ToR: RPLC MRV-led Outcome Evaluation Program’s Western Madhya Pradesh Compact
IDH aims to select a service provider to assess the progress, outcomes and effectiveness of regenerative agriculture interventions implemented under the Western Madhya Pradesh Compact since the baseline.
1. Introduction
IDH accelerates and up-scales sustainable trade by building impact-oriented coalitions of front-running companies, civil society, governments, knowledge institutions and other stakeholders in several commodity sectors. We convene the interests, strengths and knowledge of public and private partners in sustainability commodity programs that aim to mainstream international and domestic commodity markets. IDH jointly formulates strategic intervention plans with public and private partners, and we co-invest with partners in activities that generate public goods.
On the basis of these Terms of Reference (“ToR”) IDH aims to select a suitable consulting organization or agency (hereinafter the "Service Provider”) to carry out an MRV-led outcome evaluation study for the Regenerative Production Landscape Collaborative (RPLC) Program in the Western Madhya Pradesh Compact.
2. Background
About RPLC
In response to increasing smallholder vulnerability, climate risks, and evolving market demands, there is a pressing need to reimagine agricultural systems. The Regenerative Production Landscape Collaborative (RPLC) program was launched to build resilient, regenerative, and nature-positive agricultural systems that deliver equitable socio-economic benefits for smallholder farmers while fostering responsible sourcing through inclusively.
Co-conceptualized in 2020 by Laudes Foundation, IDH, and WWF-India, the RPLC program is led by IDH, which spearheads the landscape approach across the ten districts in Madhya Pradesh. In 2021, the RPLC secretariat was established in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, to coordinate efforts and engage stakeholders. The program is implemented across eight cotton-growing districts in the western part of Madhya Pradesh, India, namely Alirajpur, Barwani, Burhanpur, Dhar, Jhabua, Khandwa, Khargone, and Ratlam. The region is home to a significant population of small and marginal farmers who cultivate cotton alongside major food crops such as maize, soybean, wheat, and gram, largely under rainfed and semi-arid conditions.
A baseline survey conducted across the region in 2022-23 covering over 800 households in 40+ villages, providing crucial insights into the agricultural landscape and the socio-economic profile of farming households. Building on this, the outcome assessment evaluates both on-farm and off-farm progress in line with the landscape approach adopted by the RPLC program. This approach seeks to drive ecological, economic, and social change, ensuring a holistic understanding of how regenerative practices are transforming the farming ecosystem and the broader landscape.
By March 2026, the program had aimed to:
Bring 100,000 hectares of cropland under sustainable land management practices.
Equip 120,000 farmers with the skills to adopt regenerative agriculture.
Establish governance systems to sustainably manage 300,000 hectares of land.
Secure the commitment of over 15 private sector partners to source responsibly and invest in regenerative agriculture.
Over the past five years, the programme has expanded significantly across Western Madhya Pradesh (MP), with an increasing number of farmers, implementing partners, and private-sector partners joining the programme. Currently, the programme reaches approximately 100,000 farmers across Dhar, Barwani, Khargone and other districts in Western MP.
3. Assignment
The outcome evaluation will assess the progress, outcomes and effectiveness of regenerative agriculture interventions implemented under the Western Madhya Pradesh Compact since the baseline. It will assess changes in key farmer, livelihood, agricultural and environmental outcomes and, where feasible, assess programme outcomes, contribution and, where methodologically appropriate, causal effects using comparison groups, baseline data and other available evidence.
The 2022-23 baseline included treatment and comparison households. The evaluation should, to the extent feasible, revisit the original comparison design. Where original comparison households cannot be reliably tracked, the evaluator should propose and justify an appropriate comparison group strategy to enable robust assessment of programme outcomes and contribution. The evaluation should draw on baseline data and employ suitable quasi-experimental methods to assess programme effects where feasible.
The evaluation is expected to undertake two complementary analytical comparisons:
comparison of treatment and comparison farmers at the time of the 2026 evaluation; and
comparison of 2026 findings against the baseline data, to the extent possible.
The evaluator should propose the most appropriate analytical approach to triangulate findings across these comparisons and assess programme outcomes and effects.
The evaluation will cover all projects implemented under the Western Madhya Pradesh Compact, recognising that projects are at different stages of implementation. For projects that have been completed or have had sufficient implementation exposure, the evaluation should focus on outcome assessment and programme effects. For projects that commenced only recently, the evaluation should focus on implementation progress, reach, early adoption, service quality and emerging results. Findings from both groups should be synthesised to provide a consolidated assessment of progress at the landscape level.
In addition to revisiting baseline indicators, the evaluation will identify emerging outcomes, gaps, unintended effects and factors enabling or constraining adoption and sustained practice change.
In 2025, RPLC developed an MRV framework with defined impact and outcome indicators, measurement guidelines and protocols. The evaluation will primarily generate data against the relevant MRV indicators to enable comparison with baseline results and consistent measurement across RPLC landscapes.
The MRV framework includes protocols for soil, water and biodiversity assessments, as well as quantitative and qualitative instruments. The evaluator will review and appropriately adapt these tools to the Western MP context rather than develop new approaches where existing RPLC protocols are applicable. Any adaptations should be agreed with IDH team before data collection.
Projects covered
Dhar: April 2024 to April 2026, Target farmers: 24,607, Status: Completed
Barwani: July 2025 to April 2026, Target farmers: 4,249, Status: Completed
Jhabua & Alirajpur: October 2025 to March 2026, Target farmers: 1,058, Status: Completed
Dhar: 15 May 2026 to 30 April 2028, Target farmers: 6,000, Status: Ongoing
Barwani: 15 June 2026 to 30 April 2028, Target farmers: 3,000, Status: Ongoing
Jhabua & Alirajpur: 15 June 2026 to 30 April 2028, Target farmers: 6,000, Status: Ongoing
Khargone: 15 May 2026 to 31 March 2028, Target farmers: 3,000, Status: Ongoing
The analysis and reporting should use the Western Madhya Pradesh landscape as the primary results framework, assessing changes in key MRV indicators against the 2022–23 baseline. Given the different implementation timelines of projects within the landscape, project-level analysis should be used to assess the outcomes and lessons from completed projects and the progress, trajectory and areas for course correction in ongoing projects. Findings should then be synthesised to explain the factors contributing to landscape-level results and identify implications for the next phase of RPLC.
Note on Sampling and Report Structure
Sampling and analysis will reflect the different implementation timelines of projects within the Western Madhya Pradesh landscape. The Western MP landscape/compact will remain the primary results frame, with relevant MRV indicators reported descriptively against the 2022–23 landscape baseline to maintain consistency with the RPLC MRV framework and other RPLC landscapes. However, landscape-level changes should not be interpreted as programme attribution where farmers have had substantially different periods of exposure to RPLC interventions.
For projects/cohorts with sufficient exposure and an appropriate baseline, the evaluation should undertake outcome and, where feasible, contribution/causal analysis using the most relevant pre-intervention baseline. For projects that commenced only shortly before the evaluation, the assessment should focus on implementation progress, reach, early adoption and service delivery rather than outcomes that would reasonably require a longer period to materialise. Where project-specific baselines are available, these should be used for project-level assessment in preference to the 2022–23 landscape baseline.
The sampling strategy should allow for comparative analysis between treatment and comparison farmers and provide sufficient representation across key programme cohorts, geographies and farmer segments. At a minimum, the sampling design should support analysis by treatment/comparison status, demonstration/non-demonstration farmers, brand/non-brand farmers (where relevant), and project cohort.
The report should follow a three-tier structure:1. Landscape overview: A concise assessment of overall changes against the 2022–23 baseline, including the different implementation timelines within the landscape.
2. Project-level assessment: Outcome assessment of projects with sufficient exposure, and progress assessment of recently initiated/ongoing projects, focusing on early results and course-correction needs.
3. Synthesis: Cross-project analysis of factors contributing to landscape-level results, common lessons, effective approaches, constraints and implications for the next phase of RPLC.
The analysis should avoid duplication across these levels. The landscape-level results should provide the overarching results narrative, while project-level findings should be used to explain, contextualise and assess the factors contributing to those results.
Objectives
Key aspects to be covered include:
Environmental outcomes
Assess changes in key environmental outcomes associated with regenerative agriculture adoption, and examine the programme's contribution where feasible, including:
Soil health, including key nutrients and SOC.
Water use efficiency across major crops (cotton, maize, wheat, soyabean, gram and spices) and, where relevant, watershed/water-resource management using GIS and remote sensing.
Biodiversity, including relevant biodiversity indices and indicators related to agroforestry, crop/seed diversity and ecosystem practices.
LULC, habitat area and connectivity, where relevant and feasible.
Assess changes in GHG emissions, avoided emissions and/or carbon sequestration associated with programme interventions, expressed in CO₂-equivalents, where data and methodology permit as per MRV guidance.
Farmer benefits and economics
Assess:
Changes in yield, input use, input costs and household/farm income.
Compare the economics of conventional and regenerative farming practices, where data permit.
Any short-term yield or income trade-offs during transition.
The timeframe and types of support required for farmers to transition to and sustain regenerative practices.
Livelihood resilience
Assess changes in:
Crop yields, diversification and production stability.
Market access for diversified crops and other farm products.
Other income-generating activities linked to the programme, including Bio-Resource Centres (BRCs) and biochar centres.
Household income and livelihood diversification.
Assess changes in farmers' preparedness and capacity to cope with climate and other livelihood shocks.
Effectiveness of post-baseline interventions
Assess the reach, uptake, implementation quality and outcomes of key post-baseline interventions introduced by RPLC partners, including the performance of implementing partners in delivering planned activities, engaging target farmers and stakeholders, and addressing implementation and adoption challenges.
Learning and programme improvement
Assess progress against the Theory of Change, baseline indicators, MRV indicators and programme targets, and identify what is working, what is not and why.
Provide evidence-based recommendations on programme adjustments, transition-support requirements, timelines and future interventions.
Key areas of inquiry
In addition to measuring the indicators specified in the RPLC MRV framework (provided in Annex 5), the evaluation should explore the following key areas:
Regenerative agriculture adoption and outcomes
What practices have been adopted, by whom, and at what intensity?
What factors have enabled or constrained sustained adoption?
What changes are observed in farm economics, yields and relevant environmental outcomes, and what evidence exists of RPLC's contribution to these changes?
Farmer economics and transition
What are the economic benefits and costs of regenerative agriculture compared with conventional practices?
Are there short-term transition costs or yield/income trade-offs?
What support is required for sustained adoption?
Livelihood and climate resilience
Has diversification of crops and income sources improved farmers' capacity to manage climate and other livelihood shocks? What evidence exists of changes in preparedness and resilience?
Bio-resource and biochar centres
How effective and efficient are the centres in producing and providing bio-inputs and biochar?
What is their utilisation, reach, cost-effectiveness, and financial and operational sustainability?
To what extent are they contributing to farmer adoption and reduced dependence on external inputs?
For farmers operating household-level units, to what extent have these units generated additional income and/or input-cost savings, and how sustainable is this income contribution?
Government partnerships and convergence
How effective have RPLC’s partnerships with government actors been in influencing adoption, convergence, and institutionalisation of regenerative agriculture?
What has worked and what has not?
What is the potential for sustainability beyond RPLC support?
Village planning and GPDP
To what extent has RPLC contributed to village-level planning and the integration of regenerative agriculture, water management, and related priorities into Gram Panchayat Development Plans (GPDPs)?
How effective has this been in translating village priorities into investments and improved infrastructure and services, particularly for water management?
Implementation effectiveness
How effectively have programme partners implemented the interventions?
What factors explain differences in uptake and outcomes across geographies, farmer groups, and interventions?
Scale and sustainability
Which interventions show potential for scale and continuation beyond programme support?
What institutional, financial, market, or behavioural conditions are required for sustainability?
Programme contribution and learning
What evidence supports RPLC's contribution to observed changes, recognising the influence of other programmes, contextual factors and external shocks?
Which elements of the Theory of Change are working?
Which assumptions need revisiting?
What adaptations are required?
Deliverables
Inception Report:
Detailed methodology and work plan, including evaluation design, sampling approach, data collection methods and timeline.
Sampling plan and criteria for farmer/farm selection.
Finalised evaluation matrix, KPIs and indicators based on the RPLC MRV framework and key evaluation questions.
Review and contextual adaptation of the existing RPLC MRV data collection tools and protocols for the Western Madhya Pradesh context. No new data collection tools should be developed unless specifically agreed with RPLC.
Field Data Collection and Interim Report:
Summary of fieldwork completed, including achieved sample and any deviations from the sampling plan.
Preliminary findings on regenerative agriculture adoption, farm performance, income, environmental outcomes and gender.
Key challenges encountered during fieldwork and proposed mitigation measures.
Evaluation Report:
Detailed analysis of changes in key impact and outcome indicators based on the RPLC MRV framework.
Outcome assessment of projects ending in 2026 and midline assessment of ongoing projects.
Analysis of programme contribution/causal effects where feasible.
Recommendations for strengthening regenerative agriculture adoption, including transition support, timelines and capacity-building needs.
Final Presentation and Validation Workshop:
Presentation of final findings to programme stakeholders and partners.
Facilitation of a validation workshop to discuss findings and implications for the next phase of the programme.
Summary of key deliverables
Inception Report: Scope and approach, evaluation design, methodology, sampling strategy, evaluation matrix, data collection tools, fieldwork plan, data analysis plan and report outline. Within 2 weeks of contract signing
Field Data Collection / Interim Findings: Fieldwork completion, achieved sample, data-quality assessment and preliminary findings. As per agreed work plan
Draft Report: Comprehensive draft outcome evaluation report (max. 65 pages), including executive summary, methodology and limitations, findings against key evaluation questions, conclusions and recommendations.
Annexes should include detailed data analysis, cleaned/anonymised datasets, relevant data tables and stakeholder consultation list. Within 8–9 weeks after approval of inception report
Final Report: Final outcome evaluation report incorporating feedback, with supporting annexes and datasets, plus a concise summary/abstract and PowerPoint presentation. Within 1–2 weeks after feedback on draft report
Validation Workshop: Presentation and discussion of findings and recommendations with programme stakeholders and partners. Within the 5-month assignment period
The complete evaluation, including inception, field data collection, data analysis, draft and final reporting, must be completed within a maximum period of five months from the date of contract signing. The consultant should provide a detailed work plan demonstrating how the assignment will be completed within this timeframe.
4. Selection Procedure
Publish the tender and/or invite service providers to submit proposals based on the ToR.
Provide an opportunity for prospective service providers to submit questions and seek clarification on the assignment and ToR.
The evaluation committee will assess proposals against the selection criteria specified in this ToR.
Select the preferred service provider and complete contracting.
Conduct an inception meeting with the selected service provider to confirm the scope, approach, deliverables and timelines.
The schedule below indicates the timelines for the tender procedure:
Ask me anything session : 08 September 2026, 11.30am-12:30pm
Deadline for submission of proposals*: 2300 HRS IST, 14 September 2026
Team pitch and presentation of Proposal of shortlisted firms** :21st-30th September 2026
Selection of Service provider: 2nd week of October 2026
Complete the contracting process and start of assignment: 4th week of October 2026.
* Proposals submitted after the deadline will not be considered in the tender procedure.
** IDH may request shortlisted Service providers to a pitch session via video conference.
After the deadline to submit a proposal has passed, the evaluation committee will evaluate the proposals. The proposals will first be tested for completeness:
The absence of the documents referred to in Section 5 of this document can lead to exclusion from further participation in the tender procedure. This is also the case when minimum requirements listed in this ToR are not met.
If the proposal is complete, the selection committee will evaluate the proposal based on the criterion as mentioned in Section 6.
The assignment will be awarded to the service provider with the most economically advantageous tender. This is determined based on the evaluation criteria price and quality. IDH will reject the proposal if any illegal or corrupt practices have taken place in connection with the award or the tender procedure.
Ask me Anything sessionApplicants can join for an AMA session on 08 September 2026 between 11.30am-12.30 pm.
The responsibility for the timely and accurate submission of the questions lies with the applicant. When IDH indicates that IDH has not received questions before the indicated deadline, the service provider must demonstrate that the questions were sent timely.
5. Proposal requirements
IDH is requesting the service providers to hand in a proposal of a maximum 12 pages (excluding CVs, sample work and references). The proposal must be submitted in a MS Word or a PowerPoint version next to a PDF submission to facilitate any copy and pasting of the content that we may need during evaluation.
The proposal must at least include:
Content:
A document of maximum 12 pages that clearly describes the approach addressing the required services as described in annexures of this document. We request that the proposal structure matches the selection criteria as closely as possible. It should demonstrate how the applicant intends to carry out the assignment and the activities, as well as the duration and the order of the activities.
An overview of the project team, including the CVs of the project team members.
Maximum of three client references and a sample of previous work relevant to the deliverables in this ToR.
Budget presented in Euros (inclusive of VAT) with a break-down of days/rate per project team member.
Statement on Ground for exclusion (see Section 6 below).
Completed Detail Request Form (annex 2)
Copy of most recent (audited) financial accounts
Statement of acceptance draft contract (annex 5)
Administrative:
The proposal must be submitted to Preity Khandelwal at khandelwal@idhtrade.org and Subhadra Kaul at kaul@idhtrade.org before 2300 Hrs Indian Standard Time, 14th September 2026.
6. Scoring and weighing
The assignment will be awarded to the service provider with the most economically advantageous tender that is determined based on the evaluation criteria of price and quality.
Grounds for exclusion
Service providers shall be excluded from participation in this tender procedure if:
they are bankrupt or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;
they or persons having powers of representation, decision-making or control over them have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata;
they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the IDH can justify;
they have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are established;
they or persons having powers of representation, decision making of control over them have been the subject of a judgement which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation, money laundering or any other illegal activity.
Service providers must confirm in writing that they are not in one of the situations as listed above.
Service providers shall not make use of child labour or forced labour and/or practice discrimination and they shall respect the right to freedom of association and the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining, in accordance with the core conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Scoring and weighing
The evaluation criteria are compared and weighed according to the procedure below. This concerns a general outline of the scoring methodology and an explanation how the service provider can demonstrate compliance with the requirements.
Step 1 - Criterion Quality
Evaluation scores will be awarded for each of the components. The evaluation committee will score each component unanimously. IDH values quality highly, therefore a minimum grade of 3 must be scored by the service provider on each component. If the service provider scores a grade less than 3 on one of the components, he will be excluded from the tender procedure and awarding the contract.
The proposal will be assessed based on the following selection criteria:
Proposal overall — Max. Grading: 5
Criteria: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the assignment and meets the requirements set out in Annex 4 and throughout the ToR.
Assessment should consider whether the Service Provider can:
Deliver the required deliverables.
Provide a comprehensive and feasible evaluation approach.
Evaluation Approach and Methodology — Max. Grading: 5
Criteria:
The extent to which the Service Provider demonstrates a clear and rigorous evaluation methodology appropriate to the objectives of the assignment, including:
Approach to assessing programme contribution and/or causal effects.
Baseline-outcome comparisons and treatment-comparison group analysis.
Sampling methodology.
Quantitative and qualitative data collection.
Data analysis.
The assessment should also consider:
Appropriate use and adaptation of existing RPLC MRV tools and protocols, without unnecessarily developing new tools or indicators.
A clear approach to data quality assurance.
Stakeholder engagement.
Ability to deliver the assignment within the proposed timeline.
Track Record — Max. Grading: 5
Criteria:The extent to which the Service Provider demonstrates the required expertise and knowledge to fulfil the assignment, at both organisational and team level.
This includes:
Experience conducting midline, outcome and/or impact evaluations, including quantitative and qualitative research and causal/attribution analysis.
Knowledge of regenerative agriculture and sustainability, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, cotton and smallholder agricultural systems.
Experience in soil health, soil organic carbon (SOC), water, biodiversity and GHG measurement/analysis.
Experience assessing farmer livelihoods, income, gender and agricultural value chains.
Relevant experience working with government, implementing partners and other landscape-level stakeholders.
A clear description of the proposed project team, including relevant experience, roles and time allocation.
The evaluation committee will unanimously score each component by assigning scores from 1 to the maximum grading, with the maximum grading representing optimal performance on the component and 1 representing extremely poor performance on the respective component.
Step 2 - Criterion price
A combined price both in Indian Rupees and in Euros (ex any applicable taxes) is to be presented. This is to be broken down by team member rate and hours. The criterion of assessment is “the best price for the proposed level of quality” with a maximum grading of 5.
Step 3 - Weighting
The final score will be weighted 70% on Quality and 30% on Price. If scores of service providers are equal, priority will be based on the total scores that were given for the Criterion Quality. The assignment will be awarded to the service provider that has received the highest score for the Criterion Quality. If the evaluation of the Criterion Quality does not lead to a distinction, the score for the component “Proposal overall” will be decisive. If this does not lead to a distinction, the ranking will be determined by the drawing of lots.
Only proposals meeting the minimum quality threshold will be considered for price evaluation. IDH reserves the right to seek clarification regarding proposals that appear abnormally low or where the proposed level of effort and costs do not appear adequate to deliver the requirements of the assignment.
Award
Once IDH has decided to which Service provider it intends to award the assignment, a written notification thereof is sent to all Service providers participating in the tender procedure. The Service provider is contracted via a letter of assignment, following IDH’s template.
7. Communication and Confidentiality
The Service provider will ensure that all its contacts with IDH, with regards to the tender, during the tender procedure take place exclusively in writing by e-mails. The Service provider is thus explicitly prohibited, to prevent discrimination of the other Service providers and to ensure the diligence of the procedure, to have any contact whatsoever regarding the tender with any other persons of IDH than the person stated in the first sentence of this paragraph.
The documents provided by or on behalf of IDH will be handled with confidentiality. The Service provider will also impose a duty of confidentiality on any parties that it engages. Any breach of the duty of confidentiality by the Service provider or its engaged third parties will give IDH grounds for exclusion of the Service provider, without requiring any prior written or verbal warning. All information, documents and other requested or provided data submitted by the Service providers will be handled with due care and confidentiality by IDH. The provided information will after evaluation by IDH be filed as confidential.
8. Disclaimer
IDH reserves the right to update, change, extend, postpone, withdraw, or suspend the ToR, this tender procedure, or any decision regarding the selection or contract award. IDH is not obliged in this tender procedure to make a contract award decision or to conclude a contract with a participant.
Participants in the tender procedure cannot claim compensation from IDH, any affiliated persons or entities, in any way, in case any of the afore-mentioned situations occur.
By handing in a proposal, participants accept all terms and reservations made in this ToR, and subsequent information and documentation in this tender procedure