Background

This is the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full -sized project titled Promoting Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings (PEECB) in Thailand (PIMS#3937) implemented through the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE), Ministry of Energy, Thailand, which is to be undertaken in 2015.  The project started on the 14 November 2012 and is in its fourth year of implementation. In line with the UNDP-GEF Guidance on MTRs, this MTR process was initiated before the submission of the second Project Implementation Report (PIR). This ToR sets out the expectations for this MTR.  The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects (Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects.)

The PEECB project is a four-year (2012-2015) collaboration project implemented through the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE) under Ministry of Energy, Thailand.The project was designed to promote and facilitate the widespread application of building energy efficiency technologies and practices in commercial buildings in Thailand. The realization of this objective will be facilitated through the removal of barriers to the uptake of building energy efficiency technologies, systems, and practices. The project is in line with the GEF-4 Strategic Program No. 1, which is on Promoting energy-efficient buildings and appliances (CC-SP1). It is comprised of activities aimed at improving energy efficiency and promoting the widespread adoption of energy efficient building technologies and practices in the Thai commercial building sector).

This project’s objective and primary outcome is to strengthen national capacity to manage the environment in a sustainable manner while ensuring adequate protection of the poor. Also as a secondary outcome, the project aims to support capacity development for countries to ensure that environment and energy are taken into account in drawing up and implementing national policies, strategies and programs, also considering the inclusion of multilateral environmental agreements.

Additionally the project also targets some key outcomes that correspond with the country’s plan (CP) as its implementation is expected to support the development of an efficient community network in sustainable use of local natural resources and energy with engagement in policy and decision-making processes. As well as increasing the capacity of the national focal points in addressing policy and removal of barriers in pursuing local sustainable management of environmental flow and renewable energy. Ultimately leading to a strengthened policymaking process based on evidenced-based knowledge management.

As for the Country Program Action Plan (CPAP) outputs, the implementation of the project is expected to increase capacity of national agencies to set policy priorities and remove barriers to pursuing sustainable management of biodiversity, renewable energy and water resources in response to national priorities and incompliance with international treaties. Supporting the process and the practice of developing Evidence-based data for barriers removal and policy decision making.

The total project budget is USD.15,904,773.The allocated resources including the co-financing amount are as follows:-

  • GEF                                                     USD. 3,637,273;
  • Government (cash and In-kind)               USD. 6,500,000;
  • Private Sector (cash and In-kind)            USD. 5,767,500.

Duties and Responsibilities

Objective of the assignment

The National consultant - Mid Term Review (MTR) on Promoting Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings (PEECB) in Thailand will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document, and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results.  The MTR will also review the project’s strategy, its risks to sustainability.

Scope of Work:

The National consultant - Mid Term Review (MTR) on Promoting Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings (PEECB) in Thailand must provide evidence based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal area Tracking Tool submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR. Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE), Ministry of Energy; executing agencies, senior officials and task team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions to Bangkok, Thailand.

The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

The National consultant - Mid Term Review (MTR) on Promoting Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings (PEECB) in Thailand will to assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

Project Strategy

Project design:

  • Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document;
  • Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.  Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?;
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?;
  • Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?;
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines;
  • If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

 Results Framework/Logframe:

  • Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary;
  • Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?;
  • Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis;
  • Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

Progress Towards Results

 Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

  • Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

 In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review;
  • Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project;
  • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

 Management Arrangements:

  • Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement;
  • Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement;
  • Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

 Work Planning:

  • Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved;
  • Are work-planning processes results-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?;
  • Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

 Finance and co-finance:

  • Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions;
  • Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions;
  • Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?;
  • Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?.

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

  • Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?  Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?;
  • Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?.

 Stakeholder Engagement:

  • Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
  • Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
  • Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

  • Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board;
  • Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?);
  • Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

 Communications:

  • Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
  • Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?);
  • For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

Sustainability

  • Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why;
  • In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability.

 Financial risks to sustainability:

  • What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?.

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

  • Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

  • Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

  • Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

 The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.

 Ratings

 The MTR team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Final Products:

The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

The fima MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

Contract Duration:

During May 2015 – July 2015 with maximum of 27 working days.

Duty Station:

Home-based with travel to Bangkok for sites visit.

Provision of Monitoring and Progress Controls:

The consultant will work under the overall supervision of the Programme Specialist, Inclusive Green Growth & Sustainable Development, UNDP Thailand  

Documents to be included with submitting proposal:

Interested individual consultant must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate your  qualifications:

  • Proposal:  Brief proposal explaining why you are the most suitable for this consultancy including confirmation on availability to take up assignment for the whole period;
  • Financial proposal: The financial proposal must indicate Lump sum professional fee in Thai Baht(THB).  To submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I;
  • o submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I;
  • Personal CV and/or P.11 including past experience in similar projects and the name and contact details of 3 references.

Financial Proposal:

The financial proposal will specify the Lump sum professional Fee (with breakdown of Daily fee x number of working day) and lump sum travel related expenses (with breakdown of all travel related expenses) in Thai Baht (THB). The payments will be made to the Individual Consultant based on the completion of the deliverables indicated in the TOR. To submit Financial Proposal, please use Template of Submission of Financial Proposal provided in Annex I.

Evaluation:

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.

* Technical Criteria weight; 70%

  • Experience related to services: 35 points;
  • Written proposal/test and /or interview result: 30 points;
  • Expertise & Availability: 35 points.

* Financial Criteria weight; 30%

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 350 technical points would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

Competencies

Functional Competencies:

  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and Mitigation; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis;
  • Excellent communication skills;
  • Demonstrable analytical skills;
  • Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset.

 Client Orientation

  • Contributing to positive outcomes for the client;
  • Anticipates client needs;
  • Works towards creating an enabling environment for a smooth relationship between the clients and service provider;
  • Demonstrates understanding of client’s perspective.

Promoting Organizational Learning and Knowledge Sharing

Developing tools and mechanisms

  •  Makes the case for innovative ideas documenting successes and building them into the design of new approaches;
  • Identifies new approaches and strategies that promote the use of tools and mechanisms.

Core Competencies:

  • Promoting ethics and integrity, creating organizational precedents;
  • Building support and political acumen;
  • Building staff competence, creating an environment of creativity and innovation;
  • Building and promoting effective teams;
  • Creating and promoting enabling environment for open communication;
  • Creating an emotionally intelligent organization;
  • Leveraging conflict in the interests of UNDP & setting standards;
  • Sharing knowledge across the organization and building a culture of knowledge sharing and learning. Promoting learning and knowledge management/sharing is the responsibility of each staff member;
  • Fair and transparent decision making; calculated risk-taking.

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications:

  • Master’s degree in energy, engineering, environmental studies or closely related subjects; and/or
  • A university degree in energy, engineering, environmental studies or closely related subjects with more than 13 years of experience directly related to the evaluation of project also be accepted.

Years of experience:

  • At least 10 years work experience in relevant technical areas on Buildings Energy Efficiency as well as review and evaluation of related UNDP GEF projects;
  • Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
  • Experience working with the GEF or GEF-evaluations;
  • Experience working in Asia and the Pacific would be an advantage;

 Language:

  • Good command of English both spoken and written.

Application:

Please find more details on websites: http://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=21565.