In Kenya Jobs in Washington (NOW HIRING)

The CAADP Strategy and Action Plan 2026–2035 and the Kampala CAADP Declaration mark a transition from a predominantly agriculture‑led growth agenda to a broader agrifood systems transformation agenda. Delivering this agenda requires coordinated capacities across agricultural production, markets and trade, processing, nutrition, food safety, climate resilience, finance, inclusion, governance, data, monitoring, accountability, learning, and communication. Countries therefore need more than institutions on paper: they need capable people, functional organizations, adequate resources, clear mandates, effective relationships, and enabling policies and incentives.

IFPRI, under the Capacity Sharing Accelerator (CapSha), intends to recruit a qualified firm to undertake rapid, evidence‑based capacity needs assessments in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The assignment will establish a comparable diagnostic baseline while reflecting each country’s institutional and food‑systems context.

The overall objective is to identify and assess existing capacity assets, binding gaps, and readiness for domestication and implementation of CAADP 2026–2035. Specifically, the assessment will determine who needs to be able to do what, at which level, and with which skills, systems, resources, relationships, and incentives; separately assess the existence, quantity, quality, accessibility, functionality, sustainability, and CAADP readiness of priority capacities; and provide country profiles and a cross‑country synthesis to guide a subsequent phase of validation, prioritization, costing, and capacity‑development planning.

• Systems‑oriented: cover the agrifood system from inputs and primary production through processing, markets, consumption, nutrition, food safety, resilience, governance, finance, data, and accountability.


• Multi‑level: assess individual competencies, organizational capabilities, and the wider enabling environment at national, subnational, and local levels.


• Multi‑stakeholder: engage relevant public institutions, research and education bodies, private firms and associations, finance actors, producer organizations, women and youth groups, civil society, and development partners.


• Evidence‑based and comparable: apply common definitions and a harmonized 0–5 maturity scale, document the evidence behind every score, and keep quantity and quality as separate dimensions.


• Country‑sensitive: maintain a common analytical core while adapting respondent coverage and tools to institutional arrangements, language, fragility, federal/decentralized structures, and data availability.


• Operationally feasible: deploy parallel country teams under a central technical lead, use in‑person, virtual, or hybrid consultations as appropriate, and maintain common quality‑assurance and data‑management protocols.

The assignment is diagnostic. It does not include full national validation workshops, detailed intervention design, costing, simulation, or implementation planning. These activities may follow in a subsequent phase.

• Inception and methodology refinement. Hold a kickoff meeting; review and operationalize the framework and templates; confirm country deployment arrangements, respondent categories, minimum coverage, data‑protection measures, quality controls, and reporting formats; and submit a detailed workplan.


• Rapid desk review and evidence compilation. Review relevant CAADP and national agrifood strategies, NAIPs or equivalents, Biennial and Joint Sector Review materials, development and investment plans, institutional mandates, capacity‑development initiatives, and relevant sectoral evidence. Prepare a structured evidence inventory and country desk‑review matrix.


• Stakeholder and institutional mapping. Map institutions and stakeholder groups, formal mandates and practical roles, implementation levels, relationships to CAADP objectives and food‑system components, and functions in planning, budgeting, implementation, regulation, financing, service delivery, data, coordination, accountability, and learning. Identify overlaps, mandate gaps, and coordination bottlenecks.


• Key informant interviews and institutional consultations. Conduct targeted consultations with public, private, civic, producer, research, finance, and partner actors. Document capacity assets and gaps relating to staffing, skills, systems, tools, financing, coordination, inclusion, evidence use, and CAADP implementation readiness. Maintain structured and anonymized notes where required.


• Institutional self‑assessment and capacity scoring. Administer the approved self‑assessment tools and apply the harmonized 0–5 maturity scale. Score existence, quantity, quality, accessibility and distribution, functionality, sustainability, and CAADP readiness separately; record sources and justification; reconcile inconsistent evidence; and populate the assessment workbook.


• Country capacity profiles. Prepare a concise, decision‑oriented profile for each country describing the institutional landscape, capacity assets, maturity patterns, binding gaps, distributional or subnational disparities, and implications for CAADP domestication and implementation.


• Cross‑country synthesis and communication. Compare common and country‑specific constraints, identify transferable capacity assets and areas for regional or cross‑country support, and prepare an executive summary and presentation for decision‑makers.


• Project management and quality assurance. Mobilize and supervise parallel country teams; coordinate access and scheduling with country counterparts; conduct routine technical reviews; ensure methodological consistency, ethical handling of information, version control, timely delivery, and incorporation of consolidated comments.

The assignment will be completed within fourteen (14) calendar weeks from the contract start date. Given the five‑country coverage, bidders should propose parallel country deployment supported by a central technical and quality‑assurance team. The expanded schedule allows adequate time for country mobilization, consultations, evidence verification, comparative analysis, review, and revision. Minor adjustments may be agreed during inception without extending the final deadline.

• Weeks 1–2: Kickoff; methodology refinement; tool finalization; country mobilization - Approved inception report and tools


• Weeks 2–4: Desk reviews and evidence compilation in five countries - Country briefs and evidence matrices


• Weeks 3–5: Stakeholder and institutional mapping - Maps, mandate matrices, respondent lists


• Weeks 5–9: Key informant interviews and institutional consultations - Structured consultation summaries


• Weeks 7–10: Self‑assessment, scoring, evidence verification, workbook population - Completed draft scoring workbook


• Weeks 11–12: Five draft profiles and cross‑country synthesis - Draft country and synthesis reports


• Week 13: IFPRI review, technical validation and consolidation of comments - Consolidated review comments


• Week 14: Revisions, quality assurance, presentation, final submission - Accepted final package

• No. 1 – End W2: Inception report and assessment tools. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Refined methodology; detailed workplan; team deployment; stakeholder engagement plan; respondent coverage; tools; QA, ethics and data‑management protocols.


• No. 2 – End W4: Desk‑review and evidence package. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Five concise desk‑review briefs; document inventories; completed evidence matrices; preliminary capacity issues and evidence gaps.


• No. 3 – End W5: Stakeholder and institutional mapping package. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Country stakeholder maps; institutional mandate and role matrices; respondent lists; overlaps, gaps and coordination issues.


• No. 4 – End W9: Consultation summary package. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Structured summaries by country, stakeholder group, food‑system component and capacity dimension; consultation log; evidence traceability.


• No. 5 – End W10: Completed self‑assessment and scoring workbook. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Clean and fully populated workbook; harmonized scores; evidence notes; classifications and identifiers; internal consistency and completeness checks.


• No. 6 – End W12: Five draft country capacity profiles and draft synthesis. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Capacity assets and gaps; score patterns; evidence base; readiness implications; cross‑country findings; concise visuals/tables; country‑specific conclusions.


• No. 7 – End W14: Final assessment package. Minimum content and acceptance requirement: Revised five‑country profiles; cross‑country synthesis; final workbook and matrices; executive summary; editable presentation deck; consolidated response‑to‑comments matrix.

All deliverables must be submitted electronically in English and in editable formats (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), together with PDF versions of narrative reports. Country‑facing tools or consultation materials should be provided in relevant working languages where necessary. IFPRI will review each submission and may request reasonable revisions before acceptance. Underlying data, notes, instruments, and outputs produced under the assignment will be handed over to IFPRI in an organized and documented structure, subject to agreed confidentiality and data‑protection requirements.

Proposals will first be reviewed for administrative completeness and compliance with the submission requirements. Technically responsive proposals will then be evaluated on quality and cost. IFPRI may invite shortlisted firms to provide clarifications or make a brief presentation. A suggested evaluation framework is provided below and may be adjusted in the final solicitation.

• Firm experience and demonstrated performance on comparable assignments – 15%


• Understanding of the assignment and technical methodology – 25%


• Workplan, parallel country deployment, feasibility and quality assurance – 15%


• Qualifications and experience of proposed key personnel – 25%


• Financial proposal: reasonableness, completeness and value for money – 20%


• Total – 100%

• A legally registered consulting firm, research organization, consortium, or other eligible entity with demonstrated capacity to contract and operate in the countries covered. For a consortium, the lead entity and division of responsibilities must be clearly identified.


• At least seven years of relevant institutional experience in capacity needs assessment, institutional diagnostics, organizational development, public‑sector reform, agriculture or agrifood systems, or closely related fields.


• Documented completion of at least three comparable multi‑stakeholder or multi‑country assignments, preferably in Africa, including experience with surveys, qualitative consultations, institutional scoring, and synthesis reporting.


• Demonstrated knowledge of CAADP, the Kampala Declaration and Strategy and Action Plan 2026–2035, NAIP/food‑systems planning, mutual accountability, or related African agricultural and food‑systems policy processes.


• Proven operational experience, partnerships, or country presence sufficient to undertake work in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and DRC, including access to relevant language skills and country networks.


• Ability to mobilize parallel country teams and a central technical lead within the proposed 14‑week period, supported by robust project management, quality assurance, data security, and document‑control arrangements.


• The proposed Team Leader should hold an advanced university degree in agricultural economics, development economics, public policy, institutional development, food systems, organizational development, or a related discipline; possess at least ten years of relevant professional experience; and have led at least two comparable complex or multi‑country assignments.


• Country leads and technical specialists should normally hold a postgraduate degree and at least five years of relevant experience, with demonstrated knowledge of the assigned country’s agrifood sector and institutional context.

• Knowledge: CAADP and African agrifood policy architecture; food‑systems transformation; capacity‑development theory and practice; institutional and political‑economy analysis; gender, youth and social inclusion; decentralized delivery systems; monitoring, evaluation, learning and mutual accountability.


• Assessment skills: mixed‑methods research design; desk review; institutional and stakeholder mapping; survey and interview tool development; key informant interviews and facilitation; competency and maturity assessment; quantitative and qualitative evidence triangulation.


• Analytical skills: ability to distinguish capacity existence, quantity and quality; develop defensible 0–5 scores; identify functional and systemic bottlenecks; analyze country variation; translate findings into concise, decision‑relevant messages.


• Management abilities: coordinate parallel teams across five countries; manage schedules, access risks, budgets, quality reviews, version control and stakeholder relationships; deliver consistently under a compressed timeline.