Historique

Full Terms of Reference with Annexes and Abstracts can be found at http://dl.undp.sk/ToR_Evaluator:

Monitoring and Evaluation requirements:

This joint Final and Mid-term Evaluation is initiated by the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre and aims to assess the relevance, performance, management arrangements and success of two regional projects. The reason for the combined evaluation is that the two project work in close collaboration, and in some of the countries have joint outcomes.
For the project “Capacity Development for Climate Risk Management in Eastern Europe and CIS” (hereafter referred as adaptation project) it will be a Final evaluation and for the project “Supporting RBEC transition to low-emission development” (hereafter referred as low-emission) respectively mid-term.
The evaluation should provide the basis for learning and accountability for managers and stakeholders. It will have to provide to UNDP complete and convincing evidence to support its findings/ratings. Particular emphasis should be put on the project results, the lessons learned from the project and recommendations for the follow-up activities.
As a follow up steps for the adaptation project there will be a need to provide recommendations whether there is a rational to initiate second phase of the project and for low-emission one to provide ideas for new activities.

This evaluation is to be undertaken taking into consideration the evaluation policy of UNDP (http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/Evaluation-Policy.pdf) and the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/).

Project objectives:

The projects are the full-fledged UNDP-supported initiative in EE&CIS aimed at building capacities and creating enabling environment for country’s to develop Adaptation and low-emission development strategies and initiatives. The main objectives of the projects are to assist countries in Eastern Europe and CIS to access climate financing (e.g. Adaptation Fund, GCF). These objectives are to be achieved though implementation of the following outputs:

• Governmental agencies in selected countries have an enhanced capacity to design, mobilize finance for the implementation, and implement low-emission development strategies and NAMAs;
• Governments in the region have an improved understanding of and capacity to participate in the international climate change negotiations;
• The countries of the region have improved knowledge of costs of climate change impacts and available policy options for adaptation;
• UNDP COs of the region have enhanced their capacities to address country adaptation needs and catalyze financial resources for adaptation activities;
• Vulnerabilities reduced and capacities strengthened to manage climate risks at local level in Moldova.
  

The projects are implemented by the Bratislava Regional Centre, Energy and Environment Practice. Overall management of the project is the responsibility of the Project Managers, who are a full time employees of the UNDP.

Devoirs et responsabilités

Objectives of the Evaluation:

The evaluation is intended to provide a comprehensive overall assessment of the projects and to provide recommendations for follow-up activities or even second part of the adaptation project.

The purpose of the joint Evaluation is:

• To assess overall performance against the Projects objectives and outcomes as set out in Project Document and other related documents;
• To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Projects;
• To analyze critically the implementation and management arrangements of the Projects;
• To assess the sustainability of the projects’ interventions;
• To list and document lessons concerning Project design, implementation and management;
• To assess Project relevance to national priorities;
• To assess changes in the baseline situation and provide guidance for the future activities in the area of strategic positioning of the countries in adaptation and low-emission development.
  

Projects performance will be measured based on Project’s Results and Resources Framework, which provides clear indicators for project implementation. The Report of the joint Evaluation will be stand-alone document that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions.

Evaluation:

The evaluation should assess:

• Projects concept and design: The evaluators will assess the project concept and design. He/she should review the issues addressed by each project and the project strategy, encompassing an assessment of the appropriateness of the objectives, planned outputs, activities and inputs as compared to cost-effective alternatives. The executing modality and managerial arrangements should also be judged. The evaluator will assess the achievement of indicators and review the work plan, planned duration and budget of the project;
• Implementation: The evaluation will assess the implementation of the projects in terms of quality and timeliness of inputs and efficiency and effectiveness of activities carried out. Also, the effectiveness of management as well as the quality and timeliness of monitoring and backstopping by all parties to the project should be evaluated. In particular, the evaluation is to assess the Project team’s use of adaptive management in project implementation;
• Project outputs, outcomes and impact: The evaluation will assess the outputs, outcomes and impact achieved by each project and in cases they worked jointly, as well as the likely sustainability of project results. This should encompass an assessment of the achievement of the immediate objectives and the contribution to attaining the overall objective of the project. The evaluation should also assess the extent to which the implementation of the project has been inclusive of relevant stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners. The evaluation will also examine if the project has had significant unexpected effects, whether of beneficial or detrimental character.
  

The Final Evaluation will also cover the following aspects:

Results and effectiveness:

Changes in development conditions: Address the following questions, with a focus on the perception of change among stakeholders:

• What are the results (outcomes and impacts) of the project?
• Have awareness on Low-emission and climate resilient development in general increased and capacity of national stakeholders to develop and manage such strategies in particular increased?
• Have the project contributed in the establishment of efficient national institutional frameworks for governance of Low-emission and climate resilient development?

Measurement of change: Progress towards results should be based on a comparison of indicators before and after the project intervention. 

Project strategy: How and why outputs contribute to the achievement of the expected results. Examine their relevance and whether they provide the most effective route towards results.

Sustainability: Extent to which the benefits of the project will continue, within or outside the project domain, after it has come to an end. Relevant factors include for example: development of a sustainability strategy, establishment of financial and economic instruments and mechanisms, mainstreaming project objectives into the local economy, etc.

Project’s Adaptive Management Framework:

Monitoring Systems

Assess the monitoring tools currently being used:

• Do they provide the necessary information?
• Do they involve key partners?
• Are they efficient?
• Are additional tools required?

Risk Management

• Validate whether the risks identified in the project document and the ATLAS Risk Management module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate. If not, explain why.  Describe any additional risks identified and suggest risk ratings and possible risk management strategies to be adopted for the future activities.

Work Planning

• Assess the use of the logical framework as a management tool during implementation and any changes made to it;
• Assess the use of routinely updated workplans;
• Are work planning processes result-based (RBM Support documents are available at http://www.undp.org/eo/methodologies.htm)?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning;
• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.  Any irregularities must be noted.
  

Reporting

• Assess whether UNDP reporting requirements were met.
  

Underlying Factors:

• Assess the underlying factors beyond the project’s immediate control that influence outcomes and results; Consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the project’s management strategies for these factors.
• Assess the effect of any incorrect assumptions made by the project.
  

UNDP Contribution:

• Assess whether or not UNDP’s outputs and other interventions can be credibly linked to achievement of the outcome, including the outputs, programmes, projects and soft and hard assistance that contributed to the outcome;
• Assess the role of UNDP against the requirements set out in the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results;
• Consider the new UNDP requirements outlined in the UNDP User Guide (The UNDP User Guide is currently only available on UNDP’s intranet.  However UNDP can provide the necessary section on roles and responsibility from http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/rmoverview/progprojorg/?src=print), especially the Project Assurance role;
• Assess the contribution to the project from UNDP “soft” assistance (i.e. policy advice & dialogue, advocacy, and coordination). 

Partnership Strategy:

• Assess how partners are involved in the project’s adaptive management framework: (i) Involving partners and stakeholders in the selection of indicators and other measures of performance; (ii) Using already existing data and statistics; and (iii) Analyzing progress towards results and determining project strategies;
• Identify opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships in the future;
• Assess how local stakeholders participate in project management and decision-making.  Include an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach adopted by the project and suggestions for improvement if necessary;
• Assessment of collaboration between governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;
• Assessment of collaboration between implementation units of other related projects;
• Assessment of local partnerships;
• Transfer of capacity to the national institutions.
  

Project Finance:

• Assess the cost-effectiveness of the project interventions;
• Review the effectiveness of financial coordinating mechanisms.

Methodology for Evaluation:

The Evaluation will be done through a combination of techniques, including

• Desk study review of all relevant Project documentation;
• Consultations with stakeholders;
• Two national project visits and one visit to  Bratislava Regional Center, at least 3 day each  trip;
• Extended Interviews with selected stakeholders.
  

Evaluation should involve the following stakeholders (but not be restricted to): UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre, UNDP Country offices, Government officials on different levels, etc.

Deliverables:

The core product of the Evaluation will be Final Evaluation Report as per report outline in the Annex 1 of this TOR. The report will be supplemented by rating tables (Annex 2).

List of deliverables and estimated time-line:

• Deliverable 1: Work plan and report outline: 10 October 2013;
• Deliverable 2: Draft Evaluation Report: 15 November 2013;
• Deliverable 3: Final Report: 30 November 2013.
  

Compétences

Corporate competencies:

• Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP; 
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability 
• Treats all people fairly without favouritism; 
• Fulfills all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment.
  

Functional competencies:

• Strong interpersonal skills, communication and diplomatic skills, ability to work in a team;
• Openness to change and ability to receive/integrate feedback;
• Ability to work under pressure and stressful situations;
• Strong analytical, reporting and writing abilities;
• Excellent public speaking and presentation skills.
  

Qualifications et expériences requises

Education:

• Master’s degree in economics, engineering, environment or equivalent (i).
  

Experience:

• Recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies (ii);
  
• Experience applying participatory monitoring approaches (iii);
  
• Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios (iv;
  
• 10 years of experience of work in the climate change field, in particular knowledge of low-emission and climate resilience development (v);
  
• 10 years of demonstrable analytical skills and papers development in climate change and energy (vi);
  
• 7 years of experience with GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and knowledge of UNDP’s results-based evaluation policies and procedures would be an advantage (vii);
  
• Project evaluation experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset (viii).
  

Language requirements:

•  Excellent English communication skills (ix);
  
• Reading skills in Russian will be considered an asset (x).
  

Evaluation of Applicants:

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal.

The award of the contract should be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Responsive/compliant/acceptable, and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

Only the highest ranked candidates who would be found qualified for the job will be considered for the Financial Evaluation.
Technical Criteria - 70% of total evaluation – max. 35 points:

• Criteria A (education) – max points: 5;
• Criteria B – (experience in (ii), (iii), (iv),(vii), and (viii) as per above)– max points: 10;
• Criteria C – (experience in (v) and (vi) as per above) - max points: 12;
• Criteria D – (English language) - max points: 5;
• Criteria E – (Russian language) - max points: 3.
  

Financial Criteria - 30% of total evaluation – max. 15 points.

Implementation Arrangements:

The assignment will take place in the period between estimated beginning of October  and November 30, 2013. The assignment will involve desk work and two missions to the capitals of BiH and Moldova and one to Bratislava regional Center, each for at least 3 days. Throughout the assignment the consultant will work in close collaboration with two UNDP Country Offices and relevant stakeholders. The consultant will report on his/her work to, Regional Project Managers at UNDP Bratislava Regional Center.

Tentative Timeframe:

• Briefings for evaluator and work plan: estimated October 1–5, 2013;
• Desk review: estimated October 5 – 15, 2013;
• Trip to the field sites (including allocation for travel), interviews with local stakeholders, questionnaires, for at least 3 days each: estimated By the end of October 2013;
• Validation of preliminary findings with stakeholders through circulation of initial reports for comments, and other types of feedback mechanisms: estimated Latest early November;
• Preparation of draft final evaluation report: estimated November 15, 2013;
• Submission of final evaluation report: estimated November 30, 2013.
  

Application procedures:

Qualified candidates are requested to apply online via this website. The application should contain:

• Cover letter explaining why you are the most suitable candidate for the advertised position and a brief methodology on how you will approach and conduct the work (if applicable). Please paste the letter into the "Resume and Motivation" section of the electronic application;
• Filled P11 form including past experience in similar projects and contact details of referees (blank form can be downloaded from http://europeandcis.undp.org/files/hrforms/P11_modified_for_SCs_and_ICs.doc ); please upload the P11 instead of your CV;
• Financial Proposal* - specifying a total lump sum amount for the tasks specified in this announcement. The financial proposal shall include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (number of anticipated working days, travel, per diems and any other possible costs);
• Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials.
  

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

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner.

Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director. Consultants are also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under dss.un.org.

General Terms and conditions as well as other related documents can be found under: http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/jobs.

Qualified women and members of minorities are encouraged to apply.

Due to large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process.