Background

1.BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT:

The Syria refugee crisis remains the largest humanitarian and development crises in the world. United Nations agencies and NGOs continue to warn that the situation of the Syrian refugees and their host communities is increasingly becoming critical. According to the latest estimates in the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), there are more than 10 million people – including more than 5.5 million Syrian refugees and 4.8 million members of their host communities – that need urgent support[1]. This is the highest number of people in need in these countries since the crisis began in 2011, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and tough socio-economic conditions. In addition, the number of those in Iraq who remain internally displaced in 2021 is around 1.2 million people (70% of which have remained displaced for over three years) with 4.1 million still in need of humanitarian assistance[2]. 

Since the Covid-19 outbreak, restrictions on movement and enterprise affected the economy and put increasing pressures on governorates and municipalities and forced them to re-adjust priorities – which strained the relationship between state and citizens/community groups further. Thus, a virus that forces people to remain at home heightened the need for access to housing, basic services, and sustainable jobs – including those that respond to emerging market opportunities and can withstand crisis shocks.

1. The project to be evaluated

The action: “Strengthening the Long-Term Resilience of Subnational Authorities in countries affected by the Syrian and Iraqi Crises”, is a multi-country, multi-partner, and multi-year initiative implemented by UNDP and UN-Habitat country offices in Iraq and Lebanon. The action is based on the objectives of the EUTF MADAD: “To address longer-term resilience needs of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries, as well as supporting host communities and their administrations”, and as such it is aligned to the framework of the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP, 2018-2019) and the related national response plans. The action responds to the “3RP Resilience/Stabilization component”, specifically its Livelihoods/Social Cohesion sector.

Overall, the joint action seeks to optimize the impact of a range of interventions by multiple actors towards improving the resilience of host and refugee populations by complementing their efforts and accurately targeting to fill the gaps in support, where a UN Partnership have a strong added value. Such complementarity required supporting institutionalization and operationalization of integrated multi-level planning and implementation of cross-sectoral actions covering basic social services as well as local economic development, including inducing employment opportunities, availing affordable housing, and improving the management of natural resources.

The action further seeks to addresses the resilience and stabilization needs of impacted and vulnerable communities in all sectors through a balanced approach between supporting longer term efforts for better systems and capacities for local development and facilitating shorter and more immediate results that would help host communities and refugees improve their state of living with tangible benefits.

Both country components adopted shortened names that were agreed on with the EU Delegations to better identify the programme at the country level and for communication purposes, namely Headway for the Iraq component and Municipal Empowerment and Resilience Project (MERP) for the Lebanon component.

The scope of this evaluation will cover the Headway project only. In Iraq, the project was designed to address needs, both thematically and geographically, that were not covered by the projects and activities existing then such as Local Area Development Programme (LADP), Funding Facility for Immediate Stabilization (FFIS), Iraq Crisis Response and Resilience Programme (ICRRP) and the Madad-funded actions implemented by other agencies and organizations. As such, the project in Iraq was built on activities and good practices under the LADP project, and interventions implemented by UNDP and UN-Habitat in the four Governorates of Dohuk, Erbil, Sulaymaniyah and Ninewa.

Overall, interventions implemented by UN-Habitat in Iraq included “Rehabilitation of water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure and housing units”, with a specific focus on promoting community engagement. The UNDP interventions in Iraq included the “Job creation grant scheme” aimed at generating income for the targeted communities and address a vital need to earn living with dignity and achieve social inclusion.

The above list of deliverables, together with bellow evaluation implementation timelines and process flow, might be subject to review and revision in discussion with the consultant in the event of unexpected and unavoidable changes to the context and the working environment in Iraq during the consultancy period.

It is important to note that interventions in Lebanon have a different implementation timeline, and as such, the final evaluation of the MERP project will be conducted separately in July 2022. However, it is expected that the final evaluation report for Lebanon will then reflect on common lessons learnt/results/impact emerging from both the Iraq and Lebanon evaluations, vis-à-vis the overall objective of the action “Strengthen the long-term resilience of targeted subnational authorities and their host/refugee populations in countries affected by the Syrian and Iraqi crises”. The consultant should ensure the Iraq final evaluation report is flexible enough to allow synergies with the Lebanon final 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. Main objective of the project

The main objective of the project is to improve the resilience of host and refugee population in communities impacted by the Syrian crisis, through strengthened local multi-level governance systems, and improved access to basic services, affordable housing[3] and economic opportunities.

1. Specific objectives of the project

The specific objectives of the project are:

1. Subnational authorities have enhanced capacities to engage in holistic, area-based planning and consider different scenarios that respond to the needs of host, refugee and IDP populations.
2. Service delivery is increasingly responsive, and generates greater social stability outcomes, based on the needs of host, refugee and IDP populations.
3. Subnational authorities are empowered to facilitate local economic development and have better access to municipal investment that benefits the extension of safe public services and economic opportunities for host, refugee and IDP populations.

1. Expected results of the project

1. Iraq only

Outcome 1: Subnational authorities have enhanced capacities to engage in holistic, area-based planning and consider different scenarios that respond to the needs of host, refugee and IDP populations.

Output 1-1: Improved and updated knowledge of vulnerabilities and risks.

Output 1-2: Strengthened local capacity to prioritize resilience building interventions.

Outcome 2: Service delivery is increasingly responsive, and generates greater social stability outcomes, based on the needs of host, refugee and IDP populations.

Output 2-1: Improved access of host communities, IDPs and refugees to basic municipal services and social, public, and economic infrastructure.

Output 2-2: Adequate housing is made available for low-middle income host community, IDPs and vulnerable refugee households.

Outcome 3: Subnational authorities are empowered to facilitate local economic development and have better access to municipal investment that benefits the extension of safe public services and economic opportunities for host, refugee and IDP populations.

Output 3-1: Improved knowledge of labor market

Output 3-2: Self-reliance of refugees, IDPs and vulnerable host communities are increased through job creation.

Overall, the project contributes to the following:

[1] Source: Regional needs overview 2021 accessible here: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RNO_17Dec2020_0.pdf

[2] Source: Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor report titled: Exiled at Home accessible here: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/IraqReportEN.pdf

[3] Only in Iraq.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. Purpose and scope of the evaluation

UNDP Iraq and UN-Habitat Iraq propose to conduct a final evaluation looking at the Headway project since inception in January 2019 to 31 December 2021. The final evaluation is part of the project’s commitment to assess the achievement of project results against what was expected to be achieved and draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of similar future programming. The evaluation report promotes accountability and transparency and assesses the extent of Headway project accomplishments. The final evaluation will also consider linkages and intersections of UNDP Country Programme Document (CPD) and UN-Habitat’s CPD with result areas spearheaded by the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCDF) for Iraq[1].

Geographically, the final evaluation of the Headway project will assess the interventions in project intervention areas only in Iraq specifically in the four target Governorates of Dohuk, Erbil, Sulaymaniyah and Ninewa in Iraq

Evaluation stakeholders include individuals and organizations from the public and private sectors, as well as civil society, and development partners. The evaluation consultant will be expected to identify these groups of stakeholders in coordination with UNDP and UN-Habitat and contact identified groups for data collection and/or consultations. Key findings and recommendations of the final evaluation will be shared with them for validation as relevant

1. Objectives of the evaluation

The specific objectives of this Headway project final evaluation are to:

1. Take stock of the overall Headway project progress in Iraq, achieved against the project’s expected results, and contribution towards the UNDP and UN-Habitat CPDs.
2. Outline lessons learned and good practices that can be used in future identification, design, regular review, implementation, and monitoring of similar interventions.
3. Provide constructive and practical recommendations on factors that can contribute to Headway project sustainability and develop project transition and exit strategy.
4. Appraise Headway project achievements against its expected outputs and recommend ways to improve future partnerships with project's implementing partners/ target groups.
5. Assess relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the project.
6. Identify insights on the potential added value of the “multi-country, multi-partner, and multi-year” approach taken to implement the initiative in Iraq. Besides, assess the degree to which the project made a difference, positively or negatively

The intended users of this Headway final evaluation include:

1. Headway project staff and senior management of UNDP and UN-Habitat, including at the country and regional levels,
2. Government of Iraq counterparts,
3. Development partners and donors, and
4. The general Iraqi public and beneficiaries.

Information from the evaluation will be used to:

1. improve future project design and implementation,
2. ensure accountability, and
3. increase knowledge and understanding of the benefits and challenges of similar interventions in future.

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND KEY GUIDING QUESTIONS

2. The final evaluation will generate evidence of progress and challenges, helping to ensure accountability for the implementation of the Headway project, as well as identifying and sharing knowledge and good practices. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability will be used to frame the questions [1] and methodology of the evaluation.

   An indicative list of evaluation questions is presented below and will be broadened and agreed further by the evaluation team, UNDP and UN-Habitat through the inception report. The consultant is expected to critically reflect on them during the development of the evaluation questionnaires.

3. Relevance: looks at the extent to which the Headway project strategy, proposed activities and expected outputs and outcomes are justified and respond to beneficiaries’ assessed needs, country’s policies, and donor’s priorities. More specifically, the relevance of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:

• To what extent was the Headway project in line with respective humanitarian, development and reform priorities and policies, country programme’s outputs and outcomes, the UNDP and UN-Habitat Strategic Plans and the applicable SDGs?
• To what extent was the Headway project interventions (i.e., the major activities) appropriately designed and executed to meet the needs of target beneficiaries?
• Assess the level of relevant stakeholders' participation in the Headway project (design, implementation and monitoring and ownership).
• To what extent was the Headway project appropriately responsive to security, political, economic, institutional, and other changes in Iraq? To what extent did the Headway project contribute to the human rights-based approach, gender equality and women’s empowerment?
• Assess the coherence of the Headway project design in relation to the issues to be solved, considering the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic, and resulting changes in the Headway project environment since the initial design.
  1. Coherence: looks at the extent to which other interventions (particularly policies) support or undermine the intervention. Specifically, the coherence of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:
• To what extent has the project complemented work among different entities, including development partners and civil society, with similar interventions?
• What is the quality and extent of coordination with other national/sub-national programmes/initiatives conducive for the achievement of the project’s objectives?
• 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?
  1. Effectiveness: looks at the extent to which the planned objectives and results were achieved, including the factors that contributed to or detracted its achievement. More specifically, the effectiveness of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:
• Assess whether the planned results were delivered by each component, and if they contributed to achieving the overall purpose of the Headway project.
• To what extent did the Headway’s project activities lead to improved coordination, cooperation, and capacity at the regional, national and sub-national levels? Comment on how the Headway project supported governments to address the challenge.
• To what extent did the Headway’s project activities and management systems mitigate, and address needs, expectations and protection concerns of targeted populations (underserved host community, returnees, refugees etc.) in the targeted areas?
• What were the external factors, barriers and bottlenecks that may have influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the Headway project objectives and results? Comment on how they were mitigated or can be mitigated in future? Assess the degree of stakeholders' participation in Headway project interventions and mainstreaming of gender issues in the Headway project. Comment on levels of stakeholder satisfaction in delivery of quality services as well as their appropriateness.
• Efficiency: looks at the extent to which the Headway project resources (funds, expertise/human resources, time, etc.) are optimally used to achieve the intended results. More specifically, the efficiency of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:
• How efficient was the functioning of the Headway’s project management, technical support, administrative, procurement and financial management procedures?
• Asses the Headway’s project management structure in relation to day-to-day and periodical management of project tasks including (i) planning (ii) management of the budget (iii) management of delivery modalities (contracts, payments, monitoring, supervision etc.) (iv) coordination with stakeholders, and (v) adequacy of personnel, expertise, and resources,
• Was the communication and visibility strategy for the Headway project adopted? Was it cost-effective in terms of promoting the project and its achievements? To what extent the communication and visibility actions provided an added value in terms of contributing to mainstreaming the project’s desired effects?
• How is the Headway project track progress towards achieving expected results? Did the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms put in place allow for continuous collection and analysis of quality and segregated data on expected results?

• Impact:  looks at the extent to which the Headway project generated or is likely to bring differences at different levels directly or indirectly, positive, or negative, intended, or unintended, or higher-level effects. The evaluation will focus on the main changes/effects resulting from the Headway project to strengthen resilience of sub-national authorities in respective governorates, in relation to the reform agenda of national governments and development partners. More specifically, the impact of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:
• To what extent were there positive benefits and what were the negative effects, if any? Comment on actions that could be implemented to reverse the process of non-achievement. What were the key achievements of the Headway project in terms of policy, practice, and behavior change? Comment on the main challenges to achieving policy, practice, and behavior change? 
• What countermeasures were taken against the unanticipated developments (if any) that affected the quality of the implementation?
• To what extent the project addressed the negative impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic?
• Assess the outcomes, based on Headway’s project actual and potential development impact on the primary stakeholder groups, and institutions.  To what extent were the project benefits felt at national and local levels so far?
  1. Sustainability: analyzes whether benefits of Headway project activities are likely to continue in the long-term after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable. More specifically, the sustainability of the Headway project should be assessed through the following guiding questions:
• To what extent were lessons learned documented by the project team and shared with appropriate parties for learning purposes?
• Are there any risks (financial, social, political, or otherwise) resulting from the intervention that may potentially jeopardize continuity of the project’s contributions?
• To what extent are the results of the intervention likely to be sustained in the long-term after completion of activities and handover to end-user?
• To what extent the project is likely to be replicated at national level with national resources?
• Assess the ownership of beneficiaries (vulnerable host communities, IDPs and Syrian refugees) of the project’s outcomes and deliverables.
• Are there any Headway project actions that posed environmental threat to the sustainability of project outputs?
  1. 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 marginalized 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 especially promote international laws and commitments made by Iraq?
• What are the avenues for improvements in promoting human rights standards across similar interventions in future?

• 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 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?

Guiding evaluation questions will be further refined by the evaluation team and agreed with UNDP and UN-Habitat evaluation stakeholders.

1. METHODOLOGY

The consultant will propose a project evaluation methodology and agree on a detailed plan for the assignment as part of the application process. The methodology will be further updated after the selection process is completed, and the inception report is developed. However, in general, the consultant should adopt an integrated approach involving mixed methods of data collection and analysis tools to capture both the quantitative and qualitative results and generate evidence to substantiate all findings.

Given the multi-governorate/city nature of Headway project activities, it is important that the consultant design a data collection methodology that is representative of all components of the project in Iraq and analyze in a consistent manner within the given timeframe. The methodology should be robust enough to ensure high quality, triangulation of data sources, and verifiability of information.

It is expected that the evaluation methodology would include, but would not be limited to the following elements:

• Desk review of Headway PRODOC and programme Description of Action (DOA), progress reports and other relevant documents.
• In-depth interviews with key informants such as government officials, and members of local, national, coordination bodies; and questionnaires.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the targeted beneficiaries, whenever possible.
• Interviews with the Headway’s project teams within UNDP and UN-Habitat, and respective senior management.
• Consultations with donors/ international partners and as relevant national Implementing Partners/Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that were engaged in Headway project implementation.
• Survey with sample and sampling frame (if a sample is used). This could include the sample size and characteristics; the sample selection criteria; the process for selecting the sample (e.g., random, purposive).

All field-related work and relevant logistical arrangements should be made by the consultant and are under their responsibility. Assistance will be provided by the joint UNDP/UN-Habitat Headway project teams in identifying key stakeholders and facilitating the schedule of interviews, focus groups and site visits, when and where required. In case of extreme and unavoidable challenges occasioned by COVID-19 health pandemic related international travel restrictions affecting field visits, the issue will be discussed and agreed jointly between the evaluation commissioner/s and the consultant.

Findings from the above assessment tools will be triangulated to appraise and conclude findings. 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 and UN-Habitat key stakeholders and the evaluator.

The consultant will be assisted by respective Project Managers. An Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) will be constituted comprising of key internal and external Headway project stakeholders who will review and comment on the inception and evaluation reports.

Overall, 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 and the relevant UN-Habitat evaluation guidelines and policies.

2.EVALUATION PRODUCTS (DELIVERABLES)

The Consultant will produce the following:

1.Evaluation inception Report (15 pgs. max) and presentation: based on the terms of reference (TOR) and preliminary discussions with UNDP/UN-Habitat teams after the desk review, the consultant is expected to develop an inception report to be presented to the ERG members for comments. This inception 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 is an opportunity for the Consultant and UNDP/UN-Habitat teams, for discussion and clarification prior to visiting to Iraq.

2.Evaluation debriefing after completion of the field work in Iraq.

3.Draft evaluation report (50 pgs. max, including executive summary) and presentation to be submitted to the evaluation commissioner and presented to the ERG members outlining the key aspects including the overall evaluation findings, the structural implementation mechanisms created and institutionalized, an in-depth analysis of the results realized by the Headway project, and recommended next steps, if any, that could be operationalized in future through technical assistance. 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 evaluation report.

4. Final evaluation report and two summary reports: guided by the minimum requirements for a UNDP and UN-Habitat evaluation report, the draft evaluation report should be submitted to the evaluation commissioner (see annexes for proposed evaluation report format). It also includes two summary reports: (2 pgs. max each for UNDP and UN-Habitat) linking the final evaluation findings to the relevant outcome in the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF), upon review of the relevant sections of the UNDP and UN-Habitat CPDs.

The above list of deliverables, together with bellow evaluation implementation timelines and process flow, might be subject to review and revision in discussion with the consultant in the event of unexpected and unavoidable changes to the context and the working environment in Iraq during the consultancy period.

It is important to note that interventions in Lebanon have a different implementation timeline, and as such, the final evaluation of the MERP project will be conducted separately in July 2022. However, it is expected that the final evaluation report for Lebanon will then reflect on common lessons learnt/results/impact emerging from both the Iraq and Lebanon evaluations, vis-à-vis the overall objective of the action “Strengthen the long-term resilience of targeted subnational authorities and their host/refugee populations in countries affected by the Syrian and Iraqi crises”. The consultant should ensure the Iraq final evaluation report is flexible enough to allow synergies with the Lebanon final 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

Evaluations in the UN are conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations’[1].  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 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 authorization of UNDP and UN-Habitat.”

1. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The final Headway project evaluation is jointly commissioned by UNDP and UN-Habitat and the joint commissioners are UNDP Iraq’s Resident Representative and UN-Habitat’s Head of Country Programme. Principally, the evaluation consultant will be reporting to the UNDP Resident Representative who will continuously collaborate with UN-Habitat counterpart and respective Headway project managers who will support the process by providing both substantive and logistical support to the consultant. Additional assistance will be provided jointly by UNDP/UN-Habitat Headway project teams in supporting the consultant advance the evaluation plan including contacting and organizing meetings with key partners and facilitating field visits, when necessary and if the security and COVID-19 situation permits. Moreover, backstopping might be provided by UNDP Regional Bureau for Arab states (RBAS), as needed.

This TOR forms the basis upon which compliance with assignment requirements and overall quality of services provided by the consultant will be assessed by UNDP and UN-Habitat.

As part of the assignment:

• UNDP will provide office space with access to the internet and printer when in-country in Erbil in Iraq.
• UNDP and UN-Habitat will provide list of additional documents as per TOR Annexes.
• The Consultant is expected to:
  • Use their own laptop/s, and other relevant software/equipment.
  • Use their own communication platforms, mobile, personal email address etc., during the consultancy period, including when in-country.
  • Make own travel arrangements to fly in-country and transportation arrangements outside work hours.
  • Be fluent in Arabic or arrange for a translator to facilitate interviews with counterparts and other respondents.

2.TIME FRAME FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS

The detailed timelines for this Headway project evaluation will be agreed upon between the UNDP/UN-Habitat and the selected Consultant. The final evaluation will take place between 15 October 2021 to 15 December 2021, including a combination of the three phases of desk-review (home-based), data-collection mission (one in-country) and evaluation report writing (home-based). The consultant will be based in Erbil (Iraq) as per the requirements. Whenever possible, the consultant will be required to visit partners and activities on locations. The security situation in each location will be reviewed prior to roll out of the final field visit plan. The final deliverable is expected to be completed not later than 15 December 2021.

Indicative timeframe for evaluation deliverables

Indicative payment schedule and modalities 

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

Note on travel and accommodation

• All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal including all travel within Iraq or outside the 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 the consultant prior to travel and will be reimbursed.

Competencies

Corporate Competencies:

• Knowledge on UNDP and UN-Habitat programming principles and procedures, the UN evaluation framework, norms, and standards; human rights-based approach (HRBA).
• Demonstrates commitment to the UN values and ethical standards.
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality, and age sensitivity and adaptability.
• Treats all people fairly and with impartiality.
• Good communication, presentation and report writing skills including proven ability to write concise, readable, and analytical reports and high-quality publications in English.
• Ability to work under pressure and to meet deadlines.
• Flexible and responsive to changes and demands.
• Client-oriented and open to feedback.

Functional Competencies:

Knowledge Management and Learning:

• Demonstrates good knowledge of the Iraq economic issues, challenges, and opportunities.
• Shares knowledge and experience and contributes to overall reform programmes.
• Develops deep knowledge in practice area.
• Actively works towards continuing personal learning and development in one or more Practice Areas, acts on learning plan and applies newly acquired skills. 
• Networks in Government, NGOs, and private sector.

Key Performance Indicators:

• Planning and organizing: 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.
• Communication: 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.
• Client orientation: 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.
• Quality of deliverables: Professional skill required for delivering outputs will be assessed.
• Satisfactory and timely deliverables: Satisfactory and timely completion of tasks and submission of the deliverables within the provision of above explained deliverables and, outputs.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

• Minimum Master’s degree in Governance, Sociology, Development studies, Public Administration, Peace and conflict studies or any other field relevant to the assignment.

Experience:

• At least 10 years of professional expertise in evaluation of socio-economic stabilization, crisis response and recovery, development, or social transformation projects in post-conflict environments.
• At least 10 years of experience on project design, Results-Based Management (RBM) and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation methodologies and approaches is essential.
• Experience in data collection, instrument development and data analysis both qualitative and quantitative is essential.
• Experience in conducting evaluations for large, and complex projects in post-conflict settings is essential.
• Experience working in, and knowledge of the Arab region is essential.
• Experience in working with UN or other international organizations would be an asset.
• Excellent analytical and problem-solving skills and proven ability to draft recommendations stemming from key findings.
• Excellent report writing skills (supported by similar sample of evaluation reports) is essential.
• Experience using ICT equipment, office software packages and online meeting software.
• Experience in implementing evaluations remotely.

Languages:

• Fluency in English and Arabic

1. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

Interested qualified and experienced individual consultant 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.
2. Most Updated Personal detailed CV including previous experience in similar assignment and at least 3 references.
3. Standard 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 three years. 

Note: Applicants must not have worked in the design or implementation of this Headway project or in an advisory capacity for any of the interventions, directly as consultants or through UNDP/UN-Habitat 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:

The detailed terms of reference and the Letter of Confirming Interest and Availability form are available in the following link with mentioned Job Title above  : https://procurement-notices.undp.org/

Please note you can upload only one document in the online application, therefore combine the CV, and the Letter of Confirmation & Availability and other required documentations as one pdf and upload it accordingly. Moreover, please note that failure to submit required mandatory documents by UNDP will lead to rejection of your offer