Background
The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) in collaboration with the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) formulated the Afghanistan UNDAF 2015-2019 which outlines the combined United Nations planned support to achieving national priorities. The UNDAF is also a cooperation framework for coordinated development assistance where the UN has comparative advantage.
The UNDAF has five priority outcomes that intend to contribute to national priorities over a medium- to longer-term perspective: (1) equitable economic development with reduced dependence on the illicit economy; (2) provision of quality and sustainable basic social services on an equitable basis; (3) securing social equity and investing in human capital especially for women, youth and vulnerable minorities; (4) justice and accessible rule of law for all; and (5) inclusive and accountable governance.
The UN in Afghanistan has also increased its focus on joint programming with a view to reducing overlap, duplication, and transaction costs. To ensure accountability, the UN has also established Outcome Working Groups (Pillars) which define and monitor interventions, supported by UN mechanisms and increasing efficient management of UN programmes and strengthening coherence, with a focus on results. For example, through the development of joint annual Action Plans / Workplans highlighting priorities to which several UN entities contribute, outputs and activities are assigned a lead agency, thereby increasing coherence both internally and for Government and other partners.
Through this process the UN will support the Afghan Government and the population of Afghanistan in defining its own development model with a strong position on strengthening national institutions under the leadership of the Afghan government. The UN will maintain and support the international community to help Afghanistan increase resources and ownership. In the 2030 development agenda, it is critical to ensure UN alignment to nationally-owned and -led development plans that will enhance the coherence, efficiency and effectiveness, in line with strategic discussions on development and the ‘Delivering as One’ mechanism.
The UNDAF is approaching its midterm point of review which requires joint assessment by the UN and national counterparts on how the UNDAF is currently contributing to the national priorities of the country and consider questions of efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, relevance and coherence of the various UN interventions, in light of the broader context of the country.
The Mid-Term Review (MTR) will also analyse the various changes in circumstances taking place at the national and international level, including but not limited to the fact that it was developed before the current government (NUG) was in place and when the security and economic outlooks were more positive, the International Warsaw and Brussels conferences and their implications for Afghanistan, including new/updated National Priority Programmes (NPPs) in key sectors, Afghanistan National Peace and Development Framework (ANPDF), the adoption of the Citizen’s Charter, the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their ongoing nationalisation process to identify indicators and targets for Afghanistan, the global migration crisis and its impact on Afghanistan in terms of humanitarian and development needs, ongoing attempts at a peace process, and other ongoing security, political and economic challenges that have constrained the Government’s ability to deliver on its development agenda.
These developments are happening at a time when the aid environment is changing as a result of which the UN is facing increased funding challenges.
Globally, the December 2016 QCPR resolution continues to be reviewed. Several Agencies’ Executive Boards will be discussing their new Strategic Plans 2018-2021 which are expected to be approved by September.
Through such analyses, the MTR will identify and support any necessary mid-term adjustments to the current UNDAF so that it remains relevant to the national context and responds to changed circumstances; revisit the theory of change underlying the UNDAF; ensure improvements in performance and results in the remaining period of the UNDAF cycle by identifying implementation challenges and ways to overcome them; and to provide lessons learned which can support the preparation of the next UNDAF.
Overall supervision and strategic guidance to the MTR process will be provided by the UNCT and coordinated by the RCO. While the overall documentation and evaluation of the MTR process will be led and supported by the MTR consultant, some elements requiring in-depth consultations and analysis at Country and HQ level will be led and conducted by the UNCT directly.
Duties and Responsibilities
Scope of Work and Deliverables:
The GIRoA in collaboration with the UNCT / UN System in Afghanistan have decided to undertake a MTR of the current UNDAF in 2017. The review is made timely now by a number of significant and parallel developments that have taken place in the programming environment mentioned above.
The Review will also contribute to analysing and consolidating results of several internal review processes underway and that have already identified several weaknesses, gaps and opportunities, including a review of the original UNDAF assumptions against the change in circumstances that have occurred since their drafting and a review of the UNDAF Results Matrix and M&E framework, analysis of existing contributions and gaps in light of the SDG localisation process per Pillar, UNCT Retreats (September 2016 and February 2017) which reviewed the SDGs and key themes which may not have been reflected in the UNDAF, such as inequity, resilience, urbanization, gender, climate change and DRR, as well as how to deliver better “as one”.
The MTR will provide an overall assessment of progress and achievements made against the planned results so far, as well as assess and document constraints, challenges and lessons learnt over the past first two and a half years of the UNDAF cycle.
The expected outcome will be consensus on the findings of the review and agreement on the options suggested for reinforcing efficiencies and effectiveness of development results including deliberations on new and emerging challenges beyond the current UNDAF. This is expected to result in recommendations regarding possible areas for closer collaboration and programming and a refined UNDAF Narrative and Results Matrix.
The MTR will also determine the adequacy of the existing systems, structures and business processes for implementing the UNDAF programme (the Pillars, working groups, the resource framework, the joint programmes, and BOS) with a view of improving the functioning of the One UN machinery and “fitness for purpose” to realize the UNDAF goals in line with gender and human rights considerations. It is also expected to assess funding gaps and resource constraints for UNDAF implementation and review the UNDAF resources framework as needed.
Expected Outputs, Deliverables:
In light of the above, the main objectives of the MTR are to answer the following:
What have we achieved so far? What is our value added? Assess the achievements and progress made against planned results, as well as assess challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt over the past two and a half years of the UNDAF;
How well are we working? Assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence in the delivery of the overall UN programme and recommend ways in which the UN may increase its effectiveness of programme
Are we missing anything? Assess how the emerging issues and changing context not reflected in the current UNDAF impact on outcomes and make recommendations to realign UN assistance to these new priorities and achieve greater development impact (NPPs, ANPDF, TMAF, SDGs, Citizens Charter, migration, etc);
How and in what areas, can we work better together? Identify options for the UN system to jointly and coherently support the government in key priority areas as well as in SDG implementation; i.e. in what areas the UN could be working closer together (substantive areas) and how this could be best done (structural/procedural). How can we improve the coherence of the pillars or certain sectors/thematic areas;
Where do we want to go and why? In light of the findings, develop an updated Theory of Change for the UNDAF identifying a common vision for UN support to Afghanistan;
How do we further formalise the role of UNAMA in the UNDAF.
In specific terms, the MTR should answer the following:
Specific questions to which answers are sought are listed below. For many of these questions, background documents and/or preliminary answers are already available but require systematic documentation.
Relevance:
The extent to which the current UNDAF is compatible with national development priorities (existing and response to emerging). Identify within all the key sectors what areas of intervention may have been overlooked or where the UN is not the beast actor to make a meaningful contribution;
Are human rights and gender equality adequately addressed throughout the UNDAF;
To what extent is the UN ensuring that the most vulnerable populations are reached;
Update the UNDAF Results Matrix in light of the substantive analyses (Results statements, indicators, baselines, targets) adopting as much as possible national indicators and targets emanating from the SDG localisation process;
In the UN support to government, also include systematically support to data collection, definition of indicators at national and sectoral level, monitoring frameworks and systems; propose how this could be done jointly;
A clear identification of what is being addressed within UNDAF vs outside UNDAF (to provide clarity about what the UN is and is not accountable for) to ensure greater focus and prioritisation;
Following the SDG nationalisation process of indicators and targets, a further disaggregated analysis (gender, age, geography etc) to provide an evidence base for the UN to target its interventions, if such data is available by the MTR.
Effectiveness (the management processes and their appropriateness in supporting delivery)
What have been the achievements/progress towards attainment of results and their contribution to national priority outcomes? Reflect on how each agency has contributed to the UNDAF results through the implementation of programmes and projects;
What are the key lessons learnt since the UNDAF commenced in 2015; Identify UN contributions, gaps and/or opportunities for further progress, to the country’s development priorities as identified in the UNDAF results and M&E framework;
What are the major bottlenecks hampering the achievements? What modifications are required to address those;
Identify areas in which in fact the UN was engaged but which weren’t adequately reflected in the UNDAF narrative or results matrix and adjust these accordingly;
Forward looking recommendations for adjustments to UNDAF design and architecture; identify entry points to increase UN relevance to deliver on the national priorities and new global sustainable development agenda;
Assess to what extent the UNDAF M&E tools including indicator, target and strategies are still suitable for effective monitoring and evaluation of UNDAF Outcomes and targets;
To what extent do Joint Programmes or Joint Programming contribute to the UNDAF results framework? Is the joint programme approach the most effective way to deliver results;
To what extent is the design of the UNDAF and the coordination architecture of the UN Afghanistan relevant to the rapidly evolving international and national development context; are revisions required;
Suggest the direction for future programming taking into consideration emerging development situations in the country and lessons learnt for implementation;
Reach consensus between the UN and key stakeholders on the suggested strategies for programme implementation, partnerships and resource mobilization.
Efficiency
Were adequate financial resources mobilised for the UNDAF and annual Action Plans (was the planned budget realised)? What are the structural barriers preventing more effective resource mobilization;
To What extent joint programmes are contributing to reduction of transaction cost? Assess the effectiveness of and advantage of the use of the Joint Programmes modality as a mechanism for fostering UN coherence and delivering as one;
To what extent has the cooperation in Operations contributed to reduction of transaction costs;
Document lessons learnt, challenges and future opportunities;
As a result of the substantive adjustments, will there be a need to adapt/modify the current 5 outcome/pillar structure, or can these changes be accommodated within the current 5 Outcomes at output level only;
Humanitarian-development nexus, how can this be addressed/strengthened in the UNDAF.
Sustainability (indications of sustainability of systems and institutions)
Analyze to what extent results achieved and strategies used by the supported Country Programmes and projects are sustainable (i) as a contribution to national development and (ii) in terms of the added value of UNDAF for cooperation among individual UN agencies. The following questions could be addressed:
To what extent and in what ways have national capacities been enhanced in government, civil society and NGOs;
Have complementarities, collaboration and / or synergies fostered by UNDAF contributed to greater sustainability of results of Country Programmes and projects of individual UN agencies;
What percentage of the UNDAF intervention likely to continue when UN support is withdrawn;
To what extent have strategies or intervention models been scaled-up by the government so far.
Specific thematic issues to be considered:
In addition to the above mentioned MTR questions to be answered, the UNCT in Afghanistan has also identified several thematic gaps or questions which are expected to be covered as part of the MTR as well in order to provide additional substantive guidance on ways forward:
In areas identified as a gap in UN programming, identify some priorities which UN Agencies could contribute to together/ possible Joint Programming;
Cross-cutting issues such as gender, youth, capacity building to be better reflected across Outcomes;
- Gender needs to focus more on its cross-cutting nature and better report on the work the UN does in terms of gender mainstreaming; also better linkages to violent extremism etc;
Human rights both cross cutting as well as specific UN areas of intervention;
Humanitarian-Recovery-Development nexus and how do we operate/programme on a continuum;
Capacity building as a core contribution of the UN across all intervention areas (see UNDG capacity building framework for common definition/tools);
Communication, advocacy, messaging as a coordinated effort;
- Inquiry issues to be more explicitly reflected UNDAF (disparities, cultural norms, identity/tazkira etc); Do No Harm;< > to focus on the humanitarian and development nexus to look at how we can support the Government with the Sendai Framework on DRR including how to report on it;
Climate change and DRR be better integrated in the UNDAF;
Urbanisation is also cross cutting but M&E gaps need to be addressed;
Conflict analysis and conflict sensitive programming;
Access challenges and approaches to service delivery in hard-to-reach and/or contested areas in order to reach the under-served;
Civil society: how can the UNCT better jointly support civil society to effectively fulfil its role; what are the key issues where civil society can play a greater accountability role; and what is the degree of professionalism/regulatory frameworks/standards of civil society and can UNCT coherently support these;
Date: what can the UN do jointly to support government capacity in the collection, analysis and utilisation of data.
Deliverables/output; timeframe to complete and payment percentage:
Inception Reports; 5 working days; 10%
Thematic analyses, SDG further analysis as applicable: 15 working days; 20 %
UNDAF mid-term evaluation report [if applicable]; 8 working days; 10%
A Draft MTR Report document: 10 working days; 15%
Presentation to UNDAF Steering Committee [if such gets created by then]; 2 working days;
Validation workshop of MTR and agreement reached 2 working days; 10%
A final MTR report; 12 working days; 15%
Revised UNDAF narrative and Results Framework; 2 working days;
- Submission and acceptance of the Revised (updated) Resource Framework; 10 working days 20%
Competencies
Competencies:
Excellent communication (oral and written) skills; fluency in English required;
Experience applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios.
Special skills requirements
Competence in policy analysis and conflict analysis;
- Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.
Required Skills and Experience
Academic Qualifications:
Master’s Degree or equivalent in International Relations, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, or any other related field; knowledge of current development issues, evaluation discipline is a must.
Years of experience:
Minimum 5-7 years of relevant experience;
Proven recent experience with result-based management evaluation methodologies required preferably in a UN context;
Experience in undertaking Mid-Term Reviews for the UN (UNDAF or Agency level) required;
Proven experience in conducting Evaluations in line with UNDG and UNEG Evaluation Norms and Standards and Ethical standards, as well as OECD/DAC evaluation principles;
Experience working in Afghanistan or other conflict/post-conflict environment an asset;
Strong analytical capacities (quantitative and qualitative) and strong ability to communicate and summarize this analysis in writing.
- Proficiency in English Language is required.
Working Arrangements
Institutional Arrangements:
The MTR is an independent review of the UNDAF and will cover the period from January 2015 to July 2017.
In order to address the above mentioned broad and specific questions, the UNDAF MTR will need to comprise an updated situation analysis of the country based on existing primary and secondary information sources and wide consultations Considering that some agencies will be undertaking their own midterm reviews, these agency MTRs will inform the UNDAF MTR.
The MTR will be conducted in close collaboration with the Government.
The approach will include the following:
Desk review of existing information sources (some of which are specified below) including agency evaluations and MTRs and government documentations;
Mid-term UNDAF evaluation;
Consultative stakeholder workshops and interviews on some of the key topics identified: This may include interviews with key stakeholders and partners and focus group discussions; these interviews may include UN heads of agencies, UN programme staff, Working Groups/Pillar groups, relevant government officials at both national and sub-national levels, development partners, and civil society/youth/women representatives (if/where deemed relevant).
The MTR will be conducted based on UNDG and UNEG Norms and Standards and Evaluation and Ethical standards, as well as OECD/DAC evaluation principles.
The UNCT will lead the overall MTR process with methodological guidance from the M&E WG and PMT programmatic guidance. OMT guidance will also be sough on questions concerning operations. The UN RCO will provide coordination support to the MTR process, in close collaboration with the PMT and M&E WG.
Existing information sources
Information sources already existing to inform the MTR process include, but are not limited to:
Existing and upcoming Agency research and evaluations (list available in separate annex);
Government reporting against treaty bodies (separate list to be put in annex);
Agency MTRs;
Government data, MDG progress reports and data, NRVA, DHS, SDS, sectoral data, etc;
Review of UNDAF Assumptions conducted in February 2016;
Review of SDGs and data gaps (September 2016 UNCT Retreat);
UNCT Retreat Report (February 2017);
Original and revised versions of indicators/baselines/targets per Pillar (where applicable);
Mission report of the M&E consultant on the review of the UNDAF Results Matrix (January 2016);
Summary of the reports from the temporary topical and PMT Working Groups (urbanisation, gender, human rights, climate change and DRR);
Mid-year review (2016) presentation and summary report per Pillars (Sept 2016);
End-year review (2016) presentation and summary report per Pillars (March 2017);
Research reports and evaluations recently conducted by the Agencies, Funds and Programmes (see Annex);
Research reports by external partners, including WB;
Relevant Government Policies.
Research/analysis to be conducted: (to be further refined/selected in the inception phase)
Some of the research questions could be answered through secondary research; where no information available if necessary primary research may need to be conducted:
UNDAF mid-term evaluation (in line with UN Evaluation Norms and Standards);
SDG baselines further/in-depth analysis (gender, geographical, other disaggregation);
Conflict analysis;
Funding Scenarios in light of changes in donor environment;
Migration (internal/external) and impacts on Afghanistan (start with desk review of available reports);
The impact of the top-down approach to Women’s empowerment and Gender equality;
Humanitarian-Development Nexus, including how to deepen development in Afghanistan;
Economic Outlook update.
Duration of the Work:
The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 66 working days over a time period of three month starting on 5 June 2017 and shall be completed within specified timeframe.
Duty Station:
The total duration of this assignment will be 3 months with maximum 66 working days (2 months in Kabul with 44 working days and home based 22 working days). Some field visits outside Kabul are envisaged under the contract. Whilst in Kabul, consultant will be required to report regularly and be present at Resident Coordinator’s office (RCO) during the working hours. The contractor will follow the working hours and weekends as applicable to RCO staff. Contractor’s movement for meetings and consultations shall be coordinated by UNDP/RCO office. The contractor is at all times required to observe UNDP/RCO security rules and regulations.
Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments:
The contractor shall submit a price proposal as below:
Daily Fee – The consultant shall propose a daily fee which should be inclusive of his/her professional fee, local communication cost and insurance (inclusive of medical health and medical evacuation). The number of working days for which the daily fee shall be payable under the contract is maximum 66 working days.
Living Allowance, LA – For an International Consultant a Living Allowance (LA) shall be paid – The consultant shall propose the Kabul applicable rate of USD 162 per night for his/her stay at the duty station. The number of nights for which the LA shall be payable under the contract is 60 nights. UNDP/RCO will organize transportation and will provide DSA for the consultant’s field visits. An international consultant is NOT allowed to stay in a place of his/her choice other than the UNDSS approved places. UNDP/RCO will provide MORSS compliant accommodation in UNOCA complex to the consultant. The accommodation payments shall be made directly by the consultant;
Travel & Visa – The consultant shall propose an estimated lump sum for Home-Kabul-home travel and Afghanistan visa expenses. This applies to international consultants only. UNDP/RCO will be responsible for organizing travel between places within Afghanistan.
The total professional fee, shall be converted into a lump-sum contract and payments under the contract shall be made on submission and acceptance of deliverables by end-user under the contract in accordance with the abovementioned schedule of payment.
Evaluation Method and Criteria:
Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodology:
Cumulative analysis.
The award of the contract shall be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:
Responsive/compliant/acceptable, and;
Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.
* Technical Criteria weight 70%
* Financial Criteria weight 30%
Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 49 points (70% of the total technical points) would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.
Technical Criteria 70 points
Technical Proposal (30 marks)
Technical Approach & Methodology (20 marks) – This explain the understanding of the objectives of the assignment, approach to the services, methodology for carrying out the activities and obtaining the expected output, and the degree of detail of such output. The Applicant should also explain the methodologies proposed to adopt and highlight the compatibility of those methodologies with the proposed approach;
Work Plan (10 marks) – The Applicant should propose the main activities of the assignment, their content and duration, phasing and interrelations, milestones (including interim approvals by the Client), and delivery dates. The proposed work plan should be consistent with the technical approach and methodology, showing understanding of the TOR and ability to translate them into a feasible working plan.
Qualification and Experience (40 marks) [evaluation of CV]
General Qualification (10 marks);
Experience relevant to the assignment (30 marks).
Documents to be included when submitting the proposals:
Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document:
Duly accomplished Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal Template using the template provided by UNDP (Annex II);
- Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.
Technical proposal:
Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment;
- A methodology, on how they will approach and complete the assignment and work plan as indicated above.