Country: Iraq
Organization: International Labour Organization
Closing date: 6 Aug 2026
Request for Quotation for Project Evaluation Service Terms of Reference
Final Independent Evaluation of the Promoting Employment and Employability among Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Host Communities focusing on Women, PWDs, and Youths in Northern Iraq Project
1. Key facts
Title of project being evaluated Promoting Employment and Employability among Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons and Host Communities focusing on Women, PWDs, and Youths in
Northern Iraq.
Project DC Code RQ/24/02/DEU
Type of evaluation Independent Evaluation
Timing of evaluation Final
Donor Government of Germany/ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Administrative Unit in the ILO responsible for administrating
the project Regional Office for Arab States/DWT-Beirut
Technical Unit(s) in the ILO responsible for backstopping the
project Regional Office for Arab States/DWT-Beirut
EMPLOYMENT
Implementing partner N/A
Project duration From 1 October 2024 to 31 August 2026 (23months)
Evaluation duration (tentative) From August to September 2026
P&B outcome (s) under evaluation P&B Outcome(s): 2024/25 - Outcome 3: Full and productive employment for just transition; Outcome 4: Sustainable enterprises for inclusive growth and decent work; and Outcome 5: Gender equality and equality of
treatment and opportunities for all.
SDG(s) under evaluation SDG 4 Quality Education, 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Project budget EUR 2,580,057.95/USD 2,649,463.29
2. Background information
Despite Iraq's youthful demographic profile—nearly 50 per cent of the population is under 19 years old, and 20 per cent is aged 15–24—there are limited opportunities to channel young people into productive learning, employment, and entrepreneurship. This undermines their successful reintegration into Iraq's fragile post-conflict economy. According to the 2021 ILO Iraq Labour Force Survey, the national unemployment rate stood at 16.5 per cent, while youth unemployment reached
35.8 per cent. Additionally, 36.7 per cent of young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET), with young women disproportionately affected (52.3 per cent) compared to young men (22.1 per cent).1
The governorates of Duhok, Ninawa, Erbil, and Sulaymaniyah face particularly acute youth unemployment, driven by a large population of vulnerable young people aged 18–35 years and insufficient job creation. Addressing this challenge requires integrated interventions that combine career guidance, skills development, entrepreneurship support, and job placement services to improve youth employability and contribute to sustainable economic growth.
Although Iraq is experiencing a "demographic window of opportunity", with its working-age population growing faster than the overall population, the country has been unable to generate sufficient jobs to absorb new labour market entrants, resulting in what has been described as a "jobs crisis of unprecedented proportions."2 Youth face significantly lower labour force participation (26.5 per cent) than adults (45.8 per cent), much higher unemployment (35.8 per cent versus 11.2 per cent for adults), and greater labour underutilization (53.3 per cent versus 24.0 per cent). Young workers are also overwhelmingly employed in the informal economy, affecting 94.4 per cent of young men and 73 per cent of young women.3
Women face particularly severe labour market barriers. Iraq's female labour force participation rate (FLFP) is only 10.6 per cent, compared to 68 per cent for men, placing Iraq 155th out of 156 countries on the labour force participation gender gap. Women experience higher unemployment (28.2 per cent versus 14.7 per cent for men), with unemployment among young women aged 20–24 reaching 65 per cent, compared to 30 per cent for young men. Women also experience longer periods of unemployment, with a median job search duration of 13.4 months, compared to 6 months for men, while overall labour underutilization affects 49.5 per cent of women compared to 27.3 per cent of men.4
More than six years after the defeat of Da'esh, approximately 1.1 million Iraqis remain internally displaced. While most displaced people now live in urban or informal settlements, around 160,000 IDPs continue to reside in 23 camps across the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and Federal Iraq. Although the Government of Iraq announced plans to close all IDP camps, studies indicate that only 1 per cent of camp residents intend to return to their areas of origin within the next year, while 70 per cent prefer local integration. Consequently, project interventions was designed in such a way to target affected internally displaced persons (IDPs) in coordination with relevant government authorities during the camp closure process.5
1 ILO Iraq Labour Force Survey, 2021.
2 Jobs Crisis of Unprecedented Proportions (source as cited in the original document).
3 UNHCR study on IDP intentions in Iraq camps, end of 2023
4 Source as cited in the original document
5 UNHCR study on IDP intentions in Iraq camps, end of 2023
In addition to youth and women, several vulnerable groups remain at risk of exclusion from economic opportunities, including internally displaced persons (IDPs), returnees, refugees, migrants, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, and individuals lacking civil documentation.6
3. Background of the project to be evaluated
Against the above-mentioned backdrop of significant labour market challenges faced by young people including refugees, IDPs and host communities in Iraq, the International Labour Organisation in partnership with the EPSI project is implementing “Promoting Employment and Employability among Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and Host Communities focusing on Women, PWDs, and Youths in Northern Iraq project (GIZ Project).” The project objective is to support better labour market integration and transition of marginalized populations including refugees, internally displaced persons, host communities as well as youth and women, into decent jobs through supportive evidence-based policies, strengthened employment services, work-based learning, and skills development, with a focus on green jobs and green enterprise development.
The project is supporting up to 1,000 refugees, IDPs, and people in host communities focusing on women, PWDs, and young people aged 18 to 35 years; and 500 entrepreneurs, start-ups and existing MSMEs in Northern Iraq, Erbil, Dohuk, Ninawa and Sulaymaniyah Governorates transition into green jobs. More specifically, the project aims to reach most marginalized youth including young women and youth with disabilities in refugee, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and host communities. To achieve its objectives, the project is strengthening public employment services in the selected governorates and equip young people with the relevant technical and core skills demanded by the labour market, with a focus on skills for green jobs. By offering a holistic suite of employment services encompassing career counselling, peer-to-peer job search support, training in market-relevant core and technical skills, business management skills, work-based learning programs, financial inclusion, bolstering private sector capacities for quality apprenticeships, and enhancing the capacities of emerging start-ups and existing MSMEs through financial and non-financial services. This project is equipping youth with the essential tools and support needed to navigate and secure decent employment opportunities, thus improving their position and opportunities in the labour market.
At policy level, the project expects to steer the discussions on the development of a comprehensive framework on youth employment in Iraq that is inclusive to marginalized youth including young women, persons with disabilities, refugees and IDP youth. Furthermore, the project intends to provide technical support for the Government of Iraq to move from cash for work to Employment Intensive approach and in a longer term to adopt a national strategy for youth employment along with the SDG indicator 8. b.17 and 13.28 that would propose an integrated solution to supporting and activating young people.
6 Source as cited in the original document
7 Indicator 8.b.1: Existence of a developed and operationalized national strategy for youth employment, as a distinct strategy or as part of a national employment strategy.
8 Indicator 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
Table 1 below summarises the vertical objective hierarchy of the project:
Project Objectives: To support better labour market integration and transition of marginalized populations including youth, women, refugees, internally displaced persons, and host communities into decent jobs through strengthened employment services, work-based learning, and skills development, with a focus on green jobs and green enterprise
development.
Outcomes, expected outputs and activities
Outcome 1: Capacities of government stakeholders and social partners to develop comprehensive, equitable and
evidence-based
Output 1.1: Evidence generation on the benefits of the integration of youth, women, internally displaced persons and refugees in the labour market in Iraq is strengthened. 1.1.1: Conduct meta-analysis on existing research, studies, and policy briefs on re-integration of refugees, IDPs, women, PWDs and other marginalized groups in the labour
market.
1.1.2: Conduct labour market situation analysis and green employment diagnostics including green jobs assessment model, the cost of inaction and assessment of local economic multipliers with particular emphasis on young refugees, IDPs and host communities in the
targeted governorates.
1.1.3: Identify sectors with a potential to create green jobs for youth, especially young
refugee and IDP women and persons with disabilities, in the targeted governorates
1.1.4: Conduct series of national and subnational consultative workshops on key challenges and opportunities for employment for refugees and IDPs.
1.1.5: Develop modelling estimates on the potential of creating decent jobs for refugees,
IDPs and youth through targeted investments in the identified green sectors.
Output 1.2: Capacities of Government stakeholders and social partners to design refugees, IDPs and youth-responsive employment strategies
are strengthened. 1.2.2: Conduct series of validation workshops to endorse on the evidence generated and
identified strategic solutions under activity 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.4 and 1.2.1.
1.2.3: Provide training on refugees, IDPs and youth responsive employment policy formulation for key national stakeholders, including national and sub-national government stakeholders, trade unions and employers’ organizations.
Output 1.3: Social dialogue on refugees, IDPs and youth employment for and with refugees, IDPs and youth is facilitated 1.3.1: Organize series of consultative meetings with key government stakeholders, social partners, youth and private sectors companies to establish social dialogue platform on
unemployment issues with youth and for youth.
1.3.2: Establish a social dialogue platform with refugees, IDPs and youth for refugees, IDPs
and youth.
1.3.3: Conduct regular tripartite plus roundtable discussions on key policy and strategic
constraints of green employment matters through the established social dialogue platform.
Outcome 2: Access to labour market-relevant skills, apprenticeship, and intermediation services to support young people’s transition to employment are improved.
Output 2.1: Skills gaps in the green economy are identified and apprenticeship programmes to boost youth employability are
developed 2.1.1: Conduct a skills diagnostic and skills gaps in the green economy
2.1.2: Identify opportunities for setting up apprenticeship and existing programmes in green business and sectors that could generate green jobs for youth in the targeted geographical areas.
Output 2.2: Capacities of private sector entities and other employers are enhanced to provide apprenticeship programmes and create decent jobs for youth,
with a focus on green economy 2.2.1: Conduct capacity building programmes and provide technical assistance for potential employers’ organizations who are interested to mobilize apprenticeships programmes for
targeted young women and men who graduated from skills development programmes
2.2.2: Conduct capacity building sessions on green jobs, green growth, and just transition for key government stakeholders, workers', and employers’ organizations.
2.2.3: Sign MoU with selected key employers on the identified apprenticeship programmes.
Output 2.3: Refugees, IDPs and host communities with a focus on young women and men are benefitting from vocational skills training
and work-based learning 2.3.1: Sign implementation agreement with selected TVET centres to provide market
relevant skills development training for young women and men in the targeted governorates
2.3.2: Provide market-relevant technical skills for refugees, IDPs and host communities
focusing on young women and men, in the selected TVET centres
2.3.3: Setup referral mechanisms to apprenticeship programmes for eligible graduates from technical skills training programme
with a focus on green
jobs.
Output 2.4: One-stop-shop public employment services linking young people to jobs are capacitated and strengthened. 2.4.1. Identify potential PES centres in the selected governorates and assess their capacities to provide youth-responsive employment services with social partners’ support.
2.4.2: Conduct an in-depth assessment on the gaps in services offered to young jobseekers, including women and persons with disabilities, by the selected PES centres in the selected
governorates
2.4.3: Enhance the capacities of selected PES centres to be accessible and youth-friendly, one-stop-shop employment service centres
2.4.4: Provide capacity building training on career guidance, registration, referral, etc., for
the selected PES centres staffs using the public employment services manual.
2.4.5: Provide training for PES staff on working with refugee and IDP youth on issues such as documentations and work permits for refugees, access to social security, rights at work as
well as navigating them on opportunities in the green and greening sectors.
Output 2.5: Career guidance and life-skills tools are developed for green employment opportunities 2.5.1: Adapt ILO’s career guidance and life-skills tools to the Iraqi context.
2.5.2: Conduct series of capacity building training on career guidance and life-skills for
DoLSA, social partners, and other local employment service providers
2.5.3: Cascade career guidance and life-skills training for young women and men end beneficiaries who pass through core skills development training and apprenticeship
programmes
Output 2.6: Unemployed young women and men, including persons with disabilities and
representatives of refugees and IDPs, are provided with job search assistance through peer-to-peer support and
guidance 2.6.1: Train master trainers on JSC methodology.
2.6.2: Provide ToT on JSC methodology for 20 facilitators to lead JSCs by the master trainers.
2.6.3: Cascade the JSC methodology for frontline facilitators who will oversee the JSCs in the
selected governorates
2.6.4: Provide training on JSC methodology for young jobseekers.
2.6.5: Monitor JSCs and assess employment status of young beneficiaries who passed through JSCs
Outcome 3: Improved capacity of emerging and existing MSMEs to establish and expand their businesses.
Output 3.1: Potential entrepreneurs, start-ups and existing MSMEs, including women-led enterprises, are benefited from ILO’s Sustained Start Improve Your Business (SIYB) Programmes. 3.1.1: Conduct an SIYB Training of Trainers (ToT) training for 20 (10 women including PWD) potential trainers from across the project target areas that will be delivered by certified ILO
SIYB Master Trainers from the region.
3.1.2: Observe and coach the trainers by supporting them in the delivery of their training programme and follow-up services to entrepreneurs. and potential ones (during the pilot
testing of the material).
3.1.3: Conduct SIYB TOT refresher workshops (CRW) and assess evaluate the trainers to be
certified
3.1.4: Conduct SIYB (SYB, IYB) courses for end beneficiaries (entrepreneurs, Start-ups, and existing MSMEs) and equip start-ups with sustainable business plans for obtaining a funding opportunity including coach sessions for businesses that require support and guidance with
a particular focus on greening businesses.
Output 3.2: Improved financial inclusion of start-ups business and existing MSMEs in sectors with potential for job creation, including in green economy. 3.2.1: Deliver FE trainings to end beneficiaries (entrepreneurs, Start-ups, and existing MSMEs) namely those who are looking to obtain credit from banks to prepare them to
handle their relationship with them.
3.2.2: Support an enabling environment (awareness raising campaigns, advocacy, promotions) for entrepreneurs, start-ups and exiting MSMEs to access financial products
(credit) from financial institutions
3.2.3: Establish a referral mechanism to refer eligible entrepreneurs, stat-ups and existing
MSMEs to MFIs and Banks to access credit/loans to expand their businesses.
The implementation strategy of the proposed project is involving close collaboration with various stakeholders, including ILO social partners (workers’ and employers’ organizations) and the private sector, to ensure sustainable labour market outcomes for young people.
The project was initially designed to be implemented over an 18-months period from October 2024 to March 2026. Project implementation effectively commenced six months late which led to request for a No-Cost Extension (NCE). The project was then granted a five-months no-cost extension to effectively shift project end date to 31 August 2026.
4. Purpose, scope, and clients of the evaluation
Purpose
The final evaluation aims to:
1. Assess the extent to which the GIZ project achieved its objectives, outcomes and outputs.
2. Identify challenges and barriers encountered by the project, including their root causes, and the mitigation measures used by the project.
3. Assess and analyse the sustainability and institutionalisation potential of the project model within the Iraqi employment and employability policy context.
4. Generate policy-relevant insights for ensuring inclusion of refugees and internally displaced persons and persons with disabilities into the labour market.
5. Identify lessons learned and best practices for replication or scaling in Iraq and other contexts.
6. Provide strategic recommendations to inform future programming and reforms.
The final evaluation also examines the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and potential impact of the project. It will provide recommendations for future similar projects. This evaluation will also identify strengths and weaknesses in the project design, strategy, and implementation mechanisms as well as lessons learned and good practices.
The evaluation will comply with ILO policy guidelines for results-based evaluation9, and the UNEG ethical guidelines10 will be followed.
Evaluation scope
This final independent evaluation will cover all the planned outcomes from the project start-up to the time of the evaluation, considering the activities planned until the end of the implementation period from October 2024 – August 2026). The final evaluation will be conducted in the area where the project is being implemented in Ninawa in Federal Iraq and Erbil, Duhok and Sulaymaniyah governorates of the Kurdish Region of Iraq. The primary project’s stakeholders are Ministry of Labour and Social affairs, employer and employee/worker organisations, refugees, IDPs and host communities, women and youth and persons living with disabilities, Career Development Centres, Public Employment Service centres, TVET and SMEs involved in apprenticeship training and Non-Government Organisation.
The evaluation will integrate ILO cross-cutting priorities including:
• Gender equality11
• Non-discrimination and disability inclusion
• Labour Migration
• International Labour Standard, social dialogue12
Clients and target audiences
The main users of this final independent evaluation are the following:
1. the ILO constituents (government institutions and social partners) and other national stakeholders in the country benefiting from this project, implementing partners of the project to be evaluated and the ILO.
9ILO policy guidelines for results-based evaluation: Principles, rationale, planning and managing for evaluations 4th Edition
10 http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866
11 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_mas/---eval/documents/publication/wcms_746716.pdf
12 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_mas/---eval/documents/publication/wcms_746717.pdf
2. The ILO Iraq Office, the project team, the ILO ROAS, the relevant ILO Geneva backstopping units and EVAL.
3. The Government of Germany, BMZ, GIZ dealing with extending inclusion of refugees, IDPs and other vulnerable workers in the Iraq labour market.
4. Development partners and relevant other UN agencies at international level that are seeking for policy coherence.
5. Stakeholders who have an interest in the project, for example, project implementers, direct and indirect participants/recipients, employers’ and workers’ organizations and civil society organizations, community leaders, community members, donors, and government officials.
5. Evaluation criteria and questions
The intervention will be assessed against the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria and in accordance with the ILO policy guidelines for results-based evaluation. The following evaluation questions are expected to be addressed by the evaluation team (ET) in the framework of the criteria listed below. The evaluation team (ET) may adapt the evaluation criteria and questions, but any fundamental changes should be agreed with the evaluation manager and reflected in the inception report.
OECD/DAC Criteria Evaluation questions
Relevance
Is the intervention doing the right thing? 1. To what extent does GIZ Project remain relevant to Iraq’s constituents needs and priorities, labour market conditions, skills and MSMEs development programme?
2. Are the project strategies and structures coherent and logical? To what extent was sustainability of impact taken into account during the design of the project?
3. Does the project make a practical use of a monitoring and evaluation framework? How appropriate and useful are the indicators in assessing the project’s progress? Are indicators gender sensitive? Are the assumptions for each objective and output realistic?
4. To what extent does the project design take into account: Specific gender equality and non-discrimination concerns, including inclusion of people with
disabilities?
Coherence
How well does the intervention fit? 5. To what extent has the project remained coherent with other relevant interventions and partnerships in the sector?
6. How does the project align with the ILO’s Programme & Budget (P&B) 2024-2025, Country Programme Outcomes, Decent Work Country Programme for
Iraq 2019-2023 including the period extended up until 2025, United Nations Sustainable Development Framework (2020-2024), and SDGs?
Effectiveness 7. To what extent were the project’s intended outputs and outcomes fully achieved by the end of implementation? Which areas of underperformance (if any) remain, and why?
8. Were there any significant unintended effects and results (positive or negative)?
Are interventions achieving their objectives?
Efficiency
How well are resources being used? Time, Budget and 9. How did efficiency evolve over the project lifecycle, particularly in addressing initial delays or bottlenecks? Was the timeframe of the project sufficient to implement the volume of activities and delivering all the required outputs and outcomes?
10. Were there pending activities that the project couldn’t be able to deliver? What were the reasons and what alternative ways/strategies could have been materialized to curb the situation?
11. To what extent have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc) been allocated strategically to achieve the intended outcomes?
12. How effective was communication among the project team, the regional
office RPS and responsible technical department at ROAS? Has the project
received adequate technical and administrative support/response from the ILO backstopping units?
Orientation towards 13. To what extent did the project attain the overreaching objective? o what extent did the project lay the ground to achieving the planned impact?
Impact
What difference does
the intervention make?
• Is the project likely to produce long-term effects in terms of creating more and better employment opportunities through the established employment service centres for vulnerable young women and men in the governorate?
15. What is the likely contribution of the project initiatives to the National
Development Plan (2024-2028) objectives?
Sustainability
Will the benefits last? 16. Are the results achieved by the project likely to be sustainable?
17. What measures have been considered to ensure that the key components of the project are sustainable beyond the life of the project?
18. Which activities could potentially be resumed or continued in the future by GIZ or through a future implementation arrangement, if additional funding
becomes available and EPSI is extended?
The different needs of women and men, refugees and other marginalized groups targeted by the project should be considered throughout the evaluation process, and gender concerns should be addressed in accordance with EVAL Guidance note 3.1: “Integrating Gender Equality in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects” and the updated supplementary guidance note as well as EVAL Guidance note on Incorporating Participatory Approaches in ILO Evaluations should be taken into consideration to ensure stakeholder participation.
6. Methodology
The evaluation will comply with evaluation norms and standards and follow ethical safeguards, all as specified in ILO’s evaluation procedures. The ILO adheres to the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) evaluation norms and standards as well as to the OECD/DAC Evaluation Quality Standards. The evaluation is an independent evaluation, and the final approach, methodology and evaluation questions will be determined by the evaluation team (ET) in consultation with the Evaluation Manager.
The final evaluation will adopt a utilisation-focused, mixed-methods approach. Given the limited timeframe, the methodology will prioritise targeted data collection, validation, and forward-looking analysis.
Evaluation approach
The evaluation will be guided by the ILO Evaluation Policy Guideline and OECD/DAC criteria as listed above in the evaluation question matrix section including — relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, potential impact, sustainability—with a strong emphasis on understanding:
• the durability of results,
• the likelihood of continuation of low hanging fruits/outputs, and
• the potential contribution of the project for future programming, policy and system reforms. A theory-based approach will be applied to assess how and to what extent project outputs have translated into sustained outcomes and early signs of impact, while identifying key enabling and constraining factors.
Data collection methods
To ensure efficiency and avoid duplication, the evaluation will rely on a focused combination of secondary and primary data:
1. Desk review (primary source of evidence)
A targeted review will be conducted of a list of documents; this includes but not limited to:
• project design document,
• logical framework of the project,
• Three interim semi-annual progress reports (2024–2026),
• policy and strategic documents (e.g. National Development Plan (2024-2028), ILO Decent Work Country Programme (2019-2023), UNSDCF (2020-2024), ILO Programme & Budget 2024-2025).
2. Key informant interviews (targeted and strategic)
A limited number of semi-structured interviews will be conducted with key stakeholders (maximum of 40 KII), including:
• ILO project team and specialists,
• Implementing partners and consultancy service providers (Mosul Space, Development Analytics)
• Selected government counterparts (e.g. MoLSA, DoLSA, VTC, CDCs, etc.,)
• ILO social partners in Iraq (workers’ and employers’ organizations).
• The Donor Representatives (GIZ project counterparts)
• Development partners and key implementing partners (e.g. UNHCR).
Given time constraints, a purposive sampling will be used to ensure representation of key stakeholders.
3. Focus group discussions (primary source of evidence)
Representative sample from beneficiaries will be selected randomly and at least two focus group discussion in each target governorate will be conducted (Maximum of eight GGDs).
Data analysis
Data will be analysed through:
• triangulation of data coming from different sources as shown above,
• identification of patterns related to sustainability, impact, and scalability. The analysis will place particular emphasis on:
• what results have been achieved (what went well, what didn’t go well and areas of improvement),
• which results will persist, and
• what this implies for future policy and programming. Limitations and mitigation
Given the limited timeframe:
• Primary data collection will be selective and focused, rather than exhaustive. To mitigate this limitation:
• Findings will be systematically triangulated across sources,
• Stakeholder validation will be used to confirm key conclusions, and
• The evaluation will prioritise analytical depth over breadth.
The evaluation should include the gender dimension and disability inclusion as cross-cutting issues throughout the methodology and deliverables, including the final report. The data and information should be collected, presented and analyzed with appropriate gender disaggregation. The evaluation team (ET) will ensure that the views and perceptions of both women and men and Persons with Disabilities are reflected in the interviews and that specific questions regarding these groups are included. The evaluation should also consider and integrate other core ILO cross-cutting priorities, including promotion of International Labour Standards and ILO’s normative work; tripartism and social dialogue. To the extent possible, data collection and analysis should be disaggregated by age and sex as described in the ILO Evaluation Policy Guidelines and relevant Guidance Notes.
The detailed approach and methodology, including the workplan should be part of the inception report. The detailed methodology should clearly state the limitations of the chosen evaluation methods, including those related to representation of specific group of stakeholders. The evaluation team (ET) may adapt the methodology, but any fundamental changes should be agreed with the Evaluation Manager and reflected in the inception report.
The findings of the evaluation will be presented to all key stakeholders during a virtual workshop, before finalizing the evaluation report.
7. Main deliverables and work plan (including timeframe)
The deliverables to be produced by the evaluation are presented and detailed further below. All documents, including drafts and final outputs, supporting documents, analytical reports must be presented in English and submitted to the Evaluation Manager in electronic version.
List of Deliverables/#:
1. Inception report with comments log
2. Stakeholder workshop, agenda and PPT
3. Draft evaluation report
4. Final evaluation report with comment log
5. Lessons learned and emerging good practices template
6. Evaluation Summary
Deliverable #1: Inception report
Based on the desk review and initial briefing, an inception report will be prepared to lay out the conceptual and operational framework that will be used to undertake the evaluation and to identify key stakeholders who should be included during the data collection phase. Prior to the submission of the Inception Report, the evaluation team (ET) , with the approval and support of the ILO Evaluation Manager may organize interviews with the project team as well as with some key stakeholders. The inception report will:
o Describe the conceptual framework that will be used to undertake the evaluation, notably justifying and explaining the approach to be taken.
o Elaborate the methodology proposed in the TOR, including the final evaluation questions (presented in an evaluation question matrix), justification of cities for field visits if relevant, and justification of any changes as required.
o Set out in some detail the data required to answer the evaluation questions, data sources by specific evaluation questions; data collection instruments, triangulation and analysis methods; sampling and selection criteria of respondents for interviews.
o Provide a plan for the interviews and discussions including the list of key stakeholders at international, regional and at the national level to be interviewed, and interview checklists with questions customized by stakeholder group.
o Provide an outline for the final evaluation report, including a detailed work plan indicating the timeline and phases, key deliverables and milestones.
The Inception Report shall be submitted by the evaluation team (ET)to the ILO Evaluation Manager and will be shared with key stakeholders for comments.
Deliverable #2: Draft evaluation report (Maximum 30 pages excluding annexes and includes all EVAL templates).
Suggested outline for the evaluation report in line with EVAL checklist 4.2:
• Title page with key project data
• Table of contents, including boxes, figures and tables
• List of acronyms
• Executive summary, using the standard ILO template
• Brief background on the programme and its intervention logic
• Evaluation background (purpose, scope and clients of the evaluation)
• Evaluation criteria and evaluation questions (including ILO cross-cutting policy issues)
• Methodology applied, including any limitations
• Presentation of key findings (organized by evaluation criteria, and with reference to thematic case studies)
• Conclusions
• Lessons learned and emerging good practices (detailed further in the ILO standard templates)
• Recommendations (specifying to whom they are addressed, timeframe and resource implications)
• Annexes
Evaluation team (ET) are required to append the following items:
• Lessons learned based on the ILO template
• Emerging good practices based on the ILO template
• Terms of Reference
• Evaluation Questions Matrix, including data collection instruments
• List of persons or organizations interviewed
• Bibliography
• Any further information the evaluation team (ET) deems appropriate can also be added.
The final report should provide findings, conclusions and recommendations derived from evidence and observation and should also identify good practices/good models of intervention that have the potential for replication and/or scaling. The evaluation will follow the ILO EVAL Checklist 4.2 “Preparing the evaluation report” and Checklist 4.9 “Rating the quality of evaluation reports”. The Evaluation Manager will do a quality standard review of the draft report before circulating it for comments to all concerned stakeholders and project staff. The Evaluation Manager will collect all comments and forward the consolidated comments to the evaluation team (ET) in a standard comments log table.
Deliverable #3: Stakeholder workshop and PPT presentation
After the evaluation team (ET) has completed the data collection process and completed the draft report, findings should be presented to all key stakeholders13 for validation in the form of an online workshop, organized by the ILO Evaluation Manager in consultation with the project team, once the draft report is available. The purpose of the stakeholder workshop is to present the main preliminary findings of the final independent evaluation, solicit recommendations, relay any issues and request for clarification or further information from stakeholders. Participants will be encouraged to give feedback and inputs on the preliminary findings and recommendations presented. The list of participants will be confirmed in consultation with the project team and the Evaluation Manager. The agenda of the meeting will be prepared by the independent evaluation team (ET) in consultation with the ILO Evaluation Manager.
The PowerPoint presentation will be provided to the Evaluation Manager as one of the deliverables. The timing of the stakeholder workshop should be clearly specified in the inception report.
Deliverable #4: Final evaluation report
13 This may include project staff at ILO regional and national offices; national stakeholders and donor representatives.
This deliverable should be prepared after receiving all comments from stakeholders using the relevant templates for the Title Page, the Executive Summary and Annexes including lessons learned and emerging good practices in the ILO templates (see Annex 1).
The final report, excluding annexes but including an executive summary (as per template provided in ILO Policy Guidelines for Evaluation) should aim not to exceed 30 pages. When submitting the final report, the evaluation team (ET) should also provide a completed comments log table to the Evaluation Manager, with observations on which comments were addressed, as well as those that were not.
The Evaluation Manager will review the final version and submit it to the Regional Evaluation Officer (REO) for final review. The REO then sends the complete package to ILO Evaluation Office (EVAL) for their final approval. The quality of the final report will be assessed against the standards set out in the ILO Policy Guidelines for Evaluation, and the evaluation team (ET) is expected to familiarize themselves with these.
The evaluation report will be designed and written in a user-friendly way, with clear language and figures, tables and boxes providing specific examples and highlighting key findings. The document should aim to be easily shared, to maximize its uptake and utilization by stakeholders and partners.
Deliverable #5: Evaluation summary
This deliverable shall be prepared based on the template provided in Checklist 4.4 Preparing the Evaluation Report Summary.
Timeline and key deliverables
The evaluation is expected to take place from August through end of September 2026. The tentative schedule for the evaluation, subject to modification following discussions with the ILO Evaluation Manager, is the following:
Deliverable/Tasks Tentative proposed workdays for the Team leader Tentative proposed workdays for the local consultant
(s) Comments on Process
Inception report (Deliverable 1)
Desk review and drafting the inception report Adjusted annotated structure of the evaluation questions and evaluation report and list of additional documents/interviews needed 5 days 2 The inception report will be reviewed by the EM and other
stakeholders
Data collection phase
- Desk review
- Interviews
- Analysis of data 8 days 8 Interviews to be arranged through the service provider.
Introductory emails to be
sent by the
country
team.
Draft evaluation report (Deliverable 2) is submitted to the Evaluation Manager 6 days 3 Revision by the evaluation manager and project checking for factual errors then sharing with stakeholders for
comments
Stakeholder workshop (Deliverable 3) takes place virtually to share preliminary findings and possible recommendations.
Comments from stakeholders are taken into consideration into the draft evaluation report. 1 day 0.5 Invitation to the Validation workshop by the evaluation manager and comments to be integrated to the final report by
the service provider
Finalize the evaluation report, including annexes and a comments log table.
Draft report is submitted for the second time (Final evaluation report – Deliverable 4) to the Evaluation Manager with comments log table that explains why a comment was not included in the evaluation report (if the case arises).
The ETsubmits the evaluation report summary (Deliverable 5) to the Evaluation Manager. 3 days 1.5 Evaluation manager revises then submit it to the Regional Evaluation Manager for clearance
EVAL reviews the report, and if it meets requirements, the final report is approved and
will be published on ILO’s i-eval Discovery website. ILO HQ
Dissemination of final report to stakeholders Iraq’s Office
Total 23 days 15 days
8. Management arrangements
In compliance with UN norms, standards and ethical safeguards, the independent final evaluation will be managed by an ILO Independent Evaluation Manager who has no prior involvement in the project and will manage the evaluation process as per the ILO policy guidelines for evaluations under the
overall direction of ROAS Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Officer and the ILO Evaluation Office (EVAL).
A ny technical, methodological or organizational matters are to be discussed with the ILO Evaluation Manager, who will consult and coordinate with the relevant counterparts, as appropriate. Meetings will be scheduled in coordination with the ILO Evaluation Manager, project staff and with the Planning, Monitoring and Reporting (PMR) Officer at the country level.
The project team, consisting of the Project Manager, Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant, PMR Officer and ILO field staff will provide support to the ILO Evaluation Manager during the evaluation process and will provide all the information necessary for its successful completion.
The evaluation will be carried out by an independent evaluation team (ET) (company). The ET is expected to conduct key informant interviews with key stakeholders and focus group discussions with randomly selected end beneficiaries of the project with the help of Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant and field level monitoring focal point persons in the targeted governorates of the project.
ROAS M&E Officer and the ILO’s Evaluation Office (EVAL) will provide quality control of the final evaluation process and report.
9. Profile of the company and the evaluation team (ET)
Profile of the Company (all legally registered companies are eligible to apply (international and local) that meet the below criteria):
1. Active during the last 5 years
2. Have at least 8 years in leading on evaluations projects
3. Consistent record in quality control (evidenced by published projects and clear references).
4. Previous experience working with the selected/proposed international team leader.
5. At least 7 years at the international level conducting evaluations for multi-lateral organizations.
Profile of the Evaluation International Team Leader:
1. Advanced university degree from a reputable university in a relevant field such as social sciences, development studies, economics or related fields.
2. A minimum of eight years of relevant experience conducting project-level evaluations at the international level.
3. Proven experience in evaluation related to private sector development, Employment Service Centres, Entrepreneurship, MSMEs development, Skills and employability enhancement projects.
4. Prior knowledge of the ILO’s role and mandate, tripartite structure, as well as gender and inclusion policies, is a strong asset.
5. Demonstrated experience, especially within the UN system, in project cycle management and logical framework approaches as well as in results-based management.
6. A full understanding of the UN evaluation norms and standards.
7. Relevant experience in the region is required. Experience in Iraq would be an asset.
8. Extensive knowledge of and experience in applying participatory qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies, and an understanding of issues related to validity and reliability.
9. Fluency in written and spoken English.
10. The evaluation team Leader must have no previous involvement in the project design and implementation. No relevant bias related to ILO, or any of the donors, or conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the final evaluation.
11. Strong capacity to analyse, triangulate, synthesise and present different types of data, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
12. Excellent consultative, communication and interviewing skills, with experience conducting key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
13. Demonstrated ability to deliver quality results within strict deadlines.
14. Capacity to produce user-friendly, pragmatic and prospective recommendations in both operational and managerial terms.
15. Demonstrated ability to use online tools for data collection and analysis (surveys, interviews, stakeholder workshops).
Profile of the evaluation team local consultant(s)
1. University degree from a reputable university in a relevant field such as social sciences, development studies, economics or related fields.
2. A minimum of 4 years of relevant experience conducting project-level evaluations at the national level.
3. Proven experience in evaluation related to private sector development, Employment Service Centres, Entrepreneurship, MSMEs development, Skills and employability enhancement projects.
4. Relevant experience in Iraq would be required.
5. Good knowledge of and experience in applying participatory qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies, and an understanding of issues related to validity and reliability.
6. Fluency in written and spoken English. Knowledge of Arabic and Kurdish is required (for language requirements, the company can suggest two local consultants; one who speaks Arabic and another who speaks Kurdish).
7. Demonstrated ability to use online tools for data collection and analysis (surveys, interviews, stakeholder workshops).
10. Evaluation process and criteria
The companies should apply as per instructions in the invitation documents.
Preparation of proposals and selection criteria
Screening level 1: Qualification requirements:
The interested service providers are requested to prepare qualifications documents as requested. These include:
- Legal documents and tax documentation for the company, as per the requirements on the application platform
- The company profile
- The CVs of the proposed team’s members (team leader and the local consultant(s))
A first qualification check will be done and if the team doesn’t possess all the required experience as per the profiles set above, the team will be disqualified. As such all applicants are advised to showcase clearly the number of years along with the relevant assignments in their CVs that prove their attainment of the requirements in this TORs.
The service providers are also requested to provide a technical and financial proposal for the assignment.
Screening level 2: Technical Proposal
Technical proposals will account for 70% of the total scoring and will be assessed based on the consistency of the proposed approach with the Terms of Reference, the qualifications of the evaluation team (ET) , and the profile of the service provider company.
The technical proposals must include:
• Details of, references for, and available web links to recent evaluation exercises carried out by the lead evaluator.
• CVs of the team leader, local consultant(s), and proposed team members;
• A detailed workplan, including number of working days, sequencing of activities and deliverables, and allocation of responsibilities;
• A clear description of the approach, including tools for data collection, analysis, and validation.
Note: the minimum passing score of the technical evaluation is 60% out of 70% Screening level 3: Financial Proposal
The financial proposal will account for 30% of the total score for selection. The company is expected to lead on all expenses and logistics related to the evaluation including data collection. Please submit one financial proposal (using the attached template referred to as Annex II-E Detailed BOQ in PDF format, signed and stamped by the company) that includes a detailed budget breakdown and total cost covering the following two scenarios:
- In-person data collection (team leader is expected to travel to Iraq).
- Online data collection in case the security situation does not allow in-person implementation.
For the final amount to be entered in the Jaggaer system, please use the higher of the two costs. The ILO will determine which scenario will be selected based on the prevailing security situation, and the contract amount will be adjusted accordingly.
The lowest price scores the maximum score for the financial proposal, i.e. 30% .
• All other price proposals receive scores in inverse proportion (score for Proposal A = (30 * Price of the lowest priced proposal) / Price of proposal A
• The total score for the final evaluation shall be 100.
• The financial proposal shall be accompanied by a table detailing expense category, number of working days, management fees, FGDs cost, etc.
11. Legal and ethical matters
The evaluation will strictly comply with UN standards for evaluations as specified in the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for Evaluation and be guided by the ILO Evaluation Policy.
The evaluation team (ET) is expected to familiarize themselves with and adhere to the UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system. The evaluation team (ET) will also commit to adhere to the ILO Code of Conduct for Evaluation team (ET) s and provide a signed copy of this document. The evaluation team (ET) should not have any links to the management of this project, or any other conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the evaluation. They are expected to disclose any possible conflicts of interest that could interfere with the independence of the evaluation.
The evaluation team (ET) must act with cultural sensitivity and pay particular attention to protocols, codes and recommendations that may be relevant to their interactions with vulnerable groups, persons living with a disability, women and minority groups.
The evaluation team (ET) will observe utmost confidentiality with regard to sensitive information and feedback obtained through individual and group interviews. To mitigate bias during the data collection process and ensure maximum freedom of expression of the implementing partners and stakeholders, the project staff will not be present during interviews. However, project staff may need to make introductions whenever necessary, to facilitate the final evaluation process.
The Evaluation team Leader will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, reliability, consistency and accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. It is expected that the report shall be written in an evidence-based manner such that all observations, conclusions, recommendations, etc. are supported by evidence and analysis.
Ownership of data from the evaluation rests exclusively with the ILO. The copyright of the evaluation report will rest exclusively with the ILO. Use of the data for publication and other presentations can only be made with the written agreement of the ILO.
How to apply
Applicants should apply through the track that matches their organizational status, to ensure their application reaches the right evaluation process.
For Profit Firms
For profit firms will be engaged as the service provider under a Service Contract. Full terms of reference and application instructions are available at:
RFQ/199/2026/MBA/ROAS - Request for Quotation for Project Evaluation Service -project IRQ/24/02/DEU