UNDP-GEF Midterm Review National Evaluator


Location : Home-based with travel to Kuala Lumpur, Gerik (Perak), Merapoh (Pahang) and Kota Tinggi (Johor), MALAYSIA
Application Deadline :15-Jun-21 (Midnight New York, USA)
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :National Consultant
Languages Required :
English  
Starting Date :
(date when the selected candidate is expected to start)
01-Jul-2021
Duration of Initial Contract :6 months (1 July 2021 – 31 December 2021)
Expected Duration of Assignment :50 working days

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.


Background

A.    Project Title

Improving Connectivity in the Central Forest Spine Landscapes (IC-CFS)

 

B.    Project Description 

This is the Terms of Reference for the UNDP-GEF Midterm Review (MTR) of the full-sized project titled Improving Connectivity in the Central Forest Spine Landscapes (IC-CFS) (PIMS#4594) implemented by the Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia, which is to be undertaken in June – December 2021. The project started on 18 March 2014 and is in its sixth year of implementation. The project is scheduled to end on 31 December 2021 after granted a nineteenth month extension. Under the conditional approval received from UNDP in May 2020, the project may be extended until 31 December 2022 (subject to meeting the key milestones in 2021) and a final twelve-month extension until 31 December 2023 (subject to meeting the key milestones in 2022). The MTR process must follow the guidance outlined in the document Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects (see http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/guidance/GEF/mid-term/Guidance_Midterm%20Review%20_EN_2014.pdf).

 

The Central Forest Spine (CFS) of Peninsular Malaysia is recognised for its population of the endangered Malayan tiger as well as being extraordinarily rich in biodiversity in general; it also provides the country with considerable ecosystem goods and services, and encompasses the origins of the headwaters that supply water for most of the population in Peninsular Malaysia.

The objective of IC-CFS project is to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services in three critical landscapes of the Central Forest Spine, by supporting the country’s CFS Master Plan to restore connectivity between forest complexes. It will strengthen the national and local institutional frameworks for CFS management and law-enforcement and support sustainable forest landscape management. It will achieve sustainability of funding for conservation through the diversification of funding sources and the mainstreaming of ecosystem service values into land-use planning.

The project objective is to increase federal and state level capacity to execute the CFS Master Plan through the implementation of sustainable forest landscape management plans in three pilot sites, financed sustainably through the diversification and increased allocation of funds for conservation. It is designed to remove the barriers to the establishment of a landscape approach to biodiversity management. The project comprises of three components:

 

Component 1. Planning, compliance monitoring and enforcement framework for integrated forest landscape management;

Component 2. Sustainable forest landscape management of three priority forest landscapes within the CFS; and

Component 3. Diversification of financing sources for conservation.

 

See the signed project document at

https://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Central%20Forest%20Spine%20Final%20Pro%20Doc.pdf

 

Since 3 January 2020 until 6 May 2021, Malaysia has recorded 424,376 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 1,591 deaths. On 18 March 2020, Government of Malaysia officially enforced the Movement Control Order (MCO) under the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 and the Police Act 1967. The order prohibited mass movements, gatherings and restrictions on the entry of all tourists and foreign visitors into the country. Although restrictions were relaxed when cases subsided, Government of Malaysia have again announced the enforcement of MCO across several states from 6 May until 17 May 2021 following the rise of cases nationwide. Although the prolonged movement restrictions have extensively hindered the progress of the project’s implementation, the delays had been addressed by having more virtual meetings and discussions and localizing the activities at State and districts level to ensure the implementation can progress with minimum disruption.

 

MTR PURPOSE

 

The MTR will assess progress towards the achievement of the project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document and programme outcomes as stipulated in the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) 2016 – 2020 between UNDP and the Government of Malaysia, and assess early signs of project success or failure with the purpose 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 and its risks to sustainability. The MTR is also one of the key milestones under the project’s conditional approval for its extension before another 12-month extension can be considered and approved.

 

MTR APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

The MTR must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful.

 

The MTR team is expected to follow a collaborative and participatory approach (For ideas on innovative and participatory Monitoring and Evaluation strategies and techniques, see UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results, 05 Nov 2013.) ensuring close engagement with the project team, government counterparts (the GEF Operational Focal Point, Project Board Chairperson, National Project Director, etc.), the UNDP Country Office, the Nature, Climate and Energy (NCE) Regional Technical Advisor, direct beneficiaries, and other key stakeholders.

 

Engagement of stakeholders is vital to a successful MTR ( 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). Stakeholder involvement should include interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities, including but not limited to  executing agencies, senior officials, project team consists of project manager, state project coordinators, monitoring & evaluation officer, communications officer; key experts and consultants in the subject area, Project Board/Steering Committee, Adaptive Management Advisory Panel (AMAP), project stakeholders, academia, local government and CSOs, etc. Additionally, the MTR team (only for national team members) may be required to conduct field missions to project sites in Perak, Pahang and Johor.

 

The specific design and methodology for the MTR should emerge from consultations between the MTR team and the above-mentioned parties regarding what is appropriate and feasible for meeting the MTR purpose and objectives and answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time, data, movement restrictions and safety guidance in view of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. The MTR team must, however, use gender-responsive methodologies and tools and ensure that gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as other cross-cutting issues and SDGs are incorporated into the MTR report.

 

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the MTR must be clearly outlined in the Inception Report and be fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, stakeholders and the MTR team. 

 

As of 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic as the new coronavirus rapidly spread to all regions of the world. International travel to Malaysia has been restricted since 18 March 2020 and travels within the country is also restricted in selected States and areas. If it is not possible to travel to or within the country for the MTR mission, then the MTR team should develop a methodology that will conduct the MTR virtually and remotely, including the use of remote interview methods and extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires. This should be detailed in the MTR Inception Report and agreed with the Commissioning Unit.

 

If all or part of the MTR is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for stakeholder availability, ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. In addition, their accessibility to the internet/computer may be an issue as many government and national counterparts may be working from home. These limitations must be reflected in the final MTR report. 

 

If a data collection/field mission is not possible then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc.). International consultant will work remotely with national evaluators’ support in the field, provided it is safe for the national evaluators to operate and travel in compliance with the local Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for COVID.

 

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

 

The National Evaluator will perform the key tasks as follows:

 

  • Conduct a document review of project related documents i.e. Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) 2016 – 2020 between UNDP and Government of Malaysia, Project Identification Form (PIF), UNDP Initiation Plan, Project Document, Environmental and Social Safeguard Policy (ESSP), Project Inception Report, Independent Rapid Review report, Adaptive Management Action Plan, Revised Strategic Results Framework, Project Implementation Reviews, Finalized GEF focal area Tracking Tools, Project Steering Committee meeting minutes, Key Performance Indicators, Financial and Administration guidelines used by Project Team, project operational guidelines, manuals and systems, etc.; provided by UNDP Malaysia Country Office and Project Team.
  • Facilitate in MTR inception workshop to clarify their understanding of the objectives and methods of the MTR, producing the MTR inception report thereafter by providing expertise and knowledge in the field of biodiversity and ecosystems, and sustainable forest landscape management in Malaysia.
  • Coordinate and conduct field mission with other MTR team members. The mission will consist of interviews with stakeholders who have project responsibilities and site visits to Kuala Lumpur, Gerik (Perak), Merapoh (Pahang) and Kota Tinggi (Johor).
  • Assess the following four categories of project progress based on the Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for requirements on ratings. No overall rating is required.
  • Produce relevant chapters of a draft and final MTR report as assigned by MTR Lead Evaluator.
  • Plan with Lead Evaluator and Gender & Community Development Specialist to present the final MTR report in the MTR Concluding Stakeholder Workshop.


Duties and Responsibilities

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.

 

1. 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 stipulated in the project document/inception report/revised strategic results framework and the CPAP 2016 – 2020.
  • Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national and sector development priorities and plans in Malaysia?
  • 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.
    • Were relevant gender issues (e.g. the impact of the project on gender equality in the programme country, involvement of women’s groups, engaging women in project activities) raised in the Project Document?
  • If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement (Consider that the findings and recommendations of this MTR will inform the rating -or not- of a twelve-month conditional extension for this project).

 

Results Framework/Log frame:

  • Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s revised 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 time frame?
  • 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.

 

2. Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

  • Review the revised log frame 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

Indicator[2]

Baseline Level[3]

Level in 1st PIR (self- reported)

Midterm Target[4]

End-of-project Target

Midterm Level & Assessment[5]

Achievement Rating[6]

Justification for Rating

Objective:

 

Indicator (if applicable):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 1:

Indicator 1:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 2:

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2:

Indicator 3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 4:

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2] Populate with data from the Log frame and scorecards

[3] Populate with data from the Project Document

[4] If available

[5] Colour code this column only

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

 

Indicator Assessment Key

Green= Achieved

Yellow= On target to be achieved

Red= Not on target to be achieved

 

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

  • Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool/Core Indicators 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 under two different scenarios, namely a no-extension scenario and a 12-month extension scenario.
  • By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.
  • Identify actual or potential complementarity and/or duplication between the expected results of this project and Malaysia’s Global Wildlife Programme national project (GEF ID 10597/ UNDP PIMS 6458).  

 

3. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Using the Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; assess the following categories of project progress:

 

Management Arrangements:

  • Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document and the Adaptive Management Action Plan.  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.
  • Do the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner and/or UNDP and other partners have the capacity to deliver benefits to or involve women? If yes, how?
  • What is the gender balance of project staff? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in project staff?
  • What is the gender balance of the Project Board/Steering Committee? What steps have been taken to ensure gender balance in the Project Board/Steering Committee?

 

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/ log frame 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 by the UNDP Malaysia Country Office Unit and project team, 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?

 

Sources of Co-financing

Name of Co-financer

Type of Co-financing

Co-financing amount confirmed at CEO Endorsement (US$)

Actual Amount Contributed at stage of Midterm Review (US$)

Actual % of Expected Amount

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

  • Include the separate GEF Co-financing template (filled out by the UNDP Malaysia Country Office and project team) which categorizes each co-financing amount as ‘investment mobilized’ or ‘recurrent expenditures’.  (This template will be annexed as a separate file.)

 

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?
  • Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were incorporated in monitoring systems. See Annex 9 of Guidance for Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines.

 

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?
  • How does the project engage women and girls?  Is the project likely to have the same positive and/or negative effects on women and men, girls and boys?  Identify, if possible, legal, cultural, or religious constraints on women’s participation in the project.  What can the project do to enhance its gender benefits?

 

Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)

  • Validate the risks identified in the project’s most current SESP, and those risks’ ratings; are any revisions needed?
  • Summarize and assess the revisions made since CEO Endorsement/Approval (if any) to:
    • The project’s overall safeguards risk categorization.
    • The identified types of risks[7] (in the SESP).
    • The individual risk ratings (in the SESP).
  • Describe and assess progress made in the implementation of the project’s social and environmental management measures as outlined in the SESP submitted at CEO Endorsement/Approval (and prepared during implementation, if any), including any revisions to those measures. Such management measures might include Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) or other management plans, though can also include aspects of a project’s design; refer to Question 6 in the SESP template for a summary of the identified management measures.

A given project should be assessed against the version of UNDP’s safeguards policy that was in effect at the time of the project’s approval.

[7] Risks are to be labelled with both the UNDP SES Principles and Standards, and the GEF’s “types of risks and potential impacts”: Climate Change and Disaster; Disadvantaged or Vulnerable Individuals or Groups; Disability Inclusion; Adverse Gender-Related impact, including Gender-based Violence and Sexual Exploitation; Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources; Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement; Indigenous Peoples; Cultural Heritage; Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention; Labor and Working Conditions; Community Health, Safety and Security.

 

Reporting:

  • Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board/Steering Committee.
  • 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.

 

Communications & Knowledge Management:

  • 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.
  • List knowledge activities/products developed (based on knowledge management approach approved at CEO Endorsement/Approval).

 

 

4. Sustainability

  • Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Register are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
  • Assess whether the project is likely to achieve its expected results under two different scenarios, namely a no-extension scenario and a 12-month extension scenario. 
  • 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?

 

5. Conclusions & Recommendations

 

The MTR team will include a section in the MTR report for evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings.

 

Additionally, the MTR Lead Evaluator is expected to make recommendations to the Project Team. 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 in total.

 

6. Ratings

 

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 Improving Connectivity in the Central Forest Spine Landscapes (IC-CFS)

Measure

MTR Rating

Achievement Description

Project Strategy

N/A

 

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)

 

Etc.

 

Project Implementation & Adaptive Management

(rate 6 pt. scale)

 

Sustainability

(rate 4 pt. scale)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DURATION OF THE WORK

The total duration of the National Evaluator will be 50 working days starting 1 July 2021 and shall not exceed six months from when the National Evaluator is hired. The tentative MTR timeframe is as follows:

 

  • 15 June 2021: Application closes
  • 16 – 30 June 2021: Selection of MTR Lead Evaluator and team members
  • 1 – 9 July 2021: Prep the MTR Team (handover of project documents)
  • 5 – 16 July 2021 (5 days): Document review and preparation of MTR Inception Report
  • 17 – 31 July 2021 (3 days): Finalization and validation of MTR Inception Report – latest start of MTR mission
  • 1 – 15 August 2021 (15 days): MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, virtual interviews, field visits (if the travel is permitted)
  • 16 – 18 August 2021 (2 day): Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings- earliest end of MTR mission
  • 16 August – 12 September 2021 (15 days): Additional stakeholder meetings, preparing draft report and consolidating stakeholders’ feedback and comments to the draft report
  • 13 – 30 September 2021 (5 days): Incorporating audit trail on draft report and finalization of MTR report
  • 1 – 15 October 2021 (2 days): Preparation for management response
  • 15 – 31 October 2021 (3 days): Planning and present the final MTR findings and recommendations at the Concluding Stakeholder Workshop
  • 30 November 2021: Expected date of full MTR completion

 

The start date of contract is 1 July 2021.

 

EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES

The MTR National Evaluator shall prepare and submit:

 

#

Deliverable

Description

Timing

Responsibilities

 1.

MTR Inception Report

MTR team clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review

Approximate date: 16 July 2021 (or

no later than 2 weeks before the MTR mission)

 

MTR team submits to the UNDP Malaysia Country Office and project management

 2. 

Presentation

Initial Findings to project management and UNDP Malaysia Country Office

Approximate date: 18 August 2021

MTR Team presents to UNDP Malaysia Country Office and project management

 3.

Draft MTR Report

Full draft report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes

Approximate date: 12 September 2021

Sent to the UNDP Malaysia Country Office, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, GEF OFP

 4.

Final Report*

Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report

Approximate date: 15 October 2021

Sent to the Commissioning Unit

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, UNDP Malaysia may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into Malay language – the official language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

 

MTR ARRANGEMENT

The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Malaysia Country Office. UNDP Malaysia will contract the National Evaluator and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the MTR team, if the travel is permitted. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR team to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

 

The Commissioning Unit and Project Team will provide logistic support in the implementation of remote/ virtual meetings if travel to project site is restricted. An updated stakeholder list with contact details (phone and email) will be provided by the Commissioning Unit to the MTR team.

 

DUTY STATION

All travels within Malaysia will be arranged by UNDP Malaysia and Project Team.

 

Travel:

  • Domestic travel to project sites in Gerik (Perak), Merapoh (Pahang) and Kota Tinggi (Johor) will be required during the MTR mission; the COVID-19 travel restrictions permitting.  Depending on the COVID-19 travel restrictions the missions may be organized physically or virtually;  
  • The Basic Security in the Field II and Advanced Security in the Field courses must be successfully completed prior to commencement of travel;
  • Individual Consultants are responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director.
  • Consultants are required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under https://dss.un.org/dssweb/.

 

Ethics

The MTR team will be held to the highest ethical standards and is required to sign a code of conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. This MTR will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The MTR team 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 MTR team must also ensure security of collected information before and after the MTR and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information, knowledge and data gathered in the MTR process must also be solely used for the MTR and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

 

Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

Financial Proposal:

  • Financial proposal must be “all inclusive” and expressed in a lump-sum for the total duration of the contract. The term “all inclusive” implies all cost (professional fees, travel costs, living allowances etc.);
  • For duty travels, the UN’s Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA) rates should provide indication of the cost of living in a duty station/destination.
  • The lump sum is fixed regardless of changes in the cost components.

 

Schedule of Payments:

  • 20% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the MTR Inception Report and approval by the UNDP Malaysia Country Office
  • 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the draft MTR report to the UNDP Malaysia Country Office
  • 40% payment upon satisfactory delivery of the final MTR report and approval by the UNDP Malaysia Country Office and RTA (via signatures on the TE Report Clearance Form) and delivery of completed TE Audit Trail

 

Criteria for issuing the final payment of 40%:

  • The final MTR report includes all requirements outlined in the MTR TOR and is in accordance with the MTR guidance.
  • The final MTR report is clearly written, logically organized, and is specific for this project (i.e. text has not been cut & pasted from other MTR reports).
  • The Audit Trail includes responses to and justification for each comment listed.

 


Competencies

The selection of National Evaluator will be aimed at maximising the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

 

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;
  • Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards.

 

Functional Competencies:

  • Demonstrated understanding of issues related to biodiversity and ecosystems, and sustainable forest landscape management;
  • Excellent communication and analytical skills;
  • Experience with conducting evaluations remotely will be considered an asset.


Required Skills and Experience

Qualifications of the Successful Applicants

A team of three independent experts will conduct the MTR - one international team leader (with experience and exposure to projects and evaluations in other regions globally) and one team expert from the country of the project and one Gender and Community Development Specialist. 

 

The selection of National Evaluator will be aimed at maximising the overall “team” qualities in the following areas:

Qualifications:

  • A Master’s degree or higher in biodiversity, wildlife management, conservation biology, forestry, environmental or natural resource economics, and environmental studies (10 points).
  • Experience applying logical framework analysis and SMART targets in project design and management (20 points);
  • Experience working with project evaluation/review for at least 5 years (20 points);
  • Experience working in Malaysia and South-East Asian region (10 points);
  • Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system or international organizations will be considered an asset (10 points).
  • Language: fluency in written and spoken English and Malay.

 

DOCUMENTS TO BE INCLUDED WHEN SUBMITTING THE PROPOSALS

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

  1. Document 1 : Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability at http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Template%20of%20Letter%20of%20Interest.docx
  2. Document 2: Technical Proposal: of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment; (max 1 page)
  3. Document 3: Financial Proposal at http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Financial Proposal Template-Deliverables_MYR_IC2021-017.doc that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided.  If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.  
  4. Document 4: Personal CV or P11 indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references   http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/P11 for Consultant_Optional.docx
  5. Please submit this information in one file as Document 1, 2, 3 and 4.The system will only accept one attachment , please merge all documents and submit as one file.
  6. Applicants must reply to the mandatory questions asked by the system when submitting the application.
  7. Candidates who fail to submit all the information requested above will be disqualified.


How to Apply:

  • Kindly download the Letter of Confirmation of interest and availability, Financial Proposal Template and General Terms & Conditions mentioned below;
  • Read and agree to the General Terms & Conditions (refer to below link);
  • Click the ‘apply’ icon and complete what is required;
  • Scan all documents into 1 pdf folder and then upload;
  • For clarification question, please email to procurement.my@undp.org. The clarification question deadline is three (3) days before the closing. When emailing for clarification questions, please put "MyIC/2021/017"as the subject matter.

 

General terms & conditions to be downloaded:

Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA): A legal instrument between UNDP and a Company/institution, according to which, the latter makes available the services of an individual delivering time-bound and quantifiable outputs that are directly linked to payments

Incomplete proposals may not be considered. Only short-listed candidates may be contacted, and successful candidates will be notified.

 

ANNEXES 

1.  Annex A: List of Documents to be reviewed by the MTR Team http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20A_%20List%20of%20Documents%20to%20be%20reviewed%20by%20the%20MTR%20Team.pdf 

2.  Annex B: Guidelines on Contents for the Midterm Review Report (The Report length should not exceed 40 pages in total (not including annexes). http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20B_%20Guidelines%20on%20Contents%20for%20the%20Midterm%20Review%20Report.pdf

3.  Annex C: Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex C_Midterm Review Evaluative Matrix Template.pdf

4.  Annex D: UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluators/Midterm Review Consultants  (http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/100http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20D_%20UNEG%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Evaluators%20Midterm%20Review%20Consultants.pdf

5.  Annex E: MTR Ratings and Achievements Summary Table and Rating Scales http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20E_%20MTR%20Ratings%20and%20Achievements%20Summary%20Table%20and%20Rating%20Scales.pdf

6. Annex F: MTR Report Clearance Form  http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20F_%20MTR%20Report%20Clearance%20Form.pdf

7. Annex G: Audit Trail Template http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex G_ Audit Trail Template.pdf

8. Annex H: Progress Towards Results Matrix http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex H_ Progress Towards Results Matrix.pdf

9. Annex I: GEF Co-Financing Template http://www.my.undp.org/content/dam/malaysia/docs/Procurement/Annex%20I_%20GEF%20Co-Financing%20Template.pdf

 


EVALUATION METHOD AND AWARD OF CONTRACT

  • The award of the contract will be made to the Individual Consultant who has obtained the highest Combined Score and has accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions.  Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated. The offers will be evaluated using the “Combined Scoring method” where:

  • The educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted a max. of 70%. Only applicants who score a minimum of 50% will be qualified to undertake financial evaluation;
  • 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.

 

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, aboriginal 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 erecruit.helpdesk@undp.org.

© 2016 United Nations Development Programme