External Final Evaluation fot the project in Moldova: Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools

Country: Moldova Organization: Caritas Czech Republic Closing date: 4 Sep 2026 Terms of Reference External Final Evaluation Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools Project title Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools Implementing organization Caritas Czech Republic (CCR) Place of implementation Republic of Moldova — rural areas and small towns across the North, Centre and South development regions Total project budget EUR 1 077 252 Donor / contracting authority European Union, represented by the European Commission / EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova Duration of the action 01/01/2024 - 31/12/2026 Type of contract Service contract for external evaluation, fixed all-inclusive price Indicative level of effort 22 working days over 6–8 weeks Application deadline 9th September 2026 Deadline for approved final report 15th December 2026 1. Introduction and context CCR is seeking an external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company to conduct the final evaluation of the action “Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools”, funded by the European Union under the call Support for Civil Society in the Republic of Moldova, Lot 3, and implemented by CCR with AO Local Democracy Agency Moldova and AO SynergyHub. The final evaluation will verify whether the action achieved its expected results in adequate quality and scope, assess the relevance and sustainability of the technical solutions selected, document learning, and provide practical recommendations for CCR, the implementing partners, schools, local public authorities and the donor. The approved final evaluation report will be annexed to the final narrative report submitted to the European Commission. 2. Project background The action responds to persistent gaps in school WASH infrastructure in rural Moldova, where local budgets and technical capacities are limited. Ministry of Health estimates from 2021 indicated that only around half of educational institutions had running water meeting minimum legal requirements for drinking water, while independent reports found a majority of schools still relying on toilets outside the school building. The action combines infrastructure improvement, technical assistance, local ownership and hygiene education. 2.1 Goal and intervention logic The action aims to improve the wellbeing of vulnerable children in Moldova by increasing access to safe WASH facilities and strengthening hygiene awareness in 25 vulnerable schools. It targets students, school staff, parents, local authorities and surrounding communities through improved water and sanitation services and related awareness-raising.Main activities include school mapping and selection; technical assessments and designs; contracting and supervision of works; training on maintenance, water and waste management; hygiene education and promotion; distribution of hygiene kits to adolescent girls; a KAP study; and coordination with authorities and WASH actors. Detailed activities, the logframe and the budget are set out in the approved proposal and annexes to be provided to the evaluator. 2.2 Target groups and geographical scope Direct target groups are 25 selected schools in rural areas and small towns, parents’ and teachers’ associations, approximately 2,500 students, approximately 75 teachers and administration staff, and at least 4,000 parents. The action is expected to indirectly benefit surrounding communities, local authorities and education stakeholders. The evaluation shall cover a sample of schools across the North, Centre and South regions, including schools receiving different combinations of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education support. 3. Purpose, objectives and users of the evaluation The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess the overall performance, achievements, quality and sustainability of the action and to generate evidence-based recommendations for future CCR programming in school WASH, community infrastructure, civil society engagement and cooperation with local public authorities. In particular, the evaluation will: • Assess whether the action achieved its intended outputs and outcome and contributed to the expected impact, and evaluate the relevance of its design against school WASH needs, national priorities and minimum technical standards. • Assess the quality, functionality, accessibility, safety and use of the installed or refurbished water and sanitation infrastructure. • Review the effectiveness of capacity building, hygiene education and KAP activities, the extent to which the capacities of the two co-applicant CSOs were strengthened, and the efficiency of implementation, procurement and partner coordination. • Assess the arrangements for operation and maintenance after closure, and identify lessons learned, good practices, unintended outcomes and prioritised recommendations. The primary users are CCR Moldova and CCR headquarters, the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova, AO LDA, AO SynergyHub, participating schools, local public authorities, education directorates and other WASH and education stakeholders. 4. Scope of the evaluation The evaluation covers the full implementation period from 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2026, or the latest available implementation period at the time of the assignment, and all geographical areas and components of the action. It shall assess both implementation processes and results, including the needs assessment and school selection, technical assessments and designs, procurement and works, maintenance training, hygiene promotion, community engagement, the KAP study, monitoring and feedback mechanisms, visibility, and coordination with authorities and other actors. The evaluation takes place in the final months of implementation, so facilities completed late in the action will have been in use for a short period only. It is therefore expected to assess the conditions and arrangements for sustained results and the early evidence of use and behaviour change, rather than to establish realised long-term impact. Bidders should reflect this in their proposed design, and the evaluator shall state it among the limitations in the final report. 5. Evaluation criteria and key questions The evaluation will be guided by the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, adapted to the design of the action and the school WASH context. The questions below are indicative. During inception they shall be refined and prioritised with CCR into an evaluation matrix containing no more than twelve evaluation questions, each with sub-questions, indicators, data sources and methods. Criteria Indicative evaluation questions Relevance and coherence To what extent did the action respond to the priority WASH needs of the selected schools and communities, and how did it align with national priorities, minimum national technical standards and the civil society objectives of the call? Were the mapping study, selection criteria and selection decisions transparent, evidence-based and sensitive to vulnerability, gender, disability and technical feasibility? Were schools assessed but not selected given a justification and signposted to alternatives, as foreseen in the design? How well did the action coordinate with the Ministry of Education and Research, education directorates, LPAs and other WASH actors — in particular the Government school sanitation grant scheme under Decision no. 260/2023, GIZ / EU4Moldova, ADA / IBRD and the European Village programme — and was duplication avoided? Effectiveness To what extent were the three outputs achieved against logframe targets and indicators? Are the water supply systems and sanitation facilities functional, accessible, safe, dignified and correctly used? To what extent were the implemented infrastructure improvements (water filtration systems and sanitation facilities) compliant with applicable national technical standards, construction norms and regulations? Did the hygiene education materials, training of trainers and mobile trainer groups measurably improve knowledge and practice among students, staff, parents and local actors? What do the KAP results show, and how robust are they? To what extend did AO LDA and AO SynergyHub improve their organizational, technical project management, advocacy and partnership capacities as a result of the action? Which capacities are likely to be retained and applied beyond the project? Efficiency Were financial, human and technical resources used economically and on time? How efficient were procurement, contracting, contractor supervision and partner coordination, and how well were delays, cost increases and bottlenecks managed? What was the approximate cost per school and per student for each intervention type, and how does this compare with alternatives available in Moldova? To what extent did LPAs co-finance works where the required investment exceeded project allocations, as foreseen in the design, and what did this change for ownership and maintenance? Impact and early outcomes What changes can be observed for students, adolescent girls, school staff, parents, school management and surrounding communities? Has the action contributed to healthier, more dignified school environments and greater local ownership of WASH infrastructure? What unintended outcomes, positive or negative, can be identified — including for schools that were assessed but not selected? Sustainability Are schools and LPAs able and willing to operate and maintain the installed systems after closure? Are maintenance roles, budget lines, spare parts, consumables and technical contacts clear, documented and realistically funded? How are the pilot technologies — reverse osmosis and and renovated sanitation facilities — actually being operated and maintained, and are their recurrent costs and management routines realistic for a rural school? Which of the models piloted appear most feasible for replication or scale-up, and under what conditions? Are the strengthened capacities of local CSOs likely to contribute to future WASH, education, or community development initiatives? Cross-cutting issues and learning How effectively did the action integrate gender equality, disability inclusion, environmental sustainability, accountability, protection principles and Do-No-Harm? Were feedback and complaint mechanisms known, accessible and safe to use for children and other vulnerable groups? How adequately does the infrastructure support menstrual health management — privacy, lockable cubicles, water and disposal facilities inside cubicles, and sufficient capacity of girls' toilets? Was the distribution of hygiene kits to adolescent girls dignified and non-stigmatising? What are the main lessons learned and good practices, and what technical, contractual, monitoring or partnership adjustments should CCR consider in similar actions? 6. Approach and methodology The external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company will apply a mixed-methods approach combining desk review, quantitative and qualitative data collection, direct observation and triangulation. The evaluation shall assess progress against the indicators and targets defined in the approved logical framework and review the adequacy and limitations of the monitoring data used to report results. The final methodology, sampling and tools will be agreed with CCR during inception and must be appropriate for a school-based evaluation involving students, staff, parents, local authorities and implementing partners. At minimum, the methodology shall include: • Desk review of the proposal, logframe, budget, workplans, procurement records, needs assessment and selection records, technical designs and handover protocols, monitoring data, training materials, KAP data, progress reports and relevant national WASH standards. The evaluator shall review and validate the project's intervention logic and theory of change, including key assumptions linking infrastructure improvements and hygiene promotion to expected outcomes. • Key informant interviews with CCR Moldova and headquarters, implementing partners, school administrations, teachers, LPAs, Ministry of Education and Research representatives, education directorates and contractors where relevant. • Focus group discussions or structured consultations with parents, students and school staff, using age-appropriate, ethical and safe methods, with separate groups for girls where menstrual health topics are discussed. • Field visits with direct observation of facilities against a technical checklist covering functionality, accessibility, privacy, safety, cleanliness, maintenance arrangements and environmental management. • Analysis of monitoring data, KAP results and any baseline data, disaggregated where possible by sex, age, disability and location, benchmarked against the WHO/UNICEF JMP service ladders for WASH in schools, and triangulated across all sources. 6.1 Sampling The external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company shall visit a purposive sample covering all three development regions and all intervention combinations (water supply only, sanitation only, and both). Be specific in your offer. The final sample shall be agreed in the inception report. Offers should state the minimum number of key informant interviews and focus group discussions proposed. 6.2 Technical verification, available data and limitations Verification of infrastructure is based on structured observation against a checklist and on review of technical designs, bills of quantities and handover protocols provided by CCR. It does not constitute a structural or engineering audit of the works, and the evaluator is not required to certify compliance with construction norms. Offers that include a civil, hydraulic or WASH engineering profile and propose deeper technical verification within the available budget will be viewed favourably. CCR will provide the mapping and categorisation study, which serves as the baseline for infrastructure conditions, together with monitoring data against logframe indicators and the KAP report. Bidders should note that the KAP study is administered only after schools complete the training programme, so no pre-intervention KAP measurement exists and designs assuming a KAP baseline are not feasible. Proposals should set out how knowledge and practice change will nonetheless be assessed, for example through recall-based questions, observation of practice and triangulation with teachers and parents. 6.3 Ethics, safeguarding and security Caritas Czech Republic's recruitment and contracting procedures reflect our commitment to protecting children, vulnerable adults, and staff from all forms of abuse, harassment, and exploitation. Caritas Czech Republic requires its employees and contractors to treat all individuals with dignity and respect and to actively prevent any form of harassment, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking in persons, at all times and in all places. The evaluation involves direct contact with children. Before any fieldwork, every team member shall sign CCR’s Code of Conduct and CCR's PRogramme Participant and Child Safeguarding Policy and provide a criminal record certificate or signed self-declaration in the form required by CCR. The evaluator shall ensure informed consent, including parental or guardian consent and the assent of children; confidentiality and anonymity; no unaccompanied one-to-one contact between an evaluator and a child; no photography of children without documented written consent; and adherence to Do-No-Harm, data protection and gender-sensitive facilitation. Any safeguarding concern must be reported immediately in line with CCR procedures. The evaluator shall observe CCR security guidance during field travel. 7. Deliverables, workplan and review process The assignment is expected to require approximately 22 working days over a period of 6 to 8 weeks.stion. The workplan below is indicative and may be adjusted jointly with CCR and the selected external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company. Task Deliverables LOE (days) Briefing, document handover and desk review Annotated list of documents reviewed; initial issues and data gaps for inception 2 Inception phase Inception report: evaluation matrix (max. 12 questions), methodology, sampling strategy and school list, data collection tools, ethical and safeguarding approach, workplan 3 Field data collection Completed KIIs, FGDs and structured consultations, field observation checklists per school, preliminary field notes 10 Analysis and validation debrief Presentation of preliminary findings and emerging recommendations for validation with CCR and partners 2 Draft evaluation report Draft report in English, max. 25 pages excluding annexes (executive summary max. 4 pages) 3 Final report and presentation Final report with comments matrix; executive summary in English and Romanian; two-page factsheet for participating schools; final presentation; cleaned anonymised dataset and tools 2 Total 22 CCR will provide consolidated written comments on the inception and draft reports within 10 working days of receipt. The evaluator shall address them within 5 working days and submit the revised version with a comments matrix indicating how each comment was addressed or why it was not. All deliverables shall be submitted in editable Word format and as PDF; final deliverables shall additionally include the cleaned anonymised dataset, final data collection tools, anonymised interview and focus group notes, and any photographs for which documented consent was obtained. 8. Final report structure The draft and final reports shall be in English, concise and evidence-based, and shall not exceed 25 pages excluding annexes, with an executive summary of no more than four pages. The report shall clearly distinguish findings, conclusions and recommendations; recommendations shall be specific, actionable, prioritised and addressed to identified users. The recommended structure is: • Executive summary, including key findings, conclusions and priority recommendations. • Introduction and background of the action and the evaluation. • Purpose, scope, criteria, methodology, limitations and ethical considerations. • Findings, structured by evaluation criteria and/or outputs, with supporting evidence, including cross-cutting issues. • Conclusions, lessons learned, good practices and unintended outcomes. • Prioritised recommendations for CCR, implementing partners, schools, LPAs and future donors or programmes. • Annexes: these Terms of Reference, evaluation matrix, methodology details, documents reviewed, persons consulted, data collection tools, sampling and field visit details. The report cover shall carry the EU emblem and the standard disclaimer: “This document was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.” 9. Roles and responsibilities CCR will provide the relevant project documents, facilitate introductions to schools, partners and authorities, comment on the inception and draft reports within the agreed timeframes, and support logistics for field visits where agreed in advance. The external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company will independently design and implement the agreed methodology, collect and analyse data, ensure ethical conduct, safeguarding and data protection, maintain impartiality, and deliver all outputs on time and to acceptable quality. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the evaluator arranges their own team, interpretation and translation, transport, accommodation, insurance and equipment. 10. Budget, payment and acceptance Maximum available budget: EUR 10,000 (exclusive of VAT). • The financial offer must be an all-inclusive fixed price supported by a cost breakdown covering professional fees, travel, accommodation, interpretation and translation, communication, insurance, data collection and any other costs. Payments are made in EUR by bank transfer; bank charges on the beneficiary side are borne by the contractor. • The maximum budget should not be interpreted as a target price. Tenderers are expected to submit a competitive and cost-effective financial offer reflecting the proposed methodology, level of effort and required expertise. • Financial offers exceeding this amount will not be considered. Payments are linked to contractual milestones: 30% upon approval of the inception report, 40% upon submission of the draft report and the presentation of preliminary findings, and 30% upon approval of the final report and final presentation. CCR reserves the right to adjust the milestones in the final contract. Deliverables will be assessed against these Terms of Reference and the OECD-DAC quality standards for development evaluation, covering the credibility of the evidence base, the validity of the analysis, the traceability of conclusions to findings, and the usefulness of recommendations. CCR may require revision of any deliverable that does not meet these standards and may withhold the final payment until an acceptable version is approved. 11. Required qualifications and experience • An external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company that has least 5 years of experience conducting evaluations of international development projects, preferably including EU-funded actions. • Proven experience in WASH, school infrastructure, education, public services, community development or civil society strengthening, and experience in Moldova or comparable contexts as demonstrated through previous assignments, references, project examples, or other relevant documentation. • Technical understanding of water supply, sanitation, hygiene promotion, environmental sustainability and accessibility standards as demonstrated through the evaluator’s previous assignments, qualifications, specific relevant technical expertise, or the composition of the proposed evaluation team (a civil, hydraulic or WASH engineering profile within the team is a strong asset). • Strong mixed-methods evaluation skills, including sampling, qualitative and quantitative data collection, field observation, triangulation and analysis, with excellent analytical and report-writing skills. • Demonstrated experience applying child-safe and gender-sensitive data collection methods with school-age children. • Fluency in written and spoken English, and the ability to conduct interviews and focus groups in Romanian and Russian without relying on school staff as interpreters. The external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation must adhere to the principles of independence, impartiality, confidentiality, safeguarding, transparency and accountability. Individuals or organisations that participated in the design, implementation, monitoring, technical supervision, works or KAP study of this action are not eligible. Any actual or potential conflict of interest must be disclosed in the application. 12. Selection criteria Offers will be assessed against the following criteria. Only offers that are complete, compliant and within the maximum ceiling will be evaluated. Only offers achieving a technical score of at least 15 points shall qualify for the financial evaluation. Criterion Description Points Weight Technical proposal and methodology Understanding of the assignment; quality, appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed evaluation methodology; sampling approach; approach to technical verification; ethical and safeguarding considerations; and quality and realism of the proposed workplan. 0-10, with 10 indicating the highest level of alignment with the selection criteria 40% Expertise, team composition and availability Demonstrated evaluation experience; relevant WASH, school infrastructure and/or related sectoral expertise; experience in Moldova or comparable contexts; language capacities; quality and relevance of previous evaluation assignments/sample report and references; appropriateness of the proposed team composition; and availability within the required timeframe. 0-10, with 10 indicating the highest level of alignment with the selection criteria 30% Total technical score Max 20 points Financial offer Cost-efficiency, realism and completeness of the all-inclusive budget within the maximum ceiling, and consistency between the proposed level of effort and the proposed cost. 0-10, with 10 indicating the highest level of alignment with the selection criteria 30% Total financial score Max 10 points How to apply 13. Application procedure Clarification questions may be submitted to ccrm@caritas.cz until 4th September 2026; answers will be circulated to all bidders who requested the documentation. Offers shall be submitted in English to the same address with the subject line “WASH project final evaluation” by 9th September 2026 and shall remain valid for 60 calendar days. Applications shall include: • Technical proposal, maximum 3 pages, covering understanding of the assignment, methodology, sampling, technical verification, ethical and safeguarding approach and workplan. • Financial proposal indicating the all-inclusive fixed total price in EUR, supported by a budget breakdown and a stated number of working days per team member. • CVs of all proposed team members with a description of roles and level of effort. • One complete sample evaluation report authored by the proposed team lead, submitted in full and not as a link. • Two references from previous evaluation assignments, with contact details. • Signed declaration of absence of conflict of interest and an undertaking to comply with CCR’s Code of Conduct and Programme Participant and Child Safeguarding Policy. Incomplete offers and offers received after the deadline will not be considered. CCR reserves the right to cancel the tender at any time, to request clarifications, and to negotiate the final scope and workplan with the selected evaluator before signing. 14. Contractual conditions The following conditions apply to the resulting service contract and shall be accepted by the contractor: • Data and intellectual property: all data collected, tools developed, transcripts, analysis and reports produced under this assignment are the property of CCR and may not be published, shared or reused without prior written consent. • Data protection and confidentiality: personal data shall be processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) and applicable Moldovan legislation, stored securely, accessible only to team members, and deleted from the contractor’s systems after acceptance of the final deliverables. All information obtained during the assignment shall be treated as confidential. • Verification and audit: the contractor shall accept checks and audits by CCR, the European Commission, OLAF and the European Court of Auditors, and shall retain all supporting documents for five years from final payment. • Safeguarding and visibility: any breach of CCR’s Code of Conduct and/or CCR’s Programme Participant and Child Safeguarding Policy is grounds for immediate termination. All deliverables shall comply with the applicable EU communication and visibility requirements for external actions.