the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and cross-cutting principles, adapted to the specific nature of the Libya INGO Forum (LIF) intervention, which focuses on coordination, advocacy, legal and regulatory analysis, CSO inclusion, and localization. The evaluator will assess performance at impact, outcome, and output levels , in line with the project Logical Framework. Evaluation Criterion: 1. Performance Against Project Objectives (Results) Objectives: Assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended impact, outcomes, and outputs as defined in the Logical Framework. Key Evaluation Questions To what extent did INGOs, CSOs, and key international stakeholders report improve coordination, information sharing, and advocacy because of LIF’s intervention (impact indicator)? To what extent were the three specific objectives achieved: Improved evidence-based advocacy? Strengthened inter-INGO operational, policy, and advocacy coordination? Improved CSO organizational capacity and sustainability through localization efforts? Were planned output delivered in line with targets and quality expectations (e.g. coordination meetings, advocacy products, legal mapping, CSO participation, mentorship and ToT)? 2. Relevance Objectives: Assess the alignment of the intervention with stakeholder needs, priorities, and the evolving Libyan context. Key Evaluation Questions To what extent was the project design and implementation aligned with the needs and priorities of INGOs, CSOs, and affected populations? Did the intervention remain relevant as the political, legal, and access context evolved during implementation? To what extent did the project promote localization by building on existing local capacities? Were coordination and advocacy processes inclusive, gender-sensitive, age-sensitive, and accessible to persons with disabilities? 3. Effectiveness Objectives: Assess how well project activities contributed to achieving intended outcomes. Key Evaluation Questions To what extent were stakeholders satisfied with LIF’s advocacy, analysis, and information provision? To what extent were LIF members satisfied with operational and policy coordination mechanisms? To what extent did participating in CSOs report improve organizational capacity, coordination skills, and sustainability? Which activities contributed most to observed changes, and which contributed least? 4. Efficiency Objectives: Assess whether resources were used optimally to achieve results in a highly constrained operating environment. Key Evaluation Questions Were financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to deliver planned outputs? Was implementation timely and adaptive to access, security, and political constraints? To what extent did remote and hybrid modalities improve efficiency without undermining participation, inclusiveness, or quality? 5. Sustainability Objective: Assess the likelihood that positive changes will continue beyond the project period. Key Evaluation Questions • To what extent are coordination mechanisms, advocacy practices, and CSO capacity gains likely to be sustained in the short and medium term? To what extent have coordination practices, CSO participation, and advocacy approaches been institutionalized within LIF and participating CSOs? Is there evidence that capacity gains from mentorship, ToT, and the localization roadmap will continue post-project? How do external factors (political shifts, legal changes, security conditions) affect sustainability? 6. Coherence Objective: Assess internal and external coherence of the intervention. Key Evaluation Questions To what extent were project components (coordination, advocacy, legal mapping, localization) internally coherent and mutually reinforcing? To what extent was the intervention coherent with humanitarian principles, localization commitments, EU priorities, and relevant UN and coordination frameworks? 7. Conflict Sensitivity, Accountability, and Do No Harm Objective: Assess integration of conflict-sensitive and accountable approaches. Key Evaluation Questions To what extent were conflict sensitive and Do No Harm principles integrated into project design and implementation? Were risks to national staff, CSOs, and partners adequately identified and mitigated, particularly in advocacy activities? To what extent were stakeholders meaningfully informed, consulted, and able to provide feedback? What feedback and accountability mechanisms were in place, and how effectively were they used? 8. Lessons Learned and Recommendations Objective: Generate learning and actionable guidance for future programming. Key Evaluation Questions What key lessons can be drawn from the project regarding coordination, advocacy, legal analysis, and localization in restrictive environments? What worked well, what worked less well, and why? What concrete, prioritized, and actionable recommendations should inform future LIF, EU-funded, or similar coordination and civil society support initiatives? 5. Methodology The consultant will develop and implement a mixed-methods evaluation methodology aligned with the project’s theory of change, logical framework, and OECD-DAC criteria. The methodology will be detailed in an Inception Report, clearly outlining how each evaluation question and relevant logframe indicator will be assessed, including data sources, data collection tools, and analytical approaches. The methodology will include a desk review of key project documents, key informant interviews with LIF Secretariat, LIF members, Libyan CSOs, donors, UN agencies, and other relevant stakeholders, as well as satisfaction surveys. Light quantitative analysis of monitoring data will be complemented by qualitative triangulation. Data collection will rely primarily on remote modalities, with in-person engagement undertaken only where access, security, and feasibility are allowed. Sampling will ensure representation across stakeholder groups and consider gender, age, disability, and geographic diversity where applicable. The consultant will apply a contribution-based analysis, appropriate for coordination and advocacy interventions. All data collection tools and the methodology will be reviewed and approved by LIF and IRC prior to implementation. Ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, safeguarding, and Do No Harm, must be strictly followed. 6. Deliverables Deliverables Inception Report Must contain: Logic of end line evaluation proceedings based on desk review. Findings from the desk review Evaluation questions and an overview of how these will be answered. Detailed work plan, research methods, sources, procedures for data collection, analysis, sampling of key indicators etc. Proposed timeline of activities, schedule of tasks and submission of deliverables. Date/Deadline: 20 March 2026 Data Collection and Draft Report The draft addresses most of assessment questions and works towards presenting meaningful findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The draft report needs to provide for disaggregated data analysis by gender, age, location, and vulnerability status to ensure inclusiveness in evaluation findings. The draft report will present the tools used and findings (figures and graphs) of client data. Draft report will be shared with LIF and IRC for feedback and approval. Date/Deadline: 10 April 2026 Final Report The final report will include the following: The LIF’s and IRC feedback on the draft report has been addressed. Systematically assess the project impact on individual clients and institutions. Provide factual evidence of direct and indirect results of interventions. Synthesize information received for purposes of conclusion and recommendation. Date/Deadline: 30 April, 2026 7. Budget: Interested consultants are required to provide a budget including travel costs, number of working days per specific activity, daily rate and any other costs. The budget range for this evaluation is up to 7,500 USD. 8. Reporting procedure. The consultant will directly report to LIF during the entire period of this assignment. The consultant will work closely with the LIF’s MEAL Manager and other MEAL staff. 9. Required qualifications. The specific requirements for this assignment are hands-on experience in evaluating multi-sectoral humanitarian response programs in emergency contexts. Additional required qualifications are detailed below: Extensive experience in research work and in assessments/evaluations. Knowledge of mixed research methodologies and application of various tools including practical experience in assessments, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian interventions. Proven experience of using participatory methods is required. At least a master’s degree in economics, developmental studies, business administration and social science or related field for the lead consultant. Or a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in the relevant academic areas with 7 years of progressive experience in research. Strong experience in humanitarian response, Child Safeguarding and knowledge of humanitarian standards (CHS, Sphere, Code of Conduct, etc.). Understanding of and experience in evaluating cross-cutting themes, including violence against women, accountability and conflict sensitivity / Do No Harm. Access to and good understanding of the Libyan context is required. Similar prior work experience and consultancy work in Libya, particularly in Easter Libya, considered an advantage. Ability to implement mixed-methods with a remote-first design; in-person engagement contingent on access, security, and feasibility, coordinated with IRC/LIF. Excellent analytical and report writing skills, including using statistical packages such as SPSS, STATA, etc. Fluent in English and Arabic Cultural awareness and ability to operate in politically complex and sensitive environments are required. 10. Application procedure Individuals/firms that meet the above requirements should submit a full proposal by February 26, 2026. Applicants are highly encouraged to submit their application before the deadline as shortlisting and interviews will be conducted on a rolling basis. 11. The proposal should include: Technical proposal detailing the approach, methodology and work plan of the assignment. Financial proposal includes daily rates in USD with detailed breakdown including travel costs, number of working days per specific activity, daily rate and any other costs. CV of the lead consultant and contact details of two professional referees. If consultant works with a team, CVs from team members should be included as well. Copies of at least 2 (two) similar assignments done in the last 3 years. Shortlisted applicants will be invited to an interview by IRC Libya. Selection Criteria for Consultants Proposals will be evaluated based on: (i) Technical quality (40%); (ii) Relevant experience (30%); (iii) Cost competitiveness (20%); (iv) Proposed team composition and availability (10%). PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS All International Rescue Committee workers must adhere to the core values and principles outlined in IRC Way - Standards for Professional Conduct . Our Standards are Integrity, Service, Equality and Accountability. In accordance with these values, the IRC operates and enforces policies on Safeguarding , Conflicts of Interest, Fiscal Integrity, and Reporting Wrongdoing and Protection from Retaliation. IRC is committed to take all necessary preventive measures and create an environment where people feel safe, and to take all necessary actions and corrective measures when harm occurs. IRC builds teams of professionals who promote critical reflection, power sharing, debate, and objectivity to deliver the best possible services to our clients. Cookies: