Request For Proposal for Conducting a Final Evaluation for the Isoko y’Ubuzima project.

I. Background information

Isoko y’Ubuzima is a five-year Rwanda Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) activity, funded by the U.S. government. The grant officially began on July 14, 2021, and will be completed by July 13, 2026. The activity is implemented by a consortium of non-governmental organizations led by Water For People, including IRC, CARE International, and VEI. The Isoko y’Ubuzima WASH activity forms a key part of the U.S. government’s water portfolio in Rwanda. This project builds partnerships with the national and district governments, as well as private sector actors, to expand and improve WASH services.

The final evaluation of the Isoko y’Ubuzima WASH activity will be conducted in accordance with U.S. Department of State requirements governing performance evaluations of federally funded assistance awards. The evaluation will adhere to applicable policies, standards, and best practices to ensure objectivity, methodological rigor, transparency, and accountability, and will generate credible evidence on program performance, outcomes, and lessons learned to inform future U.S. government–funded programming.

II. Intervention

The overall goal of Isoko y’Ubuzima was to improve access to and utilization of safe, sustainable WASH services. This goal was attained through the achievement of four interrelated and mutually reinforcing project components:

1. Improving Decentralized WASH Governance
2. Improving Rural Drinking Water Services
3. Improving Rural Sanitation and Handwashing Services and Products
4. Marburg Virus Disease (MVD) WASH Response Plan

The project contributes to improvements in the sustainable access to WASH services by working with key stakeholders at the national level, including the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Economics and Finance, the Water and Sanitation Corporation, and the Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Agency. The project also contributes to improved management and access to WASH services in 15 districts: (1) Kayonza, (2) Kirehe, (3) Ngoma, (4) Nyagatare, (5) Rwamagana, (6) Nyamagabe, (7) Nyanza, (8) Ruhango, (9) Ngororero, (10) Nyabihu. (11) Gasabo, (12) Gatsibo, (13) Kamonyi, (14) Kicukiro, and (15) Nyarugenge.

The project was designed to help an estimated 120,000 people gain access to basic drinking water services; 96,000 people receive improved service quality from existing basic or safely managed drinking water services, and 100,000 gain basic sanitation and hygiene services as defined by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for the Sustainable Development Goals.

To reach the planned targets, Isoko y’Ubuzima strengthened national and local capacity to plan for and deliver sustainable, high-quality WASH services. The project also improved access to household WASH services and promoted their correct and consistent use, contributing to a reduction in diseases associated with inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene, where the project:

• Built the capacity of national- and district-level public- and private-sector staff and institutions in the WASH Building Blocks.
• Rehabilitated non-functioning or partially functional water supply systems and reduced non-revenue water (NRW).
• Improved access to basic sanitation and hygiene by implementing a market-based sanitation and hygiene strategy.
• Contributed to national efforts to prevent the transmission of Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, including MVD and other infectious diseases, through enhanced IPC/WASH services in health facilities and public places.

III. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the project’s overall achievement of its objectives, measure realized outcomes and impacts, review the effectiveness and sustainability of project strategies, and capture key lessons and good practices to inform future programming.

Final Evaluation Specifics Objectives:

1. Assess the extent to which the activity achieved its strategic objectives and intermediate results over the life of the project.
2. Document key outcomes, effectiveness, and sustainability of the achievements made. 
3. Analyze performance against established indicators as outlined in the Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT) and generate lessons learned and recommendations to inform future WASH programming in the sector.
4. Assess the strength of the WASH Sector in Rwanda following the Isoko y’Ubuzima interventions using the building blocks assessment methodology across all 9 building blocks and provide a scoring.

Evaluation Use

The Final Evaluation will serve as a critical tool for assessing the extent to which life-of-project targets and intended objectives were achieved, documenting outcomes and impact, and capturing lessons learned to inform future sector programming. The evaluation will include, but not be limited to:

• Determine if the consortium meets targets and outcomes.
• Determine why targets were or were not met.
• Assess the impact of the Isoko y’Ubuzima project.
• Provide lessons learned along the life of the project to inform future WASH sector projects.

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will address the following broad evaluation questions. Illustrative evaluation questions are found under each intermediate result:

Strategic Objective 1 

IR1 Strengthen national-level WASH institutions.

To what extent have the project activities strengthened the national-level WASH institutions? 

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• What changes in knowledge or performance are associated with participation in WASH Systems Academy modules?
• Have the Isoko y’Ubuzima project's inputs to the WASH sector through the Sector Working Group, Thematic Working Groups, and other project initiatives contributed to the strengthening of the WASH sector? If yes, how, and if not, why?
• Have specific changes been observed in the WASH sector as a result of the Isoko y’Ubuzima project interventions? If yes, what changes, and if not, what may be the reasons?
• To what extent has capacity strengthening of public and private-sector actors improved coordination, planning, and service delivery across the WASH Building Blocks?
• Have trained national and district-level institutions applied a systems strengthening approach in their policies, plans, or operations? If yes, how, and if not, why?
• How has engagement with private-sector actors through the WASH systems academy courses influenced their performance, compliance, or contribution to WASH service sustainability?
• What institutional or systemic barriers continue to limit effective use of strengthened capacities within the WASH Building Blocks framework?

IR2 Strengthen district capacity to implement WASH policies and plans.

To what extent have the project activities strengthened district capacity to implement WASH policies and plans?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• Have the project’s interventions with the District WASH Boards (DWASHB) and District WASH Offices improved their ability to monitor and strengthen the implementation of WASH systems/services? If yes, provide examples, and if not, how must the project adjust its strategy to have the desired impact on performance (disaggregated by district)?
• What lessons can we draw from the DWASHB and WASH offices that improved or did not improve their capacity performance as a result of the Isoko y’Ubuzima project interventions?

Strategic Objective 2

IR1: Improve capacity for management of the district water services.

To what extent have the project activities contributed to improving the capacity for managing rural water services by WASAC and private operators?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• To what extent has the project effectively addressed challenges encountered in its efforts to build capacity in district water service management?
• To what extent has the creation of the district-wide engineering designs and the WASH investment plans empowered the districts to improve their budgeting and resource mobilization?

IR2: Improve capacity for the provision of reliable water services.

To what extent have project activities improved the capacity for the provision of reliable water services?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• To what extent has the Isoko y’Ubuzima project met its targets for the number of people gaining access to basic water services and the number of people gaining improved water services?
• To what extent have the rehabilitated water supply systems met the country’s standards of accessibility? (disaggregated by district)

IR3: Increase funds available for operations and maintenance.

To what extent have project activities contributed to the increased funds available for operations and maintenance (O&M)?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the professionalization of Private Operators, improved their performance, and increased their profitability?
• To what extent have the project interventions contributed to the ability of the Private Operators to invest in O&M?
• To what extent have the project’s interventions reduced non-revenue water in a cost-efficient and scalable manne

IR4: Improve accountability of Private Operators

To what extent have project activities contributed to the increased accountability of Private Operators?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• Do District WASH Boards, service providers (Private Operators), and service users feel that the community scorecard methodology has contributed to improvements in WASH service delivery?
• Do service users feel that Private Operators are more responsive to their needs and service requests at the end of the activity than at the beginning?

Strategic Objective 3 

IR1: Increased knowledge and motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products.

To what extent has the project increased knowledge and motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products?

• To what extent was the Isoko y’Ubuzima project’s initial activity design effective in building capacity and applying market-based approaches to increase demand for sanitation products and improve access to sanitation services in the targeted districts and communities?
• To what extent has the project contributed to the construction of toilets and installation of handwashing facilities as a result of increased motivation to invest in sanitation and hygiene products?
• Has the project achieved its high-level sanitation and hygiene targets? If not, why?

IR2: Increased availability of sanitation services and products

To what extent has the project increased the availability of sanitation services and products?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• To what extent has the project been successful in strengthening the private sector supply chain of sanitation products? If yes, in what specific ways has the supply chain been strengthened?
• To what extent have the sales strategies (district sanitation centers, sanitation showrooms, and sales agents) demonstrated sustainable progress in the sale and installation of household sanitation and hygiene products and services? 

IR3: Increased access to financing for sanitation and hygiene products and services

To what extent has the project increased access to financing for sanitation and hygiene products and services?

Illustrative questions include, but are not limited to:

• To what extent has the project effectively improved access to financial resources (i.e, MFIs, SACCOs, VSLAs, etc.) for the purchase of sanitation and hygiene products?

Assess Marburg Virus Disease (MVD) WASH Response 

IR1: Increased knowledge on safe sanitation practices

To what extent has the project increased knowledge and awareness of safe sanitation practices in health facilities and public places in the nine districts?

• To what extent were the social and behavior change (SBC) interventions and materials (i.e, mass media, posters, PVC stickers, and hygiene good practice demonstrations) effective in contributing to observed increases in knowledge and reported handwashing behavior?
• To what extent did SBC activities translate into measurable knowledge gains and shifts in attitudes toward safe practices among target populations (e.g., knowledge of handwashing key moments, correct technique)?
• Have knowledge gains translated into intended practices or investments (e.g., use of HWFs, adoption of recommended sanitation behaviors)? Provide examples.
• Do disparities exist in knowledge gains by gender, disability, age, or district? If so, what targeted adjustments are recommended?

IR2: Increased availability and accessibility of WASH facilities and services in health centers, public places, and communities

To what extent has the project increased the availability of WASH facilities and services in health centers, public places, and communities?

• How effectively have handwashing facilities been constructed or rehabilitated in terms of functionality, accessibility (inclusive design for PWDs), and maintenance planning?
• To what extent have sanitation upgrades improved access and usage? Any observed reductions in congestion or wait times?
• Are intra-facility water connections achieving IPC goals in target centers? Are there remaining barriers to achieving full connectivity (e.g., power, maintenance, water pressure)?

IR3: Improved management and sustainability of WASH facilities

To what extent has the project contributed to the sustained management, operation, and maintenance of WASH facilities?

• To what extent has the governance/management framework for handwashing facilities been developed, disseminated, and adopted by local authorities and facility owners?
• How effective are the proposed maintenance guidelines, monitoring checklists, and O&M plans in ensuring sustainability beyond project timelines?
• Have local partners and districts demonstrated ownership through governance structures, resource allocation, and routine maintenance commitments?
• What are the main risks to sustainability (budgetary, technical, governance), and what mitigation measures are in place?

IR4: Social and behavior change outcomes

To what extent has the SBC component influenced handwashing behaviors and MVD prevention practices in health centers, public places, and communities?

• To what extent did the SBC materials for hygiene promotion (70 posters for public places, 70 A0 posters, 720 posters, 9 billboards) reached the target audience?
• How effective were mass media, PVC posters, mobile vans, bus station radio, and live demonstrations in changing behaviors? Are there indicators of behavior adoption (e.g., observed handwashing at facilities, self-reported practices)?

Implementation of quality and risk management

To what extent was the project implementation plan followed, and what risks affected its progress?

Note: IRB approval will be required to ensure ethical conduct, minimize risk, protect participants’ rights and confidentiality, and ensure informed consent.

IV. Methodology 

The evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach. The consulting firm will propose a detailed methodology that will be validated before fieldwork. The proposed evaluation methods will include, but not be limited to:

• Document review: gathering and reviewing pertinent documentation such as field trip reports, annual progress reports, etc.
• In-depth individual interviews with project/program managers, technical staff, etc.
• Data collection from beneficiaries
• Key informant interviews with program participants, partners, and authorities.

The evaluation will emphasize contribution analysis, triangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence, and validation of project monitoring data.

Water for People will provide the key documents to the consulting firm, including:

• Approved proposal, which forms part of the cooperative agreement
• Approved MEL Plan
• Approved work plans
• Annual reports
• Other assessment reports
• PowerPoint presentations

Water For People will include the following assistance:

• Office space while in Kigali
• A vehicle and driver only when the consultant is meeting officials outside of Kigali and when accompanied by a Water For People staff member
• Introduction of consultants to stakeholders.

V. Deliverables

The consulting firm is expected to deliver the following: 

1. Inception report, including methodology and evaluation tools
2. Draft report
3. Final report (including the submission of cleaned datasets and interview transcripts)
4. Synthesis document
5. PowerPoint presentation
6. Learning brief and/or policy note for government stakeholders

All the deliverables will have to be reviewed and approved by Water For People/and the Department of State before payment. 

VI.  Evaluation Timeline

The evaluation is expected to start in March 2026 and be completed within a period of 3 months, as
follows:

1. Contract signed by the end of March 2026
2. Inception report +3 weeks
3. Fieldwork April–May 2026
4. Draft report June 1, 2026
5. Final report June 15, 2026

VII. Qualifying conditions for the consulting firms

Bidders must provide evidence of the following:

• A team structure composed of a WASH Sector expert, Team leader, Senior Evaluation Specialist, and other key personnel who are adequate to conduct the evaluation effectively and efficiently per the SOW. The team must include competencies in statistical analysis and WASH, and the data collection team must have members with fluency in Kinyarwanda.
• A firm specialized in U.S. government end-of-project evaluations. 
• Demonstrated work experience in Rwanda or similar contexts.
• Demonstrated experience evaluating WASH projects. 

Bid Documents

Technical Proposal

A technical proposal submitted by a bidder must have the components described in the sections below. 

A. Companies and firms

Company Profile and administrative documents

Bidders Registered in Rwanda

• Valid tax clearance certificate
• Valid Social Security clearance certificate
• Company registration certificate
• VAT Certificate

Bidders Registered Outside of Rwanda

Foreign bidders must provide the following documents, duly issued or certified by the relevant authorities in their country of registration:

• Proof of Company Registration in the country of origin (equivalent to a Company Registration Certificate)
• Valid Tax Compliance Certificate issued by the relevant authority
• Proof of VAT Registration (or equivalent, if applicable in the bidder’s country)

Submission of Proposals

The application file must contain the following documents and information:

1. Firm Experience and Technical Capacity

Firms must demonstrate proven experience in conducting similar assignments, including:

• A list of comparable projects completed in the last 5–10 years.
• Evidence of performance (e.g., completion certificates, client recommendation letters).
• Clear outline of the firm’s technical capacity, including the number of qualified staff and areas of expertise relevant to the assignment.

2. Key Staff Qualifications

Applicants shall submit an updated, signed Curriculum Vitae for all proposed experts, accompanied by relevant academic and professional certificates.

Each proposed staff member must submit a signed letter of availability for the duration of the
assignment.

If a team is proposed, ensure that:

• Roles and responsibilities of each member are clearly defined.
• The team structure aligns with the assignment requirements.
• The proposed Project Manager provides three (3) professional references with full contact details.

3. Administrative Requirements

Joint Venture applicants must provide a duly notarized joint venture agreement.

All companies/firms must provide:

• Full physical and postal address
• All required registration documents
• For Rwandan companies: valid RDB registration, tax clearance, and other relevant
  certifications
• For foreign bidders: equivalent valid registration and legal status documents issued by their
  country of registration

• Technical proposal: a proposal must contain a detailed methodology demonstrating an understanding of ToRs, a clear timeframe detailing how the deliverables will be achieved, team composition, and evidence of the consultant’s experience.

• Financial offer: it should detail the various costs associated with the delivery of the above services (in Rwanda Francs), in PDF format, and must be a separate document from the technical proposal and password-protected. Please do not include any financial/price in the technical proposal. The inclusion of any price information in the technical proposal shall lead to bid rejection. 

4. Mandatory Compliance

• Failure to submit any of the above-required documents will lead to immediate disqualification.

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

In assessing the proposals submitted, the evaluation panel will apply a structured evaluation approach that considers both technical quality and cost. The assessment will be conducted in three stages: (1) review of administrative compliance documents; (2) evaluation of the technical proposal, including the soundness of the proposed approach and methodology, the firm’s relevant experience, and the qualifications of the proposed team; and (3) assessment of the financial proposal, focusing on the overall cost of the services.

Stage I: Administrative documents: Mandatory (Pass/Fail)

Any bid failing at this stage will not go to the next stage.

Stage II: Technical evaluation 

Methodology (50 points)

• Demonstrated understanding of the assignment, includingawareness of issues in the WASH sector and the relevance of Isoko Y’Ubuzima activity (10 points).
• Rationale and the added value of each proposed data collection method (10 points).
• Quality of the sampling strategy (10 points).
• Demonstrated familiarity with local evaluation norms, protocols, and procedures (10 points).
• Quality of workplans, sequencing of evaluation activities, and the data collection plan (10 points).

WASH Sector expert and Team leader (20 points)

• At least 8 years of experience in managing WASH programs (5 points)
• Demonstrated experience in evaluating at least 2 large-scale projects in Rwanda or similar geographies (5 points).
• Demonstrated familiarity with US Government programming approaches and methods (5 points).
• Proven track record of authoring or co-authoring top-quality evaluation reports or other publications (at least three report samples) (5 points).

Senior Evaluation Specialist (15 points)

• Demonstrated experience in conducting at least 3 qualitative evaluations of projects in Rwanda or similar geographies (3 points).
• At least 10 years of M&E experience, half of them as an M&E consultant (3points).
• At least a master’s degree in a related discipline (3 points).
• Proven familiarity with US Government programming experience (3 points).
• To have published at least 2 evaluation reports either as a sole or co-author – share the links to the reports (3 points).

Other key personnel experiences and rationale (15 points).

• Adequacy of the proposed team structure (5 points).

• Description of the roles and responsibilities of other personnel (5 points).

• Qualifications and experience of other proposed personnel in relation to their proposed roles (5 points).

Note: To pass the technical evaluation, bidders must achieve a minimum score of 80% in each technical evaluation section. Only bidders meeting this threshold will have their financial proposals opened. Among those, the bidder with the lowest financial offer will be ranked first. The technical proposal encompasses:

Methodology (/50)

WASH Sector Expert and Team leader (/20)

Senior Evaluation Specialist (/15)

Other key personnel experiences and rationale (/15)

The selected bidder will be contractually required to comply with Water For People’s Vendor Code of Conduct https://www.waterforpeople.org/Vendor-Code-of-Conduct and will be required to deliver a Conflict-of-Interest Certificate before the execution of the contract. The Conflict-of-Interest Certificate requires the disclosure of any potential or actual conflicts of interest with Water For People employees or their relatives, including past, current, or proposed business transactions, employment or offers of employment, or certain gifts or entertainment. Water For People will evaluate any disclosures of conflicts of interest; if Water For People determines it cannot waive or mitigate the conflict of interest, it will result in the disqualification of the selected proposer.

VIII. Copyrights

Copyright of all material on the assignment will be retained by Water For People. 

IX.  Rights Reserved

1. Water For People reserves the right to cancel the entire procurement process without
   incurring any liability whatsoever. 
2. Water For People reserves the right to amend any segment of the RFP before the announcement of selected candidates.
3. Water For People also reserves the right to remove one or more of the services from consideration for this contract should the evaluation show that it is in WFP’s best interest to do so.
4. Water For People also may, at its discretion, issue a separate contract for any service or group of services included in this RFP. Water For People may negotiate a compensation package and additional provisions to the contract awarded under this RFP.
5. Water For People reserves the right to debrief the applicants after the completion of the process due to the expected high volume of applications to avoid the compromise of the process

How to apply

If you are qualified and interested in the assignment, please send your technical and financial proposals (as two separate attachments in a single e-mail) to: rwprocurement@waterforpeople.org no later than April 12, 2026with the following subject: “Consultancy services for Conducting a Final Evaluation for the Isoko y’Ubuzima project”. Hard copies and late submissions shall be rejected. 

If there are any questions related to this RFP, send them to rwprocurement@waterforpeople.org with a title “Questions on Final Evaluation for the Isoko y’Ubuzima project” not later than April 8, 2026.

Done at Kigali, on March 30, 2026. 
 

Eugene Dusingizumuremyi

Country Director