Procurement Notices

Background

In accordance with UNDP and GEF M&E policies and procedures, all full- and medium-sized UNDP support GEF financed projects are required to undergo a terminal evaluation upon completion of implementation. These terms of reference (TOR) sets out the expectations for a Terminal Evaluation (TE) of the “Scaling-up Risk Transfer Mechanisms for Climate Vulnerable Agriculture-based Communities in Mindanao” otherwise known as the “Weather Index-Based Insurance (WIBI) Mindanao Project” (PIMS # 5076).

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the region and the world. In 2012, the country recorded the highest number of fatality from natural disasters – predominantly from Typhoon Bopha – with 1,500 deaths, which account for 47% of all deaths in the region, and displaced nearly 1 million people. The 2009 Typhoon Ketsana caused $4.3 billion in damage with 90% of the losses was borne by poor households. These natural disasters exemplify how they disproportionately affect the poor and reverse the development gains achieved over a long period of time. With a projection of increasing intensity and/or frequency of such hydro-meteorological disasters and increasing weather variability, climate change will impose additional strains on the lives and livelihoods of the country’s 25.6 million people who live below the national poverty line. 

Future projection of climate change also points to an increasing variability and uncertainty in the amount, patterns, and timing of rainfall. This puts livelihoods of millions of farmers at risk and ultimately poses a significant risk in attaining food security of the country.

The project was designed to address two types of climate risks: increasing variability in climate and climate change-induced natural disasters. In particular, weather index-based insurance (WIBI) which has been pilot tested on a small scale in the last 4 years will be expanded to at least 2,000 households. At the same time, the concept of Disaster Risk Management will be introduced, disseminated and strengthened at community level in the same locations where WIBI will be delivered in at least 30 barangays (covering approximately 85,000 individuals living in the barangays). It is believed that the provision of climate change adaptation options for two types of climate risks – increasing variability and intensifying/increasing extreme events – in a synchronized manner will increase the adaptive value of such options and reduces vulnerability of small-holder farmers.

The island of Mindanao has been chosen as the target sites for this project because of several considerations. First, Mindanao is considered the food basket of the Philippines and thus increasing vulnerability of farmers in Mindanao has a direct bearing on food security of the country. Second, the food production in Mindanao is characterized by small-scale operations and poverty is more prevalent than many other parts of the country, which make this region and region’s agriculture exceptionally vulnerable to future changes in climate. Lastly, working in Region 10 and 11 in Mindanao offers the opportunity to align closely with an ongoing UNDP baseline project.

The project was designed to reduce poverty by strengthening the resilience of vulnerable agriculture-based rural communities in Mindanao through climate risk transfer mechanisms and productivity enhancement measures. The project will achieve this objective by delivering the following three outcomes:

1) Policy Advocacy and Knowledge- Regulatory and fiscal incentive structures adjusted to stimulate private sector engagement in climate risk reduction and transfer for agriculture-based rural households;

2) Climate Risk Financing and Transfer - Weather index-based integrated financial package customized and applied to strengthen climate resilience in the agriculture sector in Mindanao; and

3) Community-based adaptation learning and measures – Farmers and producer organizations and other local stakeholders able to analyze climate risk and develop and implement adaptation practices to enhance productivity in agriculture and off-farm enterprises in support of a sustainable, diversified and market-driven economic base.

The essentials of the project to be evaluated are as follows:   

Objective and Scope 

The evaluation shall be conducted to assess Project performance vis-à-vis its targets and expected outputs, and its contribution relative to its objective. It will draw lessons that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from this project, and aid in the overall enhancement of UNDP programming.  The evaluation will cover the implementation period November 2014 – June 2017.

The specific objectives of the evaluation include:

• To assess project performance relative to its objective and targets, as stated in the Project Document and AMAT (1.2.2. & 2.3.1.2.)
• To assess the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the Project’s implementation and strategies in achieving the set outputs and results;
• To determine local capacities developed and level of participation of stakeholders in the achievement of the outputs and results; and
• To identify lessons learned and innovative practices and recommendations to inform the potential scale up of the project.

The TE 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.  

Evaluation Approach and Method

The overall approach and methodology of the terminal evaluation shall be guided by the provisions set forth in the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results and the UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation (refer to attached documents).  It should be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.

The evaluation should employ a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments (e.g. documents review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), surveys, and observations from project site visits). 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.

The technical proposal of the Evaluator would have to indicate specific activities, data sources, data collection and analysis methods needed to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives. A  set of evaluation questions covering each of these criteria shall also be drafted by the evaluator as part of the inception report (see Annex C). The evaluator is expected to amend, complete and submit this matrix 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 the selected members of the Project Board, GEF Operational Focal Point, UNDP Country Office, Project Team, UNDP-GEF Technical Adviser and relevant PCIC and LGU personnel based in the region. The evaluator is expected to conduct a field mission in Regions X and XI, including the following project sites: i) Malaybalay and Valencia in Bukidnon; and ii) Tugbok and Calinan Districts in Davao City. Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum: i) municipal agriculturists; ii) agricultural extension workers; iii) agricultural technicians; iv) chief executives (barangay, municipal and city); v) farmer groups (if present) and vi) responsible parties.

The evaluator will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project document, inception report, project reports – including Annual Progress Report (APR)/Project Implementation Report (PIR), project budget revisions, Quarter Progress Reports (QPR), 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. A list of documents that the project team will provide to the evaluator for review is included in Annex B of this Terms of Reference.

Evalaution Criteria and Ratings

An assessment of project performance will be carried out, based against expectations set out in the Project Logical Framework/Results Framework (see Annex A), 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. A rating scale for each criterion and overall Project performance will have to be defined by the Evaluator and must include a description for each rating as basis for interpretation. The completed table must be included in the evaluation executive summary.   The obligatory rating scales are included in  Annex D.

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 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

Mainstreaming

UNDP supported GEF financed 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 evaluators 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 ecological status; b) verifiable reductions in stress on ecological systems; and/or c) demonstrated progress towards these impact achievements.[1]

Conclusion, Recommendations and Lessons

The evaluation report must include a chapter providing a set of conclusions, recommendations and lessons.  Conclusions should build on findings and based on the evidences gathered and processed by the evaluator. Recommendations should be prioritized, specific, relevant and targeted with suggested entity or person in charge to implement the recommendation(s). Lessons generated from the experiences of the project should have broader applicability to other initiatives across regions or area of intervention.  

Implemantation Arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in the Philippines. The UNDP CO will contract the evaluator(s) and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within the country for the evaluation team. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the Evaluation team to set up stakeholder interviews, arrange field visits, coordinate with the Government etc., and other participants who will be involved in the evaluation process.

Evaluation Timeframe

The total duration of the evaluation will be 42 days over a time period of three (3) months according to the following schedule:

Evaluation Deliverables 

The evaluator is expected to deliver the following:

*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.  Actual submission dates are subject to change.

Schedule of Payments

• ​10% upon signing of contract
• 20% upon submission and acceptance of Inception Report
• 35% upon submission and acceptance of 1st draft terminal evaluation report
• 35% upon submission and acceptance of final terminal evaluation report 

Evaluator Ethics

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

Qualifications of Sucessful Consultant

The Consultant (Individual Contractor) shall have prior experience in evaluating similar projects. Experience with GEF-financed projects is an advantage. The Project Management Office (PMO) will provide assistance (logistical arrangement, translation, etc.) to the national consultant for the TE duration in liaison with the UNDP, PCIC and LGUs in the project sites. The evaluator selected should not have participated in the project preparation and/or implementation and should not have conflict of interest with project related activities

Education

• Master’s degree in development economics, development studies, management and other climate change adaptation-related fields. Experience in climate finance is an advantage;

Experience

• At least five (5) years experience with result-based management and evaluation methodologies particularly in the area of sustainable development and/or climate change adaptation with gender sensitive analysis;
• Knowledge or experience working with UNDP and/or GEF-projects and evaluations;
• Familiarity with the key issues and stakeholders in the agriculture sector of the Philippines;
• Demonstrated interviewing and writing skills with a strong capacity to produce evaluation and terminal reports based on a sound analysis of facts gathered;
• Demonstrated ability to assess complex situations particularly in agricultural financing, distill critical issues and to outline forward-looking conclusions and recommendations.

Language

• Fluency in oral and written English 

Criteria for Selection of Best Offer

The offer will evaluated based on the Combined Scoring method – where the qualifications will be weighted a max. of 70%  and combined with the financial offer which will be weighted a max of 30%.

Application Requirements

Applicants are requested to submit in one file the following documents to procurement.ph@undp.org.

1. Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability that indicates the all-inclusive lumpsum 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;
2. 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;

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

[1] A useful tool for gauging progress to impact is the Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) method developed by the GEF Evaluation Office:  ROTI Handbook 2009