Background

Situation Analysis

Kuwait is aspiring to be a regional trade and financial hub according to the 2035 national vision for the State of Kuwait. Towards achieving this vision, the Public Authority of Manpower recognised the value of promoting a conducive business environment whereby the private sector could flourish with new opportunities that could contribute directly to economic growth through the diversification of revenue sources as was stipulated in the National Mid-Range Development Plan (2015-2016). One factor impeding Kuwait’s economic development is the imbalance within the workforce. Programmes aimed at addressing the many issues regarding the labour force will provide considerable support to the Kuwaiti government’s efforts to achieve the goals outline in their 2035 national vision. Understating the scale of the problem, the Kuwaiti government has established the newly founded Public Authority of Manpower (PAM). The Kuwait Government represented by the General Secretariat of Supreme Council for Planning and Development (GSSCPD), UNDP, ILO and IOM recognised the concerns and objectives of the Kuwaiti government and, as a result, developed a joint program, capitalising on the experience of the three agencies to support PAM in its efforts to achieve Kuwait’s desired goal.

Joint Programme Approach

The joint programme approach was selected for this programme in order to better ensure efficiency in execution because of the interconnectedness of the outcomes and target areas, and the common identity of the beneficiary, i.e. PAM. In addition, preliminary deliberations with PAM and participating UN organisations concluded that a joint programme approach is the most suitable arrangement for all stakeholders and would capitalise on the value added by all participating UN organisations.

The responsibilities and tasks undertaken by each of the three participating UN agencies reflected their core competencies and experience, all while agreeing to work in a Joint Programme framework to support PAM in the areas of labour issues, International Labour standard and institutional efficiency. In accordance with the UNDP each participating UN agency subscribed to a common programme of results and resource framework, M&E framework, work plan, budget and coordination structure.  

Monitoring Framework and Evaluation

Monitoring is the continuous function of using the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide the key stakeholders of the Joint Programme with indicators of the degree of progress and achievements of objectives of the Joint Programme (including progress in the use of allocated funds). Monitoring is done against targets and indicators and progress is reported in the narrative report. Each participating UN agency is responsible for monitoring its contributions and UNDP as the Convening Agency oversees and coordinates to ensure all targets are monitored.

The Steering Committee

The Steering Committee is comprised of a representative of UNDP, ILO, IOM, PAM and GSSCPD, as well as managers of all programmes in the Joint Programme. Other stakeholders have member or observer status. The Steering Committee is the highest decision making authority in the Joint Programme, responsible for strategic guidance and management oversight.

Purpose, Scope and Clients of the Evaluation
The purpose of this evaluation is to:

• Determine if the project has achieved its stated objectives and explain why/why not;
• Determine the impact of the project in terms of sustained improvements achieved;
• Provide recommendations on how to build on the achievements and the possible avenues/intended objectives and results of a second phase of the project
• Document lessons learned, success stories, and good practices in order to maximize the experiences gained;
• Examine stakeholder perception of the value-added of the project, and its impact in terms of developing the capacities of national constituents to advance gender equality in the world of work.

The report will take into account the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and lessons learned.  Specifically, the evaluation will examine the following aspects:

Changes in context and review of assumptions (relevance):  Is the project’s design adequate to address the problem(s) at hand?  What internal and external factors have influenced the targeted groups and [implementing partners] to meet projected outcomes? Were the project objectives and design relevant given the political, economic and financial context?  The consultants should present a brief overview of the policy environment and the economic and business conditions.

Results in terms of outputs achieved (effectiveness): Did the programme reach the expected number of targeted groups? Are the beneficiaries satisfied with the quality and delivery of services?  If not, in what way did the services not meet with expectations and why?  What concrete improvements and changes have taken place as a direct result of the program? 

Assessment of outcome/ impact (effectiveness): How has the project contributed towards project’s goal?  To what extent has the project contributed the capacity of the constituents?  How could the project impact have been improved?

Achievement of projected performance indicators and targets (efficiency): What has been the project performance with respect to indicators and agreed responsibilities with respect to program implementation? Cost, time and management staff?

Sustainability: The report should assess the level of the project’s sustainability. Will the project’s effects remain over time?  Will the project’s activities/services continue to be provided after the funds have completely been expended?

Phase 2 of the project: if the project to be extended, what intervention areas might be needed? What are the areas that were implemented at the first part of the project and need additional work?

Lessons learned: The consultant should provide information on the economic/political/financial conditions that should exist, qualifications of the implementation partners, required stakeholder participation, and other factors that should be in place to inform the design of future operations. What are the derived lessons learned from the project’s first phase implementation?

A suggested outline for the final evaluation can be found below.

Duties and Responsibilities

Scope

The evaluation will look at the project activities, outputs and outcomes to date. The evaluation should take into consideration the project duration, existing resources and political and environmental constraints. The evaluation will also take specific note of the role of – UN constituents in the implementation and integration of gender mainstreaming in their respective organizations.

In particular, the evaluation will examine the quality and impact of project activities on the target groups, looking at:

• Development effectiveness: The extent to which the development intervention’s agreed objectives and intended results were achieved;
• Resource Efficiency: The extent to which resources were economically converted into results, including mention of  alternative more cost-effective strategies when applicable;
• Impact: Positive and negative, intended and unintended long-term effects;
• Relevance: The extent to which the development intervention of the project meets the needs of constituents, country needs, global priorities and donor policies;
• Impact of Training: The extent to which the training delivered matches the needs of PAM and had an impact on daily work and process improvement.
• Sustainability: The continuation of benefits and probability of continued long-term benefits after the project has been completed.
• Partnerships: The extent to which the project contributed to capacity development of the involved partners, the effectiveness of partnership development and implications on national ownership and project continuity/sustainability;
• Lessons learned and good practice: Good practices identified by the project, key lessons learned from programme implementation, and recommendations for similar programmes/projects.

Clients of Evaluation
The primary clients for this evaluation include the Public Authority of Manpower, UNDP, ILO, IOM, GSSCPD, the project management team and the local and national partners.

Secondary clients of the project evaluation include other units within the UNDP, ILO and IOM that may indirectly benefit from the knowledge generated by the evaluation.

Methodology/Approaches to Evaluation

The evaluation will be conducted by Evaluator, who will undertake a two-week mission to Kuwait. The evaluator will be requested to present a more detailed evaluation methodology and an evaluation plan based on the suggested analytical framework and the desk review. This will need to be approved by the three agencies.

The project team at Kuwait will be responsible for providing all logistical support to facilitate the evaluation process in coordination with ILO ROAS, UNDP Kuwait, and IOM Kuwait. The evaluation will be carried out using a desk review, alongside field visits to project sites for consultations with project staff and primary internal and external stakeholders. Upon completion of the mission, the Evaluator will disseminate initial findings to the three UN agencies to submit feedback.

While the evaluation will be strictly external and independent in nature, it will be participatory to the extent possible, engaging constituents, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders. The evaluation will include but will not be restricted to:

1. A desk review conducted in home-country of project documents and materials provided by the project’s staff to the evaluation consultant;
2. Presentations/inductions with project staff, primary internal and external stakeholders and social partners explaining the process, methodology, objectives and principles of the participatory evaluation;
3. Key interviews with the project team, technical specialists backstopping the project, project partners, and key project stakeholders;
4. Phone Interviews as necessary, and meetings with relevant focal points at the regional level;
5. Presentation of findings and recommendations to selected stakeholders and partners upon completion of the Evaluation Report.

Suggested Analytical Framework

4.1 Relevance and strategic fit

1. How is the project contributing to the national priorities/national development plans of Kuwait?
2. To what extent are project activities linked to other global commitments including the SDGs and the agenda 2030?
3. Does the project respond to the real needs of the PAM constituents?
4. Are the planned project objectives and outcomes relevant and realistic to the situation and needs on the ground? Were the problems and needs adequately analysed?
5. Does the project’s design fill an existing gap that other ongoing interventions have failed to address?

4.2. Validity of the design

1. Is there a logical causal link between the outcomes and outputs? Please describe the synergies between the different components. Is the time frame for programme implementation and the sequencing of project activities logical and realistic?
2. On which risks and assumptions does the project build? How crucial were they for the success of the project? Were risk mitigation strategies developed in the design phase?
3. How appropriate and useful are the indicators described in the project document for monitoring and measuring results? If necessary, how should they have been modified to be more useful?
4. Was the strategy for sustainability of impact defined clearly at the design stage of the project? If yes how? Was the approach taken appropriate to the context?

4.3. Project progress and effectiveness

1. Has the Project achieved its planned objectives in a timely manner? Kindly provide an analysis by outcome (milestone) and output. (Please provide an outcome and output heading before each analysis). Are the project partners using the outputs? Have the project outputs been transformed by the project partners into outcomes?
2. What have been the constraining factors and how have they been addressed?
3. How have stakeholders been involved in project implementation? Has project management been participatory and has the participation contributed towards achievement of the project objectives? How effective was the collaboration with the relevant offices, other UN agencies, media, and non-governmental organizations working in Kuwait, and what has been the added value of this collaboration? Have systems been put in place to enhance collaboration with other UN agencies and government institutions working on this issue?
4. What alternatives strategies would have been more effective in achieving the project’s objectives?
5. How did outputs and outcomes contribute to mainstreamed strategies including gender equality, social dialogue, and labour standards?

1. How efficient has the project been in communicating its results, disseminating success stories and enhancing visibility? How effective was collaboration with the media?
2. To what extent has this project contributed to: launching innovative ideas; rapidly addressing emerging needs; expanding the scope and/or scale of existing programmes; mainstreaming cross-cutting issues in labour policies and programmes; leverage greater funding from other sources.

4.4. Efficiency of resource use

1. Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) been allocated strategically to achieve outcomes? Do the project results justify the time and financial resources and human resources invested in the project? Have resources been used efficiently? Has the implementation of activities been cost-effective? Could the same results have been attained with fewer resources?
2. Have project funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner? Were there any major delays? What were the difficulties, and how did the project deal with this delay in work plan?
3. Was the timeline initially envisioned for the Project adequate considering Project outputs and outcomes?

4.5 Effectiveness of management arrangements

1. Are management capacities adequate? Does the project governance structure facilitate good results and efficient delivery? Is there a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities and division of labour between the UNDP, ILO and IOM staff?
2. How effective was communication between team on the ground and headquarters? Does the project receive adequate technical, programmatic, administrative and financial backstopping and support from the relevant Country, regional and headquarters offices? 
3. How effectively does the project management monitor project performance and results? Does the project report on progress in a regular and systematic manner? Is the reporting evidence-based? What M&E system has been put in place, and how effective has it been? Is relevant data systematically being collected and analysed to feed into management decisions? Is data disaggregated by sex? Is information being regularly analysed to feed into management decisions?
4. Has the project made strategic use of coordination and collaboration with relevant projects being implemented by other UN agencies, and with other donors to ensure synergies and increase effectiveness and impact?

4.6. Impact orientation and sustainability

1. To what extent is the project making a significant contribution to broader and longer-term development impact? Is the project strategy and management steering towards impact?
2. How can UNDP, ILO and IOM build on the project’s achievements?
3. How effective and realistic is the project’s exit strategy? Is the project gradually being handed over to the national partners? How successful were the Project’s activities in ensuring the sustainability of the project? What kind of synergies were built by the project with ongoing and new projects to sustain impact?
4. Is the national partner able and willing to continue with the project? How effectively has the project built national ownership? Are results anchored in national institutions and can the local partners maintain them financially at end of project?
5. Can any unintended or unexpected positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the project’s interventions?
6. Should there be a continuation of the project to consolidate achievements? In what way should the next phase if needed be different from the current one?
7. What are some good practices that can be extracted from the Project? How was the practice carried out, what makes it good, and what are the circumstances in which it took place?
8. What was the role of the project in resource mobilisation?

Deliverables

The expected outputs to be delivered by the evaluation consultant are:

1. Desk review and inception report
2. Preliminary findings from field visit;
3. Draft report;
4. Final Report including:

• Executive Summary;
• Clearly identified findings (the findings section needs to include the evaluation questions followed by corresponding answers);
• Clearly identified conclusions and recommendations;
• Lessons learned and potential good practices and effective models of intervention drafted in user-friendly language for publication and circulation to wide audiences;
• Appropriate Annexes including present TORs;
• Standard evaluation instrument matrix.

Sample structure and table of contents of the Evaluation Report:

Cover page with key project and evaluation data

• Abstract
• Brief background of the project and its logic
• Purpose, scope and clients of evaluation
• Methodology employed
• Review of implementation
• Findings regarding project performance
• Conclusions
• Recommendations (including tracking table with relevant follow-up responsibilities)
• Lessons learned and best practices
• Summary of potential areas for further investigation and implications for global/regional strategies
• Annexes, including TORs, persons contacted etc.

The final report will be circulated to three UN agencies for their review. Comments from three UN agencies will be consolidated by UNDP and provided to the evaluator. In preparing the final report the evaluator should consider these comments, incorporate as appropriate and provide a brief note explaining why any comments might not have been incorporated. There will be a second review by the Project’s staff, any further comments or queries will be addressed in the finalisation of the evaluation report.

Management arrangements, work plan and timeframe

The evaluation will be managed by a joint evaluation steering committee representing the 3 agencies, as per UNEG guidelines on joint evaluation. The evaluator will have to report exclusively to the steering committee.

The final evaluation mission will be comprised of one international evaluator, who will be contracted by UNDP Kuwait CO and ILO ROAS. S/he will be responsible for conducting the evaluation, as per the terms of reference. The appointed consultant shall:

• Review the TOR and provide input as necessary;
• Review project documents and other related materials;
• Conduct preparatory briefings with the three UN agencies;
• Develop the inception report;
• Draft the evaluation report and finalize it based on comments from the primary internal and external stakeholders.
• Conduct debriefing on findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation with key stakeholders;

The joint evaluation steering committee project manager and the related staff areis responsible to:

• Draft the final evaluation TOR;
• Finalize and approve the TOR with input from the stakeholders and the evaluators;
• Ensure proper stakeholder involvement;
• Participate in preparatory meeting prior to the evaluation mission;
• Assist in the implementation of the evaluation methodology, as appropriate (i.e., participate in interviews, review documents) and in such a way as to minimize bias in evaluation findings;
• Circulate draft and final report to stakeholders;
• Review and provide comments on the evaluation report;
• Participate in debriefing on findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the final evaluation;
• Ensure follow- up to the evaluation recommendations.

Estimated duration

The expected starting date of the evaluation is May 10. The first draft of the Evaluation report is to be submitted by June 10th.

The timetable and schedule is as follows:

Competencies

Core Competencies

• Reliably delivers on promises and honours commitments, holding himself/herself accountable for actions taken
• Gains cooperation from others through understanding of the political and organizational culture.
• Works collaboratively with team members sharing information openly and displaying cultural awareness and sensitivity.
• Delivers verbal/written information in a timely, clear, organized and easily understood manner
• Synthesizes multiple/complex messages, identifies appropriate key points for different audiences and communicates concepts in a manner that influences the perceptions/behaviours of others.
• Expresses own point of view in a neutral manner rather than in an argumentative tone, avoiding unproductive conflict.

Functional Competencies

Client Orientation

• Works towards creating an enabling environment for a smooth relationship between the clients and service provider.
• Solicits feedback on service provision and quality

Conceptual Innovation in the provision of technical expertise

• Documents and tracks innovative strategies/best practices/new approaches ?
• Leverages multi-disciplinary, institutional knowledge and experience of other countries and regions.

Job Knowledge/Technical Expertise ?

• Continues to seek new and improved methods and systems for accomplishing the work of the unit.
• Keeps abreast of new developments in area of expertise and seeks to develop him/herself professionally.
• Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of information technology and applies it in work assignments.

Promoting organizational Learning and knowledge sharing

Develops and/or participates in the development of tools and mechanisms, including identifying new approaches to promote

Required Skills and Experience

• At least 10 years of experience in the design, management and evaluation of development projects.
• Experience in evaluations in the UN system, preferably as team leader; 
• Relevant regional experience in the Arab region; 
• Relevant field experience in capacity building and training;
• Fluency in spoken and written Arabic and English, with strong editorial skills in English;
• Experience in facilitating workshops for evaluation findings.

Consultant Evaluation and Selection Criteria

Individual applicants will be evaluated based on cumulative analysis methodology. When using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract should be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

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

* Technical Criteria weight: 70%
* Financial Criteria weight: 30%

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 70% would be considered for the Financial Evaluation. Deliverables and Time Frame:

Duration of work: 26 business days for the consultant.

Technical Evaluation Criteria

Documents to be included when submitting the proposals

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications:

1. Proposal:
(i) Explaining why they are the most suitable for the work
(ii) Provide a brief methodology on how they will approach and conduct the work

2. Financial proposal
3. Personal CV including experience in similar projects and at least 3 references

Links for the documents to be submitted:

• P11:  http://www.kw.undp.org/content/dam/kuwait/documents/Procurmenet/P11%20modified%20for%20SCs%20and%20ICs.doc
• Template for Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal: http://www.kw.undp.org/content/dam/kuwait/documents/Procurmenet/Template%20for%20Confirmation%20of%20Interest%20and%20Submission%20of%20Financial%20Proposal.docx