Consultancy – senior evaluation specialist for the joint undp-dppa programme midterm review, crisis bureau / conflict prevention, peacebuilding & responsive institutions
Location : home-based with travel to three countries (dependent on covid-19 travel restrictions and un guidance) Application deadline : 02-jul-21 (midnight new york, usa) Time left : 13d 7h 54m Additional category : crisis response Type of contract : individual contract Post level : international consultant Languages required : English Starting date : (date when the selected candidate is expected to start) 19-jul-2021 Duration of initial contract : 90 working days (july – october 2021) Expected duration of assignment : 90 working days (july – october 2021) Undp is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and cultureIndividuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to applyAll applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. Undp does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discriminationAll selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.
Since its inception in 2004, the joint undp-dppa programme on building national capacities for conflict prevention has become a flagship un initiative on cross-pillar collaboration on conflict preventionOver the past few years, the joint programme has grown significantly to supporting more than 80 countries with the current phase programme cycle (2019-2023) now approaching mid-term.
The joint programme provides peace and development expertise to resident coordinators (rcs), un country teams (uncts) and national partners through the deployment of peace and development advisors (pdas), national pdas, regional programme specialists, and other surge capacitiesThe joint programme provides a range of support; the deployment of pdas represents the most visible element of the partnershipIn 2021, the joint programme has 107 pda positions based in 65 countries, including international and national pda positions, unv and secondeesIn addition, six regional programme specialists based in amman, addis ababa, bangkok, dakar, istanbul and panama provide backup support to pdas and uncts, and support regional conflict analysis and sustaining peace efforts.
The pdas are engaged in supporting conflict prevention and sustaining peace initiatives and strategies in the field as well as supporting capacity enhancement for conflict management at both national and local levelsThe initiatives include establishing/operationalizing national infrastructures and mechanisms for peace, such as peace committees or supporting the work of national/local mediators; enhancing dialogue between government and civil society, and reconciliation processes; supporting electoral violence prevention, political party dialogue, inter-faith dialogue, and conflict-sensitive reporting by the mediaThe pdas provide strategic analysis and recommendations to un rcs and uncts through their political and conflict analysisThey aim to link their analysis to specific programming so that the un system can best assist national and local initiatives; and to support the mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity into un and national development programmes and processes, such as the un cooperation frameworks.
The joint programme also enables innovative and context-specific conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives on the ground, through seed funding and technical advice, peer-to-peer exchanges, joint learning, and training on issues related to conflict prevention for pdas, rcs and other specialists on demand.
The joint programme has the following outcomes:
Outcome 1: targeted initiatives and national capacities are more effectively contributing to conflict prevention and sustaining peace.
Outcome 2: un country teams have strategies and programmes that are increasingly conflict sensitive, and are engaged in wider partnerships on sustaining peace.
The joint programme has the following outputs:
Output 1: un peace and development capacities enhanced and high-quality and context-specific professional advice, expertise and accompaniment to the un system, partner governments and civil society provided.
Output 2: catalytic and context-specific conflict prevention and peacebuilding initiatives implemented.
Output 3: effective strategies for deployment and partnerships, as well as professional development and learning for pdas created and implemented.
The current donor partners of the joint programme include the european union, germany, the netherlands, norway, sweden, switzerland, and the united kingdomIn the past few years, the joint programme has also enhanced partnerships with sweden’s folke bernadotte academy (fba), the swiss civilian pool of peacebuilding experts as well as unv in an effort to strengthen technical capacities and support to pdas.
Objectives, evaluation criteria and key questions
The mid-term review will assess the performance of the joint programme in making progress towards achieving its objectivesThe review will specifically focus on the following components, applying the organisation for economic co-operation and development (oecd) development assistance committee (dac) criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability1, and integrating the cross-cutting issues of human rights and gender equality2:
To what extent is the joint programme in line with the undp strategic plan, the dppa strategic plan, the sustainable development goals (sdgs) and the vision of the secretary-general on preventing conflict and sustaining peace?
To what extent has the joint programme responded to the needs of changing stakeholder and partner priorities? to what extent has the programme responded to evolving global developments, and has the prioritization of countries through the criticality assessment process enhanced the responsiveness of the joint programme?
To what extent were perspectives of stakeholders taken into account during the process of designing the current phase of the joint programme?
To what extent has the joint programme responded to/reflected/aligned with un reforms?
To what extent were lessons learned from the previous phases of the programme considered in the design of the current phase of the joint programme?
To what extent does the joint programme contribute to the women, peace and security agenda?
To what extent have gender equality and the empowerment of women been factored into the design of the programme?
To what extend does the gender marker assigned to the joint programme appropriately reflect and represent the reality?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to enhancing joint un action on conflict prevention?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to enhancing un collaboration between undp, dppa, dco and the resident coordinator system?
How effectively has the joint programme leveraged partnerships within and beyond the un system?
To what degree have pdas leveraged opportunities to connect to the larger community of practice on governance, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, political and mediation expertise in undp and dppa?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to the undp strategic plan, the dppa strategic plan, the sdgs and the overarching vision of the secretary-general on preventing conflict and sustaining peace?
To what extent has the joint programme made progress to achieve the intended objective of building national capacities for conflict prevention at the country level and the regional level?
At the country level:
To what extent has the joint programme been successful in strengthening capacities and systems for conflict prevention, including national policies and strategies, infrastructures for peace, inclusion of women and youth, mechanisms for early warning and early action, as well as dialogue and mediation?
To what extent has the joint programme been able to provide analysis and strategic advice to the un system in country and at hq in relation to conflict prevention?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to enhanced joint assessments and processes, including the common country analysis (cca)?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to the un cooperation framework processes including the cca, as agreed with dco?
To what extent have pdas been able to support unct conflict prevention and peacebuilding programming through their analysis and advice?
To what degree have pdas been successful in enhancing the conflict sensitivity of unct programming?
To what extent has the joint programme contributed to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the realization of human rights through the work of pdas?
To what extent have the pdas engaged partners, including civil society, regional organizations, ifis, and the diplomatic community, for conflict prevention?
Are the functions of pdas consistently understood and applied; and how context-specific have the functions become at the country level (noting that some pdas are deployed in mission settings, while others have sub-regional roles)?
To what extent has the deployment of seconded capacity and unvs contributed to achieving results at the country level?
In relation to the deployment of regional programme specialists:
To what extent has the deployment of regional programme specialists to backstop pdas contributed to the achievement of the joint programme’s objectives?
To what extent has the relationship between pdas and regional specialists been clear and their collaboration smooth in practice?
To what extent has the deployment of regional programme specialists been effective to provide surge support in contexts where a full-time pda is not established or where the context warrants additional support?
To what extent have regional programme specialists been successful in supporting regional and country analysis, strategy development and collaboration?
What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended outcomes and outputs?
In which areas has the joint programme registered its greatest achievements? why in these areas, and what have been the enabling factors? how can the project build on, or expand, these achievements?
In which areas does the joint programme have the fewest achievements to date? what have been the constraining factors and why? how could they be overcome?
What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in achieving the objectives of the programme?
To what extent has the joint programme achieved the cross-fertilization of expertise and lessons learned within the cadre of pdas?
Has the joint programme been able to respond to recommendations from key reports and meetings with stakeholders, such as the montreux workshop of resident coordinators and pda retreats?
To what extent has the joint programme been able to enhance gender parity within the pda cadre? what are the options to enhance it?
To what extent has the joint programme management structure as outlined in the programme document been efficient in generating the expected results?
To what extent has the deployment of national pdas as well as the regional programme specialists enhanced the cost-effectiveness of the joint programme?
Does the joint programme have the required resources (human and financial) to achieve its objectives?
How efficiently and economically have the financial and human resources been used?
Have the resources been allocated strategically to achieve results?
Have the activities contributing to the programme results been cost-effective?
How efficiently has the joint programme managed recruitment processes, including the use of the roster and other recruitment modalities?
To what extent have programme resources been delivered in a timely manner, including seed funding available for catalytic initiatives?
To what extent has the joint programme been efficient in knowledge exchange and communication, including in the organization of events? have these events been cost-effective?
To what extent have pdas been able to strike a balance in building national capacities and serving the resident coordinator and the broader unct as well as colleagues at hq?
What are the significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects the joint programme has generated or is expected to generate at the global and country levels?
Can the impact of the joint programme be assessed in the future using the current version of the joint programme results and monitoring framework?
To what extent is the joint programme sustainable as a key contributor to un cross-pillar support to conflict prevention?
To what extent does the joint programme ensure sustainability of results at the global and country levels? to what extent do mechanisms, procedures and policies exist to allow primary un and national stakeholders to carry forward the results?
What could be done to strengthen sustainability of results?
To what extent do stakeholders support the joint programme’s long-term objectives?
Are there any financial, political or social risks that may jeopardize the sustainability of the joint programme’s results?
What are the recommendations for the sustainability of the joint programme in relation to financial and other resources?
The senior evaluation specialists will rely mainly on the following sources of information:?
Desk review of relevant programme and policy documents.
Interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and partnersInterviewees will include undp and dppa, key partners in government and civil society, donor partners, and pdas in selected countries.
An interactive workshop with a selected number of the stakeholders/informants.
Missions to six countries where the joint programme is engaged should be undertaken to conduct direct observation (mission to three countries by the senior evaluation specialist and three by the evaluation specialist)In case in-country mission is not feasible due to travel restriction in relation to covid-19, virtual missions should be conducted.
The final methodology for the evaluation will be completed within the first two weeks of the assignment in consultation with the joint programme team
Duties and responsibilities
Scope of work, responsibilities and description of the proposed analytical work
Scope of work:
This mid-term review will be carried out by a team comprising of one senior evaluation specialist and one evaluation specialist, with the support of the joint programme team in new york.
The senior evaluation specialist will undertake the following tasks:
Lead the consultation with the joint programme team on the scope of work, methodology and country case studies to be selected;
Lead the drafting of the inception report outlining the evaluation methodology as well as the plan and schedule of interviews and missions;
Lead the development of the research questions and interview questionnaires based on the agreed evaluation plan and methodology;
Conduct interviews with un staff (including dppa and undp), donors, resident coordinators, pdas, regional programme specialists, and other selected stakeholders;
Undertake missions to three countries to evaluate the joint programme at the country level;
Conduct phone interviews with un stakeholders in two countries without a pda for comparison purposes (countries to be agreed with the joint programme team);
Lead the drafting of the evaluation report for review by the joint programme team;
Lead consultation with the joint programme team and adjust the draft report based on feedback from joint programme team;
Submit the final evaluation report to the joint programme team;
Lead the preparation and delivery of at least two short presentations on the findings of the review to the co-chairs of the joint programme, pdas, donors and the wider stakeholders;
Oversee the work of the evaluation specialist who will have a matrix reporting line to the joint programme m&e and programme specialist; and lead the production of the deliverables as a team.
Expected outputs and deliverables:
Deliverables and timelines?
Deliverable 1?- inception report outlining the evaluation methodology and suggested report outline
Within 2 weeks of the commencement of the assignment
Deliverable 2?- submission of interview reports
Within 2.5 months of the commencement of the assignment
Deliverable 3?- presentation of the initial findings of the mid-term review to the joint programme team
Within 3 months of the commencement of the assignment
Deliverable 4?- submission of evaluation draft report for review by the joint programme team
Within 3.5 months of the commencement of the assignment
Deliverable 5?- submission of final report based on feedback received from the joint programme team, which will then be shared with the co-chairs before its release
Within 4 months of the commencement of the assignment
A final comprehensive analytical report (not exceeding 40 pages, word format, single spaced, in english) shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following components:
Description of the evaluation methodology
Analysis of the results, impact, resources, partnerships, management/working methods, and implementation strategy in line with the evaluation methodology developed
Presentation of key findings
Conclusions and recommendations
Questionnaires developed by the consultant and used for the evaluation List of persons interviewed, summary interview and mission reports Any other relevant material that supports evaluation findings and recommendations???? List of documents reviewed
The final report will be shared with the co-chairs of the joint programme before public release on the undp and dppa websites as well as the peace infrastructure portal.
Management arrangements and reporting
The senior evaluation specialist will report to the joint programme’s m&e and programme specialist and will liaise with the whole joint programme team during the assignment.
Duty station and travel
The consultancy will be home-based, with missions to three countries selected in consultation with the joint programme team (dependent on covid-19 travel restrictions and un guidance)Any necessary missions undertaken to deliver these outputs must be at the request of the joint programme teamMission travel will be managed by undp separately and financial proposals should exclude the cost of travelIn addition:
The bsafe course must be successfully completed prior to commencement of undp official travel.
The selected candidate is responsible for ensuring that s/he has the necessary vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the un medical director.
The selected candidate is responsible for obtaining any visas needed in connection with travel, with the necessary support from undp.
Consultants are required to comply with the un security directives set forth under https://dss.un.org/dssweb
Substantive and technical expertise:
Substantive expertise on peace and security, development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
Knowledge of assessment methodologies and tools, ability to apply practical experience in planning, monitoring, evaluating.
Good understanding of un programming modalities, particularly in crisis and post-conflict settings.
Demonstrated expertise on gender and the women, peace and security agenda.
Strongly proactive in problem-solving and producing recommendations.
Ability to manage confidential and politically sensitive issues, in a responsible way, and in accordance with protocols.
Interpersonal and communication skills:
Strong communication skills and proven ability to collaborate between different actors.
Strong ability to manage, facilitate, and engage in discussions with multiple stakeholders in a formal setting, seeking to encourage participation in an open and collegial environment.
Ability to use tact and sensitivity when delivering sensitive information or resolving delicate situations.
Openness to change and ability to manage complexities.
Required skills and experience
A minimum of a master’s degree or equivalent in political science, development studies or other relevant social science.
At least 7 years of significant experience in the design, monitoring and evaluation of conflict prevention and peacebuilding programmes; (required) Technical knowledge and experience in peace and security, development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding; (required) Sound understanding of the un’ mandates and roles in conflict prevention, and familiarity with the work of undp, dppa and/or the joint undp-dppa programme; as well as un programming modalities, particularly in crisis and post-conflict settings; (desirable) Experience in analyzing and evaluating gender dimensions of conflict prevention and peacebuilding; (desirable) Demonstrable knowledge of results-based management and as well as monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches; (desirable) Demonstrable analytical skills and strong drafting skills; (desirable) Excellent interviewing and facilitation skills; (desirable) Demonstrated strategic thinking and understanding of global context for conflict prevention and recent policy developments and programming at country level(desirable)
Fluency in written and spoken english is required. Working knowledge of another un language would be an asset
The application package containing the following (to be uploaded as one file):
A cover letter with a brief description of why the offer considers her/himself the most suitable for the assignment;
Personal cv or p11, indicating all past experience from similar projects and specifying the relevant assignment period (from/to), as well as the email and telephone contacts of at least three (3) professional references;
A two-page methodology on how the offeror will conduct the work including a work plan and approach in delivering the required outputs within the assignment period; and
Writing samples (link to writing samples).
Note: the above documents need to be scanned in one file and uploaded to the online application as one document.
Shortlisted candidates (only) will be requested to submit a financial proposal.
The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount, and payment terms around the specific and measurable deliverables of the torPayments are based upon output, i.eUpon delivery of the services specified in the tor, and deliverables accepted and certified by the technical manager.
This consultancy is a home-based assignment, therefore, there is no envisaged travel cost to join duty station/repatriation travel.
The financial proposal must be all-inclusive and take into account various expenses that will be incurred during the contract, including: the daily professional fee; communications, utilities and consumables; life, health and any other insurance; risks and inconveniences related to work under hardship and hazardous conditions (e.g., personal security needs, etc.), when applicable; and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services under the contractIn case of any mission, undp will arrange the travel based on extant travel policyTherefore, financial proposals should exclude the cost of travel. In the case of unforeseeable travel requested by undp, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses should be agreed upon, between undp and individual consultant, prior to travel and will be reimbursedIn general, undp should not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticketShould the ic wish to travel on a higher class he/she should do so using their own resources.
If the 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 a 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.
The financial proposal is to be emailed as per the instruction in the separate email that will be sent to shortlisted candidates.
Applicants are reviewed based on required skills and experience stated above and based on the technical evaluation criteria outlined belowApplicants will be evaluated based on cumulative scoringWhen using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:
Being responsive/compliant/acceptable; and Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation where technical criteria weigh 70% and financial criteria/ proposal weighs 30%.
Technical evaluation - total 70% (700 points):
Criteria 1: demonstrable relevant knowledge and experience in peace and security, development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding maximum points: 200
Criteria 2: sound understanding of the un’ mandates and roles in conflict prevention, and familiarity with the work of undp, dppa and/or the joint undp-dppa programme; as well as un programming modalities, particularly in crisis and post-conflict settings maximum points: 100
Criteria 3: relevant experience in analyzing and evaluating gender dimensions of conflict prevention and peacebuilding maximum points: 100
Criteria 4: demonstrable knowledge of results-based management and as well as monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches maximum points: 150
Criteria 5: interview maximum points: 150.
Having reviewed applications received, undp will invite the top four shortlisted candidates obtaining 70% iE., 385 out 550 points of the desk review scores (criteria 1- 4) for interview candidatesPlease note that only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
Candidates obtaining a minimum of 70% (490 points) of the maximum obtainable points for the technical criteria (700 points) shall be considered for the financial evaluation.
Financial evaluation - total 30% (300 points)
The following formula will be used to evaluate financial proposal:
P = y (µ/z), where
P = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
Y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
Μ = price of the lowest priced proposal
Z = price of the proposal being evaluated
Candidate obtaining the highest combined scores in the combined score of technical and financial evaluation will be considered technically qualified and will be offered to enter into contract with undp.
The consultant will work under the guidance and direct supervision of m&e and programme specialist and will be responsible for the fulfilment of the deliverables as specified above.
The consultant will be responsible for providing her/his own laptop.
10% of contract value after satisfactory submission of inception report outlining the evaluation methodology and suggested report outline.
20% of contract value after satisfactory submission of interview reports
10% of contract value after satisfactory presentation of the initial findings of the mid-term review to the joint programme team
30% of contract value after satisfactory?draft evaluation report for review by the joint programme team
30% of final report, based on feedback received from the joint programme team
Payments are based upon output, i.eUpon delivery of the services specified above and deliverables accepted and upon certification of satisfactory completion by the manager.
The work week will be based on 35 hours, i.eOn a seven-hour working day, with core hours being between 9h00 and 18h00 daily eastern daylight time.
Annexes (click on the hyperlink to access the documents):
Annex 1 - undp p-11 form for ics
Annex 2 - ic contract template
Annex 3 – ic general terms and conditions
Annex 4 – rla template
Any request for clarification must be sent by email to email@example.com
The undp central procurement unit will respond by email and will send written copies of the response, including an explanation of the query without identifying the source of inquiry, to all applicants.