By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read our privacy policy

2455 Project Evaluator (Final project evaluation) – National Expert

Belgrade

  • Organization: UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
  • Location: Belgrade
  • Grade: National Consultant - Locally recruited Contractors Agreement
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
    • Project and Programme Management
  • Closing Date: 2022-07-10

Background

Purpose

 

The purpose is to provide information about the results of the Accountable Public Finance Management Platform project implementation.

 

Objective

 

The objective is to assess if and how project outcomes are achieved, the efficiency with which outputs are achieved and contribute to outcomes achievement, relevance for the national strategic framework and UNDP Country Programme outcome and sustainability of the results, and to provide recommendations for future engagement.

 

Background Information

 

Public Administration Reform (PAR) remains one of the top priorities of the Government of the Republic of Serbia and at the same time, it constitutes one of the basic preconditions for joining the EU Administrative Space in the process of acceding to the EU.

 

The main objectives of PAR are improving the functionality and effectiveness of the public-sector institutions and organizations, strengthening public policy management, developing a modern and professional civil service system, improving of the system of local self-government, digitization and development of e-government, improving public financial management, increasing transparency in public sector management as a whole.

 

Public Finance Management (PFM) is one of the cornerstones of Public Administration Reform. It has a crucial impact on economic governance and sustainability of socio-economic reforms, and it is also closely linked with meeting EU accession requirements under negotiation chapters which relate to taxation (Chapter 16), customs (Chapter 29), economic and monetary affairs (Chapter 17), public procurement (Chapter 5) and internal control and external audit (Chapter 32).

 

In July 2019, the Ministry of Finance, State Audit Institution, Public Procurement Office, Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities and UNDP, with support of the Swedish Government, have kicked off the project “Accountable Public Finance Management”. The overall objective of the project is to improve the management of public institutions in charge of carrying out the public finance reform.

 

The current project builds on the previous UNDP led interventions in this area, which include projects “Accelerating Accountability Mechanisms in Public Finance” and “Enhancement of Municipal Internal Audit for Accountability and Efficiency in Public Finance Management” that have been successfully completed in 2018 and 2019.

 

The current project was designed as a multi-point holistic solution – with combined actions from several key directions (stakeholders). Main project partners are: State Audit Institution (SAI), Ministry of Finance (Tax Administration, Central Harmonization Unit), Public Procurement Office, Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities and Ministry of European Integration.

 

The project addresses two key areas:

(1) Budget execution and financial control, and

(2) External scrutiny over public finances

…while also focusing on horizontal and cross-cutting issues related to ensuring sustainable internal control systems within key public-sector institutions, enhancing transparency in the management of public funds at the local level and improving cooperation between civil society organizations (CSO) and local self-governments, and enhancing the capacities of CSOs and journalists to monitor and report on corruption and misuse of public finances. The project will end on 30th September 2022.

 

It is important to highlight that the project is providing assistance to the Government of the Republic of Serbia in the process of harmonization of the national institutional capacities and legal framework with the EU acquis through structured capacity development, applying EU best practices, and assisting the national counterparts in the process of accession negotiations with the European Union under Chapter 5 – Public procurement, and Chapter 32 – Internal control and external audit.

 

This UNDP initiative also joins the general efforts of the UN and its partners in Serbia who are working towards achieving global Sustainable Development Goals to support country’s progress in advancing national development priorities fully aligned with the Agenda 2030, National Program for the Adoption of the Acquis Communautaire (NPAA) and with the EU reform processes.

 

The project was aimed to achieve the following outcomes:

 

I. EFFECTIVE BUDGET EXECUTION AND FINANCIAL CONTROL (Outcomes 1 and 2)

  • Outcome 1 – The Government improves overall management of public funds at both state and local levels
    • Output 1.1 - Reducing tax evasion by strengthening the capacities of the Tax Police for operational analysis and intelligence
    • Output 1.2 - The Tax Administration increases voluntary tax compliance by improving its corporate values and image
    • Output 1.3 - The Ministry of Finance/The Department for Internal Control and Internal Audit and the Public Procurement Office increase the retention of Internal Auditors and Public Procurement Officers in the public sector
    • Output 1.4 - Further support to Serbian contracting authorities in stimulating competition and applying the Best Value for Money Approach
    • Output 1.5 - Local self-governments increase transparency in the management of public funds
    • Output 1.6 – The effectiveness and efficiency of donor coordination is improved, and the absorption of external financing is increased at all levels
    • Output 1.7 – Support to Central Harmonization Unit (CHU) of the Ministry of Finance in enhancing the Financial Management Control and Internal Audit in targeted LSGs
  • Outcome 2 – Strengthening transparent and project-based funding of civil society organizations (CSOs) from local government budgets towards greater civic engagement in decision-making and improvement of local service delivery
    • Output 2.1 Local self-governments improve cooperation with civil society organizations (CSO) in implementing measures and activities to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at local level

II. EXTERNAL SCRUTINY OVER PUBLIC FINANCES (Outcomes 3 and 4)

  • Outcome 3 – The State Audit Institution automatizes and improves the management of the entire audit process
    • Output 3.1 - The State Audit Institution (SAI) increases the number and quality of external audit reports by improving the management of the audit business processes through an Audit Management System
  • Outcome 4 – The capacities of CSOs and journalists to monitor and report on corruption and misuse of public finance are improved
    • Output 4.1 - Media and CSOs are better equipped to monitor and report on corruption and misuse of public funds

 

In line with the abovementioned, UNDP Serbia invites applications from qualified consultants in order to perform the final evaluation of the Accountable Public Finance Management Platform project.

 

Note: Project Results Framework showing the structure of outcomes and outputs is annexed to this ToR.

Duties and Responsibilities

 

Scope of work

 

The final evaluation should assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project. It should assess what works and why, highlight intended and unintended results, and provide strategic lessons to guide decision-makers and inform stakeholders.

 

The consultant will, under the direct supervision of the Programme Analyst - Assurance, M&E and Reporting, review, analyze and provide conclusions and recommendations on the following:

 

  • The contribution of the project to the implementation of relevant national strategic frameworks and UNDP’s Country Programme Document;
  • Draw linkages to the SDGs and relevant targets and indicators for the area being evaluated
  • The degree to which the project activities listed in the Project Document have been successfully implemented and desired outputs achieved;
  • In which areas has the project had greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the project build on or expand these achievements?
  • What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness;
  • The efficiency of the project approach in delivering outputs;
  • Assessment of external factors affecting the project, and the extent to which the project has been able to adapt and/or mitigate the effects of such factors;
  • The approach to project management, including the role of stakeholders and coordination with other development projects in the same area;
  • To what extent were partnership modalities conducive to the delivery of country programme outputs?
  • The extent to which the target beneficiaries have benefited from the project activities, including women and vulnerable groups;
  • To what extent were the resources used to address inequalities in general, and gender issues in particular?
  • The extent to which the project recognized changing context in which it operates and provided tailor-made activities in order to satisfy the new context and map opportunity spaces;
  • The level of beneficiaries’ and partners satisfaction with programme implementation and results;
  • The potential for continuation or up scaling of the initiative and its sustainability.
  • To what extent are policy and regulatory frameworks in place that will support the continuation of benefits for men and women in the future?
  • To what extent have partners committed to providing continuing support?
  • To what extent will targeted men, women and vulnerable people benefit from the project interventions in the long term?

 

Methodology

 

The evaluation approach has to respond to standard international practices in project evaluation. The proposed steps in conducting the evaluation will be:

 

  • Review of project documentation, monitoring records and progress and other relevant reports;
  • Initial meeting with Project Team to agree the specific design and methods for the evaluation, what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives. Agree on the evaluation questions that will need to be answered, given limitations of time and extant data;
  • Organization of interviews with key staff involved in the project implementation;
  • Prepare inception report with evaluation matrix*;
  • Discussions with members of the project team and members of the public finance ecosystem (project beneficiaries) to assess project's relevance and effectiveness of project implementation take note of their perceptions of accomplishments and potentials for further development and provide suggestions for management response to evaluation findings. Objectively verifiable data should be collected whenever available to supplement evidence obtained through interviews and focus group discussions;
  • Prepare Draft Report and present it to the Project Team, Implementing Partner and beneficiaries; 
  • Incorporate received feedback into the Final Report;
  • Prepare the Final Report** with the Executive Summary;
  • Each evaluation criterion should be scored using the evaluations rating scale: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Moderately Satisfactory (MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U) and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU), as follows

 

A:  Assessment of Project Outcomes

Rating

Weighting

1. Project Effectiveness of achieving results

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

2. Project Efficiency in achieving results

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

3. Project Relevance

Relevant or not relevant

 

Output rating

Averaged from above

30%

 

 

 

B:  Sustainability

 

 

4. Sustainability of Results

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

5. Sustainability within the Socio-Political setting

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

6. Sustainability of Institutional framework and governance

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

Overall Likelihood of sustainability

Averaged from above

20%

 

 

 

C:  Monitoring and evaluation

 

 

7. Project M&E design at entry

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

8. M&E plan implementation

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

M&E overall rating

Averaged from above

20%

 

 

 

D: Implementation

 

 

9. Quality of UNDP project implementation

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

10. Inclusion of relevant crosscutting issues (gender, environmental safeguards, Human rights etc.

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

Overall Implementation rating

 

30%

 

 

 

Overall project quality

Based on weightings of above scores.

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

 

A following set of information sources about the project will be made available to the Evaluator:

 

  • Project documents;
  • Progress reports;
  • Key documents (strategies, policy papers, monitoring reports, surveys etc.) produced by the project.

* Inception report and evaluation matrix formats are annexed to this ToR (Annexes IV, V and VI constitute an integral part of this ToR)

 

 

**The final report must include, but not necessarily be limited to the elements outlined in the quality criteria for evaluation reports (Annex I constitute an integral part of this ToR).

 

Deliverables and Timelines

 

It is expected that the evaluation will be completed in line with the below specified schedule, with the following deliverables due:

 

Deliverables

Duration (days)

Deadline

Inception report including work plan and evaluation matrix prepared and accepted

7 days

 29 Aug 2022

Draft Evaluation Report prepared and accepted

14 days

 12 Sep 2022

Draft Evaluation Report presented to the Project Team, Implementing Partner and beneficiaries

1 day

 12 Sep 2022

Final Evaluation report with Executive Summary prepared and accepted

5 days

 28 Sep 2022

 

Travel costs (transport, accommodation and living costs) should be included in consultant’s lump-sum offer and payables agreed prior to start of the mission.

 

The criteria of utility, credibility, appropriateness will be used for assessing the quality of the evaluation report:

  • The report has to be written in clear language (English);
  • The Executive Summary should be a short chapter, highlighting the evaluation mandate, approach, key findings, conclusions and recommendations and not a copy-paste from the body text of the report or ToR; 
  • The information in the report has to be complete, well-structured and well presented;
  • The information in the report has to be reliable i.e. well documented and supported findings;
  • The information in the report has to addresses priority or strategic information needs;
  • Recommendations have to be concrete and implementable;
  • Human rights and gender equality perspective has been taken into account.

 

Detailed quality criteria are given in Annex 1.

The evaluation has to be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. Code of conduct is enclosed as Annex II and constitutes integral part of this ToR.

Competencies

  • Excellent analytical skills;
  • Displays ability to synthesize research and reach empirically based conclusions on related subject;
  • Strong writing skills;
  • Proven capacity to produce reports;
  • Displays capacity to provide experienced advice on best practices;
  • Possesses knowledge of inter-disciplinary development issues;
  • Focuses on result for the client and responds positively to feedback;
  • Good application of Results-Based Management;
  • Good communication, coordination and facilitation skills;
  • Consistently ensures timeliness and quality of work;
  • Treats all people fairly without favourism;
  • Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
  • Demonstrates integrity by modeling ethical standards.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

 

  • Bachelor or equivalent in relevant field of humanities, social science, economics or business administration.

 

Work experience:

 

  • Minimum 5 years of relevant professional experience, preferably in international/multilateral development context;
  • Experience in evaluating and monitoring technical cooperation and development activities and projects;
  • Experience in M&E or performance management assignments;
  • Understanding of current policies, legislation and international standards related to public administration reform and public finance management;
  • Familiarity with the UN(DP) evaluation policy, norms and standards;
  • Knowledge in the use of computers and office software packages and handling of web-based monitoring systems.

 

Language:

 

  • Excellent knowledge of written and spoken Serbian and English.

 

Application Procedure:

Qualified and interested candidates are asked to submit their applications via UNDP Web site: UNDP in Serbia under section “Jobs” no later than 10 July 2022

 

The application must include the following documents: 

 

  • CV in English language containing date of birth, contact information (home address, phone number, e-mail) and timeline of work experience (including description of duties); CV must include contact information and references for all evaluations and assessments performed; All criteria set in evaluation methodology should be elaborated in CV.

 

  • Offeror’s Letter (only PDF format will be accepted) confirming Interest and availability for the Individual Contractor (IC) Assignment. Can be downloaded from the following link: https://rs.undp.org/content/dam/serbia/downloads/confirmation.docx. The Offeror’s Letter shall include financial proposal specifying a total lump sum amount for the tasks specified in this announcement with a breakdown of costs.

 

The shortlisted candidates may be asked to provide copies of diplomas and any other certificates providing evidence of their education and experience in relevant fields. Short listed candidates will be asked to provide representative examples of Evaluation Reports they have prepared in the last three years.

 

In order to apply please merge above listed documents into a single PDF file. The system does not allow for more than one attachment to be uploaded.

 

Financial Proposal:

 

  • Lump sum contracts

The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount, and payment terms around specific and measurable (qualitative and quantitative) deliverables (i.e. whether payments fall in installments or upon completion of the entire contract). Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR.  In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal will include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (including travel, per diems, and number of anticipated working days).

 

Travel

 

In case of travel, costs incurred will be covered by project. In general, UNDP should not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticket. Should the IC wish to travel on a higher class he/she should do so using their own resources.

 

Evaluation

 

1. Cumulative analysis

When using this weighted scoring method, 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 and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

* Technical Criteria weight; 70%

* Financial Criteria weight; 30%

Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 49 points would be considered for the Financial Evaluation

Criteria

Weight

Max. Point

Technical-desk review

70%

70 points

Criteria A

 Professional experience in monitoring and evaluations and project or programme management preferably in international/multilateral development context. Relevant working experience has to be clearly demonstrated through submitted CV.

 

35 points

 

Criteria B

 At least 10 evaluated development projects, programs and country programmes (mid-term and final evaluations). Relevant working experience has to be clearly demonstrated through submitted CV.

35 points

Financial

30%

30 points

 

Additional Information:

 

In the case of engagement of Civil servants under IC contract modality a no-objection letter should be provided by the Government entity. The ‘no-objection’ letter must also state that the employer formally certifies that their employees are allowed to receive short-term consultancy assignment from another entity without being on “leave-without-pay” status (if applicable), and include any conditions and restrictions on granting such permission, if any. If the previous is not applicable ‘leave-without-pay’ confirmation should be submitted.

Engagement of Government Officials and Employees

 

  • Government Officials or Employees are civil servants of UN Member States.  As such, if they will be engaged by UNDP under an IC which they will be signing in their individual capacity (i.e., engagement is not done through RLA signed by their government employer), the following conditions must be met prior to the award of contract:

(i)       A “No-objection” letter in respect of the individual is received from the Government employing him/her, and;

(ii)     The individual must provide an official documentation from his/her employer formally certifying his or her status as being on “official leave without pay” for the duration of the IC.

  • The above requirements are also applicable to Government-owned and controlled enterprises and well as other semi/partially or fully owned Government entities, whether or not the Government ownership is of majority or minority status.   
  • UNDP recognizes the possibility that there are situations when the Government entity employing the individual that UNDP wishes to engage is one that allows its employees to receive external short-term consultancy assignments (including but not limited to research institutions, state-owned colleges/universities, etc.), whereby a status of “on-leave-without-pay” is not required.  Under such circumstance, the individual entering into an IC with UNDP must still provide a “No-objection” letter from the Government employing him/her.  The “no objection” letter required under (i) above must also state that the employer formally certifies that their employees are allowed to receive short-term consultancy assignment from another entity without being on “leave-without-pay” status and include any conditions and restrictions on granting such permission, if any.  The said document may be obtained by, and put on record of, UNDP, in lieu of the document (ii) listed above.

Scope of work

 

The final evaluation should assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project. It should assess what works and why, highlight intended and unintended results, and provide strategic lessons to guide decision-makers and inform stakeholders.

 

The consultant will, under the direct supervision of the Programme Analyst - Assurance, M&E and Reporting, review, analyze and provide conclusions and recommendations on the following:

 

  • The contribution of the project to the implementation of relevant national strategic frameworks and UNDP’s Country Programme Document;
  • Draw linkages to the SDGs and relevant targets and indicators for the area being evaluated
  • The degree to which the project activities listed in the Project Document have been successfully implemented and desired outputs achieved;
  • In which areas has the project had greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the project build on or expand these achievements?
  • What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness;
  • The efficiency of the project approach in delivering outputs;
  • Assessment of external factors affecting the project, and the extent to which the project has been able to adapt and/or mitigate the effects of such factors;
  • The approach to project management, including the role of stakeholders and coordination with other development projects in the same area;
  • To what extent were partnership modalities conducive to the delivery of country programme outputs?
  • The extent to which the target beneficiaries have benefited from the project activities, including women and vulnerable groups;
  • To what extent were the resources used to address inequalities in general, and gender issues in particular?
  • The extent to which the project recognized changing context in which it operates and provided tailor-made activities in order to satisfy the new context and map opportunity spaces;
  • The level of beneficiaries’ and partners satisfaction with programme implementation and results;
  • The potential for continuation or up scaling of the initiative and its sustainability.
  • To what extent are policy and regulatory frameworks in place that will support the continuation of benefits for men and women in the future?
  • To what extent have partners committed to providing continuing support?
  • To what extent will targeted men, women and vulnerable people benefit from the project interventions in the long term?

 

Methodology

 

The evaluation approach has to respond to standard international practices in project evaluation. The proposed steps in conducting the evaluation will be:

 

  • Review of project documentation, monitoring records and progress and other relevant reports;
  • Initial meeting with Project Team to agree the specific design and methods for the evaluation, what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives. Agree on the evaluation questions that will need to be answered, given limitations of time and extant data;
  • Organization of interviews with key staff involved in the project implementation;
  • Prepare inception report with evaluation matrix*;
  • Discussions with members of the project team and members of the public finance ecosystem (project beneficiaries) to assess project's relevance and effectiveness of project implementation take note of their perceptions of accomplishments and potentials for further development and provide suggestions for management response to evaluation findings. Objectively verifiable data should be collected whenever available to supplement evidence obtained through interviews and focus group discussions;
  • Prepare Draft Report and present it to the Project Team, Implementing Partner and beneficiaries; 
  • Incorporate received feedback into the Final Report;
  • Prepare the Final Report** with the Executive Summary;
  • Each evaluation criterion should be scored using the evaluations rating scale: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Moderately Satisfactory (MS), Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U) and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU), as follows

 

A:  Assessment of Project Outcomes

Rating

Weighting

1. Project Effectiveness of achieving results

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

2. Project Efficiency in achieving results

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

3. Project Relevance

Relevant or not relevant

 

Output rating

Averaged from above

30%

 

 

 

B:  Sustainability

 

 

4. Sustainability of Results

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

5. Sustainability within the Socio-Political setting

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

6. Sustainability of Institutional framework and governance

Likely (4) to Unlikely (1)

 

Overall Likelihood of sustainability

Averaged from above

20%

 

 

 

C:  Monitoring and evaluation

 

 

7. Project M&E design at entry

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

8. M&E plan implementation

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

M&E overall rating

Averaged from above

20%

 

 

 

D: Implementation

 

 

9. Quality of UNDP project implementation

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

10. Inclusion of relevant crosscutting issues (gender, environmental safeguards, Human rights etc.

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

Overall Implementation rating

 

30%

 

 

 

Overall project quality

Based on weightings of above scores.

Highly satisfactory (6) to Highly Unsatisfactory (1)

 

 

A following set of information sources about the project will be made available to the Evaluator:

 

  • Project documents;
  • Progress reports;
  • Key documents (strategies, policy papers, monitoring reports, surveys etc.) produced by the project.

* Inception report and evaluation matrix formats are annexed to this ToR (Annexes IV, V and VI constitute an integral part of this ToR)

 

 

**The final report must include, but not necessarily be limited to the elements outlined in the quality criteria for evaluation reports (Annex I constitute an integral part of this ToR).

 

Deliverables and Timelines

 

It is expected that the evaluation will be completed in line with the below specified schedule, with the following deliverables due:

 

Deliverables

Duration (days)

Deadline

Inception report including work plan and evaluation matrix prepared and accepted

7 days

 29 Aug 2022

Draft Evaluation Report prepared and accepted

14 days

 12 Sep 2022

Draft Evaluation Report presented to the Project Team, Implementing Partner and beneficiaries

1 day

 12 Sep 2022

Final Evaluation report with Executive Summary prepared and accepted

5 days

 28 Sep 2022

 

Travel costs (transport, accommodation and living costs) should be included in consultant’s lump-sum offer and payables agreed prior to start of the mission.

 

The criteria of utility, credibility, appropriateness will be used for assessing the quality of the evaluation report:

  • The report has to be written in clear language (English);
  • The Executive Summary should be a short chapter, highlighting the evaluation mandate, approach, key findings, conclusions and recommendations and not a copy-paste from the body text of the report or ToR; 
  • The information in the report has to be complete, well-structured and well presented;
  • The information in the report has to be reliable i.e. well documented and supported findings;
  • The information in the report has to addresses priority or strategic information needs;
  • Recommendations have to be concrete and implementable;
  • Human rights and gender equality perspective has been taken into account.

 

Detailed quality criteria are given in Annex 1.

The evaluation has to be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. Code of conduct is enclosed as Annex II and constitutes integral part of this ToR.

We do our best to provide you the most accurate info, but closing dates may be wrong on our site. Please check on the recruiting organization's page for the exact info. Candidates are responsible for complying with deadlines and are encouraged to submit applications well ahead.
Before applying, please make sure that you have read the requirements for the position and that you qualify.
Applications from non-qualifying applicants will most likely be discarded by the recruiting manager.
Apply