Background

Duties and Responsibilities

UNDP Serbia invites applications from qualified consultants in order to perform the mid-term evaluation of the Strengthening Oversight Function and Transparency of the Parliament Project.

• Evaluating effectiveness (e.g. the degree to which the project activities listed in the Project Document have been successfully implemented and desired outcomes are being achieved  in the mid-term);
• Evaluating efficiency (e.g. the approach to project management, including the role of stakeholders and coordination with other development projects in the same area)The status of the corresponding UNDP Country Programme outcome and progress vis-à-vis Swiss Cooperation Strategy with Serbia 2014-2017  and estimate the degree of project's contribution to it;
• Evaluating relevance of the Project in view of democracy and parliamentary development in Serbia;
• Overall conception and delivery of the final report.  

• Evaluating relevance;
• Assessing beneficiary satisfaction;
• Preparing inputs for the final report (e.g. background information, chapter on relevance, assessment of external factors affecting the project, and the extent to which the project has been able to adapt and/or mitigate the effects of such factors. Precise division of work between Evaluators will be agreed at the mission outset with UNDP Portfolio Manager;

• The evaluation approach has to respond to standard international practices in project evaluation. The proposed steps in conducting the evaluation will be conducted by both Evaluators;
• Review of project documentation, monitoring records and progress and other relevant reports;
•  Initial meeting with UNDP to agree the specific design and methods for the evaluation, what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives. Agree on the evaluation questions that will need to be answered, given limitations of time and extant data;
• Discussions with key staff involved and project beneficiaries to assess project's relevance and effectiveness of project implementation take note of their perceptions of accomplishments and potentials for further development and provide suggestions for management response to evaluation findings. Objectively verifiable data should be collected whenever available, to supplement evidences obtained through interviews and focus group discussions;
• Schedule of interviews will be coordinated with UNDP Portfolio Manager. 

• Prepare inception report with evaluation matrix*;
• Focus on the general evaluation criteria and
• Prepare the Final Report** with the Executive Summary.  

• Contribution to the preparation of the inception report;
• Organization of interviews with key staff involved in the project implementation;
• Writing some chapters (e.g. relevance) and preparing inputs for others (e.g. effectiveness) as agreed with the International Evaluator and UNDP Portfolio Manager;
• Focus on the national legislative framework and project possible impact to parliamentary development in Serbia;
• Incorporate received beneficiary satisfaction feedback into the Final Report.  

• Project documents;
• Progress reports;
• Key materials produced by the project. 

** The final report must include, but not necessarily be limited to the elements outlined in the quality criteria for evaluation reports (Annex I constitutes integral part of this ToR).

• Deliverable 1: Inception report including work plan and evaluation matrix prepared and accepted, deadline: 3 days upon signing the contract; 
• Deliverable 2: Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report on approximately 6 pages prepared and accepted, deadline: 15 days upon signing the contract;
• Deliverable 3: Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report presented to UNDP, Implementing Partner and beneficiaries, deadline: 20 days upon signing the contract;
• Deliverable 4: Final Mid-Term Evaluation report (10 pages) with Executive Summary (1 page) prepared and accepted,  deadline: 5 days upon receiving comments from UNDP on the final draft.

Competencies

• Excellent analytical skills;
• Displays ability to synthesize research and reach empirically based conclusions on related subject;
• Strong writing skills;
• Proven capacity to produce reports;
• Displays capacity to provide experienced advice on best practices;
• Possesses knowledge of inter-disciplinary development issues;
• Focuses on result for the client and responds positively to feedback;
• Good application of Results-Based Management;
• Good communication, coordination and facilitation skills;
• Consistently ensures timeliness and quality of work;
• Treats all people fairly without favourism;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Demonstrates integrity by modeling ethical standards;
• Ability to deliver when working under pressure and within changing circumstances;
• Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude;
• Excellent interpersonal skills.

Required Skills and Experience

• Masters or equivalent in relevant field of political science, or another relevant field. 

• Minimum 5 years of relevant professional experience at the national or international level in providing consultancy work related to parliamentary development;
• Experience in evaluating and monitoring technical cooperation and development activities and projects. 

• Strong knowledge of parliamentary development would be an asset;
• Familiarity with the UN(DP) evaluation policy, norms and standards;
• Knowledge in the use of computers and office software packages and handling of web based monitoring systems. 

• Excellent knowledge of written and spoken English for both Evaluators;
• Knowledge of Serbian language for International Consultant would be an asset. 

• Cover letter explaining why you are the most suitable candidate for the advertised position and a brief methodology on how you will approach and conduct the work (based or commenting on the requirements indicated in this TOR);
• Updated P11 form including latest experience in similar projects and updated contact details of referees (blank form can be downloaded from http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/hrforms/P11_modified_for_SCs_and_ICs.doc ); 
• Financial Proposal should be provided in the document Offeror’s Letter to UNDP confirming Interest and availability for the Individual Contractor that could be found at downloaded from the following link: http://www.undp.org.rs/download/ic/Confirmation.docx (only PDF will be accepted). It shall specify a total Lump Sum Amount for the tasks specified in this announcement.

Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination, office costs and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services). All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal. This includes all travel to join duty station/repatriation travel.

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable; 
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation;
• Technical Criteria weight 70%;
• Financial Criteria weight 30%.

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 49 point would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

• Must present information that is complete and fair in its assessment of strengths and weaknesses so that decisions or actions taken are well founded;
• Must disclose the full set of evaluation findings along with information on their limitations and have this accessible to all affected by the evaluation with expressed legal rights to receive results;
• Should protect the anonymity and confidentiality of individual informants. They should provide maximum notice, minimize demands on time, and: respect people’s right not to engage. Evaluators must respect people’s right to provide information in confidence, and must ensure that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source;
• Evaluators are not expected to evaluate individuals, and must balance an evaluation of management functions with this general principle;
• Evaluations sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Evaluators should consult with other relevant oversight entities when there is any doubt about if and how issues should be reported;
• Should be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs and act with integrity and honesty in their relations with all stakeholders. In line with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender equality. They should avoid offending the dignity and self-respect of those persons with whom they come in contact in the course of the evaluation. Knowing that evaluation might negatively affect the interests of some stakeholders, evaluators should conduct the evaluation and communicate its purpose and results in a way that clearly respects the stakeholders’ dignity and self-worth;
• Are responsible for their performance and their product(s). They are responsible for the clear, accurate and fair written and/or oral presentation of study limitations, findings and recommendations;
• Should reflect sound accounting procedures and be prudent in using the resources of the evaluation.