Background

The project “Strengthening Capacity for Aid Effectiveness in Bangladesh” is being implemented by Economic Relations Division, Ministry of Finance and jointly funded by Australia, Danida, DFID, UNDP and Government of Bangladesh. Implementation period of the project is September 2011- June 2016. Total budget of the project is US$ 4.54 million, although the project faces a funding gap of US$ 1.36 million.

The objective of the project is to increase the effectiveness, transparency and accountability in allocation, management and use of foreign assistance by strengthening national aid management capacities and systems, as well as by enhancing collective dialogue and coordination mechanisms, in order to achieve improved development results. This is to be achieved by: (1) enhancing GoB’s aid information management capacities and access to aid information by Parliament and civil society; (2) strengthening aid management capacities of the Economic Relations Division and selected Line Ministries and (3) strengthening the Local Consultative Group Mechanism.

Duties and Responsibilities

Purpose of the Evaluation:

The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess the outputs and results achieved by the AE project and explore future scope an opportunity for further action.

Specific Objectives:

The specific objectives of this Mid-Term Evaluation are to assess, and make recommendations with regard to, the following:

Continued project relevance, i.e.:

• Are the project outcomes consistent with the national priorities?
• Have the requirements of aid effectiveness support changed since the start of the project, in particular considering the conceptual evolution from ‘aid effectiveness’ to ‘development effectiveness?
• Does the project still offer the right scope of support;

Efficiency and cost effectiveness:

• The extent to which best value-for-money has been obtained (results delivered vs resources expended), which risks do the investments face.

This includes:

• Assess programme’s financial management and procurement procedures including analysis of (i) budget spend vs planned, (ii) how value for money is achieved through effective procurement and contracting (iii) whether the project is on track against financial forecasts;
• Assess the relevance of various project activities and its bearing on the project’s objectives;
• Review the importance and appropriateness of procurement and its use in achieving the project’s objectives
• Assess the alignment of programme budget with the budget breakdown as agreed in the project document
• Assess time scale of the project and impact of the delay in project start up;
• Assess how unfunded portion of the budget and any withdrawal of fund from co-funders affects the target of achievement of the project;
• Provide a clear plan for use of existing finances until the end of the programme;
• Review the reporting and M&E system of the project and provide suggestion how to make it simple, effective and standardized and possibly review it in view of the evolving project needs. Asses availability of evidence for project results;
• Assessing the role of project partners.

Project ownership at the national and local levels and stakeholder participation.

Results:

• Assess the performance of the project against its results and resources framework, log-frame;
• Assess the positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen changes and effects driven by project-supported interventions;
•  Results include direct project outputs, short-to-medium term outcomes and longer-term impact including national benefits, replication effects and other, local effects.

This includes:

• Check if the programme is on track to achieve outcomes, and determine if any adjustments need to be made during the remainder of the programme;
• Assess progress according to the annual work plans, risks and value for money.
• Make recommendations where appropriate to improve project performance;
• Assess progress against recommendations from previous reviews
• Assess and make any recommended changes for strengthened Results and Resource Framework and DFID logframe;
• Record programme innovation and lessons learnt

Project effectiveness:

• Progress achieved to date against planned outputs and likelihood of achieving planned objectives;
• The extent to which the project has been carried out in line with the planned objectives and outcomes;

Sustainability:

• The likely ability of project-supported interventions to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion;
•  Assess project’s role in influencing wider policy at the national and international level.

Scope of work:

• The International Consultant (IC) is expected to provide an independent evaluation of the performance of the Aid Effectiveness Project. The scope of the evaluation will include the period Sept 2011 to April 2014. The IC will work with a national consultant and will lead the drafting of the evaluation report and other related documents, with input from the national consultant;
• The output will be an evaluation report (no more than 25 pages) which outlines findings and recommendations with regard to the 7 evaluation objectives listed under “specific objectives’ above.

Methodology:

• Document review: Read key background documentation on Aid Effectiveness project. These documents include, inter alia: project document, agreement with co-funders, Revised TPP, Annual work plan and budgets, periodic reports, Annual Reports, Expenditure reports, minutes of LCG meetings, Minutes of Steering committee meetings.
• Consultation: Meet key stakeholders-including representatives from ERD and GoB; AE project management team, UNDP management; co-funders, other development partners, key CSO representatives.
• Guidelines: The IC will use UNDP guidelines for evaluations
• Present ‘Draft Report’ to AE project management, UNDP and co-funders for comments
• Integration of comments and submission of final report to ERD and UNDP

Expected deliverables / outputs:

• Action plan/Work plan (day 3);
• Draft Evaluation Report (end week 2);
• Final Evaluation report (end of contract).

The report should be logically structured, contain evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations, and should be free of information that is not relevant to the overall analysis.

The report will address the questions of the DFID annual review template where possible.

It should include a set of specific recommendations formulated for the project, and identify the necessary actions required to be undertaken, who should undertake those and possible time-lines (if any).

For this contract payments will be made as follows:

• 50% upon submission of draft report;
• 50% upon submission of final report,

Evaluation Team Composition:

The international consultant will report to the Government of Bangladesh, represented by the National Project Director, and UNDP, represented by the Assistant Country Director for Policy Support and Communication. The national project manager will function as a coordinator for this mid term evaluation. The NPD and the ACD will be responsible for reviewing the performance of the consultant and approve their deliverables.

A national consultant will work with the international consultant as a team member. The international consultant will be the team leader. The team leader will have overall responsibility for the delivery and quality of the evaluation products.

Time frame and deadlines:

The evaluation will take 20 working days, broken down as follows:

• Submission of detailed action plan (2 days);
• Desk Review/Documents Review (3 days);
• Meeting, consultation, interview with stakeholders (8 days);
• Preparation of draft report (4 days);
• Debriefing on draft report and finalization of evaluation report (3 days).

Inputs:

UNDP will provide office space (no computer) and will also arrange various meetings, consultations, interviews and ensure access to key officials as mentioned in proposed methodologies. UNDP will bear the cost of such meetings.

Competencies

Functional competencies:

• Technical understanding of changing scenario of global aid architecture and development effectiveness agenda;
• Technical understanding of project management, life cycle of project and use of objectively verifiable indicators;
• Excellent communication, facilitation and analytical skills.
• Strong interpersonal skills.

Corporate competencies:

• Demonstrates commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision and values;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Highest standards of integrity, discretion and loyalty.

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

• Master’s degree in Economics, Finance, Management Studies, Public Administration, Public Policy, Political Science, Development Studies, Social Science or related fields.

Experience:

• At least 15 years of relevant professional experience;
• Recent experience with Result-Based Management evaluation methodologies;
• Experience with multilateral or bilateral donor supported TA projects.

Language:

• Excellent English communication and drafting skills.

Evaluation procedure:

The incumbent can have had no previous role in the design, implementation or funding of the project.

Evaluation of the Candidates:

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodology:

Cumulative analysis:

The candidates will be evaluated through Cumulative Analysis method. When using the weighted scoring method, the award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial

Criteria specific to the solicitation:

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 49 points in the technical evaluation would be considered for
Financial Evaluation.

Technical Evaluation Criteria (Total 70 marks):

• Knowledge of changing scenario of global aid architecture and development effectiveness agenda (15 marks);
• Knowledge on project management, life cycle of project and use of objectively verifiable indicators (15 marks);
• Recent experience with Result-Based Management evaluation methodologies (15 marks);
• Experience with multilateral or bilateral donor supported TA projects (15 marks);
• Excellent English communication and drafting skills (10 marks).

Financial Evaluation (Total 30 marks):

All technical qqualified proposals will be scored out 30 based on the formula provided below. The maximum
points (30) will be assigned to the lowest financial proposal. All other proposals received points according to
the following formula:
                          p = y (μ/z)
where:
p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
μ = price of the lowest priced proposal
z = price of the proposal being evaluated

Documents to be included when submitting the proposals:

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their
qualifications:

Technical Proposal (max 1000 words):

• Explaining why they are the most suitable for the work
• Provide a brief methodology on how they will approach and conduct the work

Personal P-11 form including past experience in similar projects and at least 3 references.