Request for Proposal (RFP) - MEL Consultant — Global Impact Indicators Review & Framework Support

Global Fishing Watch RFP

5h • Remote

About The Position

Global Fishing Watch (GFW) is seeking a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Consultant to review and consolidate its existing metrics and develop a robust global impact indicator framework. This role is crucial for institutionalizing GFW's MEL system, ensuring a standardized and quality-assessed set of indicators that align with the organization's strategy and Theory of Change. The consultant will be responsible for consolidating metrics, assessing their quality and feasibility, mapping them to the Theory of Change, and proposing a set of 15-20 global impact indicators, with a focus on outcomes and impact. The consultancy involves several workstreams, including inception, metrics review and consolidation, indicator design, and potentially consultation support and measurement planning.

Requirements

• Degree in monitoring and evaluation, international development, environmental science, statistics, or a related field.
• Minimum 5 years’ experience designing results frameworks and indicators for global or international organizations.
• Demonstrated expertise in Theory of Change, results measurement, and indicator development.
• Experience conducting metrics or results-framework reviews and synthesis.
• Practical experience building performance dashboards or data-visualization tools (e.g. Looker Studio, Power BI, or structured spreadsheet-based systems); or ability to partner with a data-visualization specialist.
• Strong communication, facilitation, and cross-cultural collaboration skills, including working asynchronously across time zones.
• Fluency in English.

Nice To Haves

• Experience in the environmental, conservation, governance or transparency sectors is an asset.

Responsibilities

• Review and consolidate GFW’s existing metrics into one standardized inventory.
• Assess the technical quality, actual use, data availability, and reporting feasibility of existing metrics.
• Map metrics to GFW’s Theory of Change to identify duplication and gaps, particularly at outcome and impact levels.
• Support GFW in making explicit decisions about indicator selection, ownership, measurement, baselines, and phased implementation.
• Suggest an initial set of 15–20 candidate global impact indicators, weighted toward outcomes and impact.
• Confirm assignment questions, users, and decisions the framework must support.
• Agree on document universe, inventory cut-off date, unit of analysis, definitions, and version-control arrangements.
• Finalize the workplan, interview sample, consultation plan, risks, dependencies, and deliverable-review schedule.
• Agree on the Theory of Change mapping taxonomy and candidate-indicator scoring rubric.
• Standardize each metric into a common template (name, definition, level, source framework, data source, frequency, owner, last reported value, quality rating).
• Assess quality using an agreed rubric covering clarity, validity, reliability, feasibility, sensitivity to GFW’s contribution, comparability, disaggregation, aggregation, and decision utility.
• Map each metric across three dimensions: strategic goal; outcome type/change pathway; and results level.
• Document rules for overlapping outcomes and double counting.
• Conduct a light external benchmark of how 2-3 comparable conservation-technology and transparency organizations structure their global indicators.
• Conduct short key-informant interviews (6–8) across programs, regions, and functions.
• Structure a candidate indicator architecture across GFW’s core impact pathways (Transparency and data; Capacity and training; Analysis and research; Policy and governance influence; Fisheries and biodiversity outcomes; Organizational reach and partnerships).
• Provide advice to the MEL team on an initial set of 15–20 candidate indicators, weighted toward outcomes over outputs.
• Score each candidate against agreed selection criteria (strategic relevance, measurability, feasibility/cost, sensitivity to GFW’s contribution, comparability, communicability) and document trade-offs transparently.
• Pressure-test feasibility against real data availability before consultation.
• Design and co-facilitate focused workshops for program, regional, and leadership stakeholders, supplemented by an asynchronous feedback option (contingent on performance).
• Prepare accessible pre-reading, candidate-indicator profiles, scoring matrices, and explicit decision questions (contingent on performance).
• Maintain a consultation log recording the comment, source/stakeholder group, decision, decision owner, and rationale (contingent on performance).
• Revise the framework without converting consultation into indicator accumulation; escalate unresolved strategic trade-offs for leadership decisions (contingent on performance).
• Prepare a concise “you said, we did” summary for consulted staff (contingent on performance).
• Develop or finalize indicator reference sheets covering definition, rationale, calculation, inclusion/exclusion rules, result level, source, frequency, disaggregation, aggregation, quality controls, limitations, owner, and reporting use (optional extension).
• Propose a baseline and target-setting strategy, including indicators requiring prospective baseline collection or piloting (optional extension).
• Develop a data-flow and accountability map from data generation to validation, aggregation, analysis, reporting, and use (optional extension).
• Produce a crosswalk showing how global indicators relate to selected grant and program metrics (optional extension).

What This Job Offers

• Career Level: Mid Level