Request For Proposals To Conduct An End-Term Evaluation for the Urban Community Resilience Building Project (UCRB) in Nairobi and Mombasa Countienew

Request For Proposals

To Conduct

An End-Term Evaluation for the

Urban Community Resilience Building Project (UCRB) in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties.

Document Release Date: 3rd November 2026

Last Date for Receipt of Proposals: 24th November 2026

Time: 1700HRS

Tender Number: PRF33262

Submission Method: email to tenders@redcross.or.ke

Tender Opening Venue and Time: Virtually via Microsoft Teams at 1200HRS on 25th November

Summary of the End-Term Evaluation

Purpose:

The primary purpose is to conduct the end-term evaluation for Urban Community Resilience Building Project (UCRB) in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties. The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data and analysis against the Project indicators, project outcome level and theory of change achievements, determine what was working or not working well in the program, understand the impact of the project interventions and document lessons to inform future programming.

Partners

Danish Red Cross, Kenya Red Cross Society and County Government of Nairobi and Mombasa

Duration

30days

Estimated Dates

1st December to 31st December 2026

Geographical Location

Nairobi County-Mathare and Mukuru

Mombasa County-Tudor and Miritini

Target Population

Targeted community members, stakeholders (County Government Representatives & Partners), Project Staff and Volunteers.

Deliverables

Inception report and tools, Draft and final report including all data sets, 3 new case studies, dissemination of the report.

Methodology

Quantitative and Qualitative methods.

Evaluation Management Team

KRCS MEA&L team, KRCS Project representatives and Danish Red Cross Representatives.

Background Information

The Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS), with support from the Danish Red Cross Society (DRC) and funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), has been implementing the Urban Community Resilience Building Project (UCRBP) over the five-year period (2022–2026). The project has been seeking to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable urban communities to multi-hazard risks through community-led disaster preparedness, early warning and early action, public health surveillance, and advocacy for sustainable risk reduction.

Through established community structures, including Community Disaster Management Committees (CDMCs), Community-Based Disaster Response Teams (CBDRTs) and Red Cross Action Teams (RCATs), the project has been supporting communities to strengthen their capacities to anticipate, prepare for and respond to emergencies in informal settlements. The importance of these structures was demonstrated during the October–December 2023 El Niño rains, when communities initiated evacuations before Red Cross Action Teams and other response agencies arrived, helping to save lives and minimize the impact of flooding. Community-led hazard management and disease surveillance have further demonstrated the value of locally driven preparedness and response mechanisms in addressing urban risks.

Building on four years of implementation and lessons from community engagement and urban resilience assessments, the 2026 phase is focusing on consolidating these gains and addressing gaps that could undermine the sustainability of previous investments. Key priorities include strengthening the independent functionality of community structures, enhancing their capacity to mobilize resources, and reinforcing linkages with government institutions, private sector actors, NGOs and other potential financing partners. The project is supporting community structures to access resources, introducing community scorecards to monitor progress against community workplans, and advocating for climate-resilient infrastructure and increased government investment in disaster risk reduction.

The project is also strengthening multi-hazard preparedness and response systems, particularly in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), public health emergencies and epidemic surveillance. Lessons from cholera and other emerging infectious disease outbreaks continue to highlight the importance of community risk awareness, early detection, timely reporting and coordinated response. In addition, the project is promoting youth resilience through the scaling up of Youth Mentorship and Resilience (YMR) models, healthy lifestyle promotion and access to mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). These interventions are complemented by strengthened protection, prevention of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), and accountability mechanisms to ensure inclusive, responsive and community-centred programming.

The current phase is also concentrating on sustainability-oriented support in selected informal settlements in Nairobi and Mombasa counties. In Nairobi, the project is targeting Mathare and Mukuru. These areas face interconnected risks, including fires, flooding, insecurity, disease outbreaks, poor hygiene and sanitation, and gender-based violence. The project is building on previous investments under UCRBP, YLEP and CISU, as well as established relationships with local administration, community leadership and locally led organizations, including Mathare Emergency Community Response Network (MCERN), Grassroot Six Organization (GRO6) and Africa Fire Mission (AFM), to strengthen collaboration and sustainability.

In Mombasa, the project is focusing on Miritini in Jomvu and Tudor in Mvita, where communities continue to experience social and protection-related vulnerabilities, including SGBV, teenage pregnancies, crime and violence, particularly affecting young people. The project is building on existing community structures, including CDMCs, RCATs and community volunteers, as well as previous and ongoing KRCS interventions such as UCRBP, the Cholera and Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) interventions in Jomvu, YLEP and CISU.

Project Objectives

• To contribute to well-functioning multi-hazard preparedness and response systems, linked with the county disaster structures
• To empower young people and households with capacities to cope, recover and advocate for safer, healthier and more resilient communities.
• To strengthen multi-hazard preparedness and response systems, with particular attention to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), public health emergencies and epidemic surveillance
• To document lessons and developed knowledge of products to influence county and national policy on urban resilience.

Key Project Stakeholders

The project was implemented in close coordination with the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, Ministry of Planning and Devolution, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government, Nairobi and Mombasa County Government. KRCS is a member of the County Steering Group (CSG) to coordinate preparedness and response activities with other actors at county level.

At the community level, the Programme was implemented by KRCS volunteers’ and the community health volunteers (CHVs) supervised by the Community Health Assistants (CHAs) with links to the health facilities structures, Mathare Emergency Community Response Network (MCERN), Grassroot Six Organization (GRO6), and Africa Fire Mision (AFM), community disaster management committees (CDMC), The Programme staff worked closely the extension officers from the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock as well as hygiene and sanitation officers. Community members: women, men, boys, and girls, including those with disabilities were also important stakeholders at the community level.

Evaluation Purpose & Scope

Purpose.

The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data against the project indicators, to understand the impact of the project’s interventions. It will also bring out issues that were affecting the project implementation and things that aided the success of the project as well as looking into the impact of the project.

The specific objectives of the end-term evaluation will be:

• To measure project achievements against log frame indicators and compared to baseline findings.
• To determine the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability and coherence of the project results in consideration of its goal and objectives.
• To understand whether intended or unintended shifts in knowledge, attitudes and social norms around disaster preparedness occurred amongst the target community/population as a result of the project interventions.
• To identify and provide evidence for the project’s impact, sustainability measures in place, good practices, lessons learned and recommendations for scale up or cross programming. To review the proposed indicators within the log-frame and set targets based on the findings that will guide the next phase of the project implementation.

Key Questions

The following are the key questions to be addressed during the ETE. The evaluator may however suggest changes/additional questions at the inception stage:

Measuring against indicators and targets

What are the endline values for indicators?

Did the project achieve the targets?

Are they meaningfully different from baseline?

Service access and utilization

To what extent have target communities accessed and utilized information on prevalent local hazards, weather patterns, early warning messages and associated risks to inform their preparedness and decision-making?

To what extent have communities accessed and utilized strengthened multi-hazard emergency preparedness and response systems, including early warning mechanisms, contingency plans, emergency response structures and services?

To what extent have young men and women accessed and utilized skills, resources, support systems and opportunities to strengthen their capacity to cope with and recover from disaster risks and emergencies?

To what extent have communities and other relevant stakeholders benefited from and utilized improved KRCS capacity to deliver urban disaster risk reduction and emergency response programmes?

In what ways were project interventions inclusive or not inclusive to people with disabilities?

To what extent have target communities accessed and utilized information on prevalent local hazards, weather patterns, early warning messages and associated risks to inform their preparedness and decision-making?

Effectiveness

To what extent were the project expected results achieved (objectives, outputs and outcomes)? How does that compare to the target and the baseline findings?

What changes as reported by the community/stakeholders can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected and unexpected)

What is the level of resilience amongst the targeted groups?

Have there been any positive or negative unintended outcomes of the work?

Efficiency

Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what caused them?

How did the efficiency affect the effectiveness of the project?

Was there value for money?

What has been done in an innovative way?

Sustainability

What sustainability measures were put in place – institutional/financial/technical?

To what extent have socio-cultural factors affected uptake of project interventions? And what measures have been/should be taken to address the same?

Relevance

How satisfied are the community members with the interventions undertaken by the project?

What do the beneficiaries feel is the effect of the project on their lives in the short term and in the long run?

The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to communities’ needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.

Coherence

How well has the project’s intervention been compatible with other interventions in the County.

Was the intervention aligned with the national development plan and other relevant policies and strategies?

Did the intervention contribute to the overall development goals of the country?

Impact.

What positive and negative systemic changes has the intervention brought about?

To what extent can the observed changes be directly attributed to the project?

What unintended positive or negative effects did the intervention produce?

How has the project transformed local systems, policies, or institutional frameworks?

What are the long-term effects of the intervention likely to be?

How many people have benefited from the intervention?

What are the main factors that have contributed to the impact of the intervention?

Community Engagement and Accountability

To what extend were the KRCS minimum accountability standards integrated?

To what extent were the local community members actively involved in the designing, planning and implementing the interventions?

How inclusive and equitable were the participation mechanisms for marginalized or vulnerable groups?

Did the intervention effectively leverage and build upon local knowledge, capacities, and existing community structures?

How transparent and accessible were the project's information sharing and grievance/feedback mechanisms?

Has the engagement process fostered a sense of local ownership to sustain the project's benefits over time?

What complaints and feedback mechanism were put in place? What were the common community complaints addressed during the project period?

Do the community members think that the project respected their culture/religion/daily routines/community calendars etc. and how did that affect the project uptake?

Survey Methodology

The consulting firm will propose the most suitable study design, sampling methods, sample size, data collection and analysis approaches that is suitable end term evaluation. This should be clearly outlined in the bidding document/proposal and if qualified to oral stage to have further discussion with the evaluation management team. The consulting firm will also propose targeted respondents to interview or data sources that can answer the log frame indicators and provide comparable statistics to document any changes. The methodology should consider triangulation of findings, adequate and representative sample size for the targeted beneficiaries with clear sampling methods. All the log frame indicators should be given operational definition in the bid submission. Data analysis plan should be embedded indicating how the indicators will be analyzed and presented.

The evaluation will use the following literature and any other sources for reference and to inform the evaluation process further:

• Final Baseline and Midterms Survey Report
• Project proposal, theory of change and log frame.
• Existing project reports both narrative and financial by the time of data collection.
• Documents, policies and frameworks by partners, county and national government.

The project outcome and output indicators are shown in the table below: -

Hierarchy of Objectives

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)

Contribute to building long-term resilience for the most vulnerable communities in the urban settlements.

Outcome 1: Strengthen community capacities to anticipate, prepare, respond, cope and recover from disaster risks in urban settlements in Kenya

1.1: Percentage of targeted Sub County and County contingency plans activated / used to inform preparedness and response actions.

1.2: Percentage increase in the preparedness and response drill scores at community and county levels

1.3: Percentage of targeted stakeholders reporting that project learning and findings have informed their planning and decision-making

Output 1: Target communities' awareness and knowledge on most prevalent local hazards and impact of weather patterns are increased

1.1.1: Number of integrated community-based awareness initiatives on urban risks conducted (integrated health outreaches, risk awareness campaigns, climate change)

1.1.2: Number of risk and hazard maps developed and disseminated to communities

1.1.3: Number of preparedness and response training/drills at community and county level conducted

Output 2: Strengthened Emergency preparedness and response multi hazard approach.

2.1.1: Number of multi hazard contingency plan development/review forums at Sub County and county levels supported

2.1.2: Number of community action plans for humanitarian diplomacy on key threats developed/updated

2.1.3: Number of advocacy and knowledge sharing meetings participated in

Output 3: Improve the capability of young men and women to cope and recover from risks, disasters and emergencies

3.1.1: Number of young men and women mobilized and selected (who are to be "role models"/facilitators of YMR and design community activities)

3.1.1: Number of young men and women trained (who are to be "role models"/facilitators of YMR and design community activities)

3.1.3: Number of young men and women receiving counselling support to cope and recover from risks, disaster and emergencies

Output 4: KRCS has improved capacities to implement urban programmes

4.1.1: Number of innovative challenges held around DRR

4.1.2: Number of forums participated in where learnings and findings to key stakeholders was done

4.1.3: Number of trainings conducted to support roll out of caring for volunteers (incl. PFA and Stress management training, counselling sessions after critical events etc.)

Quality & Ethical Standards

The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the assessment is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team shall be required to adhere to the assessment standards and applicable practices as recommended by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

• Utility: Assessments must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: Assessments must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
• Ethics & Legality: Assessments must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the assessment.
• Impartiality & Independence: Assessments should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that considers the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: assessment activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: Assessments should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that their worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the assessment process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the assessment process improves the legitimacy and utility of the assessment.
• Inclusion: The assessment must include clear steps to ensure meaningful engagement and participation of all sections of the community, including persons with disability.

It is also expected that the assessment will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity and 7) universality.

Qualifications and Experience for Consultants

The lead consultant must possess the following qualifications:

1. A minimum of a master’s degree in Climate Adaptation/Disaster Risk Reduction/Social science/ community development or related field.
2. A minimum of 5 years’ extensive experience in carrying out comprehensive evaluations or similar assignments.
3. Good understanding of Climate Change, Disaster Risk Resilience interventions, disability and gender inclusion, and age among vulnerable populations in Kenya.
4. Proven experience in participatory and results-based M&E knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research methods.
5. Must have led in at least five participatory assessments. Experience of conducting Baseline, End line, Midterm evaluations monitoring and assessment work in the target or similar communities (preferred)
6. High level of professionalism and an ability to work independently and in high-pressure situations under tight deadlines.
7. Strong interpersonal, facilitation and communication skills
8. The team must have a statistician able to analyze quantitative and qualitative data as well as key technical team members to handle specific components of the project evaluation.
9. Team must have experience in participatory data collection methods and using mobile phone technology for data collection, monitoring and reporting.
10. The lead consultant must have strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner.
11. Availability for the period indicated and ready to carry out the assignment and deliver results within the specified period/time.

Availability of experts in each of the subject areas, with experience and relevant qualifications for the assignment will be highly preferred.

Management of the End Term Evaluation.

Duration:

The end term evaluation will be conducted between 1st December to 31st December 2026 or 30 days from contract signing to delivery of the final report.

Deliverables:

Inception report detailing the evaluation design, sampling methodology & sample frame, evaluation tools, agreed budget and work plan.

Copies of original and cleaned data sets with codebook. The raw data, the database which has been cleaned (both qualitative and quantitative, including original field notes for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, as well as recorded audio material), should be submitted together with the report. A simple inventory of material handed over will be part of the record. KRCS will have sole ownership of all final data and any findings shall only be shared or reproduced with the permission of KRCS.

Draft end-term evaluation report that will culminate in the final report with the following elements and as will be guided by KRCS:

Table of contents

• Clear executive summary with among others major findings and summary of conclusions and recommendations.
• The objectives of the end term, methodology and any challenges encountered in the field.
• A presentation of the results and discussion of the same (including analysis) according to evaluation questions.
• Conclusions
• Recommendations.

Report annexes among them case studies, significant change documentations and best practices.

1. A power point presentation highlighting key results and discussion from the end-line evaluation will be presented at a feedback meeting with stakeholders to be held after completing the draft report.
2. Final Evaluation report - submit 5 well designed and bound hard copy and one electronic copy of the report by the agreed timeline. The specifications for the hard copies will be guided by KRCS M&E team.
3. A power point presentation highlighting key results, findings, and recommendations to be disseminated to the key stakeholders by the consultant after approval of the end term evaluation report.
4. At least 4 new case studies.
5. An easy-read version of the end term evaluation report alongside the full end term evaluation report.

Evaluation Management Team

The evaluation management team shall consist of KRCS MEA&L Unit representatives, KRCS program manager and Danish Red Cross Representative. They shall ensure that the deliverables agreed upon and approved in the inception report are achieved on time. KRCS MEA&L representative will be the chair of the team.

Role of KRCS (Project and M&E team)

• Lead the recruitment and evaluation process
• Coordinate the evaluation implementation process
• Review of assessment products including the inception report tools, and reports
• KRCS will organize logistics for the assessment team
• Avail data collectors within agreed criteria
• Avail all necessary documents for desk review
• KRCS will be the link between the community, stakeholders and the consultant and will organize all the data collection activities (identifying respondents and setting up appointments)
• Will be the custodian of all data generated from the assessment
• Organize dissemination forums as necessary.

Role of Danish Red Cross.

• Participate in the TOR development.
• Participate in the recruitment process
• Review the inception report and data collection tools.
• Review and give feedback on all evaluation products.
• Fund the activity budget.
• Final approval of the report.

Application Requirements

Application materials shall include:

• A written response to this TOR in terms of a proposal detailing the technical understanding of the task, proposed methodologies of the evaluation, expected activities and deliverables, proposed work plans with schedule, and financial bids. See Annex 1
• Detailed CVs of all professionals who will work on the evaluation. If there is more than one contractor on the proposed evaluation team, please attach a table describing the level of effort (in number of days) of each team member in each of the evaluation activities. See Annex 3
• Professional references: please provide at least three reference letters from your previous clients and full contact details of the referees (working and active email & phone number).
• 2 Sample reports of relevant previously completed assignments.

Please also note that the people whose names appear in the team composition template MUST be the ones to undertake the evaluation. As such, they MUST be the ones to appear in person if the proposal moves to the interview stage.

Submission of proposal.

The Technical Proposal MUST be prepared in conformance to the outline provided in Annex 1 while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2. The team composition should conform to Annex 3.

Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal – Name of Consultant” and “Financial Proposal – Name of Consultant”. The subject of your email should read “Tender No. PRF33262 Call for Consultancy for End Term Evaluation for Urban Community Resilience Building (UCRB) project in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties”

The proposal should be addressed as below to reach the undersigned (by mail) through tenders@redcross.or.keon Monday, 24th November 2026 at 1700HRS.

Chairperson, Tender Committee

Kenya Red Cross Society

P.O Box 40712 – 00100

Nairobi, Kenya.

ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

1. Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications, and statutory compliance (2 pages)
2. Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services, Key questions (2 pages)
3. Proposed methodology - Indicate methods to be used for each indicator and highlight any areas where indicators may need adjustment. The targeted respondents should be indicated for each indicator. Proposed detailed questions should be indicated. Detailed sampling procedure and sample size determination needs to be described and provided. (5 pages)
4. Firms experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from the geographical area for other major clients (Table with: Name of organization, name of assignment, duration of assignment (Dates), reference person contacts (2 pages)
5. Proposed team composition (As per annex 3) - 1 page
6. Work plan (Gantt chart of activity and week of implementation) - 1 page

ANNEX 2: BUDGET TEMPLATE

The consultant shall only quote for the items below as KRCS will manage all other related costs (logistics and payment of enumerators)

Item

Unit

# of Units

Unit Cost

Total Cost (Ksh.)

Consultancy Fee (for the whole assessment period including accommodation and travel to the data collection site)

Per day

Office expenses (Printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.)

Lumpsum

Grand Total

ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE

Name of Team Member

Highest Level of

Qualification

General Years of Experience related to the task at hand

Roles under this assignment

ANNEX 4: TENDER ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

A three-stage assessment procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders. The total number of points which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is:

• Technical Proposal 50 marks
• Oral presentation 40 marks
• Financial Proposal 10 marks

1. Mandatory Requirements.

The proposal shall ONLY be evaluated on the basis of its adherence to the following compulsory requirements, this applies to both local and international firms or individuals.

Document/ Requirements

Yes/No

Tax compliance certificate

Certificate of incorporation/registration (only applicable for firms)

Proceed to next stage (Yes/No)

1. Assessment of the Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:

Evaluation Criteria

Maximum Points

Bidder’s score

Remarks

1. Background: Description of the consultant/Firm’s Qualifications, Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services

10

1. Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology MUST provide an indication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment.

20

1. Firms Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from related geographical area for other major clients:

• Provide a summary and supporting information on overall years of experience, and related technical and geographic coverage experience.

10

1. Proposed Team Composition: Tabulate the team composition to include the general qualifications, suitability for the specific task to be assigned and overall years of relevant experience to the proposed assignment.

• The proposed team composition should balance effectively with the necessary skills and competencies required to undertake the proposed assignment.
• Lead Consultant Qualifications – should be as per the TOR
• Provide CVs for key Consulting team including Statistician/Data Analyst.

5

1. Work Plan: A Detailed logical, weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided.

5

TOTAL SCORE

50

Note: The firms/consultants that attains a score of 35 and above out of 50 in the technical evaluation will be invited to proceed to oral presentation.

1. Oral Phase Assessment

At the oral phase, the following criteria shall apply:

Criteria

Maximum points

Bidder’s Score

Remarks

Understanding of the assignment.

5

Clear and scientific methodology: samplings, data collection, understanding indicators, respondents, tools, data analysis etc.

15

Presentation of previous similar assignment (Consultant will be required to show/present at least 2 previous completed assignment reports at the oral stage and at least two reference letters)

10

Preparedness and participation of teams. Attendance of team members listed in the bid and whose CVs are availed.

10

Total Score out of 40

40

Note: From this stage, the technical and oral assessment scores are combined. The firms/consultants that attains a combined score of 70% in the technical & oral presentations will be invited to proceed to the financial stage.

1. Assessment of the Financial Proposal

The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2. The maximum number of points for the Financial Proposal shall be 10% (10 points). This maximum number of points will be allocated to the lowest Financial Proposal. All other Financial Proposals will receive points in inverse proportion according to the below formula:

Points for the Financial Proposal being evaluated =

(Maximum number of points for the financial proposal) x (Lowest price)

Price of proposal being evaluated

A total score obtained including Technical, Oral and Financial Proposals is calculated for each proposal. The bid obtaining the overall highest score shall be awarded to undertake the assignment – subject to budget allocated.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Please read carefully the method of tender submission and comply accordingly.

1. KRCS reserves the right to accept or to reject any bid, and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any time prior to the award of the contract, without thereby incurring any liability to any Bidder or any obligation to inform the Bidder of the grounds for its action.
2. Cost of bidding

The Bidder shall bear all costs associated with the preparation and submission of its bid, and the Organization will in no case be responsible or liable for those costs, regardless of the conduct or outcome of the bidding process.

1. Clarification of Bidding Document

All correspondence related to the contract shall be made in English. Any clarification sought by the bidder in respect of the consultancy shall be addressed at least five (5) days before the deadline for submission of bids, in writing to the Administration Coordinator.

The queries and replies thereto shall then be circulated to all other prospective bidders (without divulging the name of the bidder raising the queries) in the form of an addendum, which shall be acknowledged in writing by the prospective bidders.

Enquiries for clarifications should be sent by e-mail to tenders@redcross.or.ke

1. Amendment of Bidding Document

At any time prior to the deadline for submission of bids, KRCS, for any reason, whether at its own initiative or in response to a clarification requested by a prospective Bidder, may modify the bidding documents by amendment.

All prospective Bidders that have received the bidding documents will be notified of the amendment in writing, and it will be binding on them. It is therefore important that bidders give the correct details in the format given on page 1 at the time of collecting/receiving the bid document.

To allow prospective Bidders reasonable time to take any amendments into account in preparing their bids, KRCS may at its sole discretion extend the deadline for the submission of bids based on the nature of the amendments.

1. Deadline for Submission of Bids

Bids should reach tenders@redcross.or.ke on or before 24th November 2026 at 1700HRS. Bids received after the above-specified date and time shall not be considered.

Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal – Name of Consultant” and “Financial Proposal – Name of Consultant”. The subject of your email should read “Tender No. PRF33262 – Call for Consultancy for End Term Evaluation for Urban Community Resilience Building (UCRB) project in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties”

The proposal should be addressed as indicated above to reach the undersigned by 24th November 2026 at 1700HRS for the tender to be opened at 1200HRS on 25th November:

Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected.

1. Cost Structure and non-escalation

The bidder shall, in their offer (Financial Proposal), detail the proposed costs as per the template provided above.

No price escalation under this contract shall be allowed. KRCS shall not compensate any bidder for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of this RFP, and in any subsequent pre-contract process.

1. Taxes and Incidental Costs

The prices and rates in the financial offer will be deemed to be inclusive of all taxes and any other incidental costs.

1. Responsiveness of Proposals

The responsiveness of the proposals to the requirements of this RFP will be determined. A responsive proposal is deemed to contain all documents or information specifically called for in this RFP document. A bid determined not responsive will be rejected by the Organization and may not subsequently be made responsive by the Bidder by correction of the non-conforming item(s).

1. Currency for Pricing of Tender

All bids in response to this RFP should be expressed in Kenya Shillings. Expressions in other currencies shall not be permitted.

1. Correction of Errors.

Bids determined to be substantially responsive will be checked by KRCS for any arithmetical errors. Errors will be corrected by KRCS as below:

1. Where there is a discrepancy between the amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words will govern, and
2. Where there is a discrepancy between the unit rate and the line total resulting from multiplying the unit rate by the quantity, the unit rate as quoted will govern.

The price amount stated in the Bid will be adjusted by KRCS in accordance with the above procedure for the correction of errors.

1. Evaluation and Comparison of Bids

Technical proposals will be evaluated prior to the evaluation of the financial bids. Financial bids of firms whose technical proposals are found to be non-qualifying in whatever respect may be returned unopened.

1. Confidentiality

The Bidder shall treat the existence and contents of this RFP, and all information made available in relation to this RFP, as confidential and shall only use the same for the purpose for which it was provided.

The Bidder shall not publish or disclose the same or any particulars thereof to any third party without the written permission of KRCS, unless it is to Bidder’s Contractors for assistance in preparation of this Tender. In any case, the same confidentiality must be entered into between Bidder and his Contractors.

1. Corrupt or Fraudulent Practices

KRCS requires that tenderers observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement process and execution of contracts. A tenderer shall sign a declaration that he has not and will not be involved in corrupt or fraudulent practices.

KRCS will reject a proposal for award if it determines that the tenderer recommended for award has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for the contract in question.

Further a tenderer who is found to have indulged in corrupt or fraudulent practices risks being debarred from participating, please report any malpractices to complaints@redcross.or.ke