Call for Expression of Interest to Conduct a Feasibility Study for Community-Driven WASH Improvement in Ipusukilo, Musonda, Mugala, and Kamakonde Informal Settlements in Kitwe District 

1. Background

Habitat for Humanity Zambia (HFHZ) is planning to implement a WASH project in four informal settlements of Kitwe District—Ipusukilo, Musonda, Mugala, and Kamakonde—between 1st October 2026 and 31st September 2029. A proposal for this project will be submitted to the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development of the Federal Republic of Germany (BMZ) in collaboration with Lions Foundation Germany (SDL). To ensure a relevant, effective, efficient, coherent, sustainable, and impactful project, HFHZ will commission a Feasibility Study. These Terms of Reference (ToR) outline the purpose, scope, methodology, deliverables, consultant qualifications, and timeline for the study.

The proposed project aims to improve access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services in four informal settlements of Kitwe—Ipusukilo, Musonda, Mugala, and Kamakonde—through technically sound, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable interventions. The project will focus on drilling and upgrading boreholes based on hydrogeological assessments, introducing solar-powered water systems, and promoting rainwater harvesting to enhance water security. Sanitation improvements will include upgrading household and institutional facilities, support fecal sludge management and integrate climate-adaptive solutions. Hygiene promotion will target behavior change for handwashing, child feces disposal, and Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM), while addressing cultural and social barriers. Capacity-building initiatives will strengthen local institutions and community structures to ensure long-term maintenance and cost-sharing. Environmental resilience will be enhanced through nature-based solutions such as soil conservation and vegetation restoration. All interventions will prioritize gender equity, disability inclusion, and community ownership, aligning with OECD DAC criteria to ensure relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.

2. Scope of the Feasibility Study

The feasibility study will comprehensively assess the technical, social, institutional, and environmental viability of implementing a community-driven WASH project in the four informal settlements of Kitwe District—Ipusukilo, Musonda, Mugala, and Kamakonde. The study will examine water, sanitation, and hygiene needs at household, school, and health facility levels, disaggregated by gender, age, and disability. It will also evaluate institutional capacities, stakeholder coordination, and climate resilience to ensure the proposed interventions are relevant, effective, and sustainable. Specifically, the scope will include:

a)   Water Availability & Quality: Assess existing water sources, quantities, and quality; evaluate treatment methods; analyze willingness to pay and capacity for operation and maintenance; identify contamination risks and rainwater harvesting potential.

b)   Hydrogeological & Geophysical Survey: Conduct aquifer characterization, groundwater mapping, soil type analysis, and borehole condition assessments; recommend safe and sustainable drilling sites and upgrade options.

c)    Sanitation Services: Evaluate access to sanitation facilities, fecal sludge management (FSM) systems, affordability, and contamination risks; assess climate-adaptive options for greywater management and methane reduction.

d)   Hygiene Knowledge & Practices (including MHM): Investigate hygiene behaviors, knowledge gaps, and cultural barriers; assess menstrual hygiene products and availability, disposal practices, and dignity-related challenges.

e)   Roles and Capacities of Local Partners: Review HFHZ and community structures for technical, financial, and organizational capacity; identify gaps and opportunities for strengthening local ownership and sustainability.

f)     Social Accountability: Examine mechanisms for transparency, community feedback, participation and decision-making in WASH service delivery.

g)   Sector Coordination & Stakeholder Assessment: Map key actors (government, NGOs, community groups), their roles, responsibilities, and potential synergies or conflicts; identify opportunities for collaboration and duplication avoidance.

h)   Climate Change Risks & Adaptation Measures: Analyze environmental vulnerabilities (erosion, waterlogging, contamination pathways) and propose adaptive strategies such as nature-based solutions, soil conservation, vegetation restoration, and groundwater recharge.

i)     Community Willingness & Sustainability: Assess readiness for cost-sharing, maintenance, and long-term ownership of WASH systems; evaluate existing community structures for managing WASH infrastructure.

j)     Vulnerabilities & Inclusion: Identify vulnerable groups (persons with disabilities, elderly, chronically ill, female-headed households etc) and recommend tailored support approaches.

This expanded scope ensures that technical feasibility is complemented by social inclusion, institutional capacity, environmental resilience, and strong accountability mechanisms, aligning with OECD DAC criteria.

3. Purpose of the Feasibility Study

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the proposed WASH interventions are technically sound, socially acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable and achievable in the proposed time. It will use the DAC (criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, potential impact and sustainability). It aims to ensure that the project addresses real community priorities while promoting gender equity and disability inclusion. The study will identify risks, assumptions, and mitigation strategies, and provide evidence-based recommendations for designing infrastructure, behavior change strategies, and capacity-building plans that foster community ownership and long-term sustainability.

4. Specific Objectives

The consultant will have to conduct an overall review of the project concept, needs assessment and other documents to:

a)   Develop a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical framework and project design of the planned project.

b)   Juxtapose the project’s planned activities against the problem analysis and determine whether the planned activities could plausibly achieve the planned improvements or address the stated problem 

c)    Propose recommendations for modifications or adjustments to increase the effectiveness of planned activity design to address the stated problem

As part of this assignment, consultant will be required to address the following specific points following the OECD DAC criteria and project specific thematic area. The specific points below are not exhaustive, and the Client expects the consultancy team to use their talent and expertise to expand on the specific points of interest, where necessary):

4.1       Situation and problem analysis at macro, meso, micro level:

(a) Water Availability & Quality

1. Assess existing water sources, quantities, and water quality at household, school, and health facility levels.
2. Evaluate the water treatment methods used at point of source and point of use.
3. Assess household willingness to pay for water supplied through vendor points such as kiosks.
4. Assess willingness and capacities of users to contribute to operation and maintenance of communal water infrastructure.
5. Identify contamination risks and community perceptions of water safety.
6. Assess the potential for rainwater harvesting at institutional level.
7. Outline stakeholders involved in water supply in Kitwe and what are their respective responsibilities and challenges

(b) Hydrogeological Study & Geophysical Survey

1. Conduct a comprehensive hydrogeological and geophysical assessment to determine aquifer characteristics (e.g., transmissivity, conductivity, depth, yield potential), groundwater levels, flow direction, and soil types including collapse risk.
2. For existing boreholes, undertake full condition assessments (yield, water levels, structural integrity, and water quality), confirm WARMA registration status, and determine viability for solar-powered mechanization.
3. Identify contamination risks around existing water points as well as proposed drilling sites.
4. Recommend safe and sustainable borehole sites based on hydrogeological suitability (depth, expected yield, pollution risks, proximity to other boreholes), gender and disability accessibility, and proximity to key institutions.
5. Provide recommendations on viable existing boreholes for upgrade, priority sites for new drilling, optimal drilling depths, drilling methods, and associated technical considerations.
6. Compile and present all field data, interpretations, hydrogeological evaluations, maps, cross-sections, pump test results, and water quality analysis.

(c) Water Collection & Storage

1. Examine water collection and transport practices, including time spent, challenges faced, and the specific burdens on women, girls, and persons with disabilities.
2. Assess household storage practices and related risks.

(d) Sanitation Services

1. Evaluate access to sanitation facilities and their standards (sanitation ladder), solid waste disposal systems, and overall sanitary conditions.
2. Assess availability, affordability, and user willingness to participate and pay for faecal sludge management (FSM) services.
3. Identify sanitation access barriers for women, girls, and persons with disabilities.
4. Assess proximity of sanitation facilities to water points (open wells, boreholes), including upstream/downstream contamination risks.
5. Study existing greywater management practices and assess feasibility of climate adaptive options such as mulch fields.
6. Assess the potential for using bulking agents (e.g., sawdust, dry leaves) to reduce methane generation in pit latrines.
7. Identify the challenges of use of latrines at night and what form lighting is used.
8. Identify stakeholders involved in the sanitation marketing or system in Kitwe and what are their respective responsibilities and challenges.

(e) Hygiene Practices

1. Investigate hygiene behaviours and knowledge including handwashing, child faeces disposal, and general cleanliness practices.
2. Assess the impact of waterborne diseases on hygiene behaviours, disaggregated by gender, disability, and age.

(f) Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM)

1. Assess the availability of menstrual hygiene products and facilities in schools.
2. Identify cultural and social barriers to safe and dignified menstrual hygiene management for girls.
3. Assess safe disposal practices for menstrual hygiene products and propose context-appropriate options.

(g) Cultural & Behavioural Factors

1. Explore cultural norms, beliefs, and attitudes that influence WASH practices, including gender norms and disability-related stigma.

(h) Vulnerabilities

1. Identify vulnerable groups (e.g., persons with disabilities, chronically ill, elderly, female-headed households) and recommend tailored support approaches.

(i) Local Capacity & Community Support

1. Assess local institutional and community capacity to support and sustain inclusive WASH interventions.
2. Evaluate community willingness for cost-sharing, local resource mobilization, and participation in maintenance of water systems.
3. Identify existing community structures and evaluate their ability to manage WASH systems long-term.

(j) Climate Change Risks & Adaptation Measures

1. Review soil conditions, infiltration rates, and environmental factors affecting water resource management, including potential for rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge.

    ii.       Assess land suitability, identify potential locations and recommend context specific community carbon sinks (e.g, gardens, communal green spaces) to support PASSA environmental resilience activities.

   iii.       Evaluate environmental risks (erosion, waterlogging, contamination pathways) and recommend technical measures to enhance climate resilience of WASH infrastructure.

   iv.       Provide actionable environmental management strategies integrating nature-based solutions such as soil conservation, vegetation restoration, and runoff management.

    v.       Assess onsite sanitation facilities in the settlements to identify leakage points and propose practical interventions to reduce methane generation and atmospheric

K) Sector Coordination & Stakeholder Assessment

     i.       Which key actors (government, NGOs, community groups religious groups etc; regional/district level) are involved in WASH in Kitwe?

    ii.       What are their roles and responsibilities, and how do they interact?

   iii.       Are there synergies or conflicts among stakeholders, and how can duplication be avoided?

(j) Social Accountability

     i.       What mechanisms are in place for transparency and accountability in WASH service delivery?

    ii.       How do communities provide feedback or participate in decision-making?

   iii.       What improvements are needed to ensure inclusive and participatory processes?

(l(i) Community Willingness & Sustainability

     i.       Are communities willing and able to share costs for WASH infrastructure?

    ii.       What is their capacity for maintenance and long-term ownership?

   iii.       Which existing community structures can manage WASH systems sustainably?

(j) Vulnerabilities & Inclusion

     i.       Which vulnerable groups (persons with disabilities, elderly, chronically ill, female-headed households) are present in the target areas?

    ii.       What barriers do these groups face in accessing WASH services?

   iii.       What tailored support approaches can ensure equity and inclusion?

4.2 Assessment of the executing partner HFHZ

     i.       What is the special expertise that justifies the selection of the partner to implement the proposed project?

    ii.       Are the technical, financial, and personal capacities adequate to implement the project plan?

   iii.           Are there any relevant technical or methodological competences/ capacities that the partner should develop to better implement the planned project?

4.2 Assessment according to DAC Criteria

(a)  Relevance - To what extent is the planned project doing the right thing?

To what extent do the project objectives and design adequately consider the specific needs of the target groups and structural obstacles in the project region, partner/institution, policy programmes? High

Is the project designed in a conflict-sensitive and gender-sensitive way (Do-No-Harm principle)? Moderate

(b)  Coherence - How well does the intervention fit?

How coherent are the planned activities with human rights principles (inclusion, participation), conventions, relevant standards/guidelines and government policies? High

To what extent are there synergies and linkages between the planned project and other interventions by the same actor (organisation) and other actors?

To what extent does the project add value and avoids duplication? High

(c)  Effectiveness - Which project approach can best achieve the objectives?

Is the chosen methodological approach appropriate to the context and sufficient to achieve the project objective? Are alternatives necessary?

At which level (multi-level approach) are additional measures to increase effectiveness to be envisaged? High

How are the changes measured? Which indicators are more suitable for this? Moderate

(d)  Efficiency - Does the use of funds planned by the project appear economical in terms of achieving the objectives?

To what extent can the planned measures be implemented with the budgeted funds and personnel in the planned duration?

Are there alternative delivery models that may achieve similar outcomes more efficiently.

(e)  Impact - To what extent has the planned project the potential to contribute to the achievement of overarching developmental impacts?

To what extent has the planned project the potential for systematic change of norms and/or structures (also considering gender perspective)?

(f)   Sustainability - To what extent will the positive effects (without further external funding) continue after the end of the project?

How can the sustainability of the results and impacts be ensured and strengthened? (structural, economic, social, ecological)?

What long-term capacities are built up in the target group to be able to continue the implemented measures on their own?

Which personal risks for the implementers, institutional and contextual risks influence sustainability and how can they be minimized?

4.3 Recommendations

Based on the main findings and the assessment according to the DAC criteria, the consultant should provide concrete recommendations for the project concept. These recommendations should be within the thematic and financial scope of what the project aims to achieve. They should be practical and implementable.

In particular, the following should be addressed:

a)   Recommendations on any components, measures, approaches that might be missing or not fitting in with the project concept.

b)   Recommendations regarding any components or measures where potential negative effects have been identified.

c)    Recommendations on the impact matrix of the project:

-          Anything that can strengthen the effect chain of the project.

-          Recommendations on indicators demonstrating progress.

5. Methodology

The feasibility study will adopt a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to ensure a comprehensive analysis of technical, social, institutional, and environmental factors. Primary data will be collected through household surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews to assess water, sanitation, and hygiene conditions, including menstrual hygiene management (MHM) practices and cultural barriers. Hydrogeological and geophysical investigations will be conducted using resistivity tomography and pump testing to determine groundwater availability and quality. Stakeholder mapping and institutional analysis will evaluate the roles and capacities of local partners, sector coordination mechanisms, and opportunities for collaboration. Social accountability will be examined through participatory tools that capture community feedback and transparency mechanisms. Climate risk assessments will identify vulnerabilities such as flooding, erosion, and contamination pathways, and propose adaptation measures including nature-based solutions and climate-resilient infrastructure. Data will be disaggregated by gender, age, and disability to ensure inclusiveness. Findings will be triangulated across sources to validate results and inform practical, context-specific recommendations aligned with OECD DAC criteria.

6. Deliverables

(a) Inception report, including methodology and proposed data collection instruments

(b) Presentation of preliminary results in report format and PowerPoint after data collection

(c) Discussion of preliminary report with HFHZ and SDL for adjustments

(d) Final report (max 40 pages excluding annexes) including:

1. Executive summary
2. Introduction (background, objectives)
3. Methodology
4. Limitations
5. Findings
6. Needs and gaps
7. Conclusions and recommendations to improve the project proposal
8. Annexes

§ Closing presentation (PowerPoint and study shared in advance)

§ Final versions of report and PowerPoint including agreed adjustments

7. Expected Workload and Timeline

1. Estimated duration: 30 workdays (Gant chart showing timeline)
2. Expected completion: Within 4 weeks from contract signing
3. Required Documents:

-         Technical Proposal: Methodology, work plan, timeline, team roles.

-         Financial Proposal: Itemized budget with justification.

-         Company Profile: Legal registration and organizational capacity with Valid Tax Clerence Certificate if applying as a company.

-         Relevant Experience: Evidence of similar assignments and client references.

-         CVs of Key Experts: Qualifications and WASH-related experience.

-         Compliance Documents: Tax clearance and statutory compliance.

-         Conflict of Interest Declaration: Independence from HFHZ and SDL.

-         Additional Certifications (if applicable): Professional licenses and health/safety compliance.

-          

8. Evaluation Scope and Approach

The project will be evaluated based on OECD DAC criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact.

9. Consultant Profile

(a)  Independence from HFHZ and SDL

(b)  Team qualifications:

                     i.       MA/MSc or higher in social science/public health or related field

                    ii.       MSc or higher in Hydrogeology/Water and Sanitation Engineering/Civil engineering or related field

(c)  Lead consultant: minimum 10 years’ experience in WASH feasibility studies in Zambia

(d)  At least one team member with 3 years’ experience in OECD DAC-based evaluations

(e)  Proven track record with reputable NGOs, donors, or public agencies

(f)   Should possess relevant tools and equipment to conduct hydrogeological and geophysical studies e.g Resistivity tomography, pump testing kit

(g)  Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesise and present findings.

(h)  Ability to draw practical conclusions and to prepare well‐written reports in a timely manner and availability during the proposed period.

10.  Application Procedure:

The Consultant/Firm should submit a technical proposal for carrying out the assignment and the consultancy fee and submit it to the following: Procurement@habitatzam.org.zm

Cc: HRLOD Manager-Ms. Nchimunya Hanjalika Email: nchimunyahn@habitatzam.org.zm 

Deadline for Submission is 19^th December 2025