A comparative analysis of the implementation of peace agreements in the Philippines (the 1996 peace agreement), South Africa, Kenya (following post-elections violence in 2008), Indonesia (Aceh), Nepal, Northern Ireland, and El Salvador, as well as of post-conflict governing arrangements in Zimbabwe, South Sudan, and Cambodia, reveals that political transition and transition of armed combatants into productive and resilient to be particularly critical from a global perspective. The nature of transitions by armed groups, and their ability to practice, participate in, and lead a different type of politics, have been the critical cornerstone in every success or failure. In addition, the transition in Aceh; the failure of successive local peace deals in northern Nigeria; and the current Philippines context also highlight the prevention of violent extremism as a critical factor. In the seven years since a lasting ceasefire was signed between the Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Cotabato City, which is the economic hub of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), has moved to being among the ten fastest-growing urban areas in the country and is now also considered the second safest city. For these achievements to be translated into wider impact for the whole region, peace will have to be sustained. The transitions indicated above will therefore have to be implemented successfully.

With other development partners also engaged in supporting lasting peace in Bangsamoro, UNDP’s Project START PEACE drew upon its comparative advantage in the following areas as accrued from supporting peace processes or agreements in approximately twenty countries (in addition to the Philippines) over the past three decades: Transition of Armed Groups, and; Prevention of Violent Extremism. The programme will contribute to the following two outcomes:

Moro revolutionary groups successfully transitioned to civilian roles and leadership, and;
Secure and resilient communities successfully address factors driving violent extremism. With the advent of Covid19, another output on Strengthening Health Systems was added to the outputs. Moreover, an output on addressing the threats to the Peace Process in BARMM was added to accommodate the support from the Norwegian Government.

As the project is now approaching closure, a Terminal Evaluation should be pursued. Evaluations are critical for UNDP to progress towards advancing human development. Through the generation of evidence and objective information, evaluations enable UNDP to make informed decisions and plan strategically.

This project terminal evaluation is intended to demonstrate the level of change in the project outputs indicators and the project’s contribution to outcome level changes, which are normally demonstrated as changes in the performance of institutions or behavior changes. It must also consider whether resources have been properly and judiciously harnessed towards the implementation and delivery of stated outputs and the extent to which these outputs contributed to observed results achieved. The evaluation must also identify any operational issues that may be improved to facilitate better program implementation and delivery for similar programs in the future

The evaluation will be used by all main parties (UNDP and partner government agencies) to assess their approaches to development assistance and to design future interventions. It is expected to ensure accountability and generate knowledge for wider use.

Related to this, the Project will need to hire the services of an independent consultant

Duties and Responsibilities

A. Scope of Work

Under the overall guidance of the Evaluation Reference Group, and reporting to the UNDP evaluation manager, the Terminal Evaluation Specialist, shall assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the Project START PEACE by reviewing progress towards project results based on the project document and annual work plans. The evaluation will review the project’s theory of change vis-à-vis the project’s achievements and risks, and assess the project’s potential effects on the target groups. It will likewise highlight strengths, weaknesses/gaps, good practices, and provide forward-looking recommendations for the design and implementation of future government financing projects.

The evaluation will also provide an analysis of the data generated from the client satisfaction surveys that were collected by partner CSOs. To the extent possible, the evaluation will assess the contributions of the project to the beneficiaries of the various activities.

The conduct of the evaluation should be based on the following criteria and key guide questions and may employ the following methodological approaches.

1) Objective

The evaluation will identify the level of achievement in project outputs and the contribution to results at the outcome level, including unintended positive and negative results. The evaluation also aims to identify the key lessons learned and best practices.

The evaluation will assess:

The relevance of the project
The effectiveness of the achievement of results at the output levels and the level of efficiency in the use of project resources
The usefulness and sustainability of the results for the project beneficiaries
UNDP’s performance as a development partner
UNDP’s added value to the expected results

2) Evaluation criteria and key guiding questions

Relevance
1. Did the project design and choice of activities and deliverables properly reflect and respond to specifically identified needs of the government and of the beneficiaries? How were the needs determined and assessed?
2. How valid is the Theory of Change? Were the planned and actual activities and outputs of the project consistent with the intended outcomes?
Efficiency
1. To what extent was the project managed and delivered in a cost-effective way?
2. How was the project managed in terms of timeliness?
3. How did project risks influence the efficiency of project implementation? Were all major risks adequately identified before and during project implementation?
4. How does the COVID-19 pandemic affect the implementation of the project (timeline, deliverables, beneficiaries etc.)
Effectiveness
1. To what extent is the project successful in achieving results, both expected and unexpected?
2. How effective was the project in building the capacities of partners and beneficiaries?
3. To what extent has the use of UNDP systems accelerated the implementation of the project in the following areas: budgeting, procurement, HR augmentation, partnerships and CSO engagement, finance, and monitoring?
4. To what extent has UNDP met standard integrity/accountability measures in the delivery of civil works, projects, goods, and services?
5. What are the innovative approaches or strategies that the project introduced?
6. What value has UNDP added? Both expected and unexpected?
7. Is the project reaching the intended beneficiaries, rights holders, and duty bearers?
8. To what extent has the project been effective in policy/systems influencing at the national and local level?
9. Did the project build effective synergies with other existing initiatives?
10. What are the results of the client satisfaction surveys carried out by partner CSOs?
11. To what extent does the project integrate gender equality, women’s empowerment, and human rights?
Sustainability
1. To what extent can project results be continued without the project’s further involvement?
2. To what extent has partner government agencies such as MILG-BARMM been capacitated to improve financial management and service delivery through the project
3. To what extent has the project built-in resilience to future risks? (e.g. wastage, over-budgeted specs)
4. What are the learnings and best practices?
Methodology

Methodological approaches may include some or all of the following:

Evaluation should employ a combination of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments.
Document review of all relevant documentation. This would include a review of inter alia:

Þ Project document (contribution agreement)

Þ Theory of change and results framework

Þ Programme and project quality assurance reports

Þ Annual work plans

Þ Activity designs

Þ Consolidated quarterly and annual reports

Þ Results-oriented monitoring report

Þ Highlights of project board meetings

Þ Technical/financial monitoring reports

Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, UNCT members and implementing partners:

Þ Development of evaluation questions around relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and designed for different stakeholders to be interviewed.

Þ Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

Þ All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.

Surveys and questionnaires including participants in development programmes, UNCT members and/or surveys and questionnaires involving other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.
Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners, and direct beneficiaries.
Other methods such as outcome mapping, observational visits, group discussions, etc.
Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods.
Ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use; the evaluation team will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.

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. The alert levels have since been scaled down to almost normal levels.

However, If it is not possible to travel to or within the country for the evaluation then the evaluation team should develop a methodology that takes into account the conduct of the evaluation 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 Inception report and agreed with the Evaluation Manager.

If all or part of the evaluation 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 evaluation report.

If a data collection/field mission is not possible then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc.). Consultants can work remotely with local evaluator support in the field if it is safe for them to operate and travel. No stakeholders, consultants or UNDP staff should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority.

A short validation mission may be considered if it is confirmed to be safe for staff, consultants, stakeholders and if such a mission is possible within the evaluation schedule. Equally, qualified and independent national consultants can be hired to undertake the evaluation and interviews in the country as long as it is safe to do so.

A. Expected Outputs and Deliverables

Evaluation inception report (10-15 pages). The inception report should be carried out following and based on preliminary discussions with UNDP after the desk review, and should be produced before the evaluation starts (before any formal evaluation interviews, survey

distribution or field visits) and prior to the country visit in the case of international evaluators.

Presentation of preliminary findings. Immediately following an evaluation, the evaluator will present preliminary debriefing and findings.
Draft evaluation report. The programme unit and key stakeholders in the evaluation will review the draft evaluation report and provide an amalgamated set of comments to the evaluator within an agreed period of time, addressing the content required (as agreed in the TOR and inception report) and quality criteria.
Evaluation report audit trail. Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be submitted by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments.

· Final evaluation report.

Presentations to stakeholders and/or the evaluation reference group or participation in knowledge-sharing events

The Evaluator is expected to deliver the outputs outlined according to a set schedule. The following is an indicative schedule and prospective Evaluators may propose an alternative delivery schedule. The total length of the contract shall ideally be three (3) months, with a tolerance of one (1) month depending on the value-added work to be proposed compared to the requirement.

Deliverables/ Outputs

Estimated Duration to Complete

Target Due Dates

Review and Approvals Required

Name and Email address of designated person who will review and

accept the output

Inception Report

with attachments/ annexes

Revised, with matrix of key inputs from Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) with feedback

Draft within two (2) weeks from the start of the contract

Revised within one (1) week from

presentation to ERG

15 April

2022

To be presented to and commented on by ERG

Approval: Evaluation Manager

OIC of Project START PEACE

Presentation of preliminary findings

Within seven

(7) weeks from the start of the contract

27 May

To be presented to and commented on by ERG

Approval: Evaluation Manager

Draft Evaluation Report

A matrix of key inputs from the ERG with feedback

Within eight (8) weeks from the start of the contract

Within one (1) week from presentation to

ERG

06 June

2022

To be presented to and commented on by ERG

Approval: Evaluation Manager

Final Report and evaluation audit trail

Refinement of the final draft with matrix of key inputs from the ERG with feedback

Within eleven

(11) weeks from start of the contract

30 June

Approval: Evaluation Project Manager

A. Institutional Arrangement

The evaluator will be under the guidance of the Team Leader of the Peace Programme Team and under the direct supervision of the Evaluation Project Manager. The outputs will be reviewed by the members of the Evaluation Review Panel and approval will be done by the Peace Programme Team Leader.

The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the PMU through the Project Manager (PM) and the UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation Analyst. Both will be responsible for liaising with the Evaluation Team pertaining to required technical and financial documents, coordinating with stakeholders, setting up interviews, arranging field visits, and looking after the evaluation budget and schedule. They shall likewise assist in the distribution of draft reports to stakeholders for their review, consolidation of comments, and in organizing key stakeholders’ meetings for the presentation of the salient points of the draft/final reports. Both will provide support in the procurement process for the selection of a service provider (i.e., publication of the TOR and assessment of proposals).

The UNDP M&E Analyst will brief the Evaluation Team on UNDP evaluation norms and standards, reviewing and quality assuring the inception/draft/final reports, and in publishing findings and management responses at the UNDP Evaluation Resource Center.

The Evaluation consultant will be responsible for implementing all evaluation-related activities and in producing the evaluation products listed in the deliverables section of this TOR. While the PMU will provide the information required and support in coordinating with stakeholders, the Evaluator will have to manage its own schedule and logistical arrangements in the conduct of interviews and site visits.

B. Duration of the Work

The Terminal Evaluation Specialist is expected to complete all the deliverables within three months from the signing of the contract or a period of 55 days. Prospective evaluators may propose an alternative contract duration and timeline of deliverables.

The target start of work date is 01 April 2022 and the indicative end date of the contract is 30 June 2022.

C. Duty Station

The duty station of the Terminal Evaluation Specialist will be Manila.

Given the current situation in the country, UNDP supports the implementation of remote or virtual meetings. If necessary and allowed, the Evaluator will travel to locations within the country for fieldwork, consultations, and other on-site activities required for the evaluation. The Evaluator may be asked to report physically to UNDP as agreed during the inception report, and when physical participation, such as consultations with stakeholders and Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) meetings, will be necessary. A list of stakeholders with contact details (phone and email) will be provided by the project team. Any travel outside the duty station of Manila will be covered by UNDP and therefore should not be Included In the financial proposal.

Competencies

Competencies

Corporate Competencies

Demonstrates integrity by modeling the UN mission, vision, values, and ethical standards
Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality, and age sensitivity and adaptability
Promotes UNDP's agenda in meetings

Other Competencies

Ability to work in close collaboration with a group of national and international experts, to meet strict deadlines and plan the work according to priorities;
Demonstrates capacity to plan, organize, and execute effectively;
The initiative, good analytical skills, mature judgment, and ability to work under tight schedule while respecting deadlines achievement, ethics, and honesty;
Ability to establish effective working relations in a diverse environment
Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude;
Builds strong relationships with internal and external clients;
Demonstrated ability to function in a team environment and to deal with a complex multi-stakeholder environment
Good ability to use information and communication technologies as tools and resources;
Excellent written communication and presentation/public speaking skills focus on results, ability to interact productively in a teamwork environment

Required Skills and Experience

A. Qualifications of the Successful Individual Contractor

The Offers received will be evaluated using a combined scoring method - where the technical proposal will be weighted 70 points and combined with the price offer which will be weighted 30 points.

The CV will be reviewed using the criteria in the table below. Only offerors who will obtain a minimum of 70% or 49 out of 70 obtainable points will be shortlisted and considered for evaluation of the financial proposal.

Qualification

Points Obtainable (70

points)

Education

Master’s Degree in economics, political science, social science, public administration, business management, or other relevant fields. A higher degree as well as specialized training in M&E, project management, etc. are advantageous;

(14 points for Master's, 20 points for PhD)

Experience

At least five (5) years of work or consultancy experience in the monitoring and evaluation of development programs and projects, with preference to those with demonstrated specialization/ experience in evaluations, and those with work experience in the government or international organizations.

(21 points for 5 years, additional point for each additional year

Through the portfolio or work experience, demonstrated experience in the application of various quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, with demonstrated specialization in either quantitative or qualitative research, or both

(14 years for 5 years, additional point for each additional year)

Language

Fluency in English at the minimum, and in Filipino preferred (submission of sample written works to prove English Proficiency)

pass/fail

TOTAL

I. Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

Offerors are requested to provide an all-inclusive, lump sum amount covering professional fees and other expected expenses. Details of the expenses should be indicated in the Offeror’s Financial Proposal Template. The contract price will be fixed regardless of changes in the cost components as payment tranches will be in accordance with the deliverables.

The consultant will receive the total amount indicated in the proposal in tranches and upon satisfactory completion of the agreed upon outputs and deliverables based on the following schedule of payments:

Percentage

Deliverables / Outputs

Approving Authority

20 %

Upon submission and acceptance of inception report

Team Leader, Peace Team Or

OIC of Project START PEACE

20 %

Upon presentation of mission evaluation highlights and submission and acceptance of presentation materials

30 %

Upon submission and acceptance of draft evaluation report

30%

Upon submission and acceptance of final evaluation report and other related documents; and

Presentation to stakeholders and/or evaluation reference group

J. Recommended Presentation of Offer

Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP;
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;
Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a methodology, if applicable, on how they will approach and complete the assignment. A methodology is recommended for intellectual services, but maybe omitted for support services [Note: this is optional for support services];
Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided. If an Offeror 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 Offeror must indicate at this point and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

K. Criteria for Selection of the Best Offer

Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications and methodology will be weighted a max. of 70%, and combined with the price offer which will be weighted a max of 30%; or

L. Annexes to the TOR

Existing literature or documents that will help Offerors gain a better understanding of the project situation and the work required should be provided as annex/es to the TOR, especially if such literature or documents are not confidential.

Offerors must upload in one (1) file the documents mentioned above.

Templates for a) P11 Personal History Form and b) Offeror's Letter to UNDP Confirming Interest and Availability and Financial Proposal (Annex 2) are available through the link below. UNDP General Terms and Conditions for Individual Contractors are also available:

http://gofile.me/292aN/FJEcICt8l

Incomplete submission of required documents may result in disqualification.

Please see the deadline of submissions above.

Because of the volume of applications UNDP receives, only shortlisted offerors will be notified.

Apply now

Added 2 years ago - Updated 2 years ago - Source: jobs.undp.org