• Background information

To enhance the engagement of the civil society in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Azerbaijan, in December 2017 the European Union (EU) awarded a contract to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for the project “Promoting the role of civil society in gender-sensitive SDGs implementation”. The project aims to support the progress towards gender equality and social, economic and political empowerment of women by enabling full-fledged participation of civil society in implementing the SDG agenda and building partnerships between the civil society and the government for the achievement of the gender-related targets. The project’s target groups are the local CSOs that directly benefit from the capacity building and partnership development components of the project.

The overall objective of the project is to promote active and effective participation of the civil society organizations in the gender-sensitive formulation and implementation of the national agenda for the achievement of the SDGs. The project’s specific objectives are: i) to promote confidence building and dialogue between the civil society and the government around the SDGs issues; ii) to improve understanding and knowledge of CSOs, to apply gender-responsive approach to SDG implementation; iii) to increase participation of the? CSOs in the implementation of gender sensitive SDG initiatives.

The project is built around three components:

Component 1:

A platform is established for dialogue and networking between the CSOs and the government on implementing the SDG agenda, including through gender lens.  

Component 2:

CSOs have increased their understanding of the SDG framework and raised their capacities to apply gender-responsive approaches to the SDG implementation.

Component 3:

A grant programme to support CSO-led gender-sensitive SDG initiatives is designed and implemented.

The project will institutionalize cooperation amongst the CSOs, central government, local executive authorities, and other relevant state bodies, through continuous dialogue on SDG policies, joint formulation and implementation of an engagement action plan for participation of CSOs in the SDG nationalization process.

• Objective of the assignment

EVALUATION GOAL

The overall goal of the project’s final evaluation is to assess the processes and achievements made to draw lessons that will inform the development of long-term change actions. The evaluation is intended to be forward looking which will capture effectively lessons learned and provide information on the nature, extent and where possible, the effect of project activities. The emphasis on learning lessons speaks to the issue of understanding what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning.

EVALUATION SCOPE AND FOCUS

The evaluation will look into the following areas: project management; project activities; reflection of grant support to the civil society organizations in view of their capacities and future engagement in UNDP development actions, government-civil society partnership and other relevant issues addressed through the project. It will address the results achieved, the partnerships established, as well as issues of capacity and approach.

The following key questions will guide the project’s final evaluation:

1. Relevance:  Assess the extent to which the project objectives were consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and priorities: 

• To what extent did the Project achieve its overall goal and objectives?
• What and how much progress has been made towards achieving the outputs and outcomes of the project?
• To what extent were the results (impacts, outcomes and outputs) achieved?
• Were the inputs and strategies identified, and were they realistic, appropriate and adequate to achieve the results?
• Was the project relevant to the identified needs?

1. Effectiveness: Gauge the extent to which the targeted project objectives were achieved (or are expected to be achieved) by describing the management processes and their appropriateness in supporting delivery:

• Was the project effective in delivering the desired/planned results?
• To what extent did the project’s M&E mechanism contribute to meeting the project results?
• How effective were the strategies and tools used in the implementation of the project?
• How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, and what results were achieved?
• What are the future intervention strategies and issues?

1. Efficiency:  Understand how economically resources/inputs were converted into results:

• Was the process of achieving results efficient?
• Did the actual or expected results (outputs and outcomes) justify the costs incurred?
• Were the resources effectively utilized?
• Did the project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors)?
• Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?
• Could a different approach have produced better results?
• How efficient were the management and accountability structures of the project?
• How did the project financial management processes and procedures affect project implementation?
• What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project’s implementation process?

1. Sustainability: Assess the extent to which the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained after the completion of this project:

• What is the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of project outcomes and benefits after completion of the project?
• How effective were the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints?
• Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of the project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach.
• How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational level (including contributing factors and constraints)?
• Describe the main lessons that have emerged?
• What are the recommendations for similar support in future? *

*Note: The recommendations should provide comprehensive proposals for future interventions based on the current evaluation findings).

The evaluator is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the UNDP Country Office, European Union Delegation, partner CSOs, project team and other key stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement should include the key informant interviews with the key experts and consultants in the subject area, project team, partners and beneficiaries, etc.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will provide quantitative and qualitative data through the following methods:

• Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, project progress reports, annual project reports, reports of the project board;
• In depth interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology;
• Focus Group discussion with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders;
• Interviews with relevant key informants;
• Observations (field visits using checklist);

The expert will be able to propose a methodology using various types of working methods. The proposed methodology will be agreed upon with the project management team based upon a well-structured rationale.

EVALUATION DURATION

The evaluation is expected to start in mid-March 2020 for an estimated duration of 20 working days. This will include desk reviews, field work - interviews, and report writing.

• Detailed provision of monitoring and progress controls, including reporting requirements, frequency, format and deadlines;

Evaluation Consultant will work in close collaboration with the Project Team and will get any assistance required to implement the functions under the contract.

Evaluation Consultant will ensure the detailed monitoring and progress controls, including reporting requirements, frequency, format and deadlines.

• Deliverables, timing and proposed payment terms

      h)  Approval Process

The authorization for each respective payment will be made by Project Manager after the acceptance of each deliverable.

• Objective of the assignment

EVALUATION GOAL

The overall goal of the project’s final evaluation is to assess the processes and achievements made to draw lessons that will inform the development of long-term change actions. The evaluation is intended to be forward looking which will capture effectively lessons learned and provide information on the nature, extent and where possible, the effect of project activities. The emphasis on learning lessons speaks to the issue of understanding what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning.

EVALUATION SCOPE AND FOCUS          

The evaluation will look into the following areas: project management; project activities; reflection of grant support to the civil society organizations in view of their capacities and future engagement in UNDP development actions, government-civil society partnership and other relevant issues addressed through the project. It will address the results achieved, the partnerships established, as well as issues of capacity and approach.

The following key questions will guide the project’s final evaluation:

1. Relevance:  Assess the extent to which the project objectives were consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and priorities: 

• To what extent did the Project achieve its overall goal and objectives?
• What and how much progress has been made towards achieving the outputs and outcomes of the project?
• To what extent were the results (impacts, outcomes and outputs) achieved?
• Were the inputs and strategies identified, and were they realistic, appropriate and adequate to achieve the results?
• Was the project relevant to the identified needs?

1. Effectiveness: Gauge the extent to which the targeted project objectives were achieved (or are expected to be achieved) by describing the management processes and their appropriateness in supporting delivery:

• Was the project effective in delivering the desired/planned results?
• To what extent did the project’s M&E mechanism contribute to meeting the project results?
• How effective were the strategies and tools used in the implementation of the project?
• How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, and what results were achieved?
• What are the future intervention strategies and issues?

1. Efficiency:  Understand how economically resources/inputs were converted into results:

• Was the process of achieving results efficient?
• Did the actual or expected results (outputs and outcomes) justify the costs incurred?
• Were the resources effectively utilized?
• Did the project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors)?
• Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?
• Could a different approach have produced better results?
• How efficient were the management and accountability structures of the project?
• How did the project financial management processes and procedures affect project implementation?
• What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project’s implementation process?

1. Sustainability: Assess the extent to which the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained after the completion of this project:

• What is the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of project outcomes and benefits after completion of the project?
• How effective were the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints?
• Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of the project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach.
• How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational level (including contributing factors and constraints)?
• Describe the main lessons that have emerged?
• What are the recommendations for similar support in future? *

*Note: The recommendations should provide comprehensive proposals for future interventions based on the current evaluation findings).

The evaluator is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach ensuring close engagement with the UNDP Country Office, European Union Delegation, partner CSOs, project team and other key stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement should include the key informant interviews with the key experts and consultants in the subject area, project team, partners and beneficiaries, etc.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will provide quantitative and qualitative data through the following methods:

• Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, project progress reports, annual project reports, reports of the project board;
• In depth interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology;
• Focus Group discussion with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders;
• Interviews with relevant key informants;
• Observations (field visits using checklist);

The expert will be able to propose a methodology using various types of working methods. The proposed methodology will be agreed upon with the project management team based upon a well-structured rationale.

EVALUATION DURATION

The evaluation is expected to start in mid-March 2020 for an estimated duration of 20 working days. This will include desk reviews, field work - interviews, and report writing.

• Detailed provision of monitoring and progress controls, including reporting requirements, frequency, format and deadlines;

Evaluation Consultant will work in close collaboration with the Project Team and will get any assistance required to implement the functions under the contract.

Evaluation Consultant will ensure the detailed monitoring and progress controls, including reporting requirements, frequency, format and deadlines.

• Deliverables, timing and proposed payment terms

      h)  Approval Process

The authorization for each respective payment will be made by Project Manager after the acceptance of each deliverable.

One independent evaluator will perform the evaluation. The evaluator should have prior experience in reviewing or evaluating similar projects. Experience with UNDP/EU financed projects is an advantage. The consultants have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) cannot apply for this consultancy and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities. 

The selection of consultants will be aimed at maximizing the overall qualities in the following areas:

• Minimum Master’s Degree in Public Policy, Public Administration, International Development, Development Economics/Planning, Economics, International Relations or other relevant university degrees;
• Experience and knowledge on aid effectiveness, Sustainable Development Goals, gender equality and empowerment, civil society or other relevant fields in the former Soviet Union region;
• At least 10 years of experience in working with international organizations and donors;
• Extensive knowledge and significant experience in programme/project evaluation and proven accomplishments in undertaking evaluations for international organizations, strong knowledge of United Nations development agenda, the civil society and working with government authorities;
• Approach to the work.

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

1. Cover Letter

(i) Explaining why they are the most suitable for the work;

(ii) Providing a brief methodology on how they will approach and conduct the work;

2. Offeror’s letter to UNDP confirming interest and availability for the Individual Contractor (IC) Assignment, including the Breakdown of Costs Supporting the Final All-Inclusive Price as per Template;

3. CV or duly filled out and signed P11 form with names and contacts of at least 2 referees.

The applicants may download the above forms from the following link:  https://www.az.undp.org/content/azerbaijan/en/home/procurement.html

As the system accepts only one attachment, the applicants are required upload all the 3 documents above to the system as a one pdf file attachment.

If any of the above-mentioned documents is missing UNDP holds the right to reject the respective proposal altogether.

• Lump sum contracts

Financial proposal should be done as a lump sum in consideration of supposed travels (including consultancy fee, accommodation, ticket and DSA.

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodologies:

• Cumulative evaluation that takes into account both financial offer and the technical expertise of the potential candidates

A two-stage procedure will be utilized in evaluating the proposals, with evaluation of the technical component being completed prior to any price component being reviewed and compared.  The Price Component will be reviewed only for those individuals whose Technical Component meets the requirements for the assignment.  The total number of points which individual may obtain for both components is 100.

                                      A total possible value of the technical component is 70 points.

If the substantive presentation of a technical proposal achieves the minimum of 49 points, the competitiveness of the offered consultancy expenses will be taken into account in the following manner:               

The total amount of points for the fees component is 30. The maximum number of points shall be allotted to the lowest fees proposed that is compared among those invited individuals which obtain the threshold points in the evaluation of the technical proposal. All other proposals shall receive points in inverse proportion to the lowest fees; e.g.;

                        [30 Points] x [US$ lowest]/ [US$ other] = points for other proposer’s fees

• Minimum Master’s Degree in Public Policy, Public Administration, International Development, Development Economics/Planning, Economics, International Relations or other relevant university degrees; -10 Points
• Experience and knowledge on aid effectiveness, Sustainable Development Goals, gender equality and empowerment, civil society or other relevant fields in the former Soviet Union region; -15 Points
• At least 10 years of experience in working with international organizations and donors; 15 Points
• Extensive knowledge and significant experience in programme/project evaluation and proven accomplishments in undertaking evaluations for international organizations, strong knowledge of United Nations development agenda, the civil society and working with government authorities; 15 Points
• Approach to the work – 15 Points

The minimum threshold for technical part of the offers is 49 point.