IC/005/20 - National Consultant/Evaluator on conduction MTR evaluation of the Rural Housing project in Uzbekistan

Location : Tashkent, UZBEKISTAN
Application Deadline :01-Jun-20 (Midnight New York, USA)
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :National Consultant
Languages Required :
English   Russian  
Starting Date :
(date when the selected candidate is expected to start)
Duration of Initial Contract :30 working days
Expected Duration of Assignment :during the period from June till September 2020

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.


The objective of UNDP/GEF and the Ministry of Construction of the Republic of Uzbekistan project “Market Transformation for Sustainable Rural Housing in Uzbekistan” is to support the Government of Uzbekistan in provision of rural population in the country with improved, affordable and environmentally friendly living conditions. The project design builds directly on previous and ongoing experience with sustainable, low-carbon and climate-resilient local development in Uzbekistan. Specifically, the project aims at lowering the energy intensity trajectory of Uzbekistan by promoting the construction of new energy-efficient and low-carbon rural housing.

The project consists of four inter-linked outcomes. The first outcome is the establishment of the green mortgage scheme to incentivize and eventually scale-up the demand for low-carbon housing. This outcome will be supported and enabled by three complementary outcomes related to strengthening domestic supply chain and capacities for construction of low-carbon housing (Outcome 2), introducing policies and regulations for low-carbon housing and settlements (Outcome 3) and raising public awareness about benefits and advantages of low-carbon housing (Outcome 4).

The Project is planned for six years (April 2017 – April 2023), and its planned budget amounts to $136,665,099, including $6,300,000 (GEF and UNDP) and $130,365,099 co-financing. It covers pilot sites in all regions of Uzbekistan. Project stakeholders include the Ministry of Construction as the national partner implementing agency, other relevant government agencies, regional and local administrations, self-governments, banking sector, academia and NGOs, private sector and rural homebuyers and homeowners, multilateral international organizations.

Under the overall supervision of the Leader of Sustainable Development Cluster, the National Consultant will be responsible for conducting the Midterm Review (MTR) of the UNDP-GEF project “Market Transformation for Sustainable Rural Housing in Uzbekistan” (PIMS 5392) jointly implemented by the UNDP and Ministry of Construction of Uzbekistan. MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects (http://gef.undp.org/uploads/H-Jk1_dCXqGqaPG4BlccvA/Guidance_for_Conducting_Midterm_Reviews_of_UNDP-Supported_GEF-Financed_Projects_Final_June_2014.pdf), and shall be conducted through fulfilling the following tasks.

Duties and Responsibilities

Activity 1: Objective of the Mid-Term Review

  • The MTR will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as Identification of the program scale: number of target houses to be built, projections, budget;
  • specified in the Project Document and assess early signs of project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to set the project on-track to achieve its intended results. The MTR will also review the project’s strategy, its risks to sustainability.

Activity 2: MTR Approach & Methodology

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The MTR team will review all relevant sources of information including documents prepared during the preparation phase (i.e. PIF, UNDP Initiation Plan, UNDP Environmental & Social Safeguard Policy, the Project Document, project reports including Annual Project Review/PIRs, project budget revisions, lesson learned reports, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the team considers useful for this evidence-based review). The MTR team will review the baseline GEF focal area Tracking Tool submitted to the GEF at CEO endorsement, and the midterm GEF focal area Tracking Tool that must be completed before the MTR field mission begins.?

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach[1] ensuring close engagement with the Project Team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point), the UNDP Country Office(s), UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisers, and other key stakeholders.

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR.[2] Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to the executing agencies, senior officials and project team/component leaders, key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board, project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. (Ministry of Construction, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economy, State Committee for Land, Geodesy, Cartography and State Cadastre, Centre of Hydro-meteorological Service under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, State Committee for Ecology and Environment Protection, Chamber of Commerce and Industries of Uzbekistan, central and local authorities in rural regions, self-government bodies such as makhallas and village councils, and local communities). Additionally, the MTR team is expected to conduct field missions (subject to COVID lockdown restrictions for travels to regions lifted) to the 2 project pilot regions of Bukhara and Samarkand, including the following project sites: low-carbon massifs of affordable rural housing in each pilot region.

The final MTR report should describe the full MTR approach taken and the rationale for the approach making explicit the underlying assumptions, challenges, strengths and weaknesses about the methods and approach of the review.

Activity 3: Detailed Scope of the MTR

The MTR team will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

i. Project Strategy

Project design:

  • Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.
  • Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.? Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
  • Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.
  • If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

  • Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary.
  • Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its timeframe?
  • Examine if progress so far has led to or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.
  • Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively. Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

ii. Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

  • Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

Table. Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

Project Strategy


Baseline Level[4]

Level in 1st PIR (self- reported)

Mid-term Target[5]

End-of-project Target

Mid-term Level & Assessment[6]

Achievement Rating[7]

Justification for Rating



Indicator (if applicable):








Outcome 1:

Indicator 1:








Indicator 2:






Outcome 2:

Indicator 3:








Indicator 4:





















Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

[1] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[1] Populate with data from the Project Document

[1] If available

[1] Colour code this column only

[1] Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
  • Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
  • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

iii. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

  • Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document. Have changes been made and are they effective?? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?? Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for improvement.
  • Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.
  • Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

  • Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.
  • Are work-planning processes results-based?? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
  • Examine the use of the project’s results framework/logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.?

Finance and co-finance:

  • Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions.?
  • Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.
  • Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
  • Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

  • Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems?? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
  • Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

  • Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
  • Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?? Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
  • Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?


  • Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.
  • Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)
  • Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.


  • Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
  • Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)
  • For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

iv. Sustainability

  • Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
  • In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

  • What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

  • Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long-term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

  • Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

  • Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR team will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings. 8

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant. A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

The MTR team should make no more than 15 recommendations total.


The MTR team will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. No rating on Project Strategy and no overall project rating is required.

Table. MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for the UNDP-GEF full-sized project titled “Market Transformation for Sustainable Rural Housing in Uzbekistan”? d


MTR Rating

Achievement Description

Project Strategy



Progress Towards Results

Objective Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)


Outcome 1 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)


Outcome 2 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)


Outcome 3 Achievement Rating: (rate 6 pt. scale)




Project Implementation & Adaptive Management

(rate 6 pt. scale)



(rate 4 pt. scale)






















[1] For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013.

[2] For more stakeholder engagement in the M&E process, see the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 3, pg. 93.

[3] Populate with data from the Logframe and scorecards

[4] Populate with data from the Project Document

[5] If available

[6] Colour code this column only

[7] Use the 6 point Progress Towards Results Rating Scale: HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU


  • Strong organizational skills, ability to interact productively in a teamwork environment;
  • Timely delivery of good-quality products;
  • Excellent analytical, writing, presentation and communication skills, result and client oriented, capable of team working;
  • Ability to perform under tight deadlines and timely task performance, ethics and honesty;
  • Ability to use information and communication technology as a tool and resource.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:A Master’s degree in energy, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy economics and financing, natural resources sustainable management or other closely related field

Years of Experience:

  • Work experience in the relevant areas for at least 5 years;
  • Sound knowledge of green economy/energy financing and economics;
  • Experience applying RBM and SMART indicators for analysis/researches;
  • Sound knowledge of climate change mitigation related to development project/programs;
  • Experience working in the Central Asia region;
  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender and climate change mitigation;
  • Previous experience working for international development organizations will be considered an asset.

Application Process:

Interested candidates need to apply online and upload requested documents (Technical Proposal/MethodologyCV/P11 form, Offeror’s Letter of confirmation and Financial Proposal) in Part 6 of Procurement Notice no later than end of June 1, 2020?(New York time).

You can review detailed Procurement Notice, Terms of Reference and download templates (requested documents) from the UNDP Procurement Notices Site following the link: https://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=66096

To submit your application online, please follow the steps below:

• Download and complete the UN Personal History Form (P11) or fill your CV and Offeror’s Letter of confirmation and Financial Proposal. Prepare your Technical Proposal/Methodology.

• Merge your Technical Proposal/Methodology, CV/P11 form, Offeror’s Letter of confirmation and Financial Proposal and other relevant documents into one (1) single PDF document as the system only allows to upload maximum one document..

• Click “Apply Now” button, fill in necessary information on the first page, and click “Submit Application”.

• Upload your application/documents (merged into single file). Your on-line applications submission will be acknowledged to your email address provided in application. If you do not receive an e-mail acknowledgement within 24 hours of submission, your application may not have been received. In such cases, please resubmit the application, if necessary.

Application submitted via email, incomplete applications or received after the closing date (June 1, 2020) will not be given consideration.

For more detailed information about UNDP Uzbekistan please visit our website at: www.uz.undp.org. UNDP is an equal opportunity employer. Qualified female candidates, people with disabilities, and minorities are highly encouraged to apply. UNDP Balance in Manage Policy promotes achievement of gender balance among its staff at all levels.

Requests for clarification must be sent in writing to pu.uz@undp.org,ensuring that the reference number above is included in the subject line. UNDP shall endeavor to provide such responses to clarifications in an expeditious manner, but any delay in such response shall not cause an obligation on the part of UNDP to extend the submission date of the Proposals, unless UNDP deems that such an extension is justified and necessary.

If you are experiencing difficulties with online job applications, please contact the eRecruit Helpdesk.

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme