External Consultant/Firm to Conduct the Endline Assessment and Final Evaluation of the “Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria

 

1. BACKGROUND

ZOA Nigeria, with financial support from Mission East, has been implementing the project “Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria” from January 2023 to December 2025, followed by a 1-year extension now expected to end in December 2026.

The intervention was designed to address acute humanitarian needs among Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), returnees, and vulnerable host communities affected by the prolonged humanitarian crisis in Borno State. The project was implemented primarily in Bama and Monguno LGAs, with emergency Shelter/NFI support activities also implemented in Muna IDP Camp in MMC.

The project responds to the combined effects of:

• Protracted armed conflict
• Recurrent displacement
• Food insecurity
• Loss of livelihoods
• Poor sanitation and limited access to safe water
• Increased climate-related vulnerabilities
• Poor nutrition outcomes among women and children

The project adopted an integrated humanitarian and resilience-building approach comprising four interrelated outcomes:

Outcome 1

Most vulnerable IDPs and conflict-affected communities are provided with essential subsistence support to meet urgent needs and avoid negative coping mechanisms.

Outcome 2

Most vulnerable IDPs and conflict-affected communities have access to diverse and nutritious food and sustainable livelihood opportunities, allowing them to meet medium-term needs and avoid negative coping mechanisms

Outcome 3

IDPs and conflict-affected communities have improved access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene services.

Outcome 4

Local partners and local government at LGA level develop capacity for principled action, and project-affiliated CBOs and community gatekeepers in Monguno and Bama increase involvement in human rights defense.

Major interventions implemented include:

• Emergency wet feeding for new arrivals
• Multi-purpose cash assistance
• Distribution of emergency NFI kits
• Kitchen gardening and nutrition-sensitive agriculture
• Village Savings and Loan Associations
• Vocational and livelihood support
• Rehabilitation and construction of WASH infrastructure
• Hygiene promotion and social behaviour change communication
• Capacity strengthening of GISCOR and community-based structures
• Gender, accountability, and protection are mainstreaming

The project targeted more than 61,000 individuals across the implementation period and aimed to contribute to improved humanitarian outcomes, resilience, and community capacities.

2. EVALUATION PURPOSE

The end-of-project evaluation seeks to provide an independent assessment of the project's performance, results, and overall contribution toward improving food security, nutrition, WASH access, resilience, and local capacity development among conflict-affected populations in Borno State.

The evaluation will cover the entire implementation period from January 2023 to December 2026.

The evaluation has three primary purposes:

Accountability

Assess achievement of intended results and accountability to the affected population, Mission East, ZOA Nigeria, local communities, and other stakeholders.

Learning

Identify achievements, challenges, good practices, innovations, lessons learned and factors influencing project performance.

Strategic Decision Making

Generate evidence and recommendations for future humanitarian, resilience, nexus and localization programming in North-East Nigeria.

3. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND USERS

3.1 Evaluation Objectives

The evaluation shall:

Objective 1: Measure Achievement of Results

Assess progress against project objectives, outcomes, outputs, and indicators contained in the Results Framework.

Objective 2: Assess Relevance

Determine the extent to which interventions responded to the priority needs of IDPs, returnees, and vulnerable host communities.

Objective 3: Assess Effectiveness

Determine whether planned outputs and outcomes were achieved and identify enabling and constraining factors.

Objective 4: Assess Efficiency

Assess how efficient resources, systems, partnerships, and implementation approaches were utilized to achieve intended results.

Objective 5: Assess Coherence

Determine how well the project aligned and complemented relevant humanitarian and development interventions, sectoral strategies, government priorities, and the broader humanitarian response in North-East Nigeria, while identifying synergies, coordination mechanisms, and areas of complementarity with ZOA, Mission East, government, and other humanitarian actors.

Objective 6: Assess Impact

Examine positive and negative, intended and unintended changes resulting from project interventions.

Objective 7: Assess Sustainability

Evaluate the likelihood that project benefits will continue beyond project completion and identify factors that support or hinder sustainability.

Assess the  sustainability of:

• WASH infrastructure.
• Cash transfer outcomes, including investments in productive assets, livelihoods, savings, housing, and other longer-term benefits resulting from cash assistance.
• Community structures.
• VSLA groups.
• Kitchen gardens.
• Livelihood enterprises.
• Capacity development outcomes among local partners, LGA-level institutions (LEMA), community gatekeepers, and community volunteer structures.

• Behaviour change outcomes among targeted households, caregivers, community volunteers, and community structures, including sustained improvements in:
• Hygiene practices and handwashing behaviour
• Maternal, Infant and Young Child Feeding (MIYCF) practices
• Household dietary diversity
• Utilization and maintenance of WASH facilities
• Participation in community-led initiatives and protection mechanisms

Objective 8: Assess Cross-Cutting Priorities

Examine integration of:

• Gender equality
• Disability inclusion
• Protection mainstreaming
• Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP)
• Climate adaptation
• Localization
• Equitable distribution of project support between IDP and host-community households
• Conflict sensitivity & do no harm

Objective 9: Generate Learning

Document lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations for future programming.

3.2 Primary Users

• Mission East
• ZOA Nigeria
• GISCOR
• Community structures
• Local government authorities
• Humanitarian clusters and sector partners

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND KEY QUESTIONS

The evaluation shall apply the OECD-DAC criteria.

Relevance

• To what extent were interventions and modalities responsive to community priorities?
• Were targeting approaches appropriate?
• Did interventions remain relevant throughout implementation?
• Were interventions inclusive of women, people with disabilities and vulnerable households?

Coherence

• How well did project activities complement sectoral strategies and humanitarian response plans?
• How effectively was coordination undertaken with humanitarian and development actors and government structures?

Effectiveness

• To what extent were planned outputs and outcomes achieved?
• Which interventions produced the strongest results?
• What factors facilitated or hindered performance?

Efficiency

• Were resources used economically?
• How efficient and effective were the modalities choice compared to other modalities (cash, in-kind/goods, service delivery)?
• Was implementation timely and cost-effective?
• To what extent did partner coordination mechanisms, roles and responsibilities, communication processes, and management systems contribute to efficient and effective project implementation?

Impact

• What changes occurred in:
• Food security status of target households?
• The use of negative coping mechanisms employed by households to meet their food and basic needs?
• Household resilience?
• Nutrition practices, including dietary diversity?
• Livelihood capacities?
• Capacities of community structures, local partners, and local authorities as a result of the project?
• What unintended outcomes emerged?

Sustainability

• Are benefits likely to continue after project completion?
• What mechanisms support sustainability?
• How sustainable are:
• VSLA groups?
• Kitchen Gardens?
• WASH facilities?
• Community volunteer structures?
• Capacity development investments?

Gender, Inclusion and Protection

• How effectively were women engaged?
• Were vulnerable groups equitably reached?
• Were safeguarding and protection concerns adequately addressed?

Localization

• To what extent did the project strengthen GISCOR and community structures, including local authorities (e.g., LEMA)?
• How sustainable are local capacities developed through the project?

Peace Nexus

• To what extent has the project contributed to social cohesion and peaceful coexistence among IDPs, returnees, and host communities?
• To what extent has the project contributed to peace, or inadvertently contributed to tensions or conflict between different groups?
• How equitable was the distribution of assistance between IDP, returnee, and host-community households, and how was this perceived by community members?
• To what extent did community structures, local leaders, peace committees, CBOs, and community gatekeepers contribute to conflict prevention, dispute resolution, and social cohesion?
• Hygiene behavior: What drives adoption of positive hygiene practices? Which communication channels are most effective for reaching IDP, returnee, and host community members?

5. METHODOLOGY

5.1 Evaluation Design and Endline Assessment Approach

The consultant will conduct a comprehensive Endline Assessment and Final Project Evaluation using a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The endline assessment will generate final measurements for all applicable outcome and output indicators contained within the project Result Framework and assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended objectives.

The evaluation will cover the entire implementation period from January 2023 to December 2026 and will assess the project's performance against the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of:

• Relevance
• Coherence
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Impact
• Sustainability

The endline assessment shall compare endline findings with available baseline, monitoring, post-distribution monitoring (PDM), project reports, and routine monitoring data to determine progress, outcomes, and project contributions toward improved food security, nutrition, livelihoods, WASH services, resilience, and local capacity strengthening.

The evaluator shall apply a participatory and utilization-focused evaluation approach that ensures the perspectives of beneficiaries, community leaders, local authorities, implementing partners, and project staff are adequately captured.

5.2 Specific Objectives of the Endline Assessment

The endline assessment shall generate endline values for project indicators and provide evidence to assess the evaluation objectives and key questions outlined in Sections 4 and 5.

Specifically, the assessment shall:

• Generate final values for all applicable project indicators.
• Assess progress towards project outcomes and intended results.
• Examine performance against OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
• Assess cross-cutting priorities, localization, conflict sensitivity, and Peace Nexus dimensions.
• Generate lessons learned and recommendations for future programming.

5.3 Evaluation Framework

The evaluation will use a theory-of-change-based evaluation approach linking project inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and intended impacts.

The evaluator shall assess whether the project's theory of change was achieved and determine the pathways through which project interventions contributed to observed results.

Particular emphasis shall be placed on understanding the interrelationship between:

• Emergency food assistance
• Cash transfers
• Nutrition interventions
• WASH interventions
• Livelihood interventions
• Community resilience initiatives
• Partner capacity strengthening

5.4 Data Collection Methods

The consultant shall utilize multiple data collection methods to ensure robust triangulation of findings.

5.4.1 Desk Review

The evaluation shall commence with a detailed review of project documentation.

Documents to be reviewed include:

• Proposal Document and Contract
• Results Framework
• Baseline Assessment Reports
• RedRose monitoring data/reports
• PDM Reports
• Market Assessment Reports
• KAP Survey Reports
• Training Reports
• Beneficiary Databases
• Progress Reports
• Financial Reports
• Accountability/FCRM Reports
• Capacity Assessment Reports
• Partner Monitoring Reports
• Previous Evaluations

The desk review will support:

• Refinement of evaluation questions
• Development of tools
• Sample design
• Indicator verification methodology

5.4.2 Quantitative Household Survey (Endline Survey)

The evaluator shall independently design, manage, and implement the endline household survey, including sampling, data collection supervision, quality assurance, data analysis, and reporting. Project staff may facilitate access to communities and provide beneficiary lists or relevant project documents but shall not influence respondent selection, data collection findings, analysis, or the conclusions of the evaluation. The results of the endline household survey will be used to determine and report the final values of project indicators.

The survey shall measure:

Food Security

• Food Consumption Score (FCS)
• Reduced Coping Strategy Index (r-CSI)
• Household food access

Basic Needs and Cash Assistance

• Cash utilization patterns

• Priority needs met through MPCA
• Household expenditure patterns related to food and non-food basic needs

Nutrition

• Household dietary diversity
• M-IYCF knowledge and practices
• Child feeding practices
• PLW dietary diversity

Livelihoods

• Kitchen garden utilization
• Household vegetable consumption
• Business performance of the IGAs distributed to the project participants
• Income diversification
• VSLA participation

WASH

• Hygiene practices
• Handwashing behavior
• Water access and utilization
• Sanitation utilization

Capacity Strengthening

• Community volunteer and project committee capacities.
• Local partner, SEMA/LEMA, CCCM, and LGA government capacities

• Capacities of Local Peace Committees and community leaders for social cohesion and conflict resolution.
• Community knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to protection, GBV prevention, women's empowerment, and civic engagement.

The evaluation shall use electronic data collection platforms such as Kobo Collect or SurveyCTO

5.4.3 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

Semi-structured KIIs shall be conducted with key stakeholders including:

ZOA Staff

• Country Management
• Programme Managers
• Technical Leads
• MEAL Personnel

Partner Organizations

• GISCOR management
• GISCOR field staff

Government Stakeholders

• LGA/SEMA authorities
• WASH departments
• Agriculture departments
• Health authorities

Financial Service Providers

• Cash vendors/money agents

Humanitarian Actors

• WASH Sector
• Food Security Sector
• Camp Coordination actors

Community Structures

• Community leaders
• Local Peace Committees
• Religious leaders
• Volunteer promoters
• Water management committees

5.4.4 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

FGDs shall be conducted separately to ensure meaningful participation and inclusion.

Groups shall include:

• Adult men
• Adult women
• Female-headed households
• Adolescent girls
• Youth groups
• Persons with disabilities
• IDPs and host community members
• PLWs
• VSLA participants
• Kitchen garden beneficiaries
• Community volunteers

FGDs will explore perceptions of:

• Relevance
• Effectiveness
• Impact
• Sustainability
• Gender and inclusion
• Accountability

5.4.5 Direct Observation

The evaluator shall conduct direct field observations to verify the condition, functionality, and utilization of project-supported assets.

This shall include:

WASH Infrastructure

• Boreholes
• Water points
• Latrines
• Handwashing stations

Livelihood Assets

• Kitchen gardens
• Business kits
• Demonstration plots

Community Structures

• VSLA groups
• Hygiene promotion groups
• Community committees including Local Peace Committees and WASHCOMs and community volunteers

Observation checklists shall be developed and used.

5.4.6 Most Significant Change (MSC) Stories

The evaluator shall collect and document at least 10–15 Most Significant Change Stories from beneficiaries across intervention sectors and population groups.

Stories should capture the changes that beneficiaries consider most significant as a result of the project and explain why these changes are important to them.

Where relevant, stories may highlight changes related to:

• Food security and access to basic needs;
• Utilization and outcomes of cash assistance (including investments in livelihoods, housing, savings, education, health, or other priority household needs);
• Nutrition and dietary practices;
• Women's empowerment and leadership;
• Resilience and coping capacity;
• Livelihood recovery and economic wellbeing;
• Social inclusion and participation;
• Social cohesion, conflict mitigation, and peaceful coexistence;
• Capacity strengthening of community volunteers, community structures, local partners, and government actors;
• Protection, rights awareness, and access to services.

MSC stories should provide qualitative evidence of the project's impact on household wellbeing.

5.5 Sampling Strategy

The evaluator shall develop a statistically sound sampling strategy and provide justification for the selected sample size.

The sampling methodology should achieve:

• 95% confidence level
• 5% margin of error where feasible
• Adequate representation across intervention areas

Sampling shall ensure adequate representation by:

• Location
• Gender
• Age
• Disability status
• Displacement status (IDPs, returnees, and host-community households)
• Intervention type

The final sample design must be approved by ZOA before commencement of fieldwork.

5.6 Enumerator Recruitment and Training

The evaluator shall recruit qualified enumerators with experience in humanitarian assessments and familiarity with local languages.

Enumerators shall be trained on:

• Evaluation objectives
• Questionnaire administration
• Ethical considerations
• Informed consent procedures
• Safeguarding and PSEA
• Disability-sensitive approaches
• Electronic data collection

A pilot test shall be conducted before the start of actual data collection.

5.7 Data Quality Assurance

The evaluator shall establish a comprehensive data quality assurance system including:

• Tool pre-testing
• Daily field supervision
• Spot checks
• Back checks
• Data validation
• Real-time dashboard monitoring
• Verification of GPS coordinates
• Data cleaning protocols

The evaluator shall submit a Data Quality Assurance Plan as part of the inception report.

5.8 Data Analysis

The evaluator shall analyze quantitative and qualitative data using internationally accepted methods.

Quantitative Analysis

Analysis shall include:

• Descriptive statistics
• Cross-tabulations
• Comparative analysis against baseline values
• Trend analysis
• Indicator computation

Where feasible, significance testing shall be conducted to assess observed changes over time.

Software may include:

• SPSS
• STATA
• R
• Excel
• Power BI

Qualitative Analysis

FGD and KII transcripts shall be coded and analyzed through thematic analysis.

Key themes shall be mapped against:

• OECD-DAC criteria
• Project outcomes
• Cross-cutting themes

5.9 Cross-Cutting Analysis

Throughout the evaluation, findings shall be analyzed through the lenses of:

• Gender Equality
• Disability Inclusion
• Protection Mainstreaming
• Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP)
• Climate Adaptation
• Localization
• Conflict Sensitivity

Particular attention shall be paid to the experiences of women, persons with disabilities, adolescent girls, elderly persons, and female-headed households.

5.10 Validation and Dissemination

Following completion of the analysis, the evaluator shall facilitate a validation workshop with ZOA, GISCOR, SEMA, relevant government stakeholders, and selected community representatives.

The workshop will:

• Present preliminary findings.
• Validate results and interpretations.
• Obtain stakeholder feedback.
• Refine recommendations.

Feedback from the validation process shall be incorporated into the final evaluation report.

6. SCOPE OF WORK, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The evaluator shall:

• Review project documents
• Develop inception report
• Develop methodology and tools
• Recruit and train enumerators
• Conduct data collection
• Analyze data
• Facilitate validation workshops
• Produce draft and final evaluation reports. The final report should be concise and not exceed 40 pages (excluding annexes). Annexes may contain detailed methodology, data collection tools, sampling framework, indicator tables, datasets summaries, stakeholder lists, terms of reference, Most Significant Change (MSC) stories, and other supporting materials.
• Develop PowerPoint presentation of findings
• Submit cleaned datasets and supporting materials
• Make presentation at close-out workshop with donor in attendance

7. DELIVERABLES

The evaluator shall submit:

7.1. Inception Report

The Inception Report (including draft data collection tools) shall provide a detailed roadmap for the evaluation and include, at minimum:

• Evaluation matrix aligned with the evaluation questions and indicators.
• Proposed evaluation approach and methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods).
• Sampling strategy, sample size calculations, and respondent selection procedures.
• Geographic coverage and proposed locations for data collection.
• Detailed data collection plan.
• Data collection tools (draft versions).
• Data triangulation approach.
• Data management and analysis plan, including quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.
• Use of project documents, monitoring data, secondary data, and other evidence sources.
• Feasibility and access considerations for project implementation areas.
• Research ethics, participant protection, informed consent, confidentiality, and safeguarding measures.
• Quality assurance mechanisms, including enumerator supervision and data verification procedures.
• Context analysis and demonstration of understanding of the operational environment.
• Detailed workplan and timeline.

The Inception Report must be reviewed and approved by ZOA prior to the commencement of field data collection. No fieldwork shall begin until written approval of the Inception Report has been received.

7.2 Final approved data collection tools incorporating feedback from the inception review process.

Including:

• Household survey questionnaire.
• FGD guides.
• KII guides.
• Observation checklists.
• MSC story collection guide/template.

7.3 Clean Dataset

Including:

• Kobo database and raw exports.
• Cleaned SPSS/STATA/Excel datasets.
• Codebook and variable definitions.
• Data analysis syntax files (where applicable).

7.4 Draft Evaluation Report

7.5 Validation Workshop Presentation

7.6 Final Evaluation Report (prepared in accordance with the structure outlined in Section 9).

7.7 Four-Page Evaluation Brief for External Stakeholders

A concise, visually accessible summary of key findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations.

7.8 Learning Presentation for External Stakeholders

Presentation focusing on key lessons, best practices, innovations, and recommendations for future programming.

7.9 Final PowerPoint Presentation

7.10 Updated IPTT

Including final values, means of verification, and achievement status for all indicators in the approved Results Framework.

8. EVALUATION REPORT STRUCTURE

The final report should not exceed 40 pages excluding annexes.

The report shall include:

1. Cover Page
2. Acknowledgements
3. Table of Contents
4. Acronyms
5. Executive Summary
6. Introduction
7. Methodology
8. Limitations
9. Findings by OECD-DAC Criteria
10. Outcome and Indicator Achievement Analysis
11. Cross-Cutting Findings
12. Lessons Learned
13. Conclusions
14. Recommendations
15. Annexes including:

• Terms of Reference
• Evaluation Matrix
• Data Collection Tools
• Sampling Methodology
• List of Persons/Organizations Consulted
• Results Framework/Updated Indicator Tracking Tables
• Most Significant Change (MSC) Stories
• Other Supporting Documentation

9. PROPOSED TIMELINE

• Advertisement / Call for Expressions of Interest (EOI): 10 days, from 18 to 27 August 2026.
• Evaluation of Applications and Selection of Evaluator: 1 week, from 28 August to 3 September 2026.
• Contract Negotiation and Signing: 2 to 3 days, from 4 to 6 September 2026.
• Inception Phase: 1 week, from 7 to 13 September 2026.
• Tool Development: 1 week, from 14 to 20 September 2026.
• Enumerator Training: 3 days, from 21 to 23 September 2026.
• Field Data Collection: 10 to 15 days, from 24 September to 8 October 2026.
• Data Analysis: 1 week, from 9 to 15 October 2026.
• Draft Report Submission: 1 week, from 16 to 22 October 2026.
• Validation Workshop: 1 day, on 23 October 2026.
• Final Report Submission: 1 week, from 24 to 30 October 2026.

The assignment is expected to be completed within 70-75 calendar days from the date of advertisement, including recruitment, contracting, inception, fieldwork, analysis, validation, and submission of the final evaluation report.

Consultant engagement period (from contract signing to final report submission): approximately 49-54 calendar days.

10. LOCATION OF EVALUATION

The evaluation will be conducted in:

• Bama LGA
• Monguno LGA
• MMC (Muna IDP Camp where applicable)

The evaluator shall be responsible for:

• Personnel
• Transportation
• Accommodation
• Security arrangements
• Data collection devices
• Communication costs

11. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

All information, datasets, reports and materials generated through this assignment shall remain the exclusive property of ZOA Nigeria.

The evaluator shall not publish or disseminate findings without written authorization from ZOA Nigeria.

12. BUDGET

Applicants shall submit a detailed budget covering:

• Professional fees
• Enumerators
• Training
• Travel
• Accommodation
• Data collection
• Data analysis
• Reporting
• Workshop facilitation
• Administrative costs

13. REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

The evaluator/team leader should possess:

• Advanced degree in Statistics, Economics, Development Studies, Public Health, Social Sciences, Monitoring & Evaluation or related field
• Minimum 7 years of evaluation experience
• Demonstrated experience evaluating humanitarian and resilience programmes
• Strong expertise in OECD-DAC evaluations
• Experience in Food Security, Livelihoods, Nutrition, and WASH programming
• Strong quantitative and qualitative analytical skills
• Experience in North-East Nigeria
• Excellent report writing skills
• Familiarity with donor-funded humanitarian programmes

14. APPLICATION PROCEDURE

Interested consultants/firms should submit:

1. Technical Proposal
2. Detailed Methodology
3. Workplan
4. Financial Proposal
5. CV(s) of evaluation team members
6. Company profile (for firms)
7. Two recent evaluation samples
8. At least three professional references
9. Evidence of availability

Submission Deadline: 27 August 2026

Project Reference: Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria.