Background

A. Project Title : Conducting a Review of the Assessments of a Country’s Public Financial Management (PFM)  System

B.     Project Description 

Consistent with the ongoing and continuing UN Reform, the United Nations System in the Philippines is prepared to comply with the mandate of the UN Development Group to simplify and harmonize the systems and procedures for transferring cash to its programme implementation partners in the country.   The same is demanded by donors consistent with the harmonization principle of the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness. 

The key messages behind the harmonization and simplification of cash transfer are, as follows:

1. The need to increase overall effectiveness of interventions by focusing more on programme needs than administrative processes;
2. Switch emphasis from a “system of controls” to “risk management” approach;
3. Decreases complexity of procedures; and
4. Reduces transaction costs for governments.

The four modes of “cash transfers” which may apply under various UN programmes in the country are as follows:

1. Direct Cash Transfer for future obligations (‘advances’);
2. Direct Payment to vendors and other third parties;
3. Reimbursement to national partners for incurred expenditures; and
4. Direct Agency Implementation in support of activities agreed in the Annual Work Plan.

The first activity under the effort to harmonize the procedure for cash transfer is the conduct of a macro-assessment of the country’s public financial management.   The UN is therefore in need of an expert who will conduct this study, with the intention of achieving the following:

• Capacity development objective: The review should help the UN and the Philippine Government identify the strengths and weaknesses in the country’s Public Financial Management (PFM), as well as determine the various areas for capacity development by government and others; and

• Financial management objective: The review (in combination with the assessments of government Implementing Partners) should assist the UN in the establishment of appropriate cash transfer modalities, procedures, and assurance activities to be applied by the UN Agencies. The review establishes the capacity of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) or locally known as the Commission on Audit (COA) to undertake audits of cash transfers provided to “low risk” Implementing Partners. For NGO partners, the macro assessment should be able to evaluate the existing NGO certification process, including UN agencies’ internal accreditation processes, on whether or not this can be utilized to assess “risk” related to implementation of UN programmes. The study will also look into existing tools of government or NGO that could provide information for a risk assessment.

The study does not intend to provide “pass or fail” to implementing partners, nor provide a risk rating to Implementing Partners, but rather to provide a background info for micro-assessments, and to determine whether or not the National SAI can conduct audits of implementing partners.

Duties and Responsibilities

C.     Scope of Work

The assessment is based primarily on work on PFM conducted by development partners.  Examples of such reports include:

Assessments by the World Bank

• Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (May 2010). The overall objective of this assessment is to provide all stakeholders with an evidence-based assessment of the PFM system and a common basis for identifying priority areas for improvements.
• Public Expenditure Review (June 2011). This analyzes a country’s fiscal position, expenditure policies, and public expenditure management systems.

The review covers: areas of the national budget development and execution process, the functioning of the public sector accounting and internal control mechanisms, audit and oversight, and financial recording systems and staff qualifications. Part of the study would be an evaluation of the capacity of COA, DBM, DOF, and existing NGO certification process to make a credible risk assessment of partners. New tools of government should be evaluated.

Methodology

The assessment begins with the collection of existing PFM reviews and will also consider the Agencies’ own experience and knowledge of the PFM. The assessment reviews the existing documentation and Agencies’ experience to address the issues raised in the checklist in this annex. 

A draft report should be prepared, and then shared and validated with government officials and the institutions who provided the materials used in the review.

D.     Expected Outputs and Deliverables

1) Inception Report – detailed proposal with methodology and timetable

2) Draft and final reports of  about four pages (excluding annexes) and conclude with a completed table of the risk areas.   The report should include:

• Objective of the review and statement of process and participating institutions;
• Summary of findings—to address each of the issues identified in checklist;
• Any key risks the PFM poses to the functioning of the cash transfer framework;
• Assessment of Commission on Audit’s (COA)  capacity to undertake micro-assessment and audits;
• Assessment of new tools used by government;
• Assessment of existing NGO certification;
• Suggested opportunities for capacity development (if any);
• Bibliography of information sources used in the assessment;
• Annex—the completed checklist.

3) A briefing on the results of the assessment

E.      Institutional Arrangement

         a) Specific authorities who will directly supervise the Contractor, and to whom he/she will be directly responsible to, reporting to, seeking approval/acceptance of output from:

For project supervision – HACT Working Group

For reporting/seeking approval of output –HACT HOAs

        b) This contract is output-based (please refer to chart on deliverables); draft and final reports will be presented during the regular UNCT Meeting, if required

        c) The Contractor is expected to liaise/interact/collaborate/meet with the following agencies in the course of performing the work

1. Commission on Audit (COA)
2. Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
3. Department of Finance (DOF),
4.  Philippine Council for NGO Certification, as appropriate

         d) The project will not provide  any facilities, support personnel, support service, or logistical support to the consultant

F.     Duration of the Work

The consultant will be expected to remain engaged for a period of four to eight weeks, depending on the volume and availability of data.

G.     Duty Station

As this is a  desk  review, duty station is not applicable. Since this consultancy is output-based, contractor will not be required to report regularly.

Competencies

CORPORATE COMPETENCIES

• Commitment to UNDP’s mission, vision, values and ethical standards
• Sensitivity to cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age differences
• Treat all stakeholders fairly and without prejudice
• Maintains objectivity and impartiality in handling evaluation processes

Required Skills and Experience

H.     Qualifications of the Successful Individual Contractor

1. The area of specialization/field of expertise of consultant: Philippine Public Finance Management (PFM)
2. The minimum level of education acceptable and the fields of studies preferred: Master’s Degree in Economics, Public Finance or related fields; PhD will be an advantage
3. The minimum number of years of work experience on the preferred field of practice: 10 years work experience in Economics, Public Finance or related fields
4. Special skills / experience and other qualifications

• Independent of the Government and should have prior experience advising on the PFM in the Philippines;
• Experience and expertise in reviewing public financial management systems such as consultants who have worked on preparing a CFAA or other similar report;
• Broad understanding governance and accountability issues;
• Ability to identify and collect reports on the PFM;
• Excellent written and oral communications skills.

 I.   Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

          Lump Sum contract 

          Schedule of Payments:

                  20% - upon satisfactory acceptance of the inception report

                  60% - upon satisfactory presentation and acceptance of 1st draft

                  20% - upon satisfactory acceptance of final report

J.     Criteria for Selection of the Best Offer

       Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications and methodology will be weighted a max. of 70%, and combined with the price offer which will be weighted a max of 30%

K.     Recommended Presentation of Offer

     The following documents are required from the consultant:

1. Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability and Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided.  If an Offeror is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP. (Applicants are required to use the ATTACHED TEMPLATE OF UNDP)
2. 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;  (You may use the ATTACHED TEMPLATE OF UNDP)
3. Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a methodology, if applicable, on how they will approach and complete the assignment. A methodology is recommended for intellectual services, but may be omitted for support services.

L.     Annexes to the TOR

Annex 1. Macro Assessment Checklist

Annex 2. Risk consideration checklist

Annex 3. Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability and Financial Proposal

Annex 4. P11 Personal History Form

Please email applications to procurement.ph@undp.org by 7 May 2018. Please make sure emails do not exceed 4MB.