Objectives of the Assignment:
Final evaluations are summative in nature and seek to:
- Measure to what extent the joint programme has fully implemented their activities, delivered outputs and attained outcomes and specifically measuring development results;
- Generate substantive evidence based knowledge, on one or more of the MDG-F thematic windows by identifying best practices and lessons learned that could be useful to other development interventions at national (scale up) and international level (replicability).
Scope of Work:
This final evaluation has the following specific objectives:
- Measure to what extent the joint programme has contributed to solve the needs and problems identified in the design phase;
- To measure the joint programme’s degree of implementation, efficiency and quality delivered on outputs and outcomes, against what was originally planned or subsequently officially revised;
- Measure to what extent the joint programme has attained development results to the targeted population, beneficiaries, participants whether individuals, communities, institutions, etc.
- To measure the joint programme contribution to the objectives set in their respective specific thematic windows as well as the overall MDG fund objectives at local and national level. (MDGs, Paris Declaration and Accra Principles and UN reform);
- To identify and document substantive lessons learned and good practices on the specific topics of the thematic window, MDGs, Paris Declaration, Accra Principles and UN reform with the aim to support the sustainability of the joint programme or some of its components.
The national and international consultants involved in the final evaluation will be selected jointly between UNDP and the implementing partners.
UNDP/PAPP will help to facilitate the final evaluation exercise and provide support where feasible.
The programme coordinator as evaluation manager will have the following functions:
- Contribute to the finalization of the evaluation TOR;
- Provide executive and coordination support to the reference group;
- Provide the evaluators with administrative support and required data;
- Liaise with and respond to the commissioners of evaluation;
- Connect the evaluation team with the wider programme unit, senior management and key evaluation stakeholders, and ensure a fully inclusive and transparent approach to the evaluation;
- Review the inception report and the draft evaluation report(s);
- Ensure that adequate funding and human resources are allocated for the evaluation.
The Programme Management Committee that will function as the evaluation reference group, this group will comprise the representatives of the major stakeholders in the joint programme:
- Review the draft evaluation report and ensure final draft meets the required quality standards;
- Facilitating the participation of those involved in the evaluation design;
- Identifying information needs, defining objectives and delimiting the scope of the evaluation;
- Providing input and participating in finalizing the evaluation Terms of Reference;
- Facilitating the evaluation team’s access to all information and documentation relevant to the intervention, as well as to key actors and informants who should participate in interviews, focus groups or other information-gathering methods;
- Oversee progress and conduct of the evaluation the quality of the process and the products;
- Disseminating the results of the evaluation.
The MDG-F Secretariat that will function as a quality assurance member of the evaluation in cooperation with the commissioner of the evaluation:
- Review and provide advice on the quality the evaluation process as well as on the evaluation products (comments and suggestions on the adapted TOR, draft reports, final report of the evaluation) and options for improvement.
The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation study by:
- Fulfilling the contractual arrangements in line with the TOR, UNEG/OECD norms and standards and ethical guidelines; this includes developing an evaluation matrix as part of the inception report, drafting reports, and briefing the commissioner and stakeholders on the progress and key findings and recommendations, as needed.
All payments will be issued upon certification of UNDP MDG-GEWE-JP Programme Manager and Programme Associate.
The consultant is responsible for submitting the following deliverables to the commissioner and the manager of the evaluation:
This report will be 10 to 15 pages in length and will propose the methods, sources and procedures to be used for data collection. It will also include a proposed timeline of activities and submission of deliverables. The desk study report will propose initial lines of inquiry about the joint programme. This report will be used as an initial point of agreement and understanding between the consultant and the evaluation managers.
Outline of the inception report
1. Background to the evaluation: objectives and overall approach
2. Identification of main units and dimensions for analysis and possible areas for research
3. Main substantive and financial achievements of the joint programme
4. Methodology for the compilation and analysis of the information
5. Criteria to define the mission agenda, including “field visits”
The draft final report will contain the same sections as the final report (described in the next paragraph) and will be 20 to 30 pages in length. This report will be shared among the evaluation reference group. It will also contain an executive report of no more than 5 pages that includes a brief description of the joint programme, its context and current situation, the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology and its main findings, conclusions and recommendations. The draft final report will be shared with the evaluation reference group to seek their comments and suggestions. This report will contain the same sections as the final report, described below.
The final report will be 20 to 30 pages in length. It will also contain an executive summary of no more than 5 pages that includes a brief description of the joint programme, its context and current situation, the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology and its major findings, conclusions and recommendations. The final report will be sent to the evaluation reference group.
Outline of the draft and final evaluation reports
1. Cover Page
2. Executive Summary (include also Glossary page)
- Background, goal and methodological approach
- Purpose of the evaluation
- Methodologies used in the evaluation
- Constraints and limitations on the study conducted
4. Description of the development interventions carried out
5. Levels of Analysis: Evaluation criteria and questions (all questions included in the TOR must be addressed and answered)
- Detailed description of the development intervention undertaken: description and judgement on implementation of outputs delivered (or not) and outcomes attained as well as how the programme worked in comparison to the theory of change developed for the programme.
6. Conclusions and lessons learned (prioritized, structured and clear)
Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR:
- Completion of the inception report – 25% - 15 days of the submission of all JP documents and signing the contract.
- Completion of the draft final report – 50% - Within 20 days after the completion of the filed visit.
- Completion of the final evaluation report -25%- Within 10 days after reception of the draft final report with comments.
UNDP/PAPP will examine the Proposals to determine whether they are complete, and whether they are substantially responsive to the qualification and experience minimum requirements. A Proposal determined as not substantially responsive will be rejected by UNDP/PAPP and may not subsequently be made responsive by the Applicant by correction of the non-conformity.
A two-stage procedure is utilized in evaluating the proposals, with evaluation of the technical proposals prior to any financial proposal being requested and compared.
The technical proposals are evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the Terms of Reference (TOR).
Below please find the evaluation form for the technical proposals. The obtainable number of points specified for each evaluation criterion indicates the relative significance of weight of the item in the overall evaluation process.
Level of Expertise:
- Experience in conducting final evaluations (five to ten – 10; 10 to 15 – 15; >15 years projects – 15 points);
- Experience in similar projects of comparable size, budget, complexity and technical specialty (< two projects – 5; two to four projects – 10; > five projects – 15 points);
- Experience in developing countries under comparable conditions (1 to 2 countries – 5; 3 to 5 – 8; > 6 countries – 5points)
- Knowledge of the MENA region (5 points).
- Total (40 Scores)
To what degree does the applicant understand the task? Have the important aspects of the task been addressed? Is the scope of task well defined and does it correspond to the TOR? Is the conceptual framework adopted appropriate for the task? (25 points)
Is the presentation of the work-plan clear and is the sequence of activities and the planning logical, realistic and promise efficient implementation to the project? (25 points)
Total (50 Scores)
Quality of recommendation letters (10p)
Total (10 scores)
In the Second Stage, UNDP/PAPP will request Financial Proposals from applicants who attained the minimum technical score of 70% of the obtainable score of 100 points in the evaluation of the technical proposals.
IMPORTANT: PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR FINANCIAL PROPOSAL. THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS WILL BE REQUESTED AT A LATER STAGE FROM APPLICANTS WHO ATTAINED THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL SCORES.
Lump Sum Approach
The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount. The total lump sum shall be all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the Consultant/Contractor during the contract period and shall form the amount of the resulted contract between the winning Consultant/Contractor and UNDP. No other entitlements will be considered after submission of financial proposals.
The financial proposal shall include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (number of anticipated working days, all envisaged travel (such as but not limited to all travel to join duty station/repatriation travel), per diems/daily allowances).
Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR.
1. Award of Individual Contract
The procuring UNDP entity reserves the right to accept or reject any Proposal, and to annul the solicitation process and reject all Proposals at any time prior to award of contract, without incurring any liability to the affected applicant or any obligation to inform the affected applicant or applicants of the ground for the UNDP’s action.
The UNDP procuring entity will award the Individual Contract to the First Lowest Technically Responsive Candidate.