The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippine country office have embarked on a partnership to strengthen the conduct of evaluations of priority government programs under the Philippine Development Program (PDP). Financed by NEDA and implemented with full UNDP country office support, the Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Project will help strengthen the M&E capacities of NEDA and key government agencies to support the achievement of the PDP and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through evidence-based decision making.


A key component of the project is the commissioning of independent evaluations on key themes and programs relevant to the PDP and the SDGs. These studies will evaluate the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of priority social and economic programs that have been implemented or are being implemented by the government. The results of the evaluation studies are envisaged to inform how policies and programs are designed and implemented to achieve the desired results of the PDP and contribute to strengthening the government’s M&E systems.


One of these evaluations is on the implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA). Passed in 2007 as Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9485, ARTA seeks to promote integrity and curb corruption through greater transparency about the public’s transactions with the government. The Act required the simplification of frontline service procedures, formulation of service standards to be observed in every transaction, and publication of these standards for clients’ information.[1] ARTA applies to all government offices, national government agencies (NGAs), local government units (LGUs) as well as government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) that provide frontline services. In adopting simplified and standardized procedures, the law sought to reduce red tape and thereby curb opportunities for graft and corruption. Recently, the Ease of Doing Business Act and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act (EODB Act, R.A. No. 11032), also known as the Expanded ARTA law, was passed to strengthen the service efficiency aspects of the 2007 law and to emphasize improving business competitiveness.


To assess agencies’ compliance with ARTA and clients’ satisfaction on frontline services, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has been conducting the Report Card Survey (RCS). Introduced in 2010, the RCS is held annually to rate frontline service offices’ compliance with ARTA requirements such as the presence of Citizen’s Charter, manned Public Assistance and Complaints Desks, Anti-Fixer campaign materials, and observance of “No Noon Break” policy. Apart from checking on these requirements, the RCS also surveys a sample of clients to assess their satisfaction on the services rendered by the frontline service office. CSC also collects bulk data on complaints from citizens through the Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB)


An independent evaluation is necessary to gain an objective view of the implementation by NGAs, GOCCs, and LGUs of the ARTA; the results so far in terms of outcomes and, if feasible, impacts; and the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of the Expanded ARTA law.


NEDA, through the UNDP, will commission such evaluation through the hiring of a team of individual consultants, including an Associate Evaluator for Quantitative Analysis. Working with the evaluation team that will be led by a Governance Specialist / Lead Investigator, the associate evaluator will analyze available data, such as the CSC’s RCS and the complaints database of CCB, to draw trends and other insights on how ARTA has been implemented by government agencies. An Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) has also been convened, with NEDA, CSC, DTI / National Competitiveness Council (NCC), and UNDP as members, to provide direction and input to the design and conduct of the study. 


[1] Local Government Academy. (2008). Primer on RA 9485: The Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007. Manila: LGA.

Duties and Responsibilities

Scope of Services and Methodology

Under the overall guidance of the ERG of the ARTA study and reporting directly and regularly to the Strategic M&E Project Coordinator of UNDP, the evaluation team will:

  1. Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of entire ARTA program throughout the government and in selected NGAs in terms of:
    1. Processes and activities undertaken to comply with ARTA;
    2. Challenges and issues, including capacity constraints;
    3. Best practices, enabling factors, and lessons learned;
  2. Provide insights as to the extent the ARTA program has achieved its desired results or objectives of improving frontline services, easing doing business, and curbing corruption as well as the program’s unintended consequences through perceptions from key sectors such as academe, civil society, and private sector, and provide recommendations on how to sustain the efficiencies already achieved as well as to address the gaps;
  3. Design a standard framework and methodology for the conduct of future impact evaluations on implementation of the ARTA program, including recommendations on tools, techniques, and innovations that can be used to improve monitoring and data collection.
  4. In collaboration with the ERG, define a strategy to communicate and disseminate the results and findings of the evaluation study, including a) mapping of stakeholders with interest in the evaluation; b) a one-page brief and a maximum five (5)-page executive summary to accompany the dissemination of the report.


In undertaking the evaluation, the evaluation team will undertake two methodological tracks. First, the quantitative track will entail the statistical testing and analysis of the existing data gathered by CSC through its RCS, inspection checklist, contact center complaints, and other means and tools to a) define the statistical reliability of the data; and b) draw trends and other insights from the data on how ARTA has been implemented by the agencies. The study may also identify and make use of other existing data from the PSA and line agencies, as well as local and global perception surveys. According to the CSC, the RCS tool has undergone at least two (2) revisions since 2010, with the 2017 revision being the most fundamental, entailing the need to verify the consistency and comparability of the data. Moreover, only the 2014 and 2015 RCS covered the same service offices of NGAs while other survey periods covered varying NGAs and Service Offices depending on the themes determined by CSC for that year.


The qualitative track will be handled by two other associate evaluators who will be tasked to develop case studies on agencies which performed well or whose performance stagnated under ARTA.


From the findings from these two tracks, the evaluation study will design a standard framework and methodology for the conduct of impact evaluations in the future on the implementation of the ARTA program in the context of the recent amendments. The framework may include improving the collection and management of data through the RCS and other means (e.g., public perceptions survey).


To undertake such, the associate evaluator to be engaged for the study shall undertake the following:

  1. Preparatory work, including:
    1. Design a framework and methodology for the evaluation of the ARTA;
    2. Gather and test the RCS and other data sets of CSC and identify and gather other potential sources of available data to be used for the analysis.
  2. Analytical Work, including:
    1. Review and synthesize relevant literature and documents;
    2. Analyze the RCS and other available data from CSC or other sources to draw trends and other insights on ARTA implementation in general and specifically for the case agencies.
  3. Reporting, Presentation, and Dissemination of Results:
    1. Prepare and submit a final report, subject to review by the ERG for this study, including the raw and processed data used in building the report;
    2. The consultants will also be tasked to make a presentation of preliminary or final results of the evaluation in a public forum;
    3. The consultants will also i) condense the findings in a one-page summary and a maximum five (5)-page executive summary, and ii) recommend strategies on how to communicate and disseminate the evaluation study and its findings.


The lead investigator is expected to oversee work and assure the quality of the outputs of the associate evaluator. The associate evaluator is expected to contribute draft sections to the evaluation report as agreed upon with the Lead Investigator and the Strategic M&E Project Coordinator of UNDP.


Expected Outputs

The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:

  1. An Inception Report collectively submitted by the team, as compiled by the lead investigator, which spells out the analytical framework, detailed methodology, and work plan for the evaluation. It should include the list of proposed NGAs/GOCCs for case study, including targeted locations of frontline service delivery offices (e.g., branches) to be visited, and the division of assignments among the associate evaluators. The inception report should include as attachments the following from the associate evaluator for quantitative analysis:  
    1. list of data sets to be secured and analyzed and analytical methods to be used;
    2. sample data analyses, tables, and/or visualizations;
    3. list of literature to be reviewed.
  2. A Draft Evaluation Report, according to the template or outline agreed upon at the inception stage, that provides an initial consolidation of the findings and recommendations of the study based on the data gathered and analyzed so far. Moreover:
    1. After presentation to the ERG, the consultants shall prepare a matrix or documentation of inputs from the ERG, with feedback on the inputs to be accepted and those not to be accepted and reasons for such recommendations.
  3. A Final Draft Evaluation Report which refines and completes the consolidation and synthesis of the findings and recommendations of the study based on all the data gathered and analyzed. The final draft evaluation shall also include:
    1. A proposed framework for evaluating the impact of the implementation of the Expanded ARTA and other recommendations to improve the collection of data to prepare for quality analyses;
    2. Proposed recommendations or action items for implementing agencies on improving ARTA implementation, presented in a matrix or other relevant format;
    3. After presentation to the ERG, the consultants shall prepare a matrix or documentation of inputs from the ERG, with feedback on the inputs to be accepted and those not to be accepted and reasons for such recommendations.
  4. A Final Publication-Ready Evaluation Report which makes necessary refinements or adjustments to the report based on the management responses to be provided by the CSC and other implementing agencies. The consultants are expected to respond to each of the Management Responses, in consultation with UNDP and NEDA. The consultants shall also:
    1. Present the evaluation report to a public forum, which may be the annual M&E Network Summit, as decided upon by the ERG. In doing so, they shall prepare a presentation slide deck;
    2. Produce condensed versions of the report, namely: i) a one-page summary of the key findings of the study; ii) a maximum five (5)-page executive summary;
    3. Submit a proposed communication plan containing recommended strategies and actions for communicating the study and its results to key stakeholders and the general public.


The consultants are expected to deliver the said outputs according to the following schedule:


Deliverables / Outputs

Target Due Dates

Review & Approvals Required

Inception Report with attachments/ annexes


Revised, with matrix of key inputs from ERG with feedback

Draft within two (2) weeks from the start of the contract


Revised within one (1) week from presentation to ERG

To be presented to and commented on by ERG


Approval: Project Coordinator after clearance from NEDA-Governance Staff (GovStaff) Director

Draft Evaluation Report with 50% of the case studies


A matrix of key inputs from the ERG with feedback

Within ten (10) weeks from the start of the contract


Within one (1) week from presentation to ERG

To be presented to and commented on by ERG


Approval: Project Coordinator after clearance from GovStaff Director

Final Draft Report with 50% of the case studies and proposed framework for impact evaluation


Refinement of the final draft with matrix of key inputs from the ERG with feedback


Within fifteen (15) weeks from start of the contract



Within two (2) weeks from presentation to ERG


To be presented to and commented on by ERG



Approval: Project Coordinator after clearance from GovStaff Director

Final Publication-Ready Report with Management Response, communication plan, condensed versions & public presentation

Within a maximum of twenty-two (22) weeks from the start of the contract.

Project Coordinator after securing clearance from GovStaff Director


The Associate Evaluator for Quantitative Analysis is also each expected to submit:

  1. Monthly Status Reports, consisting of maximum two (2) pages, outlining a summary of activities undertaken and deliverables submitted, as well as issues encountered and lessons learned;
  2. Raw and Processed Data used in the study, including but not limited to data tables and visualizations, and all other documentation made during the conduct of the study, together with each version of the Report submitted as well as when required by UNDP or NEDA (through UNDP). 


  • Demonstrates integrity by modeling 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 favoritism;
  • Expertise in data collection and analysis
  • Ability to work under pressure and tight deadlines;
  • Strong analytical and research skills; and
  • Excellent organizational, and communication skills;

Required Skills and Experience

Professional Qualifications of the Successful Consultants

The Associate Evaluators shall each have the following minimum qualifications:

  1. Filipino nationals or expatriates currently residing in the Philippines only;
  2. At least two (2) years of work or consultancy experience in the monitoring and evaluation of development programs and projects, with preference to those with demonstrated specialization/experience in evaluations; 
  3. At least four (4) years of overall work or consultancy experience in the government, international development organizations, non-profits, among others. Previous employment or consultancy experience with UN agencies is an asset;
  4. At least an undergraduate degree in economics, political science, social science, public administration, management, or other relevant fields. A master’s degree is advantageous;
  5. Having published research work in relevant policy/program areas and/or research output from consultancy projects is preferred. Research works may include applied research studies, e.g. evaluation, action research, policy papers, etc.;
  6. Having satisfactorily completed projects with the public and/or development sector, including but not limited to government, international development organizations, international financial institutions, and non-government organizations is preferred;
  7. Demonstrated knowledge of and experience in the application of various research methodologies, with demonstrated specialization in qualitative research. Demonstrated knowledge of quantitative research, in addition to the requirement, is advantageous;
  8. Demonstrated specialization, through professional and academic qualification, in any of the following policy and program areas is advantageous:
    1. Democratic Governance – including but not limited to anti-corruption, government efficiency and organizational development, public finance management, results-based management, public administration, among others;
    2. Economic Development – including but not limited to economic and fiscal policy, transport and non-transport infrastructure development, competitiveness and entrepreneurship, agriculture policy, industrial policy, services and trade, among others.     
  9. UNDP gives preference to consultants who demonstrate the following values:
    1. Gender Equality – achieving gender equality and gender mainstreaming are key principles and strategies of UN system agencies, therefore, UNDP encourages the deployment of staff and consultants (male/female) at a balanced ratio based on the requirements. As such, in forming the evaluation team, UNDP will strive to achieve a balanced composition of consultants.  
    2. Integrity – UNDP implements a policy of zero tolerance on proscribed practices, including fraud, corruption, collusion, unethical practices, and obstruction. UNDP is committed to preventing, identifying and addressing all acts of fraud and corrupt practices against UNDP as well as third parties involved in UNDP activities. UNDP requires all proposers to conduct themselves in a professional, objective and impartial manner. Proposers must strictly avoid conflicts with other assignments or their own interests and act without consideration for future work. UNDP reserves the right to reject bidders who are in an actual or potential conflict of interest or have been involved in unethical practices.

Application Requirements:

Applicants are requested to upload the following documents in one file and submit the following documents to

  1. Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability that indicates the all-inclusive lumpsum 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.
  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; 
  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.

Complete and detailed TOR along with the application requirements can be accessed thru this link: