In accordance with UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, all full and medium-sized UNDP support GEF financed projects are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation. These terms of reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for a Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Market Transformation and Removal of Barriers for Effective Implementation of the State Level Climate Change Action Plans (PIMS #4606). 

The essentials of the project to be evaluated are as follows:   

Project Summary Table

Project Title:

Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the Market Transformation and Removal of Barriers for Effective Implementation of the State-Level Climate Change Action Plans

GEF Project ID:



at endorsement (US$)

at completion (US$)

UNDP Project ID:


GEF financing:





IA/EA own:








Focal Area:

Climate Change


5,242,300 – Jharkhand

6,668,955 – Manipur


FA Objectives, (OP/SP):


Total co-financing:



Executing Agency:

Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MOEFCC)

Total Project Cost:



Other Partners involved:


ProDoc Signature (date project began):

20th January 2016

(Operational) Closing Date:


31st Dec 2019


30th March 2021




Duties and Responsibilities

The goal of India SAPCC project is the reduction of GHG emissions achieved through implementation of RE and EE solutions at state level as identified in the State Action Plan on Climate Change of Jharkhand and Manipur states. This is to be achieved by removal of the key barriers that prevent effective implementation of SAPCC, with focus on RE and EE actions. The project was approved during GEF 5 programming cycle with a total budget of USD 3,744,500. The implementing partner of the projects is Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MOEFCC).

The TE will be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures established by UNDP and GEF as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Guidance for GEF Financed Projects.

The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming.

Evaluation Criteria & Ratings

An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework, which provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The evaluation
will at a minimum cover the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.
Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria. The completed table must be included in the evaluation executive summary.   The obligatory rating scales are included in  Annex D.


Evaluation Ratings:

1. Monitoring and Evaluation


2. IA& EA Execution


M&E design at entry


Quality of UNDP Implementation


M&E Plan Implementation


Quality of Execution - Executing Agency


Overall quality of M&E


Overall quality of Implementation / Execution


3. Assessment of Outcomes


4. Sustainability




Financial resources:








Institutional framework and governance:


Overall Project Outcome Rating


Environmental :




Overall likelihood of sustainability:



Project Finance / Co-Finance

The Evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including annual expenditures.  Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained.  Results from recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The evaluator(s) will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report. 



UNDP own financing (mill. US$)


(mill. US$)

Partner Agency

(mill. US$)


(mill. US$)



























  • In-kind support









  • Other




















Evaluation Approach and Method

An overall approach and method[1] for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP supported GEF financed projects has developed over time. The evaluator is expected to frame the evaluation effort using the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, as defined and explained in the UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed Projects. A set of questions covering each of these criteria have been drafted and are included with this TOR in Annex C. The evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix as part of an evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report. 

Considering the COVID outbreak evaluation will take place through virtual interviews.


Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum:

  1. Joint Secretory, MoEFCC
  2. Director, MoEFCC
  3. Director/ Project Director of Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency
  4. PCCF/APCCF Forest Department, Jharkhand
  5. Director of Manipur Renewable Energy Development Agency
  6. Director,  Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Manipur

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports including Annual APR/PIR and other Reports, project budget revisions, midterm review, progress reports, GEF focal area tracking tools, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other material that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in TOR Annex B of this Terms of Reference.

Methodological approaches may include the following:

  • Evaluation should employ a combination of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments.
  • Document review of all relevant documentation. This would include a review of inter alia
    • Project document (contribution agreement).
    • Theory of change and results framework.
    • Programme and project quality assurance reports.
    • Annual workplans.
    • Activity designs.
    • Consolidated quarterly and annual reports.
    • Results-oriented monitoring report.
    • Highlights of project board meetings. 
    • Technical/financial monitoring reports.
  • Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, UNCT members and implementing partners:
    • Development of evaluation questions around relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and designed for different stakeholders to be interviewed.
    • Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries and stakeholders.
    • All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.
  • Surveys and questionnaires including participants in development programmes, UNCT members and/or surveys and questionnaires involving other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.
  • Virtual meetings for on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
  • The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.
  • Other methods such as outcome mapping, observational visits, group discussions, etc.
  • Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods.

Ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use; the evaluation team will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.


[1] For additional information on methods, see the Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 7, pg. 163

Evaluation Products (Deliverables)


These products could include:


  • Evaluation inception report (10-15 pages). The inception report should be carried out following and based on preliminary discussions with UNDP after the desk review, and should be produced before the evaluation starts (before any formal evaluation interviews, survey distribution or field visits) and prior to the country visit in the case of international evaluators.
  • Evaluation debriefings. Immediately following an evaluation, UNDP may ask for a preliminary debriefing and findings.
  • Draft evaluation report (within an agreed length).[1] The programme unit and key stakeholders in the evaluation should review the draft evaluation report and provide an amalgamated set of comments to the evaluator within an agreed period of time, addressing the content required (as agreed in the TOR and inception report) and quality criteria as outlined in these guidelines.
  • Evaluation report audit trail. Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be retained by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments.
  • Final evaluation report.
  • Presentations to stakeholders and/or the evaluation reference group (if requested in the TOR).
  • Evaluation brief and other knowledge products or participation in knowledge-sharing events, if relevant.

[1] A length of 40 to 60 pages including executive summary is suggested.


Evaluation Ethics

“This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners.”

Implementation Arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in India. Due to COVID pandemic evaluation is proposed to be carried out through virtual meetings.

Time frame and payement schedule for the evaluation process

The total duration of the evaluation will be 14 days according to the following plan:

The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:







Inception Report

Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method

No later than 2 weeks

before the evaluation


Evaluator submits to UNDP




Initial Findings

End of evaluation mission

To project management,



Draft Final Report

Full report, (per annexed

template) with annexes

Within 3 weeks of the

evaluation mission

Sent to CO, reviewed by



Final Report*

Revised report

Within 1 week of receiving

UNDP comments on draft

Sent to CO for uploading to




*When submitting the final evaluation report, the evaluator is required also to provide an 'audit trail', detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final evaluation report.


Number of working days

Completion Date


04 days (recommended: 2-4)


Evaluation Mission (Virtual)

5 days (r: 7-15)


Draft Evaluation Report

5 days (r: 5-10)


Final Report

2  days (r: 1-2)










Required Skills and Experience

Evaluation Team Composition and required Competencies

The evaluation team will be composed of one international and one national evaluator.  The consultants shall have prior experience in evaluating similar projects.  Experience with GEF financed projects is an advantage. International evaluator will be designated as the team leader and will be responsible for finalizing the report. The evaluators selected should not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have conflict of interest with project related activities.

Note: For the National consultant position a separate procurement notice is advertised. 

The selection of Consultant will be aimed at maximizing the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Educational Qualification & Experience:


S. No.

Technical Criteria

Marking (70)


Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience with post graduate degree in engineering/ environment/ management or related filed domain

10 Marks


Previous experience of carrying out mid-term review/ terminal evaluation of GEF projects:

5 marks for each experience maximum up to 20 marks

20 Marks


Previous experience with results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies.

20 Marks


Proven technical knowledge of solar PV system, rural livelihood and climate change and mitigation activities

20 Marks

Application submission process and criteria for selection

Individual consultants are invited to submit applications together with their CV for these positions.
The application should contain a current and complete C.V. in English with indication of the e-mail and phone contact. Only shortlisted candidates will be requested to submit a price offer indicating the total cost of the assignment.

UNDP applies a fair and transparent selection process that will take into account the competencies/ skills of the applicants as well as their financial proposals. Qualified women and members of social minorities are encouraged to apply.

Technically qualified consultants will be requested to submit their daily fee rate i.e. consultants who score more than 70% i.e. 49 marks with respect to the above-mentioned evaluation criteria. Consultant should not specify their consultancy fee on their CV or with the submission. The CV will not be evaluated further in case the consultant submits the same.

The Consultant is required to submit the following documents, in a single combined PDF file, as the system has provision for uploading only one attachment:

-        Personal CV and a Personal History Form (P11 form) with relevant experience to the TOR; and at least 3 professional references 

-        Short technical proposal (max 2-pages) including methodology, approach & assessment criteria, process followed, data collection and analytical tools.

-        No Financials (Daily Fee) to be submitted at this stage.

Important Note: Please ensure that all the documents to be uploaded should be combined in a single PDF file before uploading as the system has provision of uploading only one document

The following documents can be accessed by clicking the link:

General Conditions for Individual Contract- /docs/procurement/UNDP%20General%20Conditions%20for%20Individual%20Contracts.pdf

Engagement of the consultants should be done in line with guidelines for hiring consultants in the POPP: 

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposal:  Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated.  Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.  The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

Annexures A to G can be accessed through the link below: