Result of Service

Thorough evaluation of the activities undertaken during the implementation of Infrastructure Asset Management conducted between 1 February 2022 to 31 March 2025.

Work Location

Home-based

Expected duration

27 Jan-31 March 2025

Duties and Responsibilities

The current terms of reference support the evaluation of the project entitled UN capacity development initiative on enhancing the resilience, accessibility, and sustainability of infrastructure assets in developing countries in support of the 2030 Agenda. The implementation of the project is led by UNDESA, and it is co-implemented by both UNOPS and UNCDF. The project seeks to address the lack of sustained and systematic strategies, policies and actions at the national and local government levels to ensure that infrastructure assets support inclusive, affordable and sustainable essential public services over their entire lifespan. The initiative covers training of local and central government officials in beneficiary countries in designing, implementing, monitoring, and reviewing forward-looking, risk- informed, and data-driven infrastructure asset management strategies, policies, and action plans in support of essential public services that leave no one behind. The project also aims at building capacities at the level of central governments on how to design and implement an improved policy, regulatory and legislative framework to support infrastructure asset management at the national and local levels. The key stakeholders include local government officials and central government ministries (finance, local government, urban development), national agencies (elected and administrative) as well as civil society and the private sector. In this connection, the project included the following outcomes and associated outputs: Outcome 1: Greater awareness and understanding among central and local government officials in recipient countries on the importance of and how to implement infrastructure asset manage Greater awareness and understanding among central and local government officials in recipient countries on the importance of and how to implement infrastructure asset management in support of sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development in support of sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development. • Output 1.1: One workshop per beneficiary country for local and central government officials on the basic tenets of asset management. Outcome 2: Greater capacity among central and local government officials in recipient countries on how to implement infrastructure asset management toolkits of the Handbook in support of sustainable development. • Output 2.1: Apply the revised and refined UN diagnostic tool on infrastructure asset management in 6 selected local governments and national agencies of each beneficiary country to assess infrastructure asset management at the national and local levels. • Output 2.2: Design and implement customized in-country Training of Trainers (ToTs) workshops based on diagnostic assessments. • Output 2.3: Provide project support in the implementation of toolkits at the local and national levels, as well as support to new Trainers to ensure effective hand over of such assistance to domestic institutions. Outcome 3: Greater capacity at the level of central and local governments on how to design and implement an effective IAM enabling environment through improved national policy, regulatory and legislative frameworks. • Output 3.1: Infrastructure Asset Management Enabling Environment gap assessments are completed for all 6 countries. • Output 3.2: Infrastructure Asset Management Enabling Environment workshops are completed with actions plans for all 6 countries. In this broader context, FSDO will engage the services of an expert consultant to evaluate the activities undertaken during the abovementioned project, conducted between 1 February 2022 to 31 March 2025. The project was developed in line with the key programmatic areas of work of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), especially in terms of Subprogramme 9, Financing for Sustainable Development, and in line with the overall strategy to advance progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and to support domestic resource mobilization in Member States. Scope of Work The evaluation will cover the entire project duration, from 1 February 2022 to 31 March 2025, and will address the questions and elements included in the Evaluation Criteria in the context of the objective, outcomes, outputs, and activities that were implemented during the period and as part of the project. Evaluation Criteria The purpose of this evaluation is to review, document and assess the programmatic and substantive processes of the project to identify lessons learned and best practices, formulate recommendations to inform future interventions by DESA and the project partners in this area of work. The purpose also includes to evaluate the concrete impact of the project as per the approved proposal, progress reports, and other substantive project documents. The specific objectives of the evaluation are: 1. To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project results and the strategy used during its implementation 2. To formulate concrete recommendations to inform future work in this area In line with the requirements of the 2030 Agenda Sub-Fund (UNPDF), the evaluation will rate the performance of each criterion based on the following rating system: Highly Satisfactory (HS) – The project performed well overall against a particular evaluation criterion with no short comings. Satisfactory (S) – The project performed well overall against a particular evaluation criterion with but had minor short comings. Moderately Satisfactory (MS) – The project performed moderately well against the particular criterion (performing satisfactorily against almost half of the evaluation questions) and has short comings and room for improvement. Somehow Satisfactory (SS) – The project performed poorly overall against majority of the evaluation questions and there is need to take steps to improve the project aspect being evaluated. Not Satisfactory (NS) – The project performed poorly in almost all the evaluation questions and there is need for immediate and significant changes to be made to improve project outcomes. Unable to Assess (UA) – The available information does not allow an assessment of the level of outcome achievements. To the extent possible, evaluators should summarize the findings in logical fashion using the templates enclosed as reference. The suggested evaluation report outline is enclosed in Annex I. The following main indicative evaluation criteria and evaluation questions will be addressed: Relevance: The analysis of relevance would focus on the extent to which the design effectively/appropriately responded to key real problems in beneficiary countries. Guiding questions include: • How clearly and accurately did the project identify real problems, key stakeholders, outcomes and outputs in the broad context of the economic and social trends? • Was the implementation of the project aligned with the approved set of project objectives, indicative activities, and logical framework? • How did the project provide beneficiaries with relevant and coherent guidance on how to advance in achieving the relevant Sustainable Development Goals? Efficiency: The efficiency criterion concerns how well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended outputs, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. • How efficient (e.g. timeliness, frequency, periodicity, timespan) was the project in achieving its expected objective, outcomes, outputs, activities, and other accomplishments and results? • To what extent did management structures and processes of the project (including coordination) enable or hinder delivery of capacity building efforts, analytical products, and other outputs? • How well did the project help provide appropriate solutions and develop local capacities to define and produce results? • How well did the project demonstrate flexibility in response to changes in circumstances, relations / coordination with local authorities, beneficiaries, other donors, while observing the deadlines? Effectiveness: The effectiveness criterion concerns how far the project’s outputs were realized and used. • To what extent have the expected objectives of the project been achieved? How effective were the activities in realizing the project objectives? Were the activities consistent with the project objectives? • Were the “Indicators of Achievement” established for the project effective in measuring progress? • Were the key project schedules met, and were the activities implemented within reasonable time parameters? • Where there any major shortcomings at the outcome, or output levels due to a failure to take account risks not identified or not addressed? Impact: Denotes the relationship between the project objective, outcomes, and outputs, as well as the extent to which the benefits received by the target beneficiaries had a wider overall effect. • What are the key outcomes of implementing the project in strengthening the analytical and capacity building capacities of DESA on frontier and emerging issues, including on localizing and achieving the SDGs and strengthening domestic resource mobilization? • What is the level of satisfaction of different groups of stakeholders in response to the analytical products produced through the project? • How far did the project’s impact enhance economic and social development beyond drafting the Asset Management Action Plans? Sustainability: Relates to whether the positive outcomes of the project at the Outcome and Output level are likely to continue after external funding ends. • Did the project provide relevant incentives to contribute and potentially catalyze changes in stakeholder behavior? • How far did the project results and national policy correspond to relevant national, sectoral and other policies and priorities? • What was the level of support from key stakeholders? • How far did the project respect socio‐cultural factors, such as local perceptions of needs and of ways of producing and sharing benefits, as well as respect to local power‐structures, status systems and beliefs? • Have arrangements been made to ensure that communication products and key documents, lessons and tools, will continue to be available and accessible to stakeholders and partners? Methodology The evaluation will cover the following: (i) A desk review of documents including, but not limited to, project documents, progress reports, meeting reports, and analytical reports. (ii) Survey, tele-conferences and/or phone/skype/email interviews with relevant personnel including, but not limited to, relevant key stakeholders within the project team at DESA, UNOPS, UNCDF, as well as beneficiaries of the project.

Qualifications/special skills

Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or higher) in evaluation methodologies, sustainable development, policy support or another relevant field, or a first-level university degree in combination with seven additional years of qualifying experience is required. A minimum of 10 years proven practical experience in sustainable development, analytical work and policy support. The experience needs to include a minimum of 3 years in program evaluation and methodologies is required. Work experience with Government offices, the private sector, NGOs, international development organizations, academia and institutions is required. Excellent analytical and writing skills in program evaluation, lessons learnt papers, policy documents, technical guidance notes, and other documents related to evaluating sustainable development programs Excellent analytical and writing skills in program evaluation, lessons learnt papers, policy documents, technical guidance notes, and other documents related to evaluating sustainable development programs Good understanding of the United Nations 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), development mandates and key economic, social and environmental trends in relation to sustainable development. Ability to work as part of a wider team and ability to coordinate with other team members and stakeholders on different levels (UN team members, focal points and representatives from academia, civil society, private sector and other representatives) High proficiency in Microsoft Office Suite, with excellent writing, presentation and communication skills.

Languages

Fluency in oral and written English is required.

Additional Information

Not available.

No Fee

THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CHARGE A FEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS (APPLICATION, INTERVIEW MEETING, PROCESSING, OR TRAINING). THE UNITED NATIONS DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH INFORMATION ON APPLICANTS’ BANK ACCOUNTS.