Terms of Reference: Independent Subgranting Systems Review

A two-phase, independently commissioned review of CIVICUS's subgranting cycle and the systems that support it.

The objective of this assignment is to provide CIVICUS with an independent, evidence-based assessment of its subgranting cycle and supporting systems, resulting in a practical redesign of the process and a right-sized recommendation for any grants-management system needed to support it.

1. Background

Subgranting to members and partners has become a core part of how CIVICUS delivers on its mission, and this element of its work has grown substantially in recent years. That growth has outpaced the systems and organisational clarity needed to support it: there is internal tension around how subgranting should be done and where responsibility for different parts of the process sits. This is compounded by an increasingly complex external funding environment, with a wider range of donors bringing distinct compliance, reporting and risk-management requirements.

CIVICUS itself has also changed shape, from a largely South Africa-based organisation to a genuinely international alliance delivering programmes mainly through remote, distributed teams - and its subgranting systems and approach have not fully kept pace. This review is an opportunity to reflect on and adapt CIVICUS's subgranting practice so that it continues to deliver on organisational values, meet partner needs, and satisfy donor requirements.

2. Structure: Two Phases

The review is commissioned as an independent process delivered in two sequenced phases, so that the process is agreed before any system is chosen. CIVICUS may appoint one provider for both phases or separate providers for each phase, depending on the skills, independence and value for money demonstrated through the competitive tender.

• Phase 1 Process: an independent diagnosis and redesign of the current end-to-end subgrant cycle, grounded in live cases.
• Phase 2 Systems: an independent, peer-benchmarked recommendation for a grants-management system that supports the redesigned process.

Phase 2 does not begin until Phase 1's findings have been validated and signed off. This sequencing is deliberate: a system specified against an unreformed process would simply digitise the current gaps.

2.1. Phase 1 Process Review

What: engage an independent consultant to assess CIVICUS's current subgrant cycle end to end and make recommendations.

Why: an independent diagnosis grounded in live cases rather than any one team's view carries more weight and produces an actionable redesign that can feed directly into the subgrant manual, intake forms and staff training.

Scope

• The segregation-of-duties model across operations, finance, HR and programme functions.
• Delegation and handover standards at each stage of the cycle.
• Close-out and verification controls.

Approach

• Desk review of existing policies, SOPs and controls, and a sample of live and closed subgrant cases.
• Staff consultations across functions, with confidentiality assured throughout and findings anonymised for reporting.
• A current-state process map, tested against sampled cases.
• A redesigned process addressing segregation of duties, delegation/handover, and close-out/verification, drafted in a form usable for the manual, intake forms and training.
• Validation with the Reference Group - this sign-off is the gate into Phase 2.

Key deliverables

• Inception report and workplan.
• Validated current-state process map of the end-to-end subgrant cycle.
• Redesigned process covering segregation of duties, delegation/handover standards, and close-out/verification controls.
• Updated inputs for the subgrant manual, intake forms and staff training materials.
• Final report, with recommendations validated and signed off by the Reference Group (phase gate).

Desired skills, experience and attributes

• Proven experience conducting process reviews and redesign for NGOs or civil society networks, ideally covering subgrant, grant or project-cycle management.
• A track record of translating diagnostic findings into practical, usable tools (manuals, intake forms, training materials), not just a report.
• Strong facilitation and interviewing skills, with the ability to build trust and draw out candid input from staff across different levels.
• Analytical rigour: able to ground findings in case evidence and practice, not only policy review.
• Experience working with internationally distributed, remote teams, and sensitivity to a member-based civil society context.
• Independence from any subgranting system or platform currently or previously used or trialled by CIVICUS.

Owner and next step: a reference group consisting of representatives engaged in subgranting from finance, operations, programmes and HR commissions and monitors this work, sequenced ahead of the Phase 2 systems review.

2.2. Phase 2 Systems Review

What: commission an independent, peer-benchmarked review to recommend a grants-management system fit for an organisation of CIVICUS's size, grounded in sector best practice and comparable peer organisations.

Why: the absence of a system sits underneath much of the current difficulty. An independent, peer-benchmarked recommendation gives CIVICUS a credible, right-sized specification rather than a vendor-led or internally contested choice.

Scope

• Review relevant work already trialled or explored by CIVICUS, without treating any previous option as preferred or pre-selected.
• Any recommended system must integrate with CIVICUS's finance and contracting infrastructure rather than run alongside it.
• The recommendation must be grounded in the process agreed in Phase 1: process before platform.

Approach

• Systems review and testing against the Phase 1 redesigned process.
• Peer benchmarking against a small number of comparable organisations.
• Assessment of integration requirements with CIVICUS's finance and staffing infrastructure.
• A system recommendation and implementation roadmap, including indicative costs.

Key deliverables

• Inception report and workplan.
• Systems assessment summary, tested against the Phase 1 redesigned process.
• Peer benchmarking summary covering a small number of comparable organisations.
• System recommendation, including integration requirements with CIVICUS's finance and contracting infrastructure.
• Implementation roadmap with indicative costs and a cost-benefit comparison of options considered.
• Final report and presentation to the Reference Group.

Desired skills, experience and attributes

• Proven track record reviewing or specifying grants-management systems for NGOs or networks of comparable size and complexity.
• Working knowledge of grants-management and finance-adjacent platforms, sufficient to assess fit and integration requirements.
• Comparative research skills, able to translate peer practice into a right-sized recommendation rather than a generic best-practice ideal.
• Independence from any specific platform or vendor - no financial or contractual interest in the systems being assessed.
• Familiarity with donor compliance requirements as they relate to subgranting systems.
• Ability to translate technical findings into a clear, costed and actionable implementation roadmap for a non-technical audience.

Owner and next step: the same cross-functional reference group will commission and monitor this work. Requirements will be aligned with Phase 1 so that the system recommendation is grounded in the redesigned process.

3. Governance and Independence

A cross-functional reference group, with representatives from Operations, Finance, HR and Programmes who are engaged in CIVICUS’s subgranting work, will select the provider(s), oversee delivery, validate outputs and approve the phase gate between Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Both phases are procured through an open, competitive tender. No provider is pre-selected or given preferential treatment, including any organisation informally discussed to date, and any interested provider may bid on the same terms as others. Bidders must declare any prior relationship with CIVICUS; this does not automatically disqualify a bidder but must be transparently managed. Reference group members must declare and recuse from any conflicts of interest.

4. Indicative Timeline and Budget

Dates to be finalised with the Reference Group and successful provider(s).

 
5. How to Apply

Interested providers should submit a technical and financial proposal, including a brief methodology, proposed timeline, team composition or consultant profile, relevant experience, conflict-of-interest declaration and detailed budget. Applications can be sent to by COB 18 September 2026, noting “Independent Subgranting Systems Review” in the subject.

Budget: CIVICUS anticipates a total budget of approximately USD 15,000 to USD 18,000 for this assignment in its entirety. Proposals should include a detailed cost breakdown and demonstrate value for money.