![](https://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/images/undp-jobs-logo.jpg)
Academic Qualifications/Education
- Advanced university degree in international relations, social sciences, economics, public administration, law or other related sciences; MA in any of indicated fields is considered an advantage.
Experience
- At least 3 years of extensive expertise and experience in evaluations of the projects/programmes;
- Sound knowledge of UNDP results-based management systems, and gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation methodologies;
- General understanding and knowledge of the political/administrative and development context in partner countries, with specific focus on project targeted beneficiaries and stakeholders;
- Proven analytical skills and ability to conceptualize and write concisely and clearly.
Languages Requirements
- Fluency in English
- Knowledge of Czech language is an asset
Other
- Excellent computer skills (MS Office applications) and ability to use information technologies as a tool and resource.
Evaluation of Applicants
Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal.
The award of the contract should 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 (P11 desk reviews and interviews) and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.
Only highest ranked candidates who would be found qualified for the job based on the P11 desk review will be invited for an interview”.
Financial
Technical Criteria – 70% of total evaluation – max. 70 points:
Criteria A (Relevant education) – max points: 5
Criteria B (Experience) – max points: 25
Criteria C (knowledge of English and Russian) – max points: 10
Criteria D – interviews (expertise in evaluation of projects/programmes will be scored and evaluated) – max 10
Criteria E – interview (knowledge of results-based management systems will be scored and evaluated) – max 10
Criteria F – interview (knowledge of development context of the CIS region will be scored and evaluated) – max 10
Financial Criteria – 30% of total evaluation – max. 30 points
The financial proposal will specify a total lump sum amount and payment terms around specific and measurable (qualitative and quantitative) deliverables. Payments are based upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR and according to the lump sum breakdown as presented below.
Application procedures Qualified candidates are requested to apply online via this website. The application should contain:
Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials. *Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, personal security needs and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services). Travel is not envisaged due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the closed borders. Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner. In line with the UNDP’s financial regulations, when determined by the IRH and/or the Consultant that a deliverable or service cannot be satisfactorily completed due to the impact of COVID-19 and limitations to the evaluation, that deliverable or service will not be paid. Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, an extension of the contract may be considered if the consultant invested time towards the deliverable but was unable to complete to circumstances beyond his/her control. Qualified women and members of minorities are encouraged to apply. Due to large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process. |
Evaluation ethics
This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations’. The consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners.
TOR annexes (Application annexes can be found under the link: http://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=82175)
Annex 1. Project results framework
Annex 2. Indicative list of main stakeholders to be interviewed in evaluation
Annex 3. List of documents to be considered for the evaluation desk review
Annex 4. Evaluation matrix template
Annex 5. Standard outline for the UNDP evaluation report
Annex 1. Project Result Framework
(attached separately)
Annex 2. Indicative list of main stakeholders to be interviewed in evaluation
UNDP Country Offices and the national partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Ethiopia, Cambodia and Zambia
Accelerator Labs in Bosnia and Harzegovina and Ethiopia
Green City Lab in City of Chisinau
Selected experts that were engaged for the assignments under the Experts on Demand modality;
Selected innovators awarded within the Challenge Fund modality;
Local Partners of the Czech innovators;
Local institutions and other stakeholders as beneficiaries of the initiatives;
Czech Embassies in partners countries;
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic (donor);
Czech Development Agency
Annex 3. List of documents to be considered for the evaluation desk review
- ProDoc;
- Challenge Fund Guidelines;
- Expertise on Demand Guidelines;
- Project Annual Progress Reports;
- Project Quarterly Reports
- Minutes of the Project Board meetings;
- Evaluation reports;
- Mission Reports BTRs);
- Communications and Visibility Strategy
- CUP website
Annex 4. Evaluation matrix template
Relevant evaluation criteria |
Key Questions |
Specific Sub-Questions |
Data Sources |
Data collection Methods / Tools |
Indicators/ Success Standard |
Methods for Data Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annex 5. Standard outline for the UNDP evaluation report
1. Title and opening pages with details of the project/project/outcome and of the evaluation team.
2. Project and evaluation information details: title, Atlas number, budgets and project dates and other key information.
3. Table of contents.
4. List of acronyms and abbreviations.
5. Executive summary: a stand-alone section of maximum four pages including the quality standards and assurance ratings.
6. Introduction and overview. What is being evaluated and why?
7. Description of the intervention being evaluated. Provides the basis for report users to understand the logic and evaluability analysis result, assess the merits of the evaluation methodology and understand the applicability of the evaluation results.
8. Evaluation scope and objectives. The report should provide a clear explanation of the evaluation’s scope, primary objectives and main questions.
9. Evaluation approach and methods. The evaluation report should describe in detail the selected methodological approaches, methods and analysis.
10. Data analysis. The report should describe the procedures used to analyse the data collected to answer the evaluation questions.
11. Findings and conclusions. Evaluation findings should be based on an analysis of the data collected and conclusions should be drawn from these findings. Specifically, the Project Evaluation Report will include a review of impact and effects of the Project on its beneficiary institutions.
12. Recommendations. The report should provide a reasonable number of practical, feasible recommendations directed to the intended users of the report about what actions to take or decisions to make prior and during the Project Phase III to be elaborated.
13. Forward-looking actionable recommendation for the Project, outlining key strategic priorities to be addressed in the potential next phase of the project.
14. Lessons learned. As appropriate and as requested in the TOR, the report should include discussion of lessons learned from the evaluation of the intervention.
15. Annexes.