Request for Proposals for a project midterm review
“Youth and Civil Society for Integrity – #GO4IT”
Kosova Democratic Institute (KDI) invites applications from consulting companies and independent consultants to review its project funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Individual consultants and companies nominating a lead evaluator may apply.
| Project period | 1 January 2024 – 31 December 2027 |
| Review coverage | From 1 January 2024 to 31 October 2026 |
| Timing and effort | 1 December 2026 – 20 January 2027, approximately 10 working days over the assignment period. |
Implemented under the name “Youth and Civil Society for Integrity – #GO4IT”, the project seeks to strengthen public integrity and accountability in Kosovo through youth engagement, citizen support and cooperation among civil society, media and institutions.
During 2025, prolonged institutional deadlock and multiple electoral processes shaped implementation. KDI adapted training formats and institutional engagement and expanded collective advocacy and electoral integrity work. The review should examine these choices in relation to the project’s original objectives and intended results.
The review covers the first 34 months of implementation and will inform delivery in the final project year. It should assess results against the project’s objectives and understand the choices and conditions that shaped delivery. Particular attention should be given to how the original approaches and subsequent adaptations have contributed to the intended outcomes.
KDI and SIDA will use the findings to identify feasible priorities for 2027 and inform the design of a possible follow-on project. Recommendations should distinguish improvements achievable within the remaining year from changes that would require a different approach, timeframe or resources in future programming.
Consider the original design and planned approaches alongside implementation experience, documented adaptations and relevant agreements with SIDA. The following questions should guide an assessment of results, the relevance of delivery choices and the trade-offs involved.
How well have the planned and adapted youth engagement approaches responded to participants’ needs and opportunities to participate? Consider the suitability and reach of training formats, including regional academies and shorter sessions in educational institutions. Drawing on the Super Academy, seed-supported initiatives, youth-produced content and other follow-up opportunities, assess what participants have gained and how their engagement has developed. What does this suggest for future outreach, learning and support for civic action?
What do case records and stakeholder perspectives indicate about ALAC’s contribution to access to legal support and institutional remedies? Consider the range of assistance provided to victims and witnesses of corruption, whistleblowers and workers seeking protection of their rights, including individual redress and cases with wider implications. Examine the links between casework, public outreach and advocacy, and the factors shaping institutional responses. Identify lessons for maintaining accessible support and using case experience in future work.
Review the project’s contribution through research, legal analysis, institutional monitoring and public communication. How did the intended parliamentary engagement and subsequent adaptations respond to institutional conditions? Consider collective advocacy during the 2025 deadlock, including #ShtetiNëPauzë, and project-supported electoral integrity work. Examine how findings and recommendations were used in public and institutional discussions, what responses can be documented and what remains dependent on external decisions or longer reform timelines.
Examine how the approach to partner support and joint action has developed, including the Thematic Forum’s evolving role and cooperation with the Agency for Prevention of Corruption. Consider the planned support to CSOs and media alongside the cooperation arrangements and initiatives that emerged. Review the selection, support and results of SIDA-supported sub-grants using project grant records and selected partner perspectives. What lessons do these arrangements offer for local reach, shared priorities and continued cooperation?
Across these areas, assess progress against the approved results framework, taking account of agreed updates, documented adaptations and their rationale. Examine access and participation, including women and girls, minority communities and youth in Serb-majority areas. Consider how the components reinforce one another and how staff time and resources have supported results. Draw lessons for the focus, scale and organization of future programming, including approaches that merit continuation, refinement or change.
These project-specific questions should address relevance, coherence, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The impact should be assessed through evidence of changes in participants’ actions, access to support and institutional responses, recognizing the project’s contribution.
Combine a desk review with targeted interviews with KDI staff and a small selection of youth participants, institutional counterparts, Forum members and sub-grantees. KDI will provide the proposal, results framework, relevant agreed updates and progress, monitoring records and selected outputs through the review cut-off, and help arrange interviews.
Use existing records and stakeholder feedback to examine a manageable sample across the main components and different implementation experiences. Focus on this project’s contribution where activities overlap with other KDI initiatives. ALAC analysis should use anonymized case information. Participation must be voluntary, and sensitive information confidential. The findings should distinguish reported results from the evaluator’s assessment and explain material evidence gaps.
The assignment will produce the following outputs.
The recommendations must have two distinct parts. The first should set out feasible actions to consolidate results and follow up ongoing work in 2027. The second should explain the implications for a possible follow-on project, with proposed changes grounded in the review findings. The detailed schedule will be agreed at contracting.
Applicants should demonstrate the following.
The evaluator must be independent of project implementation and disclose any potential conflict of interest.
KDI will assess complete proposals that meet the requirements under the Consultant Profile section. Eligible proposals will be scored out of 100 points.
| Criterion | Maximum points |
| Relevant experience and knowledge of Kosovo’s institutional and civil society context | 25 |
| Quality and feasibility of the proposed approach, including the methods, timetable and allocation of working days | 35 |
| Quality of the work sample, including clarity of analysis and use of evidence | 10 |
| Total financial offer | 30 |
| Total | 100 |
The financial score equals 30 multiplied by the lowest eligible total price divided by the total price of the proposal under assessment. KDI will rank eligible proposals by their combined score. Nevertheless, KDI reserves the right not to select any proposal if none meets the assignment requirements.
Submit the following documents in English.
Send applications to [email protected] by 20 November 2026, CoB. Use the subject line “SIDA Project Mid-Term Review”. Only shortlisted applicants will be contacted.