Emplois au PNUD - 73385- International Consultant to conduct terminal evalu

International Consultant to conduct terminal evaluation of UNDP-GEF project “Building Energy Efficiency in the North West of Russia”

Lieu :

Home-based with 1 mission to Russia, FEDERATION DE RUSSIE

Type de contrat :

Individual Contract

Date de commencement :

01-Sep-2017

Date limite de candidature :

31-Jul-17 (Minuit New York, États-Unis)

Niveau du poste :

International Consultant

Durée du contrat initial

September - November 2017

Langues requises :

Anglais

Durée prévue de la mission :

25 working days (15 home-based days and 10 mission days)

Le PNUD s’engage à recruter un personnel divers en termes de genre, de nationalité et de culture. Nous encourageons de même les personnes issues des minorités ethniques, des communautés autochtones ou handicapées à postuler. Toutes les candidatures seront traitées dans la plus stricte confidentialité. Le PNUD ne tolère pas l’exploitation et / ou les atteintes sexuelles, ni aucune forme de harcèlement, y compris le harcèlement sexuel, et / ou toutes formes de discrimination. Tous/tes les candidats/tes selectectionnes /ées devront ainsi se soumettre à de rigoureuses vérifications relatives aux références fournies ainsi qu’à leurs antécédents.

Historique

Building energy efficiency is a priority direction in the development of construction sector. Market transformation towards energy efficient products and technologies was restricted by low internal energy prices: while domestic construction costs in Russia were only 20-30% lower than those in international markets, domestic energy costs were 6-7 times lower. However, as Russia targeted integration into international markets, internal energy costs began to increase rapidly. The communal housing sector was among the first to recognize the changes, as it consumes up to 20% of electric energy and 45% of heat produced in Russia. Currently, price trends constitute direct economic incentives for energy efficiency investments in the building sector.

The project strategy is to reduce existing institutional, management, information, technological, investment, and knowledge barriers that hamper wide penetration of energy efficient technologies and practices in the construction and building maintenance sectors. GEF financing will not be invested directly into renovation or energy efficiency improvements in existing/old buildings. However, GEF funds will be used to leverage additional private sector investment in EE buildings. GEF funds will also be utilized to build local capacities, regulations and information for effective decision-making and management systems.

The implementation of the full-scale project «Building Energy Efficiency in the North West of Russia» supported by UNDP and Russian Energy Agency» (REA) of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation with GEF financing started in 2010. Initially the project had been planned for 5 years but later received a no-cost extension for two more years. The project closure is expected by December 2017.

Devoirs et responsabilités

This terminal evaluation 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.

Mid-term review

The project mid-term evaluation (MTE) took place in late 2013 (final report submitted in early 2014) and its main concerns regarding the achievement of project’s outcomes. The final evaluation should assess the extent to which the recommendations of the mid-term review have been taken into account by the project.

Final review – terminal evaluation

The terminal evaluation will explore in detail five major criteria:

Relevance: the extent to which the activity is suited to local and national development priorities and organizational policies, including changes over time.
Effectiveness: the extent to which an objective has been achieved or how likely it is to be achieved.
Efficiency: the extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible.
Results: the positive and negative, and foreseen and unforeseen, changes to and effects produced by a development intervention. In GEF terms, results include direct project outputs, short- to medium-term outcomes, and longer-term impacts including global environmental benefits, replication effects and other local effects.
Sustainability: the likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially and socially sustainable.

The project was designed to build local capacities for and demonstrate local solutions to improved energy efficiency in buildings in the three regions of the North West Russia: Pskov, Vologda, Arkhangelsk and Novgorod oblasts.

The project was designed with three outcomes, as follows:

• Enabling environment and enforcement capacities for improved energy efficiency at the provincial and local levels. By creating effective enabling environment and institutional capacities at the local and regional levels, the project will help create incentives for energy efficient investments and the reduction of end-use energy consumption;

• Capacity building and know-how. It will establish a means of disseminating new technologies in design and maintenance of energy efficient buildings and housing networks. Project will: develop recommendations and programmes for professional education and training on energy efficiency in construction and building maintenance; integrate energy efficiency units into the curricula of provincial universities and technical schools; and establish an interregional network of vocational training centers;

• Demonstration of local energy-efficient solutions and management models. The project will support initiatives to demonstrate energy saving potential of proposed technical and management solutions and provide models for replication.

Evaluation approach and method

An overall approach and method 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 the evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix as part of the evaluation inception report, and shall include it as an annex to the final report.

The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, in particular the GEF operational focal point, UNDP Project Support Office in Russia, project team, UNDP GEF Technical Adviser based in the region and key stakeholders. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission to Pskov, Vologda, Arkhangelsk and Novgorod oblasts, including the following project sites: 1) Energy efficient repairs in the main building and outbuildings of MBDOU kindergarten «Raduga» in municipality «Ostrovsky district», Pskov oblast; 2) Implementation of energy management system of public buildings in Pskov oblast, AO «Pskovskiye Kommunalnye Sistemy», Pskov; 3) Energy efficient new construction of apartment house in Porkhov, Pskov oblast; 4) Energy efficient new construction of apartment house in Parfino, Novgorod oblast; 5) Energy efficient repairs in the building for outpatient care of the Vologda city polyclinic #3, Vologda; 6) Re-equipment of Energy management laboratory of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University, Arkhangelsk. Interviews will be held with the following organizations at a minimum: UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub; UNDP-Russia Projects Support Office; Ministry of Construction, Housing and Utilities of the Russian Federation; Regional and Municipal Administrations of the Arkhangelsk, Pskov, Vologda and Novgorod Oblasts; Federal State Organization «Russian Energy Agency» (REA) by the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation; Russian Association of Energy Service Companies RAESCO; International Sustainable Energy Development Centre under the auspices of UNESCO; Northern (Arctic) Federal University; Saint-Petersburg State University of plant polymers; International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank Group; UNDP supported projects of improving energy efficiency in buildings in Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and other UNDP GEF EE buildings project, as appropriate. In addition, the evaluator will speak to the former project managers and staff, international consultants hired previously by the project, the former National Project Director, the mid-term evaluator and to all sub-contractors hired by the project (both national and international).

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – including annual APR/PIR, project budget revisions, mid-term review, progress reports, GEF focal area tracking tools, project files, national strategic and legal documents, and any other materials that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment.

Evaluation criteria and ratings

An assessment of project performance will be carried out 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:

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E design at entry, M&E plan implementation, overall quality of M&E);
IA&EA Execution (quality of UNDP implementation, quality of execution - executing agency, overall quality of implementation and execution);
Assessment of Outcomes (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, overall project outcome rating);
Sustainability (financial resources, socio-political, institutional framework and governance, environmental, overall likelihood of sustainability).

Project finance and 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 Project Support Office and the project team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report.

Mainstreaming

UNDP supported GEF financed projects are key components in UNDP PSO programming, as well as regional and global programmes. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project was successfully mainstreamed with other UNDP priorities, including poverty alleviation, improved governance, the prevention and recovery from natural disasters, and gender.

Impact

The evaluator will assess the extent to which the project is achieving impacts or progressing towards the achievement of impacts. Key findings that should be brought out in the evaluations include whether the project has demonstrated: verifiable improvements in ecological status, verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems, and/or demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.

Conclusions, recommendations & lessons

The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions, recommendations and lessons. Conclusions should build on findings and be based on evidence. Recommendations should be prioritized, specific, relevant, and targeted, with suggested implementers. Lessons should have wider applicability to other initiatives across the region, the area of intervention, and for the future.

Implementation arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP Project Support Office in Russia. The UNDP PSO will contract the evaluator and ensure the timely provision of the local travel arrangements. The project team will be responsible for liaising with the evaluation team to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, etc.

Evaluation timeframe

The total duration of the evaluation will be 25 working days during the calendar period of 3 months, 1 September – 30 November 2017.

Field mission

The international evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission of 10 working days (travel time is not included) to project pilot sites jointly identified with the project manager. The 10 working days mission will include 3 working days based in Moscow, 1 working day in Saint Petersburg, 1 working day in Archangelsk, 1 working day in Vologda, 3 working days in Pskov oblast (Pskov, Ostrov, Porkhov) and 1 working day in Novgorod oblast (Parfino). The national consultant will accompany the international evaluator to all meetings in Moscow and other cities.

The evaluation timetable is planned as follows:

Preparation, 3 working days in September 2017;
Evaluation Mission, 10 working days in October 2017;
Draft Evaluation Report, 10 working days in October 2017;
Final Report, 2 working days, completed by the end of November 2017.

Evaluation deliverables

The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:

Inception report, the evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method no later than 2 weeks before the evaluation mission and submits the report to the UNDP PSO;
Presentation, initial findings at the end of the evaluation mission are presented to the UNDP PSO, UNDP Regional Technical Advisor and the project manager;
Draft final report, full report with annexes is expected within 2 weeks from the evaluation mission and provided to UNDP PSO, Regional Technical Advisor and project manager;
Final report, revised report is provided within 1 week from receiving UNDP PSO comments on the draft. 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.

Team composition

The evaluation team will be composed of 1 international evaluator and 1 national evaluation support consultant. An international evaluator will be designated as the team leader and will be responsible for finalizing the report. The evaluator should not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have conflict of interest with project related activities.

Evaluation ethics

Evaluation consultants will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign a Code of Conduct upon acceptance of the assignment. UNDP evaluations are conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG 'Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations'.

Payment modalities and specifications

10% Following submission of a detailed workplan/inception report prior to the field mission;

40% Following submission and approval of the 1st draft terminal evaluation report;

50% Following submission and approval (UNDP PSO and RTA) of the final terminal evaluation report.

Compétences

Corporate competencies:

Demonstrates integrity by modeling 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.

Functional competencies:

Strong interpersonal skills, communication skills and ability to work in a team;
Ability to plan and organize work, efficiency in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and achieving results;
Openness to change and ability to receive/integrate feedback;
Ability to work under pressure and stressful situations;
Strong analytical, research, reporting and writing abilities.

Qualifications et expériences requises

Education:

A Master’s degree in environmental sciences, energy efficiency, climate change mitigation or other closely related field; PhD will be considered as an advantage;

Experience:

Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience in energy efficiency and housing infrastructure, design and development of energy projects;
Experience in results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies;
Knowledge of UNDP and of GEF evaluation procedures is an advantage;
Work experience in Europe & CIS region and/or Russian Federation is an advantage;

Language requirements:

Excellent English; Russian language will be considered as an advantage.

Evaluation procedure

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal. The award of the contract shall be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

Responsive, compliant, acceptable;
Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

Technical criteria - 70% of total evaluation (max 70 points):

A Master’s degree in environmental sciences, energy efficiency, climate change mitigation or other closely related field; PhD will be considered as an advantage (max 5 points);
Minimum 10 years of relevant professional experience in energy efficiency and housing infrastructure, design and development of energy projects (max 5 points);
Experience in results-based monitoring and evaluation methodologies (max 10 points);
Knowledge of UNDP and of GEF evaluation procedures is an advantage (max 15 points);
Work experience in Europe & CIS region and/or Russian Federation is an advantage (max 10 points);
Excellent English; Russian language will be considered as an advantage (max 5 points);
Interview (max 20 points).

Financial criteria - 30% of total evaluation (max 30 points). Only candidates passing the 70% threshold for the technical proposal will be considered for the financial evaluation.

The candidate with the highest score from technical criteria + financial criteria will be selected with the maximum score possible being 100 points.

Application process