Please find the Call for Tenders available on the EPD website at the link here for ease of reading.

1. Purpose

The European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) (hereafter: the “Evaluation commissioner”) is recruiting a Consultant or team of consultants (hereafter: the “Evaluator”) to conduct the evaluation of the EU-funded ‘INSPIRED Moldova (hereafter: the ‘Project’), aimed at strengthening democratic processes and civil society engagement in Moldova. The evaluation is set to take place between March 2026 - February 2027. 

Given the advanced stage of implementation of the FSTP component, the Consortium aims to assess learning and progress across the entire project, with a strong analytical focus on FSTP-supported interventions, while extracting robust case studies to inform sustainability, replication, and future democracy support programming. Therefore, the evaluation will be structured around a series of case studies, which will be delivered on a preliminary basis throughout the year (see timeline below), while also ensuring the production of a comprehensive and consolidated evaluation report at the end of the project.

The evaluation will have two main purposes: 

• Learning. The evaluation shall generate actionable learning to support the Consortium in:

1. Reflecting on how CSO support models, particularly through FSTP, can be sustained and replicated beyond the project lifecycle;
2. Understanding what works, for whom, under what conditions, in strengthening CSOs’ role in:
   1. participation in policy dialogue and decision-making processes.
   2. ensuring democratic elections,
   3. support of citizen participation,
3. Identifying good practices and transferable models emerging from FSTP schemes and consortium-led capacity development.
4. Producing high-quality case studies showcasing meaningful change, innovation, and impact achieved through the project.

• Accountability. The evaluation must ascertain the degree to which the project has attained the overall and specific objectives established in the Description of the Action and Logical Framework Matrix annexed to the contract with the donor. The evaluation will pay particular attention to early outcomes and behavioural changes among CSOs, public authorities, and citizens.

2. Background information about the project

The INSPIRED Moldova project is an EU-funded action implemented by a consortium led by the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD), together with Centrul de Politici și Reforme (CPR), National Assistance Centre for NGOs in Moldova CONTACT, People in Need (PIN), the European Association for Local Democracy (ALDA), and Democracy Reporting International (DRI). The Action aims to contribute to a conducive environment for civil society in Moldova by strengthening CSOs’ capacities to engage in inclusive, participatory, and evidence-based policy dialogue at national, local, and digital levels, particularly in the context of Moldova’s EU accession process. A central delivery mechanism of the project is Financial Support to Third Parties (FSTP), structured through nine distinct FSTP schemes supporting consultation mechanisms, civic participation, digital democracy, minority inclusion, and civic education. 

The intervention logic is built around four interconnected outputs that translate the Action’s theory of change into practice. By strengthening participatory and multi-stakeholder policy dialogue spaces (Output 1), supporting cooperation between CSOs and public authorities at all levels (Output 2), equipping CSOs with digital toolkits for citizen engagement and policy dialogue (Output 3), and enhancing CSOs’ organisational and technical capacities (Output 4), the Action empowers civil society to engage in inclusive policy dialogue and contribute to the implementation and monitoring of EU and national development plans. This, in turn, supports democratic decision-making and a more enabling environment for civil society in the Republic of Moldova.

Activity Cluster 1 – Policy dialogue focuses on improving the framework and implementation of policies affecting CSOs’ engagement in decision making and partake in the implementation of national and European policy and plans. This cluster contributes to:

• Output 1: Participatory spaces for multi-level, multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on matters relevant to democratic governance are opened, expanded and nurtured by CSOs.

Activity Cluster 2 – National, regional and local cooperation ensures that multi stakeholder consultation mechanisms at the local level function and deliver on policy’s implementation through the engagement of CSOs in monitoring, community mobilisation and cooperation with authorities.

• Output 2: Joint cooperation initiatives between CSOs and public authorities at the national, regional and local level are launched and supported.

Activity Cluster 3 –Digital literacy and empowerment It complements AC.1 and 2 by offering tools and capacity development to effectively engage in policy dialogue in the digital sphere.

• Output 3: Digital toolkits for democracy are curated, disseminated and applied, providing CSOs with the necessary digital resources and know-how to effectively interact with citizens and engage in policy dialogue

Activity Cluster 4 – Knowledge sharing and experiential learning aims to be crosscutting to the whole Action, strengthening and extending the impact of the results achieved under the other ACs.

• Output 4: The organisational and technical capacity of CSOs to engage in policy dialogue and contribute to a more enabling environment at national, regional and local levels, is strengthened.

3. Evaluation modalities

   1. Methodological design

The evaluation constitutes a full project evaluation conducted during and after implementation.

The evaluation is designed to be phased, starting immediately, and structured so that findings can inform ongoing implementation and future interventions. 

The Evaluator(s) shall develop 2 in-depth case studies, starting from FSTP-supported actions and later integrating non-FSTP components where relevant.

A first case study shall provide tangible evidence to answer the following question: 

→ “In the implementation of the project, when trying to incentivise public authorities to engage in policy dialogues at national and local levels, which approaches have proven effective, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?”

A second case study shall provide tangible evidence to answer the following question:
→ “In Moldova, CSOs face several barriers in their work towards the promotion of democratic governance. In the implementation of the project, which approaches have proven effective to tackle these barriers, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?”

While the first case study should primarily focus on interventions implemented under Activity Clusters 1 and 2, and the second case study on Activity Clusters 3 and 4, both case studies should examine the broader project implementation where relevant.

Overall, responses to the two framing questions for the case studies should provide comprehensive evidence of the entire project implementation process. They should capture and reflect the perspectives of civil society organisations (CSOs), beneficiaries, public authorities, and consortium partners, and include an explicit analysis of sustainability and the potential for replication.

Therefore, the final evaluation report shall integrate the findings of the two case studies and present a cross–case study analytical synthesis. This synthesis shall generate relevant insights and actionable recommendations to support the project consortium in reflecting on how project interventions can be sustained, replicated, and/or adapted, as appropriate.

***

Finally, the cross–case study analytical synthesis shall take inspiration from the following evaluation questions, in order to provide a summary of the evaluation findings, aligned with the OECD DAC criteria.

Relevance - To what extent does INSPIRED respond to the most pressing challenges related to democratic participation, elections, and civic space in Moldova? How relevant are the FSTP schemes in increasing citizen participation and CSO engagement?

Efficiency - To what extent have project activities strengthened CSOs’ capacities to engage in policy dialogue and democratic processes? How effective have FSTP-supported actions been in achieving their intended results?

Coherence - How well do the different Activity Clusters reinforce each other? How coherent is INSPIRED with other EU and donor-supported democracy and civil society initiatives in Moldova?

Effectiveness - How efficiently have resources (financial, human, time) been used, particularly under FSTP schemes? Are the sub-granting and support mechanisms fit for purpose?

Impact - What observable behavioural, organisational, or relational changes have emerged among CSOs, public authorities, and citizens? What early contributions to democratic elections and participatory governance can reasonably be linked to the Action?

Sustainability - Which FSTP-supported approaches show the strongest potential for sustainability? What conditions are required to replicate successful models in other regions or future programmes?

EU added value - What added value does EU funding bring in terms of legitimacy, scale, coordination, and policy influence? (e.g. visibility, credibility, access, influence)?

***
Several instances of impact stemming from the different interventions under the project have already been identified by the project team, through the application of the outcome harvesting evaluation method. Here, the Evaluators are tasked to : 

• Substantiate (i.e. fact-check the qualitative data through the collection of additional data) when conducting the planned interviews, focus groups, surveys..etc. At least 10% of the already harvested outcomes should be substantiated thanks to the evaluation process. 
• Integrate new harvested outcomes in the project’s database of outcome harvested (provided by the evaluation commissioner) when documented during the interviews, focus groups, survey conducted during the evaluation. 
• Integrate such data into the analysis, with the expectation that the analyses conducted during the evaluation draw as much as possible on the harvested outcomes.

2. Evaluation phases

The inception phase includes and compiles in one inception report : 

• A description of the project’s theories of change, demonstrating a sound understanding of how the projects’ activities were originally designed to contribute to its intended capacity and policy changes. The analysis should likewise document the underlying power structures, incentives, and relationships among key stakeholders supported or targeted by the project, highlighting how these dynamics are / have been affecting the realisation of the intended capacity and policy changes. 
• The design of the data collection processes (e.g. interviews, focus groups, survey(s), desk review, literature review…etc) necessary to conduct the two case studies, including an assessment of their feasibility through: 
  • a series of scoping interviews with the project partners and other relevant stakeholders (including the lead partner). 
  • a preliminary desk review from the project documents, including the research and policy documents produced over the course of the Project.
  • A mapping and analytical summary of relevant sources from the grey and academic literatures that can be used to critically reflect on and contextualise the raw findings from the evaluation’s interviews, focus groups, and surveys.
• The definition of the evaluation report structure: 
  • The structure (i.e. description of the evaluation report sections and sub-sections) must be detailed enough to provide an overview on how each of the two case studies will be answering their corresponding questions. 
• A detailed description of the steps to be carried out during the evaluation and its dissemination, designed to ensure that:
  • The evaluation recommendations are discussed with relevant stakeholders to translate them into actionable and realistic measures.
  • The discussions regarding the operationalisation of the recommendations are documented and incorporated into the final version of the evaluation report.

The evaluation phase will result in one evaluation report gathering lessons learnt, challenges faced, and best practices and use such insight to generate recommendations that can help the project consortium to reflect on how to sustain and replicate good practices from the project.

The evaluation report includes : 

• An executive summary of the main findings and recommendations of the evaluation. 
• A 2-pager communication document, summarising the main findings and recommendations of the evaluation (the template will be provided by the evaluation commissioner). 
• A description of the project context (analysis of the problems justifying the interventions and a narrative description of the theories of change drafted at the inception phase). 
• An independent case study, answering the following question: → In the implementation of the project, when trying to incentivise public authorities to engage in policy dialogues at national and local levels, which approaches have proven effective, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?
• An independent case study, answering the following question: → In Moldova, CSOs face several barriers in their work towards the promotion of democratic governance. In the implementation of the project, which approaches have proven effective to tackle these barriers, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?
• A cross–case study analytical synthesis, integrating the findings from the two-case studies, structured around the OECD DAC evaluation criteria. 
• A list of actionable recommendations providing concrete measures to replicate or improve the realisation of such interventions in the future of the project or in other projects. 
• An annex : an updated database compiling all the harvested outcomes, describing the project’s impact (using a template provided by the evaluation commissioner).

Key requirements : 

• The Evaluator will hand over to the evaluation commissioner the transcripts (or the summaries of the transcripts) of the interviews and focus groups conducted and the raw results of surveys disseminated, each time a draft version of a deliverable is due.
• At least 30% of interviewed stakeholders shall be FSTP beneficiaries.
• The methodology must be gender-responsive, conflict-sensitive, and adapted to Moldova’s political and electoral context.
• All written outputs must be clear and accessible, using plain language. Abstract reasoning should always be illustrated with concrete examples or findings, and technical/specialised language should be avoided or clearly explained.

The full evaluation process is to be completed by January 2027.

4. Deliverables and timeline

• An inception report. The content of the inception report is described in “Evaluation modalities”.
• A case study, answering the following question: → In the implementation of the project, when trying to incentivise public authorities to engage in policy dialogues at national and local levels, which approaches have proven effective, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?
• A case study, answering the following question: → In Moldova, CSOs face several barriers in their work towards the promotion of democratic governance. In the implementation of the project, which approaches have proven effective to tackle these barriers, which have fallen short, and what underlying factors explain those successes or failures?
• A full evaluation report (in English) combining the two cases studies. The content of the evaluation report is described in “Evaluation modalities”. 
• The raw data collected during the all evaluation exercise : interview transcripts, focus groups transcripts and survey results. 
• The updated raw data of the harvested outcomes, the description of their significance, the documentation of the Project's contributions to their realisation and the description of external (negative and positive) contribution to the outcomes. 
• A 2-pager communication document, summarising the main findings and recommendations of the evaluation (the template of the document will be provided by the evaluation commissioner). 
• 2 presentations of the final report, at project consortium level, and to the donor (and any other interested parties identified along the evaluation). 

5. Documents to be consulted (preliminary list)

To prepare the inception report, as part of its desk review, the Evaluator should review all the following background information on project implementations and achievements:

• Project proposal (Description of the Action attached to the contract);
• Results chain (Logical Framework attached to the contract);  
• Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan of the Project; 
• Interim report submitted to the EU;
• Research and policy documents produced over the course of the Project, including, 
  • Reports and activity deliverables;
  • The database of harvested outcomes;
  • Inception research documents

6. Budget

The maximum total budget available under this contract is EUR 20,000 with all taxes included. Please note that the project is VAT exempted, hence VAT costs shouldn’t be included. Any travel costs (and related costs) need to be covered within that budget. 

The budget will be split in three instalments, to be transferred to the Evaluator after the completion of the afore-mentioned assignments.

7. Eligibility criteria

For a bid to be considered eligible, it should confirm the following:

• Proven track record of conducting project evaluations in the field of democratic governance, citizens’ engagement and local development; 
• Prior experience of working in the Republic of Moldova;
• Excellent knowledge of English and Romanian is required; a good command of Russian is an advantage;
• The application is complete and submitted in due time in accordance with Article 10 of the present TOR.

We are preferably looking for evaluators and/or researchers with prior experience using the outcome harvesting method, and/or other complexity-aware evaluation methods (contribution analysis, process tracing, realist evaluation, etc). 

Applicants are invited to submit the application documents detailed below, which as a whole constitute the application package. Incomplete applications will not be considered. 

8. Application procedure

   1. Deadline 

Interested bidders are requested to submit a technical and financial offer which will be assessed by an Evaluation Committee against the criteria listed in Annex 1. Please find Annex 1 below at the end of the TOR.  

The application package is to be sent at the latest by 4 March 2026, 23:59 Chișinău time to jobs@epd.eu

→ Subject line: ‘“INSPIRED Moldova – Evaluation of the project”

Requests for clarification may be submitted to the email address above until 23 of February 2026, 23:59 EET. Answers will be published on EPD’s website by 25 February 2026, 23:59 EET. 

2. Technical offer

The technical offer is composed of the :

• Updated CVs of the Evaluator(s);
• Annex 2 - Application form filled in.

3. Financial offer

The financial offer shall be: A separate document in the form of a quotation broken down into a detailed budget, that includes the total amount of the offer, all taxes included. 

4. Selection modalities

An Evaluation Steering Committee will be established to evaluate the bids and coordinate the evaluation process on behalf of the consortium. The committee, led by the EPD Project Manager, will be the first line of contact with the evaluation team lead.  

The technical offer will be weighted with 80%; the financial offer will be weighted with 20%. Only candidates scoring at least 75/100 with regard to the criteria set in Annex 1 for their technical offer will have their financial offer considered. Bidders may be invited for an interview during the technical evaluation if deemed necessary by the Evaluation Steering Committee. 

EPD reserves the right to enter into a negotiation with the candidates on the financial offer proposed by them, before finalising the selection process. The selection process will be finalised after candidates shortlisted in the second step of the process have been interviewed by the  Evaluation Committee and agreement on the offer has been found.  

5. Indicative calendar

9. Data treatment

EPD collects and treats your private data in compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 i.e. hereby requests personal data only for recruitment purposes, pursuing a legitimate interest in  a reasonable way, and will delete them after it is judged no longer necessary to archive. Shortlisted applications will be provided to the Funding Agency to ensure compliance with EU procurement rules in  external action projects. By bidding to this tender, you authorise EPD to treat your personal data accordingly.

ANNEX 1 

TECHNICAL EVALUATION GRID