View Notice

Re-advertisement Project Evaluator – Iraq Public Sector Modernisation Programme (I-PSM)-Phase II - Home Based with trips to Baghdad and Karbala, IRAQ
Procurement Process :Other
Office :UNDP Service Center - IRAQ
Deadline :05-Jun-19
Posted on :21-May-19
Development Area :CONSULTANTSCONSULTANTS
Reference Number :55874
Link to Atlas Project :
00089459 - Funding Facility for Stabilization
Documents :
Template for Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal
Overview :
 

Background:

The Iraq – Public Sector Modernisation (I-PSM) programme is a Government of Iraq-led UN joint programme supporting Iraq’s Strategic Government Plan (SGP) 2011-14 and its National Development Plan (NDP) 2010-2014. The programme is also fully aligned with the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2011-2014.   Phase II of the programme builds on lessons learned and recommendations emerging from the implementation and external evaluation of Phase I, but also on the conclusions and outcomes of the inception consultations performed, which fine-tuned and reaffirmed strategic interventions for Phase II.

The Programme focuses on four developmental themes: i) Developing policy and building machinery at the centre of government for managing Public Sector Modernisation (PSM); ii) Supporting system-wide reform for development management, gender mainstreaming, e-governance and national statistics; iii) Piloting reform in the three key sectors of health, education and water and sanitation (Watsan); and iv) Supporting decentralised service delivery and local governance initiatives.

By promoting and working on enhancing service delivery, the Government of Iraq will demonstrate to the Iraqi people that public sector modernization has concrete and tangible benefits for the population as a whole.  The programme will establish synergies with existing UN and other donors programming aimed at addressing corruption, decentralization and participation, and will fully integrate cross-cutting issues in relation to poverty, gender, social exclusion and environment.  The programme will be led by the GoI through its National PSM Steering Committee (NPSMSC), which provides overall strategic direction for PSM policy and coordination with particular attention to the development of the GoI’s PSM vision and strategy.  Three sector Ministerial Advisory Committees (Health, Education and WATSAN) will assist the PSMSC in guiding sectoral reforms in the concerned ministries and agencies.  The KRG will establish a Regional PSMC to take forward the work in Kurdistan Region in conjunction with the national initiative.

 

Description of Responsibilities:

1. Scope of work:

Majority of the evaluation will be Baghdad and Karbala with some- home based work where necessary. The evaluation will include both one-to-one interviews with project partners and, beneficiaries as well as desk- based review of project documents, quarterly narrative reports and other relevant documentation. The list of interviewees will be developed by the project team in consultation with the evaluation team; the questionnaire will be developed by the evaluation team based on the evaluation objectives set by the CO.

The overall evaluation will be facilitated and managed by the project team with close quidance from the MSU team.

Anticipated time frame for the evaluation will be from 20 June – 30 August 2019.

The project evaluation will focus on the following criteria:

a) Relevance and fulfilment of its outputs, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

Relevance: How important is the relevance or significance of the intervention regarding local and national priorities / is the project on the right track?

Effectiveness: Did the project achieve its set outputs? How significant/big is the impact or effectiveness of the project compared to its expected outputs?   (i.e. comparison: result- planning)

Efficiency: Did the project achieve its outputs/implement project activities economically (i.e. value for money)?  How big is the efficiency or the utilization ratio of project resources (i.e. comparison: invested resources - results/impact)

Impact: Does the overall intervention contribute to longer term outcomes/results? What is the impact or effect of the intervention in proportion to the overall situation of the target groups or the beneficiary population?

Sustainability: Are the positive impacts effective and sustainable? How is the sustainability of the intervention or its effects assessed?

b) Cross-cutting issues such as gender, human rights, civil society engagement and government - non-government partnerships, Do-No Harm and, conflict sensitivity principles are taken into consideration

c) Intervention logic (i.e. Log frame) is analyzed.

2. Objectives of the Evaluation:

The objectives of the evaluation are to:

  • Determine if the project has achieved its stated objectives and explain why/why not.

  • Determine project's results (i.e. mainly outputs and likelihood of their contribution to the outcome) in terms of sustaining the project's achievements.

  • Provide recommendationsto build on project's achievements and sustainability of the same.

  • Document lessons learned and best practice from the overall project implementation in order to consider for future programming including approximately 3 success stories..

  • Appraise project achievements against its expected outputs and recommend ways to improve future partnerships with project's implementing partners/ target groups.

  • The evaluation should take into consideration the project duration, overall budget/project resources and, political and environmental constraints/ challenges.

3. Key Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will be guided by the following set of core evaluation questions:

3.1 Relevance and strategic fit

  • To what extend does the project respond to the priorities outlined in the Government of Iraq’s (GoI) National Development Strategy?

  • Does the project respond to the real needs of the beneficiaries? Were the planned project objectives and intended results (i.e. outputs and outcomes) relevant and realistic to the situation and needs on the ground? Where the problems and needs adequately analyzed?

  • How well did the project design take into account the existing national capacities, political dynamics and security constrains? Did the project’s original design fill an existing gap that other ongoing interventions were not addressing?

3.2. Validity of design / the re-design

  • Were the objectives of the project clear, realistic and likely to be achieved within the established time schedule and with the allocated resources (including human resources)?

  • Was the project design / re-designlogical and coherent in terms of the roles, capacities and commitment of stakeholders to realistically achieve the planned results?

  • How effective was the coherence between the design of the project focus, the integration of UNDP and other relevant UN agencies, and the coordination with other developmental actors?

  • How appropriate and useful are the indicators described in the project document for monitoring and measuring results? If necessary, how should they be modified to be more useful? Are the means of verifications for the indicators appropriate?

  • To what extent were external factors and assumptions identified at the time of design?

  • Was the project designed in a flexible way to respond to changes / needs that could occur during the implementation?

  • Was the strategy for sustainability of impact defined clearly at the design stage of the project? If so, what were the methodology / approach taken appropriate to the context?

3.3. Achievements (Implementation and Development Effectiveness)

  • What are the development results (i.e. against the planned outputs) of interventions, taking into account the quality of the policies, the process of endorsement and adaptation at the local and national level, the feasiility and sustainability of those policies and the institutional development of the local and relevant national partners?

  • Which aspects of the project had the greatest achievements? What have been the supporting factors? What are the main lessons learned from the partnership strategies and what are the possibilities of replication and scaling-up? How can the project build or expand on achievements?

  • In which areas does the project have the least achievements? What have been the constraining factors and why? How can they be overcome?

  • To what extent have interventions addressed gender and Human Rights issues?

  • How effective was the collaboration between the participating UN organizations and what has been the added value of this collaboration?

  • How have stakeholders been involved in project implementation? How effective has the project been in establishing ownership with reference to the local development plans?

3.4. Effectiveness of management arrangements and efficiency of resource use

  • Have resources (funds, human resources, time, etc) been allocated strategically to achieve the relevant outputs and outcomes? Have resources been used efficiently?

  • Were project funds and activities delivered in a timely manner?

  • Were management capacities adequate?

  • Assess the criteria and governance aspects related to the selection of beneficiaries and partners institutions, including NGOs.

  • Did the project receive adequate political, technical and administrative support from its local and national partners?

  • Has relevant gender expertise and Human rights approaches programming been sought? Have available gender mainstreaming tools been adapted and utilized?

  • How effectively did the project management monitor project performance and results?

  • What has been the quality of documentation and dissemination of knowledge?

  • How efficient was the project in communicating its results?

3.5. Impact orientation and sustainability

  • To what extent did the project make a significant contribution to the reconstruction and development of institutions in the Governmental entities in Iraq?

  • How effectively has the project built necessary capacity of national organizations?

  • To what extent was sustainability considerations taken into account in the execution and conduct of the project’s activities? Is there an exit strategy and, if so, what steps have been taken to ensure sustainability?

  • Are the project results, achievements and benefits likely to be durable? Are these anchored in national institutions and can the partners maintain them at end of the project?

  • Can the project approach and results be replicated and scaled up by national partners and cover other Iraqi areas?

4. Methodology:

Project evaluation methodology will include the following assessment tools:

  • Desk review of relevant project documents.

  • One- to-one interviews with target groups / beneficiary population.

  • One- to-one interviews with the project team.

  • Discussions with the UNDP CO senior management and, relevant programme staff.

  • Consultations with relevant government representatives/implementing partners involved in the project both at national and provincial levels.

  • Consultations with donors/ international partners and, national non-governmental organizations who were directly engaged in the project implementation.

Findings from the above assessment tools will be triangulated to appraise and conclude findings. Overall, the evaluation will be Baghdad based given the focus of the project target coverage.  

The consultant will be assisted by the UNDP Project Manager - IPSM where necessary.

5. Deliverables and Outputs:

The consultant is expected to deliver the following outputs/ deliverables. It should be noted that the following list of outputs/ deliverables might be subject to review and revision by UNDP in discussion with the consultant in the event of unexpected changes to the context/ working environment in Baghdad/ Iraq during the consultancy period.

Deliverables and Outputs

Location

Target Date

Payment

%(US$)

1- work plan, methodology, Desk review, and one to one interview questionnaire.

[ 5 working days]

Home

Based

24 June 2019

10%

Field visit to conduct interview with UNDP project team and senior management, counterpart, and partners and donors.

[12 Working Days]

Baghdad, and Karbala, Iraq

20 July 2019

25%

  1. Submit the first draft the evaluation report to UNDP for comments/ feedback form the project team.

[10 Working Days]

Home

Based

10 August 2019

35%

  1. Finalize evaluation report incorporating project team's comments/ feedback and submit final report to UNDP.

[8 Working Days]

25 August 2018

30%

TOTAL (35 working days):

100%

6.Time and Method of payment:

  • First payment (10%) will be paid upon submission work plan and methodology.

  • Second payment (25%) will be paid upon finalize the field visit.

  • Third payment (35%) will be paid upon submission and acceptance of the first draft evaluation report.

  • Fourth and final payment (30%) will be paid upon submission and acceptance of final report.

  • The payment is deliverable based; i.e. upon satisfactory completion and UNDP’s acceptance of the deliverable.

  • Each payment claims must be approved by the UNDP MSU focal point and IPSM project manager.

  • UNDP will make the payments within 20 days from receipt of invoice.

7. Key Performance Indicators:

  • Planning and organizing: Identifies priority activities and assignments; allocates appropriate amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and actions as necessary and, uses time efficiently.
  • Communication: Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and, responds appropriately; asks questions to clarify and, exhibits interest in having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and, format to match the audience and, demonstrates openness in sharing information and keeping people informed.
  • Client orientation: Considers all those to whom services are provided to be “clients” and seeks to see things from clients’ point of view; establishes and maintains productive partnerships with clients by gaining their trust and respect and, meets time line for delivery of product or services to client.
  • Quality of deliverables: Professional skill required for delivering outputs will be assessed.
  • Satisfactory and timely deliverables: Satisfactory and timely completion of tasks and submission of the deliverables within the provision of above explained deliverables and, outputs.

Upon signing of the contract, the consultant is expected to develop a detailed work plan in consultation with the project team. It will include the following: activities, outputs and performance indicators and corresponding timelines.

8. Reporting:

The consultant will report to the UNDP-Iraq MSU for technical and administrative issues. On technical issues the consultant will seek advice and guidance from the project team.

9.Travel Plan:

#

Country / City

No of Travels

Working Days

Calendar Days

1

Baghdad, and Karbala

1

12

16 Calendar Days/ Nights

2

Home Base

n/a

23

N/A

Total Travel Plan

1

35

15 Calendar Days / Nights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.Time Line:

  • The consultancy will be home-based with travel to Baghdad and Karbala, Iraq for a total of 35 Working days over a period of 2 months, starting first of June to end of August 2019.

  • The consultancy may include travel to other locations in Iraq, where necessary, and on the request of the project. Such unforeseen travel shall be mutually agreed on and is subject to the approval of the project manager.

Facilities: 

  1. Office Facility:

    • UNDP will provide office space and access to internet and printing facilities in the International Zone in Baghdad.

    • The consultant is expected to have a laptop.

  2. The consultant is expected use their own mobile phone  and personal email address during the consultancy period including when present in Baghdad/ Iraq.

 

Competencies:

Corporate Competencies:

  • Demonstrates commitment to the UN’s values and ethical standards.
  • Promotes the mission, vision and strategic goals of UNDP.
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability.
  • Treats all people fairly and with impartiality.

Functional Competencies:

  • Consistently approaches work with energy and a positive, constructive attitude.
  • Ability to work under pressure and to meet deadlines.
  • Demonstrates excellent oral and written communication skills.
  • Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities.
  • Self-reliant and able to work as a part of a multi-cultural team in a stressful.

Professionalism:

  • Shows pride in work and in achievements; is conscientious and efficient in meeting commitments; observing deadlines and achieving results; is motivated by professional rather than personal concerns; shows persistence when faced with difficult problems or challenges and, remains calm in stressful situations.

Communication:

  • Speaks and writes clearly and effectively; listens to others, correctly interprets messages from others and, responds appropriately; asks questions to clarify and, exhibits interest in having two-way communication; tailors language, tone, style and, format to match the audience and, demonstrates openness in sharing information and, keeping people informed.

Planning and Organizing:

  • Identifies priority activities and assignments; allocates appropriate amount of time and resources for completing work; foresees risks and allows for contingencies when planning; monitors and adjusts plans and actions as necessary and, uses time efficiently.

Client Orientation:

  • Considers all those to whom services are provided to be “clients” and seeks to see things from clients’ point of view; establishes and maintains productive partnerships with clients by gaining their trust and respect and, meets time line for delivery of product or services to client.

Teamwork:

  • Works collaboratively with colleagues to achieve organisational goals; builds consensus for task purpose and direction with team members and, supports and acts in accordance with final group decisions, even when such decisions may not entirely reflect own position.

Technological awareness:

  • Keeps abreast of available technology, actively seeks to apply technology to appropriate tasks and, shows willingness to learn new technology.
 

Qualifications:

Qualifications and Requirements:

A. Education:

  • University degree:

Advance degree (Master) in international relations, Public Administration Public Policy and other relevant field.  

B. Work Experience:

  • At least 10 years’ experience in evaluation of Public Sector projects/ programmes in crisis countries is essential.
  • Previous experience and substantive knowledge on results-based management (RBM) and results-oriented monitoring and evaluation is essential.
  • Excellent knowledge and understanding of Public sector projects implementation including field experience is essential.
  • Experience of working with government institutions in post-conflict settings
  • Extensive experience in writing analytical research reports/project evaluation reports is essential;
  • Experience in working for the UN or other international development organisations in an international setting would be an asset.
  • Excellent analytical and problem-solving skills and proven ability to draft recommendations stemming from key findings is essential.
  • Experience of working at the policy level/strategic level would be an asset.
  • Excellent report writing skills are essential.
  • Experience in the usage of computers and office software packages (MS Word, Excel, etc).

C. Language:

  • Proficiency in written and spoken English is essential.

Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

The contractor shall submit a price proposal as below:

Daily Fee – The contractor shall propose a daily fee, which should be inclusive of his professional fee, local communication cost and insurance (inclusive of medical health insurance and evacuation). The number of working days for which the daily fee shall be payable under the contract is 35 working days.

Evaluation Method and Criteria

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodology:

1. Cumulative analysis

The award of the contract shall be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

a) responsive/compliant/acceptable, and

b) Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

* Technical Criteria: weight 70%

* Financial Criteria weight 30%

Criteria

Max. Point 100

Weight

Technical

Criteria A: relevance and responsiveness of candidate’s past experience, Qualification based on submitted documents:

  • Advance degree (Master) in international relations, Public Administration, Public Policy, and other relevant field (10 points)
  • At least 10 years’ experience in evaluation of Public sector projects/programmes in crisis countries (15 points)
  • Previous experience and substantive knowledge on results-based management (RBM) and results-oriented monitoring and evaluation (10 points)
  • Experience of working with government institutions in post-conflict settings (10 points)
  • Experience of working at the policy level/strategic level. (10 points)

60 Points

70%

Criteria B: relevance and responsiveness of candidate’s approach, technical proposal and submitted work plan and Methodologies:

  • Excellent report writing skills (supported by sample of reports.) (20 pts)
  • Time plan, methodology on how the consultant will conduct the required tasks; (10 points)
  • Experience in the usage of computers and office software packages (MS Word, Excel, etc). (10 points)

40 Points

Financial

Lowest Offer / Offer*100

30%

Total Score = (Technical Score * 0.7 + Financial Score * 0.3)

 

Weight Per Technical Competence

5 (outstanding): 96% - 100%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated an OUTSTANDING capacity for the analyzed competence.

4 (Very good): 86% - 95%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a VERY GOOD capacity for the analyzed competence.

3 (Good): 76% - 85%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a GOOD capacity for the analyzed competence.

2 (Satisfactory): 70% - 75%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a SATISFACTORY capacity for the analyzed competence.

1 (Weak): Below 70%

The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a WEAK capacity for the analyzed competence.

Documents to be included when submitting the proposals:

Interested international  individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document:

  • Duly accomplished Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal Template using the template provided by UNDP (Annex II);
  • 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.

Technical proposal:

  • Brief description of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment;
  • A methodology, on how they will approach and complete the assignment

Financial proposal, as per template provided in UNDP jobsite (Annex II); https://www.iq.undp.org/content/iraq/en/home/operations/jobs.html 

The qualified individuals are requested to make your application through the UNDP Jobs site following the below link: https://jobs.undp.org/cj_view_job.cfm?cur_job_id=85367

Incomplete proposals may not be considered