Final evaluation of the project “Preservation and Promotion of Kuwait’s Cultural Heritage

Location : Kuwait, KUWAIT
Application Deadline :22-Jan-19 (Midnight New York, USA)
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :International Consultant
Languages Required :
Starting Date :
(date when the selected candidate is expected to start)
Duration of Initial Contract :25 Working Days
Expected Duration of Assignment :25 Working Days


The Government of Kuwait is aspiring to be a regional trade and financial hub in line with the Kuwait Vision 2035. Within this vision, Global Position has been placed as an area of focus to attract investment, and the promotion of cultural activity has been identified as a tool to help enhance Kuwait’s regional and global presence.The need to increase the country’s cultural activity has further been addressed through stated objectives in the Kuwait National Development Plan 2015-2020. These objectives highlight the need to conserve, promote, and modernize the current cultural infrastructure in Kuwait.

The project document for “Preservation and Promotion of Kuwait’s Cultural Heritage” was signed on 18thApril 2017 between General Secretariat for the Supreme Council for Planning and Development (GSSCPD), National Council for Culture Arts and Letters (NCCAL), UNESCO, and UNDP, which represent the senior executive, senior beneficiary, technical agency, and senior supplier respectively. With a 21 month duration, the project was initially set to end on 31stDecember 2018, and was later extended for two months. The project has an approved budget of 1,000,000 USD financed by the government of Kuwait, represented by the GSSCPD. An additional 422,300 USD was allocated as in-kind contribution from the beneficiary. 


Project Outcome:  A clear framework for the development of culture by creating the bases for strong cultural institutions that operate with respect to international standards with qualified and skilled personnel to extend services to society and deliver a rich cultural agenda and programs.

The overarching outcome will be reached through the following outputs:

  • Output 1: NCCAL strengthened through cultural policy development and institutional restructuring
  • Output 2: Institutional strengthening for NCCAL with focus on Museums Division
  • Output 3: Capacity development plan for NCCAL implemented and handicrafts and creative industries framework established and capacities enhanced 
  • Output 4: NCCAL undertakings widely disseminated
  • Output 5: SSC/TrC enacted through benchmarking and knowledge sharing


Within this context, the UNDP is soliciting the services of an independent evaluator to evaluate the projects overall effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and impact. 

Duties and Responsibilities


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;
  • Determine the level ofcontribution to the relevant Country Programme Document (CPD) outcome. 
  • 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.
  • Evaluate the UN’s added value to the government and provide concrete recommendations towards sustainability and to improve on in the next CPD


2.2 Evaluation 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. 


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. Is the project achieving satisfactory progress toward its stated objectives? 
  • 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.What difference has the project made to beneficiaries? What are the social, economic, technical, environmental, and other effects on individuals, communities, and institutions – either short-, medium-, or long-term; intended or unintended; positive and negative; on a micro- or macro-level? How the project has supported the government in implementing the Kuwait National Development Plan (KNDP)? Which areas did the project support in regard to the KNDP? Which areas should the project focus on moving forward? How did the project support the government in establishing and promoting best governance practices? 
  • Relevance:The extent to which the development intervention of the project meets the needs of constituents, country needs, global priorities and donor policies;
  • 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.


2.3 Suggested Analytical Framework


2.3.1 Relevance and strategic fit

a.         How is the project contributing to the national priorities/national development plans of Kuwait?

b.         To what extent are project activities linked to other global commitments including the SDGs and the agenda 2030? 

c.         Does the project respond to the real needs of the NCCAL 

d.         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?

e.         Does the project’s design fill an existing gap that other ongoing interventions have failed to address? 


2.3.2 Validity of the design

a.         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? 

b.         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?


2.3.3 Project progress and effectiveness

a.         Has the Project achieved its planned objectives in a timely manner? Are the project partners using the outputs? Have the project outputs been transformed by the project partners into outcomes?

b.         What have been the constraining factors and how have they been addressed?

c.         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? 

d.         What alternatives strategies would have been more effective in achieving the project’s objectives?

e.         How did outputs and outcomes contribute to mainstreamed strategies including gender equality, social dialogue, and labour standards? 

e.         How efficient has the project been in communicating its results, disseminating success stories and enhancing visibility? How effective was collaboration with the media?

f.          To what extent has this project contributed to: launching innovative ideas; rapidly addressing emerging needs; expanding the scope and/or scale of existing programmes.


2.3.4 Efficiency of resource use

a.         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? 

b.         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? 

c.         Was the timeline initially envisioned for the Project adequate considering Project outputs and outcomes? 


2.3.6 Effectiveness of management arrangements

g.         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 and UNESCO staff? 

h.         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?  

i.          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? 

j.          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?


2.3.7 Impact orientation and sustainability

a.         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?

b.         How can UNDP and UNESCO build on the project’s achievements? 

c.         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?

d.         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?

e.         Can any unintended or unexpected positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the project’s interventions? 

f.          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? 

g.         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?

h.         What was the role of the project in resource mobilisation?


2.4 Evaluation Methodology

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 (if needed)


The evaluation should be conducted by an independent Evaluator that has no prior involvement in the project “Preservation and Promotion of Kuwait’s Cultural Heritage”.


Deliverables/ Outputs


Target Due Dates


Payment Schedule


Review and Approvals Required 

Desk review

Draft inception report with detailed evaluation plan and methodology prepared; including discussion on and finalization of draft inception report, methodology and evaluation tools.

5 Working Days

(27 - 31 January 2019)


Programme Officer

Discussions and documentations with key stakeholders

interview with project team, UNDP staff and key national project stakeholders submitting a summary report of meetings findings 

5 Working Days

(3-7 February)


Programme Officer

Data analysis and preparation of draft evaluation report

Evaluation draft report with findings, lessons learned and results submitted to UNDP and the national counterpart for review.

10 Working Days

(10 February  -21 February 2019)


Programme Officer

Finalization of the evaluation report based on comments received from UNDP and the national counterpart 

Evaluation finding presented and recommendations refined.

5 Working Days

(24-28 February 2019)


Programme Officer


Institutional Arrangement

  • The Evaluator shall work under the supervision of UNDP Governance Programme Officer and shall update him/her on the progress of his/her evaluation work. 
  • He/she will liaise directly with project team on day-to-day matters for supplying documentations, obtaining information and arranging in country interviews.  
  • The evaluation process should be planned and conducted in close consultation with UNDP Kuwait, UNESCO Regional Office, the NCCAL, and GSSCPD. 
  • The evaluation tools and methodology must be agreed with UNDP Kuwait.
  • The independent Evaluator must have access to Internet and phone during regular office hours during the entire period of the assignment. 
  • The project will provide office space, with access to internet during the in-country visit. 
  • Evaluation expert should bring his/her own laptop. 
  • The expert will receive the following key documents as part of the desk review:
  • Country Programme Document (CPD).
  • Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP).
  • Project document and extension document.
  • Quarterly and yearly progress reports.
  • Relevant Project Board decisions/documentation. 
  • Technical /workshop reports. 

The recommended presentation of Evaluation report:

  • Language of the report is English. 
  • The desirable report outline:
  • Executive summary (maximum 4 pages)
  • Introduction
  • Background (project description)
  • Evaluation purpose and objective
  • Evaluation Methodology
  • Major findings 
  • Lessons learned 
  • Constraints that impacted project delivery
  • Recommendations and conclusions
  • Annexes to the evaluation report should be kept to an absolute minimum. Only those annexes that save to demonstrate or clarify an issue related to a major finding should be included. Existing documents should be referenced but not necessarily annexed. Maximum number of pages for annexes is 15. 

Duration of the Work

  1. 27 January - 28 February 2019 (total of 25 working days)
  2. To complete the tasks, selected evaluator will need to visit Kuwait during 3-7 February 2019.


 Duty Station

Home based work with 1 mission to Kuwait (5 working days in duty station)


Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

The financial proposal submitted shall specify a total lump sum amount, and payment terms around specific and measurable (qualitative and quantitative) deliverables (i.e. whether payments fall in installments or upon completion of the entire contract). Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR. The financial proposal will include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (including travel, living allowance, and number of anticipated working days).


Travel: All envisaged travel and other related costs related to join the duty station must be included in the financial proposal. Any other trips outside the scope of work are to be covered from consultant’s expenses.



Cumulative analysis


Total score=Technical Score + Financial Score. 

Technical Criteria weight - 70%, 700 scores maximum  

Financial Criteria weight - 30%. 300 scores maximum


The selection of candidates will be done in 3 stages:

1st stage: Prior to detailed evaluation, all applications will be thoroughly screened against eligibility criteria (minimum qualification requirements) as set in the TOR in order to determine whether they are compliant/non-compliant.


Shortlisting criteria   


Advanced Degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in social science, statistics, public administration, or any other related field, with specialized training in monitoring and evaluation.


Minimum 5 years of experience in planning, monitoring, evaluation, and management of development projects.


Written and spoken proficiency in English.

2nd stage: Evaluation of technical proposals 

Short-listed candidates will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 490 points (70%) at the Technical Evaluation would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.


Technical Evaluation Criteria (Desk review and Interview based)

Maximum obtainable points – 700;  Threshold – 490 points

5 years of experience in planning, monitoring and management of public administration development or development planning of government counterparts.


For each additional year of experience – 10 points, but not more than 50 points in total.





Experience in working with government institutions in Middle East region and UN, is an added advantage.


Experience in evaluations in cultural programmes the UN system – 50 points, experience as a team leader in an evaluation in the UN system – additional 30 points. 



Knowledge of Arabic language is advantage

20 - 30 points - excellent

9 – 19 points – good

0 – 8 points – poor


Proven oral and written communication and analytical skills (interview and submitted proposal based)


Technical proposal with clear methodology presented (interview and submitted proposal based)


Financial Evaluation Criteria

Maximum obtainable points – 300 (30%)


3rd stage: Financial evaluation

Cumulative analysis will be used based on the following methodology: All the offers of individual consultants who scored 490 (70% from 700) and more points during the desk review are acceptable for financial evaluation. The lowest financial qualified proposal receives 300 points and all the other technically qualified proposals receive points in inverse proportion per the formula:


Formula applied 


P=points for the financial proposal being evaluated


y=maximum number of points for the financial proposal equal to 300


µ=the lowest priced proposal


z=price of the proposal being evaluated


The candidate achieving the highest cumulative score for both Technical and Financial evaluations will be recommended by the Evaluation Committee for contracting.




  1. Duly accomplished and signed Offeror’s letter/filled-in template to UNDP confirming interest and Breakdown of Costs Supporting the Final All-Inclusive Price as per Template. 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;

  1. 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;
  2. Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment; 
  3. Technical proposal with clear methodology presented: Provide a brief methodology with description of Approach to Work, timeframe. 






  • Possess a solid understanding of the institutional arrangements and resources required to carry out the scope of work;
  • Demonstrate flexibility in the event adjustments are required based on the findings, both at the organizational and technical levels, for successful implementation of the consultancy;
  • Personal skills: team work and cooperation; capability to work with diverse stakeholders; communication; strong drafting skills; analytical skills; negotiation skills;
  • Demonstrate competence in report writing, presenting information and consulting with stakeholders;
  • Written and spoken proficiency in English is required, knowledge of Arabic language will be an added value.

Required Skills and Experience

I. Academic Qualifications:

  • Advanced university degree (Master’s or equivalent) in Social Sciences, Public Administration, or related field, with specialized training in monitoring and evaluation.

II. Years of experience:

  • Minimum 5 years of experience in planning, monitoring, evaluation, and management of development projects. 
  • Experience in working with government institutions in Middle East region and the UN, is an added advantage; 
  • Experience in evaluations in cultural programmes in the UN system, preferably as team leader.

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

If you are experiencing difficulties with online job applications, please contact

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme