Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Evaluation of the “Anticipation and Humanitarian Disaster Risk Reduction (AHDRR)” Project, Pakistan

Table of Contents
1. Introduction & Context 2

2. Evaluation purpose and users 3

3. Task description 3

4. Evaluation design and methodology 4

5. Evaluation process with timetable and deliverables: 5

6. Evaluation quality and ethical standards 8

7. Dissemination of evaluation results and their application 8

8. Application, award, and contractual details 8

9. Selection/Awards: 10

10. Acceptance of ToRs: 12

1. Introduction & Context
Pakistan faces significant risks from natural hazards such as seasonal floods, heatwaves, avalanches, and earthquakes, affecting over 3 million people annually. Ranked 8th globally on the Climate Risk Index for extreme weather events, the country experienced devastating floods in 2022 that dramatically increased humanitarian needs and highlighted gaps in disaster preparedness. Over 20 million people are currently in need of assistance, according to the INFORM Severity Index, reflecting a complex and ongoing crisis. The 2022 floods exposed weaknesses in early warning systems, commu-nity preparedness, and institutional response, underscoring the urgent need for improved Anticipatory Actions (AA), especially in flood-prone areas along the Indus River basin, which crosses Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), and Baluchistan provinces.
The recent heavy monsoon rains and cloudbursts in August 2025 have once again highlighted the exposure of country to the complex crises and lack of readiness for these crises. According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), as of August 19, 707 people lost their lives, 967 have been injured, and 2,938 houses destroyed, with rain emergencies declared in multiple regions, including Karachi. Another report of International Medical Corps (IMC)-19th August 2025 revealed that in KP alone, flash floods between August 15–18 caused at least 425 deaths and 267 injuries, with Buner District worst affected, recording more than 200 fatalities. Entire villages in Bajaur and Buner were swept away, leaving thousands displaced or stranded due to collapsed infrastructure, while scores of schools and houses were destroyed. Since June 26, nearly 660 rain-related fatalities have been reported nationwide, underscoring the recurring vulnerabilities and the urgent need to strengthen anticipatory measures and climate-resilient disaster risk management systems.
The country is highly exposed to flooding, riverine, flash, and coastal, as well as to tropical cyclones and drought, with riverine flooding being the most common. The worst impacts were seen along the Indus River, which spans 65% of the country and affects Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan, and Sindh. The 2022 mega flood, likely induced by cli-mate change, affected over 3 million people. Districts along the Indus River Basin face heightened flood risks due to poor infrastructure, poverty, remote terrain, and limited preparedness. With rising global temperatures, such events are expected to increase, potentially exposing 5 million more people to extreme river floods by 2035–2044 and 1 mil-lion annually to coastal flooding by 2070–2100. This highlighted the urgent need for community preparedness along the Indus River Basin.

The “Anticipation and Humanitarian Disaster Risk Reduction (AHDRR)” project implemented by PRCS, covering the years 2023–2025, was initially designed on a yearly basis rather than as a single three-year project. The 2023 and 2024 com-ponents were developed as independent annual projects, though building on and linked with the same thematic areas. As a result, while they were implemented separately, their objectives and nature remained closely aligned. In 2024, a consolidated proposal was developed, combining the activities and achievements of the 2023 project along with new plans for 2024 and 2025. The project now follows a unified objective and sets of activities.
This approach connected AA/ Forecast based Financing (FbF) with both organizational and community-level prepared-ness and readiness. The focus was to reduce the negative impacts of riverine flooding by strengthening community preparedness and organizational readiness.
Project Objective/Outcome: Target communities in high-risk urban and rural areas and the Host National Society (i) have the capacity to effectively prepare for, withstand, respond to, and recover from stresses and shocks with a demonstrated ability to (ii) respond effectively and efficiently with timely and appropriate actions that meet the needs of most affected populations, (iii) while the national society has the capacity to implement early (anticipatory) actions in high-risk areas before an extreme event or another type of crisis.
This overarching outcome was achieved through eleven specific results across 16 selected districts (5 in Punjab, 6 Sindh, 4 KP provinces, and 01 Islamabad) in Pakistan.
The project is structured around three core components: Community-Based Disaster Preparedness and DRR (Results 1–5), Anticipatory Action (AA) for the Indus River Basin (Results 6–9), and Preparedness for Effective Response (PER) (Re-sults 10–11).
• Results 1 to 5 focus on enhancing community-based disaster preparedness in highly flood-prone communities along the Indus River Basin, Glacial Lake Outburst Flooding (GLOF) prone valleys Ushu Mataltan and Mankyal in Swat, Bindu Gole and Reshun in Chitral, and urban disaster prone one sector of Islamabad. Key activities include developing evacuation plans, early warning systems, conducting drills, strengthening school DRR committees, and training community and national response teams (CDRTs, BDRTs, NDRTs), and urban resilience actions from IFRC’s Urban Action Kit. These efforts aim to ensure that communities are knowledgeable, prepared, and capable of managing DRR and climate risks.
• Results 6 to 9 center on Anticipatory Action by building on PRCS’ and GRC’s experience from the simplified Early Action Protocol (sEAP) developed for Kabul River Basin. Activities include developing a national EAP for riverine floods in the Indus River and major tributaries, technical study and risk mapping along the Indus River basin, strengthening PRCS capacities, integrating AA into NS tools and processes, and engaging stakeholders in dia-logues on risk financing and early actions.
• Results 10 and 11 support Preparedness for Effective Response (PER) by strengthening PRCS’ institutional read-iness. This includes updating contingency plans, conducting internal preparedness meetings, defining response modalities (e.g., cash, NFI), and training staff and volunteers on digital tools for data collection and analysis to ensure rapid and informed disaster response.

2. Evaluation purpose and users

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the project’s contributions in the areas of Humanitarian Disaster Risk Reduction (HDRR), Anticipatory Action (AA)/Forecast-based Financing (FbF), readiness, and Preparedness for Effective Response (PER). It will also evaluate the integrated approach adopted based on the learning from the project’s first year. Additionally, the evaluation will provide key recommendations to guide the phasing out of GRC support, with a focus on ensuring minimum sustainability requirements and strengthened ownership by PRCS.

2.2 Users of the evaluation
This evaluation is primarily intended for two major stakeholders, PRCS at both the NHQ level and the PHQs and GRC both at HQ and the Pakistan delegation level.

3. Task description

3.1 Evaluation scope

The final evaluation will cover the full duration of the project (2023-2025), assessing its contribution to strengthening the Pakistan Red Crescent Society’s (PRCS) institutional and operational capacities in Anticipatory Action (AA), Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Readiness, and Preparedness for Effective Response (PER). The evaluation will examine how effectively the project was implemented, its alignment with community needs, and the extent to which it built on the learning from the previous FbF project in the Kabul River Basin. Furthermore, the evaluation should provide evidence on whether the integrated approach, linking community-level readiness with institutional preparedness, resulted in enhanced resilience of targeted communities and improved PRCS responsiveness to recurrent flood risks.
The evaluation will explore the project’s overall strategy, relevance of activities, coordination with partners and govern-ment stakeholders, and how well PRCS has positioned itself as a national leader in anticipatory action. It will also assess the effectiveness of interventions in the 16 targeted districts along the Indus River Basin and in Swat, considering both community and organizational outcomes. Attention will be given to how community-based DRR, school-based prepared-ness, national EAP development, and digital preparedness tools have contributed to enhanced readiness.

3.2 Evaluation criteria including specific evaluation questions related to the project/program
a) Relevance

• To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?
• How aligned were the project’s objectives and activities with PRCS strategic goals, government disaster policies, and the priorities of RCRC movement in general?

b) Effectiveness

• To what extent did the project achieve its intended results across the eleven logical framework components (Hu-manitarian DRR, AA, and PER)?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
• How were gender, protection, inclusion, and community engagement principles integrated into project activities?

c) Efficiency

• Were the resources (financial, human, and logistical) utilized in an efficient and timely manner to deliver project results? Were activities cost-efficient?
• Were objectives achieved on time?
• Was the project management structure, including coordination between GRC and PRCS, conducive to effective implementation?

d) Impact

• What has happened as a result of the programme or project and why?
• What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries / in the targeted areas?

e) Sustainability

• To what extent could the benefits of a project continue after donor funding ceased and how?
• Are the community-based structures (e.g., CDRTs, school DRR committees, evacuation plans) functional and maintained?
• Which measures were implemented to achieve sustainability?
• What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the pro-gramme or project?

f) Coherence

• To what extent were policies of different concerned actors in the intervention complementary or contradictory?
• Have the RCRC fundamental principles and policies been respected during the implementation?
• Are there any political consequences following the action that were not intended?

4. Evaluation design and methodology

The consultant(s) will propose an evaluation design and methodology including an evaluation framework as part of their offer. In general, GRC wants as much transparency and participation as possible in an evaluation process. There-fore, depending on the purpose of an evaluation, GRC is usually opting for an evaluation team comprising of males and females. The team composition as well as the design and methodology of the evaluation are subject matters of the negotiations with the evaluator/s.

4.1 Evaluation team

The consultant(s) will be leading this evaluation, he/she will be supported by PRCS, GRC Pakistan staff for facilitation and coordination matters. The collection of primary data should aim for a high level of participation. Contacts with relevant interview partners will be facilitated by the PMER department of the PRCS and GRC. The following people will serve as resources, as applicable:
• Program Delegate- GRC Pakistan at Islamabad.
• Project Manager AA/FbF- GRC Pakistan at Islamabad
• PMER Manager- GRC Pakistan at Islamabad
• Deputy Director- GRC program PRCS at Islamabad
• Deputy Director- FbF PRCS at Islamabad
• Heads of relevant departments/thematic leads including Operations, DRR, IT, and PMER at PRCS NHQ.

4.2 Participation of stakeholders

The following stakeholders will be participating in the evaluation; the table explains more details:
PRCS NHQ and provincial branches Facilitate in the coordination with stakeholders for meet-ings and interviews,
GRC Pakistan Facilitate overall evaluation, oversee evaluation logistic and financial matters.
IFRC Pakistan Delegation source of information, implementation process
Pakistan Metrological Department (PMD) source of information, coordination aspect
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) source of information, coordination aspect
Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMA) Sindh, Punjab, and KP provinces source of information, coordination aspect
Members National Coordination Forum (NCF) on AA source of information, coordination aspect

4.3 Sources of information

The evaluation team will have access to all relevant project documents like project proposal, project management doc-uments (Logframe, activity plan, budget), monitoring tools, project reports (narrative and financial), baseline, endline reports, audits etc. These documents are confidential but can be cited and used in the evaluation process. Information which could do harm to any stakeholder if published should be treated in a confidential way. The decision about the publication is the right of GRC.

4.4 Methodology

The evaluation team should use the available secondary data for analysis. For the collection of primary data, participa-tory methods should be applied. The choice of methods will have to be presented and described by the evaluation team and will be approved by GRC in the kick-off meeting. The IFRC standards for evaluation* should be respected and are the framework and basis for any evaluation activity executed by a consultant under GRC contract.
5. Evaluation process with timetable and deliverables:
The evaluation process has different phases and is described in the following paragraphs.
The process will be guided by the contracting parties. The timetable will be agreed by both parties. The consultant(s) should deliver a concept for the evaluation process in form of the inception report. Further reporting will consist of a preliminary report, which will serve as basis for an evaluation validation workshop and the final report, which will be the product to be delivered, including the validated workshop results.

5.1 Timetable

A total of 30 consultancy days is allotted for this evaluation. The final evaluation report should be submitted no later than December 16, 2025. A recommendation on the timeframe of activities is expected in the submitted in the tech-nical proposal. Finalization of details of the timeframe is to be done jointly by the GRC, PRCS and the selected consult-ant(s).
Below is the proposed timetable for the evaluation, further discussion can be done with consultant during inception phase.
Date Task Responsible person Days
10 Nov- 2025 Introductory meeting with evaluation team GRC, PRCS and consultant 1
11-13 Nov- 2025 Analysis of relevant documents, tools de-velopment etc. Consultant 3
14 & 17 Nov- 2025 Delivery of inception report Consultant 2
18 Nov- 2025 Kick-off meeting GRC, PRCS and consultant 1
19 Nov- 03 DEC 2025 Implementation of evaluation (field) Consultant, PRCS & GRC Pak: team 15
04, 05 & 08 Dec 2025 Preliminary report delivery Consultant 3
09 Dec - 2025 Workshop on report / finding validation Consultant 1
10-12 Dec -2025 Final report preparation and submission Consultant 3
16 Dec-2025 Report reception and final discussion Consultant, GRC and PRCS 1
Total 30

5.2 Deliverables

The deliverables for this evaluation include (i) inception report, (ii) preliminary evaluation report, (iii) Evaluation vali-dation workshop, and (iv) final report. All documents produced by consultant for this evaluation (presentations during kick-off and validation workshop, inception, preliminary and final report, factsheet, dataset) must be delivered in Eng-lish. GRC and PRCS will have ownership of all the deliverables.

5.2.1 Inception report

An inception report offers the opportunity for the evaluator/s and GRC to clarify the contract and the ToR after a first study of the existing project documents. The inception report of the evaluator/s should not be longer than 15 pages. The evaluator/s will give feedback to GRC about the ToR and their feasibility. This is the point where the evaluator/s, based on the information from the secondary data, can clarify open questions and possibly change the content or di-rection of the evaluation as well. The inception report should be delivered before the evaluation starts. It should con-tain:
• The key data of the evaluation (Project title, project data, commissioner of the evaluation etc.)
• Feedback / Amendment of the ToR, suggestions for ToR amendments if necessary
• Status of the evaluation preparation (team, timetable, distribution of tasks, reporting)
• Evaluation design: Chosen methods, approach, steps for their implementation.
• Tools for their implementation (questionnaires, data processing and analysis etc.)
• A draft implementation plan for the evaluation
The inception report will be discussed with GRC. Any changes of the ToR need an agreement of both parties, because they might change the conditions and thereby the contract between GRC and the evaluator/s.

5.2.2 Preliminary report

All findings, conclusions and recommendations including the evaluation methodology should be described and present-ed by the evaluator/s in a short preliminary evaluation report. The results of the preliminary report will first be dis-cussed with GRC and PRCS and will serve as basis for the preparation of the evaluation workshop. The report will be presented by the evaluator/s in the evaluation workshop.

5.2.3 Evaluation and validation workshop

Representatives of stakeholders and the evaluator/s will come together in the evaluation workshop. The workshop will be organized to discuss and validate findings, lessons learned, and recommendations proposed by the evaluator/s. Stakeholders might formulate additional recommendations if necessary. Possible content of an evaluation workshop:
• Presentation and discussion of the preliminary evaluation report
• Validation of lessons learnt and recommendations by all stakeholders
• Collection of additional observations or recommendations
It is expected that the evaluator/s present a structure/agenda for the workshop as part of their preliminary report. GRC and partners are responsible for the workshop preparation and all related logistics.

5.2.4 Final report

The final evaluation report should consider the validation of the stakeholders during the final workshop and has to be delivered at least 01 week after the workshop. All consultant work, inception-, preliminary- and final report should be delivered in English language.
The consultant(s) will give his/her/their recommendations but should incorporate the validation process during the workshop in the final report, including additional recommendations from the workshop participants. The report will have to be approved by German Red Cross and PRCS. The final report should, be around 20 pages excluding annex-ures, include the following elements:
• Factsheet with key data of the evaluation, incl. main findings and recommendations (1 page)
• Executive summary, with the following, fixed structure:
i. Short project description
ii. Key questions of the evaluation
iii. Key findings
iv. (Structured (if applicable) along the OECD DAC criteria: Relevance / Effectiveness / Efficiency / Sus-tainability / Impact)
v. Lessons learned
vi. Major recommendations including key recommendations to guide phaseout process.
• Introduction – with purpose of the evaluation, scope, key questions, short description of the project to be evaluated and relevant framework conditions.
• Evaluation design and methodology
• Key findings with regard to the questions pointed out in the ToR
• Conclusions based on evidence and analysis
• Recommendations as expected in the ToR, which are relevant and feasible and targeted to the respective audi-ence
• Lessons learnt, as generalizations of conclusions for a wider use (here especially ECHO)
• Annexes (ToR, list of consulted persons/organisations, évaluation Tools, literature, etc.)
Key findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a clear and transparent way, possibly put next to each other in a table to demonstrate the logic.
The report can be extended by the evaluator/s by additional points if necessary.
GRC MEAL tam, the project team and the partner will analyse the final report, especially the feasibility of the recom-mendations proposed by the evaluator/s.

5.3 Responsibilities and duties

The GRC Pakistan and HQ will be responsible for:
• Review the applications received, select and contract the consultant/s
• Ensure payments are in line with the agreed schedule/deliverables.
• To approve consultancy deliverables

The GRC office in Pakistan and the PRCS NHQ and project team will provide:
• All necessary/required project documents.
• Logistic arrangements for validation workshop (for participants).
• Staff and volunteers support facilitating primary data collection in line with the agreed methodology proposed by the consultant (s).
The GRC Pakistan, HQ, and PRCS NHQ will ensure overall steering of the evaluation through a steering committee comprises of GRC Head of Office Pakistan, GRC Pakistan Program Delegate, Project Manager FbF, PMER Manager GRC, PRCS JD Opps, PRCS DD GRC programs, PRCS DD FbF, and PRCS DD PMER as members.

The consultant will be responsible for:
• Implementation of the assignment, including validation workshop, methodology, data collection, analysis and reporting (outputs).
• Following the timeframe agreed with GRC and shall communicate any unforeseen changes as soon as possible to the GRC country  office.
• Preparing and facilitating the validation workshop.
• Timely deliver the draft and final reports to the GRC country office as per agreed timeframe.
• Bear all expenses for the consultancy except validation workshop which will be organized by PRCS & GRC.

6. Evaluation quality and ethical standards

The evaluator/s should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the eval-uation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contrib-utes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluator/s should adhere to the evaluation stand-ards of the IFRC (See as well footnote page 4).
The final report will be evaluated by GRC based on a checklist of criteria. The evaluator/s will receive feedback from GRC before the final payment of the consultant(s) contract is approved.

7. Dissemination of evaluation results and their application

The following organisations will receive the final report:
• German Red Cross, Pakistan Red Crescent Society
• The executive summary of the report will be published on the GRC webpage.
The report can be published / made available on GRC and PRCS website and library.
The accepted recommendations should be used by GRC and PRCS as learning for similar kind of projects in future, and the partner organizations for their organizational learning. Besides this, these will be used in the GRC’s phasing out plan.

8. Application, award, and contractual details

8.1 Qualifications

Essential (compliance required for admission to tender):
• All key members of the evaluation team have at least 5 years’ experience in conducting evaluations in devel-opment cooperation and/ or humanitarian assistance.
• Experience in working in the field of development cooperation/ humanitarian assistance with RCRC Movement, international/ local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or civil society organizations (CSOs) or other aid organizations such as international organizations or development banks.
• Strong research, methodological and analytical skills, and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations, and prepare well written reports.
• Fluency in English, Urdu, and knowledge of local languages will be an added value.
Preferable:
• Expertise in preparedness, anticipatory action, and disaster risk management.
• Expertise and experience in evaluation and research methods and process facilitation, with a diverse range pre-ferred.
Evidence of fulfillment of the above-mentioned aspects is assessed based on the documents submitted with the appli-cation dossier, notably the letter of motivation and team members´ CVs.
Details of documentation with key clarification for understanding.
• Letter of motivation:
o Summarizing relevant experiences and qualifications for the consultancy.
o Providing 2 reference persons /organizations.
o Signed copy of Evaluation ToRs.
• Technical proposal, including:
o Brief summary/outline of the consultant(s) understanding of the assignment, Red Cross and Red Cres-cent Movement, the auxiliary role of National Societies, the main thematic/ sectoral approach(es), and the task at hand.
o Evaluation design and methodology.

o Examples of recent comparable work, max. 5 years old, with clear authorship by the evaluator(s) mentioned in the application: At least 2 evaluations (if full reports may not be shared for confidentiality reasons, executive summaries and/or factsheets including at least a description and outline of the approach and methodology ap-plied).
o Describe the team composition and their relevant expertise and experience, including roles and responsibilities in this evaluation. Attach the CVs of the proposed team.

8.2 Application

The tender is handled via an open procedure.
The dossier to be submitted must contain the following documents/ information as a pre-requisite for admission to the tender, both with regard to the documents as well as the aspects to be covered therein – incomplete dossiers will not be considered:

The tender documents consist of the following:
1. Invitation to tender
2. Terms of Reference
3. Code of Conduct (only for selected consultants)
4. Declaration of Conformity

Interested candidates/firms are requested to submit their dossiers in a sealed envelope on or before 29th October 2025, by 4:00 PM, at the following address:

Via by hand or courier.
Stating as the subject “Application for Final Evaluation- AHDRR - 2025” in the English language.
Please DO NOT submit your offer by FAX or Email, which will not be accepted.

N.B.: Late bid(s) will not be entertained.

Financial proposal:
 Financial proposals need to be in PKR, inclusive of all applicable taxes.
 Financial proposals should show Lump sum fees for consultancy. This should cover all the logistics (travelling, accommodation, enumerators costs etc.) including data collection from the field.

9. Selection/Awards:

Based on an initial ranking as per the criteria stated below, a minimum of 3-5 candidates/bidders with the highest score will be invited to present their offers in a meeting of approximately. 45 minutes in the English language with represent-atives of the evaluation commissioners. In case of a tie for rank 3, both candidates shall be invited to a detailed inter-view.

Note: The bidders are not allowed to present new documents that were not submitted with the offer. Presentations may not exceed 20 minutes.

Applicants must raise questions in writing by 27th October 2025, to the following email addresses. Candidates are strongly encouraged to contact GRC to clarify questions regarding the documents to be submitted, the content of these documents, as well as the content of the presentation.

GRC reserves the right to continue further communication after the submission of quotes via a combination of media (e.g., post, email, phone). GRC may – but is not obliged to – ask each tenderer individually for clarification regarding their quote within a reasonable time limit, to be determined by the evaluation committee.

9.1. Award

The decision for the award of the contract will be determined via the standard value method (credit points divided by total price; ratio 50/50%). The contract will be awarded to the bidder who submitted the most economical offer. In addition to the price (50%), the following award criteria (weighting in total 50%) are determined for the most economi-cal offer:
• The technical approach offered demonstrates a high level of (16.7%):
o Understanding the overall task at hand
o Suitability of methodology proposed to cover the scope and complexity of the task at hand, with a suf-ficient level of detail to generate reliable results
o Feasibility of timetable/ workplan given the envisaged timeframe
• The quality of the submitted samples with regard to the suitability of the design and methodology applied to the task at hand (16.7%)
• 5 (5 or more relevant samples)
• 4 (4 relevant samples)
• 3 (3 relevant samples)
• 2 (2 relevant samples)
• 1 (1 relevant samples)
• 0 (0 relevant samples)
• The presentation demonstrates a high level of understanding, professionalism in presentation, and engage-ment (16.6%)

Applied scoring system:

5 points: Fulfilled criteria very well (5 points are being awarded if the bidder’s technical proposal, presentation, and/or work samples (based on the submitted bid) show excellent indications of the area relevant to the contract and/or the concept is very well elaborated and there is outstanding reference to the sub-ject matter of the performance.)
4 points: Fulfilled criteria well (4 points are being awarded if the bidder's technical proposal, presentation, and/or work samples (based on the submitted bid) show good indications of the area relevant to the contract and/or the concept is well elaborated, and there is good reference to the subject matter of the performance.)
3 points: Fulfilled all criteria (3 points are being awarded if the bidder's technical proposal, presentation, and/or work samples (based on the submitted bid) show sufficient indications of the area relevant to the con-tract and/or the concept is sufficiently elaborated, and there is a relevant reference to the subject mat-ter of the performance.)
2 points: Fulfilled basic criteria (2 points are being awarded if the bidder's technical proposal, presentation, and/or work samples (based on the submitted bid) show a few indications of the area relevant to the contract and/or the concept is only partly sufficiently elaborated, and there is little reference to the subject matter of the performance.)
1 point: Fulfilled criteria inadequately (1 point is being awarded if the bidder's technical proposal, presentation, and/or work samples (based on the submitted bid) show no or only few indications of the area relevant to the contract and/or the concept is insufficiently elaborated and there is no to little reference to the subject matter of the performance.)
0 points: Criteria not fulfilled.

9.2. Contractual details

Applicants will be requested to sign and abide by the Code of Conduct and the Data Protection Form as part of the con-tract.

GRC will pay the consultant(s) awarded the contract 30% upon signing of the contract, 30% upon GRC approval of the inception report, and 40% upon GRC approval of the final report. The consultant must provide an invoice containing their contact details, the services provided, bank details, and NTN (National Tax Number), and should allow at least two weeks for the processing of the payment.
Should there be any additional payment obligations on the part of GRC as agreed in the contract, e.g., related to travel expenses, the submission of original receipts is required for the payment.

For any clarification, please feel free to contact:
Mr. Ghulam Rasool Farooqui
PMER Manager
GRC office Islamabad
Cell No: 0308-5552805
Email: [email protected]

10. Acceptance of ToRs:

Acceptance by the bidder:
I hereby confirm that the Terms and Conditions as per TORs for the services mentioned above are acceptable to me and that I shall abide by these Terms and Conditions.

Bid Validity days NTN: _____________

Company Name ___________________________________________________________________

Postal Address ____________________________________________________________________

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________

Contact No. _______________________________________________________________________

Stamp, Date & Signature ____________________________________________________________