Procurement Notices

Project Title: National Evaluation Consultant for the Mid-Term Review of Conditional Matching Grant to Provinces (CMGP) Program of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Background and context

Efficient, resilient, and well-planned road networks ensure that no one is left behind in the drive for inclusive growth. Therefore, roads are considered as an important foundation for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and a prerequisite for bringing communities together. In 2016, only 24.6% of all provincial roads in the Philippines are of acceptable quality. Of the 12,726km of provincial core roads, 57.2% are unpaved and in need of upgrading, while 20.2% are in poor condition and in need of rehabilitation. The situation is similarly dire for the 19,098 km of non- core roads, with 67% needing upgrading and 7% in need of rehabilitation.

To address this situation, DILG and DBM jointly launched the CMGP in 2017. The program supports governance reforms, quality assurance and the strengthening of governance processes, specifically on Local Road Management (LRM) and Public Financial Management (PFM). By providing the provinces with financial investment (Local Government Support Fund), it addresses the under-investment of local roads, to improve national local road connectivity, increase economic activity and improve public access to facilities and services in the provinces.

In partnership with DILG, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has launched the Project “Paving the Roads to SDGs through Good Local Governance” (Roads2SDGs) to provide support on the quality assurance, governance reform components of CMGP, and citizen engagement in road governance through the “Roads to SDGs” framework.

The Roads2SDGs Framework is anchored on two complementing foundational precepts – (1) SDGs are potent to inform and enhance road governance; and, (2) good roads governance positively ushers in the attainment of the SDGs. This informs and enhances the prioritization, planning, design, implementation, and maintenance of road infrastructure projects to the achievement of SDGs, incorporating the elements of partnership building, climate change, disaster risk reduction, gender mainstreaming, and citizen participation for transparency and accountability, among others. In this manner, the SDGs provide a framework to strengthen the governance of road projects, which in turn, will positively impact the achievement of the SDGs.

DILG, through UNDP is commissioning a Mid-Term Review of the CMGP Program to support efforts to strengthen its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The review aims to assess the program’s continued relevance and progress made towards achieving its planned objectives. This will provide an opportunity to make modifications in the design, implementation and management to ensure the achievement of objectives within the lifetime of the program.

Evaluation purpose, scope and objectives

Purpose

The purpose of this activity is to review the implementation of the CMGP program since its inception. The mid-term review is geared towards improving program performance, evidence-based decision making and management, accountability, and learning. In particular, the review will look at results achieved to date in comparison with performance indicators and targets outline in the Results Framework. The review will also identify any operational issues that may be improved to facilitate better program implementation and delivery going forward and to ensure achievement of program objectives.

Scope

The review will determine the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the CMGP Program by assessing progress achieved so far against planned outcomes, including a review of the program design. It will identify significant factors that are facilitating or impeding delivery of outcomes. The review is expected to generate recommendations and lessons learned for the future of the program. It will also highlight strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities and risks of the program and provide recommendations for any necessary changes in the overall program design.

Objective

The mid-term review seeks to assess the overall performance of the Program to date, vis-à-vis its objectives and contribution to road governance reforms at the provincial level. The review aims to assist DILG-CMGP PMO in assessing the sustainability of the intervention, approaches and structures established by the program, and provide recommendations going forward.

Specific objectives of the review are as follows:

• Determining the relevance of the program in relation to existing needs of stakeholders and environment;
• Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of program implementation, including institutional arrangements, partnerships, M&E, and risk management;
• Evaluating progress and contribution of outputs to overall achievement of the seven (7) key governance reform areas, including unintended positive and negative results:
  • Local Road Information Management
  • Local Road Network Development Plan
  • Local Road Construction and Maintenance
  • Local Road Asset Management
  • Internal Audit
  • Budgeting, Revenue Generation and Expenditure Management; and
  • Procurement
• Assessing long-term sustainability of program intervention; and
• Identifying lessons learned and best practices in relation to strategies employed to achieve program objectives.

Evaluation criteria and key guiding questions

Specific issues and questions to be addressed will include, but not limited to the following:

Relevance

• To what extent is the program contributing to national development priorities and strategic policies and programmes of DILG?
• Is the design and approach of the program relevant in addressing the identified needs, issues and challenges?
• To what extent were lessons learned from other relevant programs considered in the program’s design?
• To what extent does the program contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the human rights-based approach?

Effectiveness

• Are program activities implemented in accordance with plans? If not, why?
• What outputs have been achieved? To what extend do they contribute to the overall objective of the program?
• To what extend has the program been appropriately responsive to the needs of the national constituents and changing partner priorities?
• To what extent has the program contributed to gender equality, the empower of women and the realization of human rights?
• Have there been any unintended positive or negative results arising from the intervention?
• How effective are the approaches and structures in delivering the desired outcomes and outputs?
• To what extent have stakeholders been involved in program implementation?

Efficiency

• Are the available technical and financial resources adequate to deliver the program plans?
• To what extent have resources been used efficiently? Are the activities and partnerships supporting the strategy been cost-effective?
• To what extent have the program funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?
• Is there an effective process built into the management structure for monitoring, assessment, reporting and reflection?
• How well did the program measure and respond to risk during design and implementation?

Sustainability

• How likely will the outputs and results of the program be sustained after its implementation period?
• To what extent will financial and economic resources be available to sustain the benefits achieved by the program?
• To what extent do stakeholders support the program’s long-term objectives? What is the risk that the level of stakeholders’ ownership will be sufficient to allow for the program benefits to be sustained?
• Are alternative measures needed and if so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive results?

Evaluation Methodology

The review process is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government partners, program team, and other relevant stakeholders. The evaluation plan should outline a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis. The methodologies for data collection may include but not necessarily be limited to:

1. Desk review of all relevant documents, which shall include the following: program document, contracts and related agreements, annual work plans and budget, and progress reports.
2. Systematic review of monitoring data from project (i.e., quarterly and annual reports, documentation of activities, and monitoring reports) and other key sources of data.
3. Semi-structured interviews. Key informant and focus group discussions, as appropriate, with all major stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries including the implementing agencies, provincial government units, partner civil society organizations (CSOs), community/individual beneficiaries. When applicable, beneficiaries should represent diverse groups, including women and youth from different ethnic groups and social-economic statuses. Proposals should clearly indicate how KII and FGD data will be captured, coded and analyzed.
4. Survey of key stakeholders, including those who are involved in the program within DILG and partner organization.
5. Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
6. Validation workshop (face-to-face unless otherwise agreed that virtual session will be required due to Covid-19 pandemic) of the key findings, conclusion and recommendation with key stakeholders.

The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and declaration of State of Public Health Emergency in the Philippines, all work and travel of the Individual consultant shall be done within the guidelines and protocols set by the local and national government. Field work, trainings, meetings, and coordination shall be done in compliance with community quarantine policies.

The Consultant should develop a methodology that takes this into account and should resort to the conduct of the review virtually and remotely, including the use of remote interview methods and extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires.

If all or part of the evaluation is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for the stakeholders’ availability, ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. In addition, their accessibility to the internet and computer may be an issue as many government and national counterparts may be working from home. These limitations must be reflected in the mid-term report.

Evaluation criteria and key guiding questions

Specific issues and questions to be addressed will include, but not limited to the following:

Relevance

• To what extent is the program contributing to national development priorities and strategic policies and programmes of DILG?
• Is the design and approach of the program relevant in addressing the identified needs, issues and challenges?
• To what extent were lessons learned from other relevant programs considered in the program’s design?
• To what extent does the program contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the human rights-based approach?

Effectiveness

• Are program activities implemented in accordance with plans? If not, why?
• What outputs have been achieved? To what extend do they contribute to the overall objective of the program?
• To what extend has the program been appropriately responsive to the needs of the national constituents and changing partner priorities?
• To what extent has the program contributed to gender equality, the empower of women and the realization of human rights?
• Have there been any unintended positive or negative results arising from the intervention?
• How effective are the approaches and structures in delivering the desired outcomes and outputs?
• To what extent have stakeholders been involved in program implementation?

Efficiency

• Are the available technical and financial resources adequate to deliver the program plans?
• To what extent have resources been used efficiently? Are the activities and partnerships supporting the strategy been cost-effective?
• To what extent have the program funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?
• Is there an effective process built into the management structure for monitoring, assessment, reporting and reflection?
• How well did the program measure and respond to risk during design and implementation?

Sustainability

• How likely will the outputs and results of the program be sustained after its implementation period?
• To what extent will financial and economic resources be available to sustain the benefits achieved by the program?
• To what extent do stakeholders support the program’s long-term objectives? What is the risk that the level of stakeholders’ ownership will be sufficient to allow for the program benefits to be sustained?
• Are alternative measures needed and if so, what is required to ensure continued sustainability and positive results?

Evaluation Methodology

The review process is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government partners, program team, and other relevant stakeholders. The evaluation plan should outline a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis. The methodologies for data collection may include but not necessarily be limited to:

1. Desk review of all relevant documents, which shall include the following: program document, contracts and related agreements, annual work plans and budget, and progress reports.
2. Systematic review of monitoring data from project (i.e., quarterly and annual reports, documentation of activities, and monitoring reports) and other key sources of data.
3. Semi-structured interviews. Key informant and focus group discussions, as appropriate, with all major stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries including the implementing agencies, provincial government units, partner civil society organizations (CSOs), community/individual beneficiaries. When applicable, beneficiaries should represent diverse groups, including women and youth from different ethnic groups and social-economic statuses. Proposals should clearly indicate how KII and FGD data will be captured, coded and analyzed.
4. Survey of key stakeholders, including those who are involved in the program within DILG and partner organization.
5. Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
6. Validation workshop (face-to-face unless otherwise agreed that virtual session will be required due to Covid-19 pandemic) of the key findings, conclusion and recommendation with key stakeholders.

The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and declaration of State of Public Health Emergency in the Philippines, all work and travel of the Individual consultant shall be done within the guidelines and protocols set by the local and national government. Field work, trainings, meetings, and coordination shall be done in compliance with community quarantine policies.

The Consultant should develop a methodology that takes this into account and should resort to the conduct of the review virtually and remotely, including the use of remote interview methods and extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires.

If all or part of the evaluation is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for the stakeholders’ availability, ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. In addition, their accessibility to the internet and computer may be an issue as many government and national counterparts may be working from home. These limitations must be reflected in the mid-term report.

Duty Station

The Consultant shall be based in the Philippines for the duration of the study.  Missions to select provinces in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, as agreed in the Inception Report, may be arranged by UNDP for fieldwork, data gathering and consultations. The program covers all provinces in the country, and the Consultant must provide indicative subject areas based on proposed sampling design. Meetings and coordination, whether regular or irregular, shall be conducted through digital collaborations and conferencing tools by default unless otherwise agreed upon.

The Consultant will travel to program sites, COVID19 travel restrictions permitting. Any necessary mission travel must be approved in advance by the CO focal point and the BSAFE course must be completed before the commencement of travel. The Consultant will be responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when traveling to certain parts of the country, as designated by the UN Medical Director. The Consultant is also required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under https://dss.un.org/dssweb/.

The UNDP will be responsible for making the  site travel arrangements and will shoulder related expenses in line with UNDP travel policies.

Scope of Price Proposal and Schedule of Payments

The Consultant should send the financial proposal based on a lump-sum amount for the delivery of the outputs identified below. The total amount quoted shall be “all inclusive” (professional daily fees X working days, communications, etc.) that could possibly be incurred by the Contractor should be factored into the final amount submitted in the proposal. Travel, as deemed relevant by UNDP and compliant with government guidelines on community quarantine, will be arranged and paid for by UNDP and should not be included in the financial proposal.

Medical/health insurance must be purchased by the individual at his/her own expense, and upon award of contract, the Contractor must be ready to submit proof of insurance valid during contract duration.

The contract price will be fixed output-based price. Any deviations from the output and timeline will be agreed upon between the Contractor and the UNDP.

Payments will be done upon satisfactory completion of the delivery by target due dates. Outputs will be certified by the Project Manager and M&E Officer of UNDP Roads2SDGs prior to release of payments.

Duties and Responsibilities

The Consultant will be engaged for 40 days spread within the period of November 2, 2020 to March 05, 2020 and shall be paid the fees based on the delivery of the following deliverables/outputs

1. Inception Report (10-15 pages). To be submitted within two (2) weeks from the official start of engagement, outlining the framework of analysis, schedule of activities, budget, milestones and deliverables and presented to the ERG. The Inception Report will include an Evaluation Matrix that outlines how the Consultant will collect and analyze data to answer all evaluation questions. Missions to select provinces in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao will be agreed during inception and the Consultant must provide indicative subject areas based on proposed sampling design.  
2. Evaluation debriefings. Presentation of initial findings to ERG, DILG and UNDP after the end of the field work and shall also highlight the actual coverage of the mission, additional requirements, if any and next steps.
3. Draft Mid-Term Review Report. The draft report will be circulated to ERG and project stakeholders for review and comments within an agreed period of time. The Consultant shall be required to provide an Evaluation Report Audit Trail, detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final report. This audit trail should be included as an annex in the Final Mid-Term Review Report
4. Final Mid-Term Review Report and Presentation to ERG and Key Stakeholders. The outline of the report should be based on the guidelines and templates to be provided by UNDP. The consultant shall also:
   1. Provide an executive summary, slide deck, and dissemination strategy of the report – to whom the report should be disseminated and what are the messages; and
   2. Solicitation of management response to the evaluation recommendations.

Deliverables/Outputs

Under the overall guidance of the UNDP Roads2SDGs Project Manager, and working closely with the UNDP Roads2SDGs Project M&E Officer and DILG-CMGP M&E Focal, the Consultant will coordinate all the activities, outputs and other concerns in the conduct of the Mid-Term Review. The Project Manager and Project M&E Officer shall review and approve the outputs submitted by the Consultant in consultation with relevant DILG Officials and the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG).

In conducting research, data gathering, and fieldwork, the Consultant shall coordinate with DILG Central, Regional, and Provincial Offices, Provincial Local Government Units, and other relevant government agencies through DILG-CMGP PMO and UNDP. DILG and UNDP shall provide the necessary endorsements, including endorsement letters and calls to the implementing units to be covered.

The Consultant will be responsible for implementing all evaluation-related activities – collecting and organizing project technical and financial documents and in producing evaluation products listed in Section V. While UNDP and DILG will provide the information required and support in coordinating with stakeholders, the Consultant will have to manage its own schedule and logistical arrangements in the conduct of review.

Competencies

Core Values

• Demonstrates integrity and fairness by modelling UN values and ethical standards;
• Demonstrates professional competence to meet responsibilities and post requirements and is conscientious & efficient in meeting commitments, observing deadlines and achieving results;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;

Core competencies

• Results-Orientation: Plans and produces quality results to meet established goals, generates innovative, practical solutions to challenging situations;
• Communication: Excellent communication skills, including the ability to convey complex concepts and recommendations, both orally and in writing, in a clear and persuasive style tailored to match different audiences;
• Teamwork: Ability to interact, establish and maintain effective working relations with a culturally diverse team; 
• Client orientation: Ability to establish and maintain productive partnerships with national partners and stakeholders and pro-activeness in identifying of beneficiaries and partners’ needs and matching them to appropriate solutions. 

Required Skills and Experience

Offers will be evaluated based on the combined scoring method :

• Technical qualifications = 50%
• Plan of Approach and Methodology = 20%
• Financial Proposal = 30%

For the evaluation of the Technical Proposal, the selection of the successful consultant must be based on the following qualifications (with the appropriate obtainable points): 

Applicants who will only receive 80 points from the assessment of the CV will be qualified for the assessment of the Financial Proposal.

Assessment of best offer will be via Combined Scoring method – where the technical qualifications and plan of approach/methodology will be weighed 70 percent, combined with the price offer which will be weighed 30 percent.

Financial score (max 30 points) shall be computed as a ratio of the proposal being evaluated and the lowest priced proposal of those technically qualified.

The financial proposal shall specify an all-inclusive lump sum fee. In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal must additionally include a breakdown of daily fees (including all foreseeable expenses to carry out the assignment). Applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score and has accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract

Recommended Presentation of Offer

Interested applicants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications. Please group them into one (1) single PDF document as the application only allows to upload maximum one document. 

1. Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability