OBJECTIVE & SCOPE The project was designed to provide incremental support that will lead to the full adoption and implementation of the National Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Blueprint, particularly through SCP Pathway 1 Government Green Procurement (GGP); to achieve the 11th Malaysia Plan’s target of 20% of selected groups of products and services in government procurement to be green procurement by year 2020. The project has three main outputs namely: - Enabling policy and institutions institutionalized for National SCP Blueprint and GGP implementation.
- Technical and institutional capacity for SCP and GGP built and enhanced, particularly government procurement practitioners and industry players such as Small and Medium Enterprise (SME).
- Best practices of GGP are demonstrated by developing and piloting product criteria, guidelines and standard operating procedures in construction sector, and monitoring & evaluation system.
These outputs will in turn contribute to the achievement of the 11th Malaysia Plan Strategic Thrust 4 Pursuing Green Growth for Sustainability and Resilience, and Country Programme Action Plan 2016 – 2020 between Government of Malaysia and UNDP – Outcome 2 Enhancing national resiliency to climate variability and change. The TE will be conducted according to the guidance, rules and procedures established by UNDP as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Guidelines. The objectives of the evaluation are to assess the achievement of project results, and to draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHOD An overall approach and method[1] (For additional information on methods, see the Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, Chapter 7, pg. 163) for conducting project terminal evaluations of UNDP supported 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 Evaluation Guidelines (http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/) and UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations of UNDP-supported, GEF-financed Projects. The National Consultant cum Evaluator is expected to prepare, amend, complete and submit a set of questions covering each of these criteria in consultation with UNDP Malaysia Country Office; as part of an 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, Economic Planning Unit – the implementing partner, UNDP Country Office, project team, and key stakeholders. Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum: - Environment and Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Planning Unit at the Prime Minister’s Department
- Ministry of Finance Malaysia
- Ministry of Environment and Water (KASA)
- Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (KeTSA)
- Malaysia Green Technology and Climate Change Centre (MGTC)
- Public Works Department (JKR)
- Universiti Technology MARA (UiTM)
- Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia
The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, project reports – including Mid-Year Progress Report, Annual Progress Report, project budget revisions, project files, national policy and strategic documents, and any other materials that the evaluator considers useful for this evidence-based assessment. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in Annex A of this Terms of Reference. EVALUATION CRITERIA & RATINGS An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework in the Project Document (which is available at https://open.undp.org/projects/00094672), which provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The evaluation will at a minimum cover the criteria of: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Ratings must be provided on the following performance criteria. The completed table must be included in the evaluation executive summary. The obligatory rating scales are included in Annex B. Evaluation Ratings: | 1. Monitoring and Evaluation | rating | 2. IA& EA Execution | rating | M&E design at entry | | Quality of UNDP Oversight and Quality Assurance (QA) | | M&E Plan Implementation | | Quality of Implementing Partner’s Execution | | Overall quality of M&E | | Overall quality of Oversight & QA and Execution | | 3. Assessment of Outcomes | rating | 4. Sustainability | rating | Relevance | | Financial resources: | | Effectiveness | | Socio-political: | | Efficiency | | Institutional framework and governance: | | Overall Project Outcome Rating | | Environmental: | | | | Overall likelihood of sustainability: | |
PROJECT FINANCE/ CO-FINANCE The Evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the project, including the extent of co-financing planned and realized. Project cost and funding data will be required, including annual expenditures. Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained. Results from recent financial audits, as available, should be taken into consideration. The evaluator will receive assistance from the Country Office (CO) and Project Team to obtain financial data in order to complete the co-financing table below, which will be included in the terminal evaluation report. Co-financing (type/source) | UNDP financing (TRAC) (US$) | Government Cost-Sharing (US$) | Others (US$) | Total (US$) | Planned | Actual | Planned | Actual | Planned | Actual | Actual | Actual | Grants | | | | | | | | | In-kind contribution | | | | | | | | | Other | | | | | | | | | Total | | | | | | | | |
MAINSTREAMING UNDP supported projects are key components in UNDP country 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: a) verifiable improvements in the implementation of the National Sustainable Consumption and Production Blueprint through government green procurement, and b) demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements. Conclusions, recommendations & lessons The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions, recommendations and lessons. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP Country Office (CO) in Malaysia. The UNDP CO will contract the evaluator and ensure the timely coordination of meeting arrangements within the country for the evaluator. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the Evaluator to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange meetings, coordinate with the Government etc. EVALUATION TIMEFRAME The total duration of the evaluation will be 30 days according to the following plan: Activity | Timing | Completion Date | Preparation including TE Inception Report with detailed work plan | 5 days | 18 December 2020 | Evaluation Mission | 10 days | 15 January 2021 | Draft Evaluation Report | 12 days | 31 January 2021 | Final Report | 3 days | 12 February 2021 |
EVALUATION DELIVERABLES The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following: Deliverable | Content | Timing | Responsibilities | Inception Report including detailed work plan | Evaluator provides clarifications on timing and method | No later than 2 weeks before the evaluation mission. | Evaluator submits to UNDP CO | Presentation | Initial Findings | End of evaluation mission | To project management and UNDP CO | Draft Final Report | Full report, (per annexed template) with annexes | Within 3 weeks of the evaluation mission | Sent to CO for review | Final Report* | Revised report | Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft | Sent to CO for uploading to UNDP ERC. |
*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. PAYMENT SCHEDULE % | Milestone | 20% | Following submission and approval of the detailed work plan and inception report by UNDP CO | 50% | Following submission and approval of the 1st draft terminal evaluation report by UNDP CO | 30% | Following submission and approval of the final terminal evaluation report by UNDP CO |
|
