International Expert to conduct the Final Project Evaluation

Location : Home based
Application Deadline :21-Mar-21 (Midnight New York, USA)
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :International Consultant
Languages Required :
Expected Duration of Assignment :44 working days (March – June 2021)

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 Western Balkan region is characterized by a divisive and polarizing rhetorical landscape and continues to witness a youth “brain drain”. Those young people that remain continue to experience the legacies of the past, living in segregated ethnic majority areas, and often in segregated schools, with no direct memory of joint peaceful coexistence. Many young people have not traveled within the region, and others have not visited their own major cities. Some see youth, with the inter-generational transfer of traumas and constructed nationalistic narratives, more hardened in their identity and their views of the ‘other.’[1] Young people have little exposure to positive interaction and dialogue with people of different backgrounds, and are impacted by divisive narratives and stereotypes passed on from one generation to another, and in the media.

At the same time, there is a plethora of young activists and peacebuilders in the region who work for creating more peaceful, just and inclusive societies. These young people are reaching out to their peers and building live or virtual relationships across ethnic lines. However, they are not immune to divisive narratives and hate speech, which tends to be pervasive offline and in online platforms. Moreover, lacking sufficient representation, young people’s voices in public discussions and decision-making are not heard enough. As such, youth trying to be and work towards positive change did and are in need of support.    

There have been good opportunities though, to work and support youth activism in the region, in peacebuilding, reconciliation and social cohesion processes. Emerging from the Berlin Process, a political dialogue supported by several EU Member States and the WB6, the Regional Youth Cooperation Office (RYCO) was established in 2016. RYCO, is an independently functioning institutional mechanism, founded by the Western Balkans 6 participants (WB 6): Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia, aiming to promote the spirit of reconciliation and cooperation between the youth in the region through youth exchange programs. The Agreement on establishment of RYCO was signed by the WB 6 Prime Ministers on WB Summit held in Paris, on 4 July 2016. RYCO as an unique institution in the Western Balkan region,  is endorsed by governments, CSOs and youth representatives (who also sit on its Governing Board) in WB region and promotes diversity and democratic values, fostering reconciliation and remembrance and intercultural mobility, through supporting and funding projects which bring youth of the region together. The institution has its Head Office (HO) in Albania and through its six Local Branch Offices (LBOs), has a presence in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia.

In this context, with the UNPBF financial support amounting of USD 2,999,745, the UN-joint project ”Supporting the Western Balkan's collective leadership on reconciliation: building capacity and momentum for Regional Youth, Cooperation Office-RYCO” was implemented by three UN agencies (UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA), having UNDP acting as the lead of this initiative and RYCO acting as the implementing partner. The project is managed by the UN agencies in Albania, while it has a regional character. Due to the partnership with RYCO as well as the cooperation with UN agencies in the WB6 region, the project is implemented in the WB6 region, including - Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. The project commenced in 7th November 2018 and will be closed on 7th May 2021.

The project aims to improve the Social Cohesion and Reconciliation across the Western Balkan, as measured by increasing embracing of diversity, attitudes of tolerance and reduced prejudice and discrimination by youth is enhanced. To achieve this goal, the project  is supporting RYCO to work in partnership with civil society, education systems and schools, grassroots organizations, youth institutions and youth in general for the consolidation of RYCO as a regionally owned mechanism with the capacity to promote reconciliation, mobility, diversity, democratic values, participation, active citizenship and intercultural learning. The project supports RYCO as a new institution operating in a volatile environment, to:

  • strengthen its institutional capacities not only to sustain as a structure, but also to support it in achieving its mission;
  • upgrade and strengthen its grant facility system, which is one of the main tools employed by RYCO office to achieve its mission, through financial support to regional projects and initiatives; and
  • equipping RYCO with the necessary tools, mechanisms and data set, in order to be able to plan and work in the long run, with its targeted youth groups, schools and CSOs in the region.

The project has targeted youth[2], youth organizations and schools in WB6, as well as RYCO, and is implementing diverse activities along three main outputs:

Output 1: Capacities of schools to access and use RYCOs resources to undertake intercultural dialogue in the WB6 will be strengthened. The project contributes towards enhancing the regional cooperation among youth institutions (mainly schools) and increase the introduction and use of topics on intercultural learning such as peace building and conflict resolution. The project enables sharing the best practices on inclusive education and peacebuilding transformative pedagogies, facilitates school exchanges and increase the capacities of schools to embrace the above principles.

Output 2: Capacities of youth groups and grassroots organizations to access and use RYCOs resources to engage in peacebuilding and social cohesion activities in the WB6 will be strengthened. RYCO is supported to increase its reach out to grassroots organizations and youth in the region, and to ensure that young people with fewest opportunities have access and participate in reconciliation processes and benefit from opportunities provided by RYCO. Empowerment of young girls are having a special focus in the activities under this component.  The project is enhancing the important role that young women should adopt in the peacebuilding process including empowering young girls to equally participate in peace building and become decision makers and actors in all areas. The project activities also sensitize young male actors in accepting girls as equal partners in peacekeeping and peacebuilding processes. Mainstreaming gender in trainings conducted by the project have included among other topics, codes of conduct and response to gender-based violence. Promoting tolerance and understanding within and out of marginalized groups through communication channels are helping to address the conflict-related issues that these groups face as a result of the tensions in society, which add up to their unfavorable discriminatory situation. It is also contributing to increasing tolerance towards groups/ethnicities seen as different further away, and thereby, contribute to peace and reconciliation.

Output 3: RYCOs capacities to enhance sustainable regional cooperation, peacebuilding and reconciliation amongst youth, through its small grants’ facility will be strengthened. Being a new institution and operating in a volatile environment, RYCO is being supported to strengthen its internal capacities and systems and be enabled to achieve its mission. Considering that one of RYCO’s main tools to achieve its mission is through financial support to regional projects and initiatives, its grant facility system is being upgraded and strengthened through a tailor-made approach. RYCO is being equipped with effective tools to Monitoring and Evaluation, making it possible for it to measure the impact of its interventions. Finally, RYCO is being supported with an increase of human resources, especially in view of its Monitoring and Evaluation of activities designed to achieve its mission in the WB6 region.

Output 4: Opportunities for youth from diverse backgrounds to identify common peace and security priorities and enter in constructive dialogue with their peers across divides will be created, confidence in and dialogue with decision-makers will be enhanced, and youth capacities to become actors for change will be strengthened. Under this heading, the project is conducting a youth-led action research and is making available regionally comparable, youth-focused conflict analysis and evidence base on youth perceptions on sustaining peace. The project is providing trainings for youth on peacebuilding, leadership and advocacy and national and regional policy consultations. Moreover, RYCO, PBF projects and other peacebuilding actors’ evidence-base to engage young women and young men from diverse backgrounds to advocate for peace and social cohesion and participate in policy dialogues are aimed to be enhanced. 

[1] Youth Study Southeast Europe 2018/2019, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

* For the UN, all references to Kosovo shall be understood in the context of Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).?

For RYCO, this designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with Security Council Resolution 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

[2] Defined for the purposes of this intervention within the scope of adolescents (14-18 y/a) and  youth (18-30 y/a), in accordance with UNICEF standards and official youth strategies of the participating countries.

Duties and Responsibilities

Purpose and Scope of the assignment

The general objective of the assignment is to conduct a final evaluation of the project outcome in terms of its Relevance, Impact, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability and Gender perspective and against the project-level theory of change.

Below are listed the key Evaluation Questions, to guide the evaluation, based on the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria. The list of questions is not exhaustive and therefore, the consultant is expected to suggest the adjustment of this list within the Inception Report. The final list of questions and the evaluation methodology will be discussed and be agreed with the UN project team and PBSO.


Evaluation criteria

Key suggested questions


  • To what extent the project was designed, to respond to the conflict analysis made at the project design phase and (if relevant) to the changing context in the WB6?
  • To what extent the project contributed to the improvement of regional issues around peacebuilding, social cohesion and reconciliation?
  • To what extent did the project respond to the emerging key needs of partners and beneficiaries, with a view to promoting peacebuilding, reconciliation and social cohesion processes in the WB6 region?
  • Did the project’s theory of change clearly articulate assumptions about why the project approach is expected to produce the desired change for the advancement of peacebuilding, reconciliation and social cohesion processes in the WB6 region?
  • Have any changes been made to the project’s design during the implementation? If yes, did they lead to significant design improvements?
  • To what extent did the pandemic affect the relevance of the project to the beneficiaries? Did the modifications made to implementation in pandemic circumstances influence the relevance of the project to the beneficiaries?


  • To what extent did the project achieve the results in its proposed timeline?
  • Have all implementing partners used human resources provisioned for this project to their maximum efficiency?
  • How well did the project collect and use data to monitor results? How timely was data collection?
  • How the covid-19 restrictions and protective measures affected the efficiency of the implementation?
  • Overall, did the project’s  management arrangements and implementation strategy provide value for money? Have resources been used efficiently?

Are there any duplication of efforts? Were coordination, management and financing arrangements clearly defined?


  • To what extent did the project achieve its intended objectives?
  • How effective was the cooperation among supporting and implementing partners?
  • What challenges arose during implementation, and how did the Project Team respond to these challenges?
  • How effective and clear the project's targeting strategy was in terms of geographic and beneficiary targeting?
  • To what extent did the project complement work with different agencies, have a strategic coherence of approach?
  • How novel or innovative was the project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform similar approaches elsewhere?
  • With the view to covid-19 circumstances, to what extent the online activities conducted to respect the social distance, were effective, versus the classical face to face ones?
  • What could be lessons learned from the implementation in the new pandemic reality?
  • What good practices or successful experiences or transferable examples have been identified?


  • To what extent the achieved results are likely to sustain over time? What are the factors that enable or impede the sustainability of the results?
  • How strong the commitment of the beneficiaries and stakeholders is to sustaining the results of the project?
  • What, if any, catalytic effects did the project have (financial and non-financial)?
  • Have the ownership of actions been transferred to the targeted project audience, including but not limited to youth engaged and RYCO grantees?
  • Do beneficiaries have the capacity to take over the results of the project, to  maintain them  and can they use the learning from the project in their future initiatives?
  • How has the project strengthened the capacity of project stakeholders to recognise and respond to adolescents/youth needs, with the focus to those hard to reach?



  • Has the initiative established and consolidated a “habit” of cooperation, providing empirical challenge to divisive narrative among youth?
  • What has been the positive and negative, intended and unintended, long-term effects of this project?
  • To what extent did the project empower youth from different communities and backgrounds to overcome divisive narratives and jointly build a shared future in the WB6 region? What were the limitations and barriers faced in this regard, especially in the pandemic circumstances? How the pandemic contributed (both positively and negatively) to achieve such aim? What could the project team learn from this experience, in order to make use of it in the future?
  • To what extent the project contributed to achieve structural, institutional and/or societal level change to beneficiaries and partners (with a special focus to RYCO as an institution)?
  • How and to what extent the presence and contribution of UN made a difference in the positioning, prestige and effectiveness of RYCO as an institution?
  • To what extent the project contributed to strengthening RYCO grant schema, especially knowing that new rules for grantees were introduced in RYCO’s second open call for proposals?
  • What could be the strengths and weaknesses of this project’s approach in relation to other similar initiatives in the WB6 region? What are the synergies created between these initiatives? What added value does the RYCO project bring/contribute to the mix of many other peacebuilding projects in the region or wider? What worked well? Was there room for improvement? What were the factors influencing the positive and challenges of implementation?  In the not-so-positive aspects of implementation, could other approaches be explored to minimise risks and boost the results?   


  • To what extent were gender considerations mainstreamed throughout the project? Was gender mainstreaming underpinned by appropriate budget allocations specific to Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GEWE)?
  • To what extent did the project support the engagement of young women and girls in peacebuilding, reconciliation and social cohesion processes in the WB6 region and contributed to address the gender disparities and inequities?
  • How has the pandemic affected or hindered the participation and contribution of young women and girls in this project in general and in providing their contribution to peacebuilding, reconciliation and social cohesion processes in the WB6 region?



The evaluation shall document the learning and positive examples and provide recommendations to enable the UN implementing agencies (UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF), the project implementing partner RYCO, the PBSO and other stakeholders to draw on positive lessons and models/examples, for future similar interventions. The evaluation will also highlight areas where the project performed less effectively than anticipated, the rationale behind that, and the related recommendations to be considered in similar future interventions.

Given the regional character of the project, the evaluation methodology shall be equally applicable across the WB6, including Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina and Serbia. The evaluation shall document learning, positive examples and provide recommendations that reflect the regional perspective of the project, but it shall consider that the learning, positive examples and challenges could also be specific for each of WB6 national contexts. Therefore, the evaluation shall provide, wherever relevant, recommendations that are specific in the national context of each WB6, alongside the general recommendations that are relevant to the regional character of the project. 

The evaluation should provide an overview of key peacebuilding recommendations that are appropriately tailored to specific actors. They should be articulated clearly so that they can be used for any future programming needs.

The evaluator, will act as the lead consultant/evaluator of the evaluation team consisting of him/her and 6 national consultants/evaluators, one from each of WB6: Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hercegovina and Serbia, that will be engaged to support him/her in all evaluation stages.

The lead evaluator will be responsible to coordinate his/her work with the team of 6 national evaluators to collect their contributions and inputs throughout the evaluation stages, while the submission of deliverables will be the responsibility of the lead evaluator.

With the support of his team of six national evaluators and in close consultation with the UN project team, PBSO and RYCO, the lead evaluator will be responsible to:

  • Develop the methodological approach of the evaluation and the workplan including realistic timelines. S/he shall refine the evaluation methodology, evaluation questions and questionaries for different interviews, based in the indicative list of questions listed above;
  • Collect the input of 6 national consultants and deliver to the Project Coordinator/UN project team, the inception report. The inception report shall be reviewed, commented and approved by UN project team and PBSO before starting with collection of information from stakeholders; 
  • Coordinate the work of the six national consultants in collecting the information, from project stakeholders and beneficiaries across the WB region, which include but are not limited to the:
  • UN implementing agencies in Albania, in WB region and regional offices of UNDP and UNFPA,
  • RYCO project staff in HO and in LBOs,
  • Representatives of WB6 high schools benefiting from this project,
  • CSOs and youth groups engaged from UNDP and UNFPA in the project activities,
  • A sample of RYCO’ grant beneficiaries (GB) in each of the WB territories. The consultant will be provided with the list of RYCO’ GBs in order to select a representative sample for each of the WB territories;

Key stakeholders, those involved in the implementation, project beneficiaries should be involved in the evaluation process.

  • In cooperation with the national evaluators, analyze the information collected. These analyses must be conducted for each output and for the overall project;
  • Develop the preliminary findings and present them to PBSO, UN project team and RYCO to receive their feedback;
  • Prepare and submit the draft report and the final report, by coordinating with the national evaluators to collect their inputs. The responsibility for the submission of draft and final reports remain with the lead evaluator.

In addition, the lead evaluator and his team, shall also consider the below points:

  • The responses to the indicative questions listed above should be followed by specific short- and long-term recommendations in the draft and final evaluation report;Recommendations shall take into account that not only implementation was affected by the pandemic, but also the fact that pandemic may be an influencing factor in the forthcoming 1-2 years, when other similar initiatives might be implemented;
  • adopt and employ the appropriate tools and practices, in order to overcome limitations for primary data collection within a COVID-19 context;
  • The principle of do-no-harm to the actors and beneficiaries involved in evaluation shall be considered, especially in the COVID-19 context.

The consultant will work under the direct supervision of the Project Coordinator, in close consultation with the PBF, UN project team and project implementing partner, RYCO. The UN project team will provide administrative and logistical support as needed.

Methodology and Approach

The evaluation shall include the following stages:

Conducting the Desk Review Phase; - Conduct a comprehensive desk review of relevant project-related documents. A file with all documents relevant for the desk review will be provided upon signature of the contract.

Conceptualise the methodological approach of the evaluation: - The consultant may employ any relevant and appropriate quantitative or qualitative methods he/she deems appropriate to conduct the project final evaluation. Methods should include desk review of documents; interviews with stakeholders, partners, and beneficiaries; (virtual) field visits; use of questionnaires or surveys, etc. However, a combination of primary and secondary, as well as qualitative and quantitative data should be used. The International Consultant is expected to develop the methodological approach with inputs from national consultants/evaluators and revise it in consultation with key stakeholders as necessary.

Draft and submit the inception report with the input of national evaluators. The inception report shall include the list of interview questions and interviewees to be conducted. It also shall include:

  • Overall approach and methodology
  • Key lines of inquiry and interview protocol
  • Data collection tools and mechanisms
  • Proposed list of interviewees
  • A work plan and timelines to be agreed with the UN project team.

The Inception Report should be conflict-sensitive and include a list of key risks, limitations and risk management strategies for the evaluation, particularly under the constraints presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The inception report should make clear how it will reach project beneficiaries and involved actors in the WB6 region.

The lead expert and his/her team are expected to receive feedback and clearance from UN project team (UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF) and PBSO. RYCO will also be consulted, before UN team will clear the list of questions and interviews. Coordination with RYCO will be cared by UNDP.

Data collection phase shall commence after the inception report is approved by the UN project team and PBF.

Provide support to his team of six national evaluators and coordinate with them for the conduction of the Field Visits in each WB6  (virtual format); - a detailed list of stakeholders and their contacts will be provided to lead evaluator upon signature of the contract. In consultation with his/her team of national evaluators, the schedule for interviews shall be prepared and submitted to UN project team. UN project team will support with the relevant contacts and, wherever necessary will facilitate the organisation of meetings and interviews. The list of stakeholders includes, but is not limited to, the UN project team, PBSO representatives, RYCO team, representatives of youth networks involved in the project, representatives of RYCO grant beneficiaries, representatives of WB6 schools’ beneficiary in this project.  During this stage, and if in need for additional information, the consultant is expected to provide recommendations, in order to extend the list of stakeholders, with whom s/he and his/her team will need to meet, during the data collection phase. The lead expert is expected to participate in those meetings and interviews which will be run in English, while national evaluators are expected to run the meetings and interviews in local language, whenever stakeholders are not proficient in English language. National evaluators will feed the lead evaluator afterwards, with information from the meetings/interviews which will be run in local language, following the form and template agreed with the lead evaluator.

Once the field visits are completed, the lead evaluator, with inputs from his/her team of national evaluators, will develop and present the preliminary findings of the evaluation to UN project team, PBSO and RYCO.

1st Draft Report; - Develop a first draft evaluation report, including input/contribution from his/her team of national evaluators, and submit it to the Project Coordinator, UN project team, and PBSO for feedback. The draft evaluation report must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

  • Title and opening pages;
  • Table of contents;
  • List of acronyms and abbreviations;
  • Executive summary;
  • Introduction;
  • Description of the intervention;
  • Evaluation scope and objectives;
  • Evaluation methodology;
  • Data analysis;
  • Findings and conclusions;
  • Recommendations;
  • Report annexes.

Final report - Based on the draft report and the comments provided by UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF, PBF and RYCO, the evaluator will produce the final report, including input/contribution from his/her team of national evaluators,. The final report provides the complete content of the report as per the main outline proposed above. The final report must be approved by both the Project Coordinator (in consultation with UN project team) and the PBF.

Considering COVID-19 pandemic challenges and constraints, especially when field missions are restricted, the lead evaluator and his/her team of national evaluators are  expected to utilise remote data collection methods and ensure that a robust and utilization-focused methodology is implemented.

The suggested methodology should be compatible with the OECD DAC evaluation criteria and UNDG Guidance.

The final evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The International Consultant must address any critical issues in the design and implementation of the evaluation, including evaluation ethics and procedures to safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers; for example: measures to ensure compliance with legal codes governing areas such as provisions to collect and report data, particularly permissions needed to interview or obtain information about children and young people; provisions to store and maintain the security of collected information; and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

Deliverables and timeline

Specific tasks include the following with the timelines indicated:

  • Deliverable 1: Inception report (10 working days) – Approved by the UN project team and PBSO, the evaluation Methodology, based on the Desk Review of relevant project documents (by 30 April 2021);
  • Deliverable 2: Aide Memoire of preliminary findings/Validation exercise (16 working days) – Presentation of the preliminary findings to the UN project team and PBF, upon completion of data collection  (by 20 May 2021);
  • Deliverable 3: Draft report (14 working days) – Submission and approval by the UN project team and PBF of the 1st Draft Evaluation Report (by 15 June 2021);
  • Deliverable 4: Final report (4 working days) – Submission and approval by the UN project team and PBF of the Final Evaluation Report incorporating the feedback provided by UN project team, RYCO and PBSO (by 30 June 2021)


Corporate Competencies:

  • Demonstrates integrity by modelling 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 favouritism;
  • Fulfils all obligations to gender sensitivity and zero tolerance for sexual harassment;

Functional Competencies:

  • Strong interpersonal skills, communication and diplomatic skills, ability to work in team;
  • Strong analytical, reporting and writing abilities;
  • Strong organisational, coordination and time management skills;
  • Ability to organise tasks independently and assume responsibility;
  • Openness to change and ability to receive/integrate feedback;
  • Ability to work under pressure and tight deadlines;
  • Ability to adapt solutions and proposals to specificities of client organizations.

Required Skills and Experience


  • Master’s degree in social sciences, international development, political sciences or other related qualifications to peacebuilding.


  • At least 5 years of relevant experience in Monitoring and Evaluation of peacebuilding interventions at regional and/or international level. Experience in conducting remote evaluations is considered an asset.
  • At least 5 years of work experience with mixed research methods and participatory evaluation approaches
  • At least 5 years of experience with social cohesion, youth agenda, peacebuilding and conflict prevention work is required, preferably in the WB6 region.

Language skills:

  • Excellent oral and written proficiency in English required.
  • Knowledge of languages of the Western Balkan region is considered an asset.

Evaluation of Applicants 

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal.

The shortlist will consist of candidates whose offers have been evaluated and determined as: 

a) Responsive/compliant/acceptable, and 

b) Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical (P11 desk reviews) and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.  

Only the highest ranked candidates who would be found qualified for the job will be considered for the Financial Evaluation. Interviews with the shortlisted candidates may be considered, before taking a final decision for the candidate who will be granted the contract.

Technical Criteria - 70% of total evaluation: 

Criteria A - (At least 5 years of demonstrated relevant work experience with evaluation of peacebuilding interventions at regional and/or international level and experience in conducting remote evaluations ) – max of 10 points

Criteria B - (Experience with mixed research methods and participatory evaluation approaches) – max of 10 points

Criteria C - (Experience with social cohesion, youth agenda, peacebuilding and conflict prevention work, preferably in the WB6 region) – max of 10 points 

Criteria D – (Quality of the technical proposal, describing the methodological approach for the assignment and the understanding of the WB regional context with the view to UN Youth, Peace and Security agenda. Please include also similar examples of previous works and reference letters from previous contractors, to demonstrate the success of the similar assignments undertaken in the past) – max of 35 points

Criteria E- (Language proficiency) – max of 5 points 

Financial Criteria - 30% of total evaluation

Application Procedure

Interested applicants are advised to carefully study all sections of this ToRs and ensure that they meet the general requirements as well as specific qualifications described. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials.

The application should contain:

  • Cover letter explaining why you are the most suitable candidate for the advertised position. Please paste the letter into the "Resume and Motivation" section of the electronic application. 
  • Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability-please fill in the attached form. Download Here (kindly use FireFox Browser)
  • Filled P11 form including past experience in similar projects and contact details of referees, please upload the P11 instead of your CV. Download Here (kindly use FireFox Browser)
  • Financial Proposal in USD*- Specifying a Total Lump Sum in USD for the tasks specified in this announcement. Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant during the contract period (e.g. fee and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services). 

*Kindly note that Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability and Financial Proposal are two separate documents and should be both part of your application.

How to Submit the Application:

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

  • Download and complete the UN Personal History Form (P11) for Service Contracts (SCs) and Individual Contracts (ICs);
  • Merge your UN Personal History Form (P11) for Service Contracts (SCs) and Individual Contracts (ICs), Financial Proposal Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability and cover letter into a single file. The system does not allow for more than one attachment to be uploaded;
  • Click on the Job Title (job vacancy announcement);
  • Click “Apply Now” button, fill in necessary information on the first page, and then click “Submit Application;”
  • Upload your application/single file as indicated above with the merged documents (underlined above);
  • You will receive an automatic response to your email confirming receipt of your application by the system.

Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials 

*Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services). Travel costs to and from duty station must be included in the financial proposal.  

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner.  

Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director. Consultants are also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under 

General Terms and conditions as well as other related documents can be found under:

Due to large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process.

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.

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

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme