Background

Those who have already applied for this position, do not require to apply again.

Bangladesh judiciary has large case backlogs, estimated at around 2.7 million cases, which are slowly overwhelming the court administration and undermining access to justice. There is increasing acknowledgement that this is critical to governance, access to justice and rule of law issue that needs to be addressed. For example, the Government’s Millennium Development Goal Progress report 2009 noted: justice sector reform and efforts to strengthen the rule of law appear to be lagging behind other areas. The Government is determined to reverse this so that a lack of progress in this sector does not undermine gains in other areas.

Vulnerable groups, including the poor, women and children, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities face impediment in getting justice. Throughout the formal justice system, there is a significant lack of capacity - within the judiciary, relevant ministries and statutory bodies.

This focus reflects that the Judiciary is a key governance and rule of law institution. It upholds the rule of law by resolving disputes in a fair, equal and equitable manner. This includes acting as a check and balance on other parts of government such as the Executive and the Legislature. Public service provision of “justice” also contributes to economic growth, social cohesion, human development and the overall legitimacy of the state. A solid foundation of rule of law is widely acknowledged as a necessary precondition for poverty reduction and equitable economic development.

In this environment, UNDP and the Supreme Court agreed to implement a one-year Initiation Plan with a view to designing a longer-term development programme. In December 2010, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh wrote to UNDP requesting the design of a longer term capacity building project. In early 2011, UNDP developed this Project Document for a capacity building project known as JUST (Judicial Strengthening). JUST aims to improve access to justice, especially for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, by supporting the Judiciary to improve case management and reduce case backlogs. JUST envisages of achieving the following outcome:

‘The Supreme Court of Bangladesh effectively fulfils its role as an apex court of the country according to the Constitution of Bangladesh’

If successful, practical improvements in the administration of justice will contribute to more efficient and effective processing of cases, greater trust and improved community perceptions of the Judiciary. A reduction in the existing backlog of cases will not resolve all issues within the formal sector; however, it will have a measurable impact on a whole range of related problems within the Judiciary. It will also provide a more solid foundation to base a cycle of long-term and continuous improvements in the administration of justice.

Introduction:

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is inviting bids form international evaluators to carry out a mid-term evaluation of “Judicial Strengthening Project (JUST)”. The Mid-term Evaluation will assess the level of progress being made towards the achievement of project outcomes and provide recommendations. This project started in July 2012 and will run until June 2015. A baseline survey of Judicial Strengthening Project was carried out in August 2013. This focused primarily on indicators in the result framework and it will provide a useful starting point for this midterm evaluation.
The midterm evaluation should focus on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness of project implementation and provide the basis for learning and accountability for programme managers and stakeholders. It will have to provide to UNDP complete and convincing evidence to support its findings/ratings. Particular emphasis should be put on validation of project's theory of change, the project results, the lessons learned from the projects and recommendations for the follow-up activities.

Duties and Responsibilities

Evaluation objectives:

The main objective of this mid-term evaluation is to provide the project partners i.e. UNDP & Supreme Court with an independent review of the success in achieving desired outputs, lessons learned, findings and recommendations.
The evaluation results are envisaged:

• To assess progress towards the outcome;
• To assess both negative and positive factors affecting the outcome;
• To assess key UNDP contributions (outputs made with UNDP’s direct contributions), including those produced through “soft” assistance, to outcomes;
• Assess the partnership strategy;
• To assess the relevance including the project’s theory of change, effectiveness, efficiency and likely impact of programme design and implementation in the context of Bangladesh’s Judiciary;
• To assess the stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the programme’s results so far;
• To assess the sustainability of implemented activities;
• To draw lessons learned and make recommendations for adjustments in the remaining months of project implementation to comply with the requirement of the programme document/funding agreement and UNDP Evaluation Policies;
• To assess the emerging next programming phase in light of the MTE findings;
• To assess the programme’s alignment with and contribution to the UNDP’s country strategy and the reflection of MDG.

Scope of evaluation

Geographic scope:

At present, JUST project operates in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and in 6 pilot district courts of Dhaka, Kishoregonj, Rangamati, Rangpur, Rajshahi and Comilla.

Target Group:

The ultimate beneficiaries of the project are the citizens of Bangladesh, in particular, court users and their families in pilot districts. The judiciary, as a recently strengthened pillar of the state is also the direct beneficiary of the project.

The scope of the evaluation will cover the success in:

• Utilization of resources allocated in this project;
• Case management, establishing modern case management and court administration;
• Strengthening the technical capabilities/ capacities of judiciary;
• Appropriateness/ validation of reform initiatives;
• Addressing the barriers in current court system;
• Increasing disposal rate in pilot district courts;
• Impact and sustainability of activities and outputs.

Issues to be addressed by the evaluation

To achieve the above objectives the Mid-Term Evaluation is to address the following:

• Relevance of outcome/output;
• Strategic positioning of UNDP;
• Partnership strategy and formulation;
• Production of outputs (possibly with partners);
• Possibly status of outcome and factors affecting it;
• Assessment of the project progress towards attaining its expected objectives and outcomes and recommend measures (if any);
• Investigation of the relevance of these objectives to the national development objectives and priorities, the UNDP/Supreme Court areas of interest and the demand of beneficiaries. Hence recommend means of incorporating those priorities;
• Reviewing the roles and responsibilities of key justice stakeholders and the level of coordination between themselves;
• Review of the project concept and design with respect to the clarity of the addressed problems by the project and suitability of the approaches adopted by the project to solve these problems;
• Assessment of the performance of the project in terms of timeliness, quality, quantity and cost effectiveness of the activities undertaken including project procurement: experts and equipment, training and workshop programs, etc.
• Review of the Result Framework matrix and the indicators to assess the periodic result based progress for the result and resource management of the project;
• Assess the prospects of the sustainability of the project outcomes and benefits and recommend prospective scope of work for further development endeavors;
• Identify and describe the main lessons learned from the project performance in terms of awareness raising, strengthening of technical and financial capacity, efforts to secure sustainability and approaches and methodologies used.

Lessons learned in the following areas should be highlighted:

• Effectiveness of the training activities and its impact on the quality of individual performance. The sustainability of these training activities should take into consideration the role of the training institutes and its commitment to replicate the introduced training curriculum for the judges from subordinate judiciary;
• Appropriateness of the current inter-linkages between the major stakeholders and recommend measures for their improvement;
• The future of sustainability of different project achievements in relation to the roles and linkages among the stakeholders.

Methodology:

The evaluation will be based on the findings and factual statements identified from review of relevant documents including the project document, quarterly progress reports (QPRs), Annual Result Reports (ARR), in addition to the technical reports produced by the project and the different promotional materials. A list of the above reports will be shared with the consultants before the beginning of the mission. The mission will also undertake field visits and interview the stakeholders including the target beneficiaries, government officials. Participation of stakeholders in the evaluation should be maintained at all the times, reflecting opinions, expectations and vision about the contribution of the project towards the achievement of its objectives.

The consultant understands of the programme design and its emerging findings and recommendations will be drawn through a structured dialogue with the programme stakeholders and the service users in a series of interviews, focus group discussions and facilitated kick off and debriefing workshops.

More specifically, the methodology involves the following four steps:

• Ascertaining the status of the outcome;
• Examining the factors affecting the outcome;
• Assessing the contribution of UNDP;
• Assessing partnerships for changing outcome;
• Apply the evaluation methodology in the field through a sequence set out in the fieldwork calendar.

The sequence of evaluation steps are as follows:

Desk Review/ Pre-mission briefing:

• Review of background literature and project documentation lead by the Evaluation Team Leader in consultation with his/her team. It will involve necessary clarifications by UNDP and SC, JUST Project Personnel and other national and international staff, Assistant Country Director and senior management of justice institutions;
• This phase will culminate in the preparation of a brief Inception Report to be forwarded to JUST / UNDP for comments. The Inception report should incorporate the information from the desk review, present the reconstructed intervention logic, spell out the evaluation questions and a plan for how these will be tackled by the team including draft interview questions;
• This phase will help the team to prepare for the team hypothesis meeting that is held when the team assembles in Dhaka and for the Inception Workshop with stakeholders.

Mission in the Supreme Court:

• Evaluation hypothesis meeting and preparation for fieldwork;
• Kick- Off meeting to share evaluation approach and questions and receive feedback;
• Briefing of the Evaluation consultants by UNDP, and project personnel;
• Initial consultation with the NPD, UNDP Country Director/Deputy Country Director (Programme) and government / other relevant national institutions;
• Inception workshop for key stakeholders set up to interact with the consultants;
• Interviews by the consultants with key stakeholders such as judges, lawyers and Bar Association members; initial consultations in Dhaka with UNDP JUST teams, High Court Judges, Lawyers, Bench Officers.

Field visits to the Pilot District Courts – (visits to intervention areas generally considered the minimum requirement):

• Interviews with judges, lawyers, CMC members and court officials;
• Interviews/focus group discussions with key stakeholders;
• Interviews with knowledgeable informants;
• Focus Group Discussions with group representative of broad population and with a group representative of the very poor (representatives of women, youth, etc.);
• Collection and analysis of case disposal, pending case data in pilot district courts;
• Assessment of project schemes (Mediation, Case Management Committee etc.);
• Feedback meeting to present preliminary findings.

Debriefing:

• Debrief UNDP, JUST, Supreme Court and Pilot District Judges;
• Debriefing workshop with key stakeholders to present and discuss findings & recommendations – this workshop will generally review which presents the key findings, recommendations (conveyed in power point) and collect feedback from stakeholders;
• Incorporate feedback as well as observations from stakeholders during the MTE.

Evaluation Products (Deliverables):

The final report should contain a matrix of recommendations to be used for the Management Response and action, and recommendations for the next phase of the programme. The team leader will also be requested to provide a 1000-word synopsis of the evaluation and key findings and recommendations.

The mission will be responsible for submitting the following deliverables:

• Inception report of the MTE, which includes a finalized ToR including a comprehensive approach and methodology; review questions, the main elements of the evaluation and a detailed work plan; schedule of tasks and activities and deliverables for evaluation process. The inception report needs to reflect the evaluators understanding of the assignment;
• An executive summary and preliminary recommendations at a debriefing meeting with JUST/UNDP, Key stakeholders;
• Power point presentation for briefing and debriefings workshop;
• A draft MTE report with findings (highlighting achievements and challenges), project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact of project activities, sustainability, lesson learned and recommendations.
• Recommendations on possible project document revisions;
• Brief synopsis of evaluation and key findings (1000 words for corporate communications use);
• A final MTE report with Executive Summary, Introduction, The Development Context, Findings and Conclusions (including reflection of 1. Status of the outcome, 2. Factors affecting the outcome, 3. UNDP contributions to the outcome through outputs, 4. UNDP partnership strategy), Recommendations, Lessons Learned, Annexes (TOR, Itinerary, List of people met, List of documents reviewed); incorporating earlier feedback.

Supervision and performance evaluation:

• The MTE Team’s work progress will be monitored and coordinated by the Chief Technical Advisor and the overall supervision by the National Project Director of the JUST Project. The NPD and the ACD will be responsible for reviewing the performance of the consultant and approve their deliverables.

Reports:

• The international consultant will report to the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the Government of Bangladesh through ERD represented by the National Project Director, and UNDP, represented by the Assistant Country Director (Programme). The MTE Team leader will first present his/her results to the JUST Management Team. A presentation will also be delivered to the UNDP Management and RRMC. The Monitoring Officer, JUST will be the project focal point person and will coordinate activities under this contract.

Tentative payment schedule:

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

Evaluation team composition and required competencies:

• The Mid-term Evaluation is an independent evaluation carried out by UNDP. The exercise will be conducted by a team of two. Evaluation team, led by an Evaluation Team Leader, with overall responsibility for providing guidance and leadership for conducting the assessment, and for preparing and revising draft and final reports. The Evaluation Team Leader will be an international professional with significant experience across a broad range of development issues. It is estimated that workload of the team leader would be 25 days. The Evaluation National Consultant (expert in judiciary) will support the Evaluation Team Leader and provide the expertise in specific subject areas of the evaluation, and may be responsible for drafting relevant parts of the report, one Evaluation National Consultant will be contracted to cover the following areas: local justice, and broadly human rights and governance, and cross-cutting issues. It is estimated that workload of the National Consultant would be approximately 30 days.

Implementation arrangements:

• The consultant should work towards timely submission of the evaluation report and work closely with the national consultant contracted for this mid-term evaluation. The consultant will be contracted by UNDP Country Office in consultation with Supreme Court and JUST. The evaluation team will be working closely with JUST staff, Judges and lawyers of the Supreme Court and Pilot District Courts, UNDP Democratic Governance Cluster and Results and Resource Management Cluster (RRMC).
• The Project Management shall arrange for the consultant all necessary field visits and meetings in the project sites according to the ToR. The UNDP JUST will fix the date for all types of meeting and will set the meeting as per the schedule and will arrange the inception workshop, briefing and de-briefing.

Time frame for the evaluation process:

This contract is for a period of up to 25 days including the final report submission. The consultant will stay minimum 21 days in Bangladesh. The consultants should submit work plan of how the following activities will be implemented within two calendar months from the day of signing of the contract:

• Briefing; meeting with UNDP/JUST and other staff, common approach and framework; tasks, work plan and initial desk review of key documentation. – Day 1;
• Review kick-off meeting with team to the JUST/UNDP/Supreme Court. – Day 2;
• Comprehensive desk review and consultation to gather and review the existing literature, rules of business, orders and laws as regards to courts procedure, tools, formats and plan and process mapping as done by the national consultants. – Day 3-5;
• Presentation by the Evaluation team to the JUST /UNDP/Supreme Court on the inception report. – Day 6;
• Interviews and consultation with relevant actors and stakeholders. Visit to different settings and field locations (district courts). – Day 7-13;
• Preparation for the draft report and recommendations by the Evaluation team. – Day 14-16;
• Briefing the draft MTE Report and preliminary presentation of the findings to the UNDP/JUST Management and Supreme Court. – Day 17;
• Review and upgrade the draft MTE Report to ensure accommodation of the findings made by the Supreme Court and UNDP and validate the information through cross verification, system scan and triangulation. – Day 18-19;
• Debriefing with key stakeholders (UNDP, JUST, Supreme Court and Pilot District Judges ) to present and discuss findings & recommendations – this workshop will generally review which presents the key findings, recommendations (conveyed in power point) and collect feedback from stakeholders. – Day 20;
•  Ensure accommodation of the feedbacks from debriefing workshop and get the concerned sections endorsed by relevant stakeholders. – Day 21;
• Review and upgrade the final draft and submit to the Supreme Court and UNDP for final review. – Day 22-23;
• Ensure accommodation of the comments and make final review of the document. – Day 24;
• Final MTE Report with the approval of the Supreme Court and submit to UNDP. – Day 25.

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

Knowledge of the United Nations

• The Evaluation team leader should have a thorough and nuanced understanding of the United Nations context, as well as extensive familiarity of relevant United Nations topics such as human rights, gender, environment, and Results Based Management in the United Nations, in order to provide effective leadership for evaluation;
• Competent in providing overall strategic direction to evaluation national consultant for evaluation, taking into account the broader goals, objectives and needs of evaluation activities, as well as new directions and cutting edge methods in evaluation.

Technical and professional skills

• Good technical knowledge of the different components of evaluation, including evaluation design, data collection and analysis, and reporting, and the skills needed to provide substantive guidance to national consultant on evaluation design methodology and reporting;
• Competencies in planning and implementing an effective evaluation plan for systematic follow-up to evaluation recommendations;
• Evaluation head is skillful in guiding the distilment, communication and reporting of best practices and lessons learned;
• Excellent presentation skills and the ability to present the evaluation findings at senior level meetings and other high level for a;
• Excellent knowledge of emerging global issues and evaluation trends that impact on the work of their skills necessary to advance the evaluation profession within the United Nations as well as within the larger evaluation community.

Personal attributes

• Evaluation head must have a thorough understanding of the Standards of ethical conduct for evaluators, is able to promote a strong ethic work environment in the evaluation, and has integrity and honesty in all working relationships.

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualification:

• Masters/advanced degree in Law, International Development, Statistics, or relevant Social Sciences;
• PhD is a strong advantage;
• Background in governance, legal empowerment, survey and research.

Experience:

• Past experience as a team leader in a related assignment (s);
• Experience in Result-Base Management evaluation methodologies;
• Demonstrated analytical ability and excellent report writing skills with relevant experience and procedures at least 5 reports for donor/ UN agencies;
• Minimum 15 years’ experience in justice sector and public sector reform at local and international level;
• Experience of working with senior govt. and judicial counterparts;
• Working as consultants in any legal/survey firm on development issues;
• Research experience in justice system at local and international level would be an asset;
• Research report publications;
• Data processing and database management skills;
• Ability to facilitate consultation/workshop at the National and international level;
• Work experience with UN and /or in Bangladesh will be an added advantage.

Language Requirement:

• Fluency in speaking and writing in English.

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)

• Solid experience in the areas of judiciary, strategic planning of the projects focused on human rights and development through providing evidence-based policy advice; practical experience in organizational management, strategic planning of associations and public organizations at the national and international level; prior experience in undertaking evaluations and reviews of projects working with judiciary (35 marks);
• Prior experience of leading teams within a multinational setting; Experience in formulating development strategies and policies; Knowledge of rule of law and case management issues applicable to South Asia, relevant to Bangladesh (35 marks).

Financial Evaluation (Total 30 marks)

All technical qualified 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 document/information to demonstrate their qualifications:

• Mid-Term Evaluation Proposal: Consultant to compete in the bidding process will submit a Mid-Term Evaluation Proposal along with an implementation plan and indicative budget.