IC-057-21 - MID-TERM PROJECT EVALUATION CONSULTANT


Location : BAGHDAD, IRAQ
Application Deadline :16-Aug-21 (Midnight New York, USA)
Additional Category :Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :International Consultant
Languages Required :
Starting Date :
(date when the selected candidate is expected to start)
01-Sep-2021
Duration of Initial Contract :50 working days
Expected Duration of Assignment :50 working days over a period of 3 months

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.


Background

Since 2015, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has displayed a leading role in supporting the Government of Iraq (GOI)  Security (and Justice) Sector Reform (SJSR) efforts within the framework led by the Office of the National Security Advisor (ONSA) and relevant ministries and agencies. As a critical element to establishing long-term stability in Iraq, and prevent the resurgence of conflict, the overall project strategy stems from the assumption that security is a pre-condition for sustainable development (SDG Goal 16). Similarly, security sector transformation is an essential prerequisite for Iraq’s transition from a state engaged in protracted conflict to a post-conflict period of recovery and development.

UNDP’s strategy supports a national programmatic shift away from immediate humanitarian and stabilization activities to a long-term approach focusing on sustained public security, effective security and justice sector governance, and lasting stability. Taking a common approach, UNDP, with financial contributions from the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States, developed a multi-year Project on Security Sector and Justice Sector Governance (2019-2022). The multi-year project aims to support the Government of Iraq (GoI) in its efforts to advance security and justice sector governance (SJSG) both at national and local levels and to ensure that national security and justice sector institutions are better able to provide a safe and secure environment for the people of Iraq. In this regard, the project focuses on providing strategic and technical advisory support and assistance to advance the GoI SJSG efforts to improve state security and justice provision for better security and stronger public trust in state capacity to maintain security from day-to-day public safety to combating serious crime as well as assist in the coordination and strengthen collaborative engagement of like-minded International Partners active in supporting SJSG in Iraq.

In view of the above, the overall project of work seeks to deliver the following three outputs: Output 1: Strategic advisory, coordination and capacity development support provided to strengthen security sector governance; Output 2: Law enforcement and criminal justice capacities of targeted institutions in Iraq strengthened; and Output 3: Community Security Integration Pilot (CSIP) is designed for Iraq.

 

The project is guided throughout and driven by principles of inclusion and leave no one behind, with a rights-based, conflict – sensitive and do no harm approach to promote gender equality and empowerment. Specific milestones achieved in this regard include the conceptualisation and promotion of co-gendered local police stations for Iraq, conflict assessment for improving local police to strengthen law enforcement, and engagement to support female headed households of former combatants for improving community security integration.

Additionally, the project has initiated a Gender Audit among security sector and judicial institutions as a starting point to identify further gender mainstreaming to promote gender equality across the SSR and Rule of Law programming for Iraq.

Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic related containment measures for UN personnel in Iraq continue to cause delays to implementing project activities in the field. However, the project in collaboration with its partners stayed on course by adopting remote working modalities to ensure activities are implemented to the extent possible. 

 

Overall, SJSG Programme contributes to:

UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2022

Outcome 2: Accelerate structural transformations for sustainable development 

Programme Outcome / UNDP Country Programme Document (2020-2024)

Outcome 3.1: Strengthened institutions and systems deliver people-centred, evidence and needs-based equitable and inclusive gender and age-responsive services, especially for the most vulnerable populations, with particular focus on advocating for women’s leadership in decision-making processes.

National Priority or Goal: Framework of Government Programme

 National development priority: 1. Lay the foundations for good governance.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

This is the first evaluation to be conducted for this Project.

 


Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Evaluation purpose, scope, and objectives

2.1. Evaluation purpose

This evaluation will be undertaken as part of the UNDP Programme Management requirements to: a)  assess the extent to which the project  has progress towards achieving it planned results/outputs;  b)  to provide evidence of UNDP’s contribution towards outcome achievements and impact; c) assess UNDP’s coordination, partnership arrangements, beneficiary participation, and sustainability / exist strategy ; d) collate and analyse lessons learned, challenges, and good practices obtained during the implementation period, this information will inform and improve decision-making to ensure quality implementation during the second phase of the project (September  2021 - December 2022).

2.2. Scope of evaluation

Results scope:

The scope of this evaluation is defined by the Results Framework of the Project, which is planned to be implemented from 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2022. The original results-framework had 4 Outputs but was later revised to focus only on 3 Outputs, and therefore the evaluation will focus on the revised Results Framework presented below.

 

Intended Output

Activity

Output 1: Strategic advisory, coordination and capacity development support provided to strengthen security sector governance

Activities

1.1: Support coordination of SSRP High Committee and Support Committee Meetings and provide technical advisory support.

1.2: Conduct a series of workshops/ trainings/ study visits to build the GoI capacity to manage and implement the SSRP with specific emphasis on monitoring and progress reporting.

1.3: Support SDC to play an active role in SSR oversight in the SSRP- implementation and in-line with SDC by laws.

Output 2: Law enforcement and criminal justice capacities of targeted institutions in Iraq strengthened

Activities

2.1: Provide technical support to develop and implement the Civilian and Local Police Road Map; design and deliver prioritised trainings to the local police; CSO grants for quick impact projects.

2.2: Establish 'model police stations' through rebuilding and rehabilitating prioritised police stations in the target locations.

2.3: Provide advisory and capacity support to implement the Criminal Investigation Standard Operating Procedures (SoPs).

2.4: Provide specialised training courses on suspect interviewing and crime scene management.

2.5: Conduct an assessment and deliver training on complex organised and financial crimes for judges.

Output 3: Community Security Integration Pilot (CSIP) is designed for Iraq

Activities

3.1: Design and implement a pilot community security and integration programme (CSIP).

3.2: Develop and disseminate a lesson learned document on the pilot programme

The evaluation will be carried out using a combined methodology of desk review and direct beneficiary and stakeholder interviews including GoI counterparts, donors, SSR international partners, civil society implementing partners and UNDP Project Staff.

 

Timeframe: The evaluation will be conducted from 1 September to 30 November 2021, covering the mid-term period (1 January 2019 – 31 August 2021) of the Programme implementation cycle.

 

Geographical coverage: Given that the project is nationwide with a particular focus on the provinces of Baghdad, Anbar, Ninewa, and Basra, the evaluation will have a national scope.

 

Evaluation Audience: The evaluation will be relied upon by UNDP and its partners, including the GoI through its MoI and other SJSR institutions, civil society, and donors, with an objective, independent assessment of the project’s performance to provide the basis for learning and accountability.

 

  1. Evaluation Objectives

The specific objective of this project evaluation is to:

  • Assess the relevance of the project ’s results;
  • Assess the efficiency of project implementation, including the operations support;
  • Assess the effectiveness of the project in reaching the stated objectives;
  • Assess the appropriateness of the project design and management arrangements for achieving the stated objectives;
  • Assess the sustainability of the project  results;
  • Assess the extent to which the project has progress towards achieving its planned results/outputs and contribution to the programme Outcome / UNDP Country Programme Document (2020-2024), Outcome 3.1
  • Assess the sustainability of the project results achieved so far, provide constructive and practical recommendations on factors that can contribute to project sustainability that will inform the development of a detailed project exit strategy
  • Outline lessons learned and good practices to inform any course corrections during the next and final project implementation phase.

 

  1. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions

The Project evaluation will generate evidence of progress and challenges, helping to ensure accountability for the implementation of the project, as well as identifying and sharing knowledge and good practices through following standard Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria[1]:

Relevance: The extent to which the project strategy, proposed activities and expected outputs and outcome are justified and remain relevant to the Government of Iraq (GoI) in its efforts to advance security and justice sector governance (SJSG). More specifically, the relevance of the programme should be assessed through the following guiding questions:

  • To what extent is the stated SJSG outcome and outputs on track?
  • To what extent have the Project results achieved so far contribute to SDG 16, and the outcome of the UNDP CPD (2020-2024) for Iraq
  • What factors (internal and external) have contributed to achieving or limiting the intended Project outcome and outputs?
  • Is the approach adopted and inputs identified, realistic, appropriate, and adequate for achieving the stated results?
  • Is the partnership approach appropriate and effective?
  • Relevance of the Programme to GoI SJSG priorities?

 

Coherence:

  • To what extent has the project complemented work among different entities, including development partners and civil society, with similar interventions? To what extent do other or similar interventions or policies support or undermine the project? To what extent were the project design and delivery coherent with international obligations?
  • How were stakeholders involved in the project’s design and implementation?

 

Efficiency: The extent to which the project resources (funds, expertise/human resources, time, etc.) are optimally used and converted into intended outputs. More specifically, the efficiency of the project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:

 

  • How efficient is the functioning of the project management, technical support, administrative, procurement and financial management procedures? To what extent have the project management structure and allocated resources been efficient in achieving the expected results?
  • To what extent has the project implementation been efficient and cost-effective?
  • To what extent have project funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?
  • What is the visibility and communications strategy adopted by the project? Has it been cost-effective in terms of promoting the programme and its achievements?
  • How is the project keeping track of project progress on expected outputs and outcomes? Does the monitoring and evaluation system put in place allow for continuous collection and analysis of quality and segregated data on expected outputs and outcomes?

 

Effectiveness: The extent to which the project ’s expected outputs and outcomes are being achieved or are expected to be achieved. Factors contributing to or detracting from the achievement of the project desired results and objectives should also be included in the assessment. More specifically, the effectiveness of the project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:

 

  • Is the project management strategies effective in delivering desired/planned results?
  • Is there a suitable M&E framework to monitor and support the implementation of the targeted results both at project level and CO?
  • Are the implementation tools used in project implementation effective?
  • Are the project effective in responding to the needs of the direct beneficiaries and targeted institutions, and what results can be shown?

To what extend did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the Programme implementation and delivery?

  • To what extent has the project been actively seeking partnership with relevant actors in view of strengthening project implementation and/or ensuring project sustainability?

 

Impact: The extent to which the project ’s is expected to contribute to longer term outcomes/results. The impact or effect of the intervention in proportion to the overall situation of the target institutions or direct beneficiaries.

  • Does the overall project intervention contribute to longer-term outcomes/results?
  • What is the impact or effect of the intervention in proportion to the overall situation of the target institutions and direct beneficiaries?

 

Sustainability: Analysing whether benefits of the project are likely to continue after the project cycle.

  • To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to be sustained after the completion of the overall project cycle?
  • What is the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of the project outcome and benefits after completing the project?
  • How effective are the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out of the project, including contributing factors and constraints?
  • What are the key factors that will require attention to improve prospects of sustainability of the project outcome and the potential for replication of the approach?
  • How are capacities strengthened and sustained at the individual and institutional level (including contributing factors and constraints)?
  • Describe the main lessons that have emerged
  • To what extent are lessons learned being documented by the project team and shared with appropriate parties who could learn from the project?

Inclusion and Intersectionality:

The extent to which the project has endeavored to reflect gender mainstreaming for equality and inclusion of all diverse groups to “leave no one behind” through a human rights-based approach. The extent to which the project was able to apply an intersectional lens.

Human Rights:

  • To what extent have groups with diverse identities i.e., persons with differing characteristics based on their socio – economic class, political ideology, religious identity / ethnicity, physical ability, and other disadvantaged and marginalised groups been considered during the design, implementation and monitoring phase?
  • To what extent has the project promoted a rights-based approach for all groups of persons and specially to promote international laws and commitments made by the country?
  • What are the avenues for improvements in promoting human rights standards across the project?.

 

Gender

  • To what extent has gender been mainstreamed, in addition to sufficient consideration provided for its intersectional effects within the design, implementation and monitoring of the project? 
  • Is the gender marker assigned to this project representative of reality?
  • To what extent has the project promoted positive changes in gender equality and advanced the empowerment of women? Were there any unintended effects and what were its impact on the project and the community of engagement?
  • Were sufficient resources made available for gender mainstreaming?
  • What are the avenues for improvement in considerations for gender and its intersectional effects across the project?

Disability

  • Were persons with disabilities consulted and meaningfully involved in project planning and delivery?
  • What proportion of the beneficiaries of a project were persons with disabilities?
  • What barriers did persons with disabilities face during the project delivery?
  • Was a twin-track approach adopted?[2].
  •  
  1. Methodology

 

The evaluation will be carried out in accordance with UNDP evaluation guidelines and policies, including Evaluation guidelines during COVID-19, United Nations Group Evaluation Norms and Ethical Standards; OECD/DAC evaluation principles and guidelines and DAC Evaluation Quality Standards.

The project evaluation methodology will include the following data collection tools:

  • Desk review of relevant project documents
  • One- to-one interviews with Government and civil society partner institutions / beneficiary population, who are directly engage in the project implementation
  • Discussions with UNDP CO senior management and relevant project staff
  • Consultations with donors / international partners
  • Consultations with relevant government representatives/implementing partners involved in the project both at national and provincial levels.

If COVID-19 health pandemic related international travel restrictions and related containment measures are relaxed, field visits to selected Project sites and institutions will be carried out. All field-related work and relevant logistical arrangements should be made by the Consultant and are under his/her responsibility. Assistance will be provided by the Project Management Specialist, SSR/RoL, in identifying key stakeholders and in facilitating the schedule of interviews, focus groups and site visits, when and where required. Alternatively, If COVID-19 health pandemic related international travel restrictions and related containment measures are not relaxed, the field mission will only be limited to Baghdad based interviews with rest of the interviews conducted using virtual modalities.

Data from the evaluation will be triangulated to appraise and conclude findings. The Consultant will be assisted by the UNDP Project Management Specialist- SSR/RoL as needed and work under the overall guidance and oversight of the UNDP Head of Governance Pillar Manager.

All analysis must be based on observed facts, evidence, and data. Findings should be specific and concise and supported by information that is reliable and valid. Cross-cutting issues and the SDGs should be integrated into the final evaluation report. The final methodological approach, including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the evaluation should be clearly outlined in the inception report and fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, key stakeholders and the evaluators.

 

  1. Evaluation Products (Key deliverables)

 

The Consultant is expected to deliver the following outputs/ deliverables.

  • Inception Report and presentation: Based on the terms of reference (TOR) and initial debriefing with the UNDP team, as well as the desk review outcomes, the Consultant is expected to develop an inception report. This report should detail out the evaluator’s understanding of what is being evaluated and why, the evaluation methodology that describes data collection methods and sampling plan, together with the rationale for their selection and limitations. The report should also include an evaluation matrix identifying the key evaluation questions and how they will be answered by the selected methods. Annexed workplan should include detailed schedule and resource requirements tied to evaluation activities and milestone deliverables. The presentation of the inception report will be an opportunity, for both the Consultant and UNDP, for discussion and clarification.
  • Debriefing after completion of the fieldwork.
  • Draft Evaluation Report (max 40 pages including Executive Summary) to be submitted to UNDP for review; UNDP will provide a combined set of comments, using Evaluation Report Audit Trail, to the evaluator to address the content required (as agreed in the inception report) and quality criteria as outlined in the UNDP evaluation guidelines.
  •  A presentation will be delivered to the UNDP Team on the draft evaluation report outlining the following key aspects: (i) overall evaluation findings and in-depth analysis relating to each output. Thereafter, feedback received from the presentation of this draft evaluation report should be considered when preparing the final report. The evaluator should produce an audit trail indicating whether and how each comment received was addressed in revisions to the Final Report.
  • Final Evaluation Report (guided by the minimum requirements for a UNDP Evaluation Report /UNDP Outline of the evaluation report format (see annex 6) should be submitted to UNDP
  • Brief summary report (within 5 pages) linking the final evaluation findings to the CPD Outcome 3.1 focusing on Governance, to be submitted before the expiry of the contract.

It should be noted that the above list of deliverables, together with the implementation time-frame (see section 8) might be subject to review and revision by UNDP in discussion with the Consultant in the event of unexpected changes to the context/ working environment in Iraq during the consultancy period.

Standard templates that need to be followed are provided in the Annexes section. It is expected that the Consultant will follow the UNDP evaluation guidelines and UNEG quality checklist and ensure all the quality criteria are met in the evaluation report.

In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, when determined by the Country Office and/or the Consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the evaluation, that deliverable or service will not be paid. Additionally, due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a partial payment may be considered if the Consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete it, due to circumstances beyond his/her control.

  1. Evaluation ethics

 

“This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical

Guidelines for Evaluation’.[3] The Consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees, and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing the collection of data and reporting on data. The Consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorisation of UNDP and partners.”

 

  1. Management and implementation arrangements

 

The Project evaluation is commissioned by UNDP Iraq’s Governance Pillar. The main UNDP Focal Point will be the UNDP Head of Governance Pillar supported by Project Management Specialist (PMS), SSR/RoL. Together the Governance Pillar and SSR/RoL Project teams will serve as the focal points for providing both substantive and logistical support to the Consultant. Assistance will be provided by the Head of Governance Pillar and PMS, SSR /RoL to make any refinements to the work plan of the selected Consultant (i.e., key interview partners; organise meetings; and conduct field visits (if necessary and if the security situation permits).

This TOR shall be the basis upon which compliance with assignment requirements and overall quality of services provided by the Consultant will be assessed by UNDP.

As part of the assignment:

  • UNDP will provide office space with access to the internet and printer when in Baghdad, Iraq.
  • UNDP will provide the following list of additional documents to the selected Consultant
  • Donor Reports
  • Relevant Financial Information
  • Contact Details of Stakeholders and Partners
  • Programme Beneficiary Details
  • Risk Analyses and Lessons Learned Logs
  • Other relevant project documents
  • The Evaluation Consultant is expected to
  • Have/bring their laptops and other relevant software/equipment.
  • Use their own mobile and personal email address during the consultancy period, including when in-country.
  • Make their own travel arrangements to fly to Baghdad, Iraq.
  • Make necessary arrangements for translations during interviews/focus group discussions/consultations. Therefore, the Consultant is encouraged to have at least 1 Arabic language speaker.

 

  1. Locations and timeframe for the evaluation process

 

The detailed evaluation workplan will be agreed upon between the UNDP and the selected Consultant. The Programme evaluation will take place over a period 50 working days between 1 September to 30 November 2021, including a combination of home-based work and one (1) in-country visit, which includes travel to Project implementation locations in Baghdad, Anbar, Ninewah, and Basra. The security situation in each location will be reviewed prior to the rollout of the final field visit plan. The assignment and final deliverable are expected to be completed no later than 30 November 2021, with the detail as described in the below table.

 

Indicative work plan—timeframe for evaluation deliverables

ACTIVITY

ESTIMATED # OF DAYS

DATE OF COMPLETION

PLACE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY

Meeting briefing with UNDP (pillar and project heads and staff as needed)

1 day -

At the time of contract signing- 1 September 2021

Home-based & UNDP CO (online)

Consultant

UNDP Team

Sharing of the relevant documentation with the Consultant

-

At the time of contract signing -1 September 2021

Via email

UNDP Team

Desk review, evaluation design, methodology and updated workplan including the list of stakeholders to be interviewed

5 days

Within five days of contract signing- 6 September 2021

Home- based

Consultant

Submission of the inception report (15 pages maximum)

-

Within five days of contract signing- 6 September 2021

 

Consultant

Deliverable 1: Comments and approval of inception report and presentation of inception report

-

Within three days of submission of the inception report- 10 September 2021

UNDP Country Office

Consultant

UNDP Team

Consultations and field visits, in-depth interviews and focus groups

25 days

Within four weeks of contract signing- 5 October 2021

In country

(field visits)

Consultant

Deliverable 2: Debriefing to UNDP

1 day

6 October 2021

In country

Consultant

Preparation of draft evaluation report (50 pages maximum excluding annexes), executive summary (5 pages)

10 days

Within two weeks of the completion of the field mission- 19 October 2021

Home- based

Consultant

Deliverable 3: Draft evaluation report submission to UNDP

-

19 October 2021

UNDP to review draft evaluation report and provide feedback to the Consultant by 25 October 2021

 

Consultant

UNDP Team

Consolidated UNDP and stakeholder comments to the draft report

-

Within one week of submission of the draft evaluation report- 26 October 2021

UNDP Country Office

UNDP Team

Final debriefing with UNDP (including Senior Management)

1 day

Within one week of receipt of comments- 2 November 2021

 Home-based & UNDP CO (online)

Consultant

UNDP Team

Deliverable 4: Final evaluation report incorporating additions and comments provided by UNDP

4 days

Within one week of final debriefing- 9 November 2021

Home-based

Consultant

UNDP Team

Submission of the brief summary report linking evaluation findings to the UNDP CPD Outcome 3.1, focusing on Governance (5 pages maximum excluding annexes)

4 days

Within one week of final debriefing- 16 November 2021

Home-based

Consultant

Deliverable 5: Approval of the brief summary report

 

By the time of contract ending- 30 November 2021

Home-based & UNDP CO (online)

UNDP Team

Estimated total workdays for the evaluation

50 days

 

 

 

 

  1. Indicative payment schedule and modalities 

The Consultant is expected to deliver the following outputs/deliverables. It should be noted that the following list of outputs/ deliverables might be subject to review and revision by UNDP in discussion with the Consultant in the event of unexpected changes to the context/working environment in Baghdad/ Iraq during the consultancy period. Payments will be made upon acceptance and approval by UNDP of the planned deliverables, based on the following tentative payment schedule:

Terms of Payment

Percentage (%)

  1. Upon the satisfactory completion and acceptance of Inception Report and Presentation

As part of the final Inception Report it must include as a minimum:

  • Updates to evaluation methodology and work plan
  • Final Evaluation report template
  • Questionnaires for Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
  • Sampling methodology and work plan, as applicable
  • List of interviewees and desk review documents

15%

  1. Upon the satisfactory completion of the fieldwork in keeping with the agreed work plan and its debriefing

15%

  1. Upon the satisfactory
  1. completion of the presentation on the findings that will feature in the Draft report, and
  2. submission and acceptance of the draft Evaluation Report

35%

  1. Upon the satisfactory

(a) final debriefing addressing comments received on draft Evaluation Report, and

(b) submission and acceptance of the final Evaluation Report duly approved by UNDP’s Head of Governance Pillar.

25%

  1. Upon the submission and acceptance of the summary report (5 pages maximum excluding annexes), linking evaluation findings to the UNDP CPD Governance Outcome 3.1, focusing on Governance, duly approved by UNDP Head of Governance Pillar

10%

 

*N.B. Travel and accommodation:

All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal. This includes all travel within country or outside duty station/ repatriation travel. In general, UNDP does not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticket.

In cases where UNDP arranges and provides travel and/or accommodation due to security and other reasons, it should be noted that these costs will be deducted from the payments to the Consultant.

In the case of unforeseeable travel, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses should be agreed upon in writing, between UNDP and selected Consultant prior to travel and will be reimbursed.

 

 

[1] https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm  

[2] The twin-track approach combines mainstream programmes and projects that are inclusive of persons with disabilities as well as programmes and projects that are targeted towards persons with disabilities. It is an essential element of any strategy that seeks to mainstream disability inclusion successfully. Also, see chapter 9 of the Technical Notes. Entity Accountability Framework. UN Disability and Inclusion Strategy: https://www.un.org/en/disabilitystrategy/resources

[3] UNEG, ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, updated June 2020: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866


Competencies

Corporate Competencies

  • Demonstrates commitment to the UN’s values and ethical standards.
  • Promotes the mission, vision and strategic goals of UNDP.
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.
  • Treats all people fairly and with impartiality.

Functional Competencies

  • Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude.
  • Ability to work under pressure and to meet deadlines.
  • Demonstrates excellent oral and written communication skills.
  • Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities.
  • Self-reliant and able to work as a part of a multi-cultural team in a stressful.

 

  • Shows pride in work and in achievements; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments; observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when faced with difficult problems or challenges and, remains calm in stressful situations.
  • Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and, responds appropriately; asks questions to clarify and, exhibits interest in having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and, format to match the audience and, demonstrates openness in sharing information and, keeping people informed.

 

  • Identifies priority activities and assignments; allocates appropriate amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and actions as necessary and, uses time efficiently.
  • Considers all those to whom services are provided to be “clients” and seeks to see things from clients’ point of view; establishes and maintains productive partnerships with clients by gaining their trust and respect and, meets timeline for delivery of product or services to client.

 

  • Works collaboratively with colleagues to achieve organisational goals; builds consensus for task purpose and direction with team members and, supports and acts in accordance with final group decisions, even when such decisions may not entirely reflect own position.

 

  • Keeps abreast of available technology, actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks and, shows willingness to learn new technology.


Required Skills and Experience

  1. Evaluation team composition and required competencies

UNDP seeks to recruit an International Consultant with the following profile.  The Consultant must have high levels of relevant technical expertise; rigorous research and drafting skills; and the capacity to conduct an independent and quality evaluation. Qualified female candidates are strongly encouraged to apply.

Education

Minimum of Master’s degree in Law, Governance, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Project Management, Public Administration, or any other relevant university degree. In addition, the Consultant must possess the following competencies listed below.

Work Experience

  • At least ten (10) years’ experience in evaluation of security and justice sector projects / programmes in crisis countries is essential.
  • Previous experience and substantive knowledge on results-based management (RBM) and results-oriented monitoring and evaluation is essential.
  • Excellent knowledge and understanding of security and justice sector project / programme implementation, including field experience is essential.
  • Experience in working with government institutions in post-conflict settings
  • Extensive experience in writing analytical research reports/project/programme evaluation reports is essential.
  • Experience in working for the UN or other international development organisations in an international setting would be an asset.
  • Excellent analytical and problem-solving skills and proven ability to draft recommendations stemming from key findings is essential. 
  • Experience in conducting gender-sensitive evaluations for SSR and Rule of Law programmes in conflict and post-conflict countries, is required.
  • Experience of working at the policy level/strategic level is essential.
  • Excellent report writing skills are essential.
  • Experience in the usage of computers and office software packages (MS Word, Excel, etc).

Language:

  • Fluency in spoken and written English with good report writing skills is essential. Samples of previously written work may be required. Additionally, fluency in spoken Arabic will be considered as an added advantage.

Application submission process and criteria for selection:

Application Process

Interested qualified and experienced individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications and interest:

  1.  Letter of Confirmation of interest and availability using the template provided by UNDP; please see attached template.
  2.  Most Updated Personal detailed CV including past experience in similar assignment and at least 3 references.
  3. UN P11 Form (“CV Form”)
  4. A detailed methodology on how the candidate will approach and conduct the work and
  5. Two samples of evaluation reports done/authored within the past two years. 

Note: Applicants must not have worked in the design or implementation of this project or in an advisory capacity for any of the interventions, directly as consultants or through service providers.

Submitted proposals will be assessed using Cumulative Analysis Method. The proposals will be weighed according to the technical proposal (carrying 70%) and financial proposal (carrying 30%). Technical proposals should obtain a minimum of 70 points to qualify and to be considered. Financial proposals will be opened only for those application that obtained 70 or above in the technical proposal. Below are the criteria and points for technical and financial proposals

 

Evaluation Criteria

Max. Point 100

Weight

Technical

Criteria A: relevance and responsiveness of candidate’s past experience, Qualification based on submitted documents:

  • Minimum of Master’s degree in Law, Governance, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Project Management, Public Administration, or any other relevant university degree. In addition, the Consultant must possess the following competencies listed below. (10 points)
  • At least 10 years’ experience in evaluation of security and justice sector projects/programmes in crisis countries (10 points)
  • Previous experience and substantive knowledge on results-based management (RBM) and results-oriented monitoring and evaluation (10 points)
  • Experience of working with government institutions in post-conflict settings (10 points)
  • Experience of working at the policy level/strategic level (10 points)
  • Excellent report writing skills(supported by sample of evaluation reports) (10 points)

60 Points

70%

Criteria B: relevance and responsiveness of candidate’s approach, technical proposal and submitted work plan and Methodologies:

  • Time plan, methodology on how the Consultant will conduct the required tasks (30 points)
  • Experience in the usage of computers and office software packages (MS Word, Excel, etc) (10 points)

40 Points

Financial

Lowest Offer / Offer*100

30%

Total Score = (Technical Score * 0.7 + Financial Score * 0.3)

Weight Per Technical Competence

5 (outstanding): 96% - 100%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated an OUTSTANDING capacity for the analysed competence.

4 (Very good): 86% - 95%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a VERY GOOD capacity for the analysed competence.

3 (Good): 76% - 85%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a GOOD capacity for the analysed competence.

2 (Satisfactory): 70% - 75%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a SATISFACTORY capacity for the analysed competence.

1 (Weak): Below 70%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a WEAK capacity for the analysed competence.

 

TOR Annexes

This section presents additional documents to facilitate the proposal preparation by the Consultant.

Annex 1: a) Project Document as last revised in March 2021 – contains the Project ’s Results and Resources Framework

b) Project Partners & Stakeholders

Annex 2: Documents to be consulted

  1. UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation for development results: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf
  2. UNDP Evaluation Guidelines (June 2021):

http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/documents/PDF/UNDP_Evaluation_Guidelines.pdf

  1. UN Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/547
  2. UNDP Country Programme Document (CPD) 2020-2024: https://www.iq.undp.org/content/iraq/en/home/library/iraq-cpd-2020-2024.html

Annex 3: Evaluation matrix (Sample Evaluation Matrix) – to be included in the inception report.

Table A. Sample of evaluation matrix

Relevant   evaluation criteria

Key questions

Specific 

sub-questions

Data sources

Data

collection methods/tools

Indicators/

success standard

Data analysis method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annex 4: Code of conduct forms.

The Consultant Firm and each member of the Evaluation Team consultant will be requested to read carefully, understand and sign the “UN Code of Conduct.”

Annex 5: Suggested minimum content/ guidance on Inception Report Template

Annex 6: Guidance on Evaluation Report Template (Refer Annex 4 – PDF pages 118-122): http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/documents/PDF/section-6.pdf

Annex 7: Evaluation guidelines during COVID-19

Annex 8: Integrating Gender Equality and Human Rights in Evaluation - UN-SWAP Guidance, Analysis and Good Practices

Annex 9: Audit trail Template

Annex 10:  Quality Assessment Checklists-June 2021

Annex 11: Dispute and wrongdoing resolution process and contact details (will also be provided at the time of signing the contract)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO INTERESTED CONSULTANTS:

 

When submitting your documents, please group them into one (1) single PDF document as the application system only allows to upload maximum of one document.

**Failure to submit the REQUIRED documents or Incomplete proposals shall result in disqualification

The short listed candidates may be contacted and the successful candidate will be notified.

 

THE ANNEXES ARE AVAILABLE AND CAN BE DOWNLOADED in the following link:  

UNDP | Procurement Notices - 81280 - 100767 - IC-057-21 - MID-TERM PR

ANNEX 1- Terms of Reference (TOR)/Procurement Notice 

                   The TOR's annexes can be downloaded from the link provided in the TOR document

ANNEX 2-Offeror’s letter to UNDP confirming interest and availability and Financial Proposal

ANNEX 3- Individual Consultant General Terms and Conditions 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kindly note that the system only  allows ONE document to this application (scan all documents in one single PDF file to attach).

 

 



If you are experiencing difficulties with online job applications, please contact the eRecruit Helpdesk.

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme