Consultant (Final External Evaluation) At International Organization for Migration

Position Title : Consultant (Final External Evaluation)

Duty Station : IOM Philippines Country Office (Cotabato City)

Classification : Consultant

Type of Appointment : Consultancy, Three Months

Estimated Start Date : As soon as possible

Closing Date : 28 November 2022

Established in 1951, IOM is a Related Organization of the United Nations, and as the leading UN agency in the field of migration, works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners. IOM is dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all. It does so by providing services and advice to governments and migrants.

Nature of Consultancy: The joint final independent evaluation consultant will examine the overall performance, achievement of results and impact of the JP. It will focus on three primary objectives:

  1. Generate evidence on the impact of the JP, including documentation of lessons learned, effective strategies and best practices
  2. Determine the significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects of the JP intervention
  3. Assess the JP’s effectiveness in encouraging greater coherence and collaboration of the broader United Nations Country Team (UNCT) and UN reform agenda

To determine the extent the JP achieved its aims and objectives and intended short-, medium- and long-term outcomes, the final evaluation should cover:

  • Full JP implementation period from 15 December 2020 to 15 December 2022
  • Full geographic scope to the extent feasible in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and security challenges in the region, namely the provinces of Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao, and communities in the Special Geographic Area (SGA)
  • All groups of JP participants, including members of the joint programme team, beneficiaries, and local and national stakeholders

The evaluation is expected to inform the resource partners, national government, and BARMM stakeholders on evidence-based relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, immediate impact, and sustainability of the JP interventions, especially pertaining to the normalization process inter alia. The evaluation findings are useful to resource partners in advocating for the implementation of the Funding Compact and contribute to providing operational and strategic information and learnings on strengthening intra-UN synergy and partnerships with non-UN agencies.

Users of this evaluation also include IOM, UNFPA and UN Women, particularly the programme management, implementation, and support teams in integrating recommendations, lessons learned and best practices in the implementation of on-going JPs and identify priorities for future resource mobilization initiatives.

The evaluation shall incorporate the following cross-cutting theme:

  1. Gender Mainstreaming: gender mainstreaming refers to the process of assessing the implications of any planned action, including legislation, policies, and programmes, for people of different gender groups, in all areas and at all levels. It is an approach for making everyone’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions in all political, economic, and societal spheres so that all gender groups benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.[1]

The following are a few points to consider under gender mainstreaming:

  1. Assess how the JP addressed different needs and capacities of the beneficiaries, target communities, and local stakeholders, with an aim to eliminate gender disparities supporting women’s role in the peacebuilding context
  2. Assess how the intervention capture gender perspectives that measure gender-specific changes, such as perceptions of gender norms, roles, and relations, particularly within the areas of Women, Peace, and Security

Consequently, the Evaluators shall ensure that persons interviewed or surveyed during data collection are diverse and gender-representative of all concerned JP partners and beneficiaries. Surveys, interview questions and other data collection tools should include gender issues. Evaluation reports should firmly incorporate a gender perspective, such as analysis of sex-disaggregated data and attention to JP effects and impacts related to gender equality.


The COVID-19 crisis comes at a tumultuous time for the nascent Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in the Philippines, with ministries in the process of mass recruitment, the Bangsamoro Transition Authority (BTA) yet to fully configure its administrative apparatus, and the region as a whole attempting to navigate a delicate normalization process whereby new political bodies are formed, combatants are decommissioned and conflict-affected communities are supported on a path to peace and economic stability.

In practice, the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) decommissioning process involves the provision of financial and in-kind assistance to combatants as they handover arms and reintegrate into civilian life. However, inclusivity is a major obstacle to sustainable peace both at the community and regional levels. As of March 2022, only 256 members of the all-female supplemental force, the Bangsamoro Islamic Women Auxiliary Brigade (BIWAB), of the 19,345 MILF combatants have been included in the decommissioning process. Although the recorded number of BIWAB members varies from 10,000 to 25,000 depending on the source of information, it is clear that the majority have not received the same level of socioeconomic or reintegration support as male former combatants, which, in turn, undermines their sustainable transition into civilian life.

The BIWAB themselves have already made efforts to adapt to peaceful civilian life by reorganizing their battalions into fledgling community-based associations (CBA) and cooperatives spread across the MILF’s base commands and the region’s conflict-affected communities. The BIWAB CBAs and cooperatives all operate under the guidance of one umbrella organization – the League of Moro Women’s Organization Inc. (LMWOI) – that strives to reintegrate the women former combatants into society through sustainable economic activities and as active community peace- and resilience-building agents. BIWAB’s influence as community leaders and helpers are constrained by rigid and subordinate gender roles in their communities. Given their potential for influence, the BIWAB members are in a unique position to drive peace and security from within – however this is only possible if they are empowered, organized, and engaged. Exclusion from the decommissioning would not only negate this possibility, but it would actually reduce their influence in their communities further, as the need for armed combatants dwindles. If the only means for relevance is conflict, then this is a scenario that must be avoided.

The complex nature of Mindanao conflicts is reflected in the highly diverse roles that women play based on their identity, socio-economic condition, and history. Women have been progressively left to fill the social and economic gaps within families and communities. The socio-economic necessity for increased participation of women has led to the degradation of some of the more crystalized gender roles, however, women’s influence and inclusion in community affairs in more fragile communities remains tenuous. Herein lies the opportunity for engagement and inclusion. Women’s peacebuilding expertise threatens to be overlooked amidst these competing priorities and a transitional leadership that is new to the task of governing. Empowering women and youth to engage in peacebuilding within insulated communities beset by local conflict is critical to creating and sustaining peace, given the added external stressors of COVID-19 and the regional transition.

The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating tensions against the backdrop of the peace agreement, the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB), which is contingent on substantial commitments from both the national government and the MILF. The adoption of the CAB sought to address some of the underlying causes of the Moro conflict, however there are still conflicts, both vertical and horizontal, affecting non-Moro ethnic groups that go beyond the peace agreement’s initial scope. On the one hand, the confluence of the complex administrative restructuring, consequent opportunities for new leadership positions, the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic on collective prosperity and the 2022 elections could motivate warring groups to arrive at political settlements that end longstanding insurgencies in Mindanao. On the other hand, it could also provoke a more violent interlude of rising crime and community-level violence magnified by the current loss of livelihoods due to COVID-19, as well as a scramble for scarce economic and political resources on the eve of the 2022 national and local elections.

Aside from reduced government resources for the implementation of the peace agreement’s normalization track, the pandemic is also heightening resource competition among families, clans, and identity groups. If the societal drivers are not addressed or mitigated, the conflict which is resulting from this competition will continue to tear at the already frayed social fabric. Restrictions on movement and in-person interactions have also inhibited or delayed peacebuilding and PVE interventions, further isolating communities that are vulnerable to violent extremism. Violent extremist and other armed groups have been exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic by highlighting the struggles of government authorities and pushing alternative narratives. Young people, in particular, are more vulnerable now to radicalization, as they are confined in their homes, with limited outlets for community engagement and participation. In remote and isolated communities, restless and dissident armed groups will attempt to fill this void and expand their influence.

To address these challenges, the joint programme (JP), funded by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF), seeks to 1) fortify reintegration efforts for former women combatants by empowering them to engage and support peacebuilding, 2) support conflict understanding and prevention by promoting gender-responsive, inclusive, and culturally-sensitive legislation, policies and programmes, and 3) build the resilience of communities in conflict hotspots through collaborative socio-economic activities and inclusive community-based reconciliation mechanisms.

JP Objective: To mitigate the immediate challenges to building and sustaining peace amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and during the crucial final stages of the BARMM’s transition period by harnessing the perspectives and interests of women and youth and integrating them in the GPH-MILF normalization process.

The JP objective will be achieved through the following outcomes:

Outcome 1: Women former combatants are empowered to engage in and support peacebuilding in communities in the process of reintegration

Outcome 2: Gender-responsive, locally-inclusive and culturally-sensitive approaches to conflict prevention are mainstreamed into BARMM legislation, policies and programmes

Outcome 3: BARMM communities in conflict hotspots are more resilient to the internal and external drivers of violent conflict

The JP’s overarching Theory of Change is as follows:

If the perspectives and interests of women and youth from across BARMM’s multi-layered conflict spectrum are harnessed and meaningfully integrated in the GPH-MILF normalization process, in policies that promote conflict prevention and in grassroots conflict mediation efforts then the immediate challenges to building and sustaining peace amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and during the crucial final stages of the BARMM’s transition period will be mitigated by women and youth acting as local agents of peace because promoting inclusivity as a counterweight to the consolidation, stratification or polarization of resources, influence and power will foster vertical and horizontal social cohesion, community resilience and, eventually, prevent conflict.

IOM Project to which the Consultancy is contributing: Emergency and Post-Crisis Unit, IOM Philippines for PBF Joint Programme Promoting Conflict Prevention, Social Cohesion and Community Resilience in BARMM in the time of COVID-19 (PH10P0522 / PB.0059)

Tangible and Measurable Outputs of the Work Assignment

The JP will be assessed according to all six of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria[2] – relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability – and the two principles[3] required of the evaluation process.

The following tables specifies guide questions based on the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and evaluation questions related to cross-cutting themes, which shall be answered by the evaluation. It is also envisioned that the evaluation will assess the JP model under each of the OECD-DAC criteria. Revisions may be proposed by the Evaluators during the inception phase, without compromising on the scope of the evaluation.

Criteria & Evaluation Questions


  1. To what extent did the JP intervention’s objectives and design respond to the peacebuilding needs, policies and priorities of the communities and local and national stakeholders?
  2. To what extent were the JP interventions aligned with the overall cooperation framework and peace pillar objectives?
  3. Were activities and outputs consistent with the intended outcomes and objective?
  4. Do the intervention’s expected outcomes and outputs remain valid and pertinent either as originally planned or as subsequently modified?


  1. Do synergies exist with other interventions carried out by the implementing agencies as well as intervention partners?
  2. Are there synergies with other interventions among the UNCT members or other stakeholders in BARMM?
  3. Is there alignment with national and regional government strategies to peacebuilding interventions?


  1. Was the JP able to achieve its targets according to JP timeline and budget? Had there been any significant delays in implementation and achievement of results, and if so, what caused these?
  2. Has the JP arrangement and UN agencies working together increase the efficiency of implementation, maximizing impact of pooled resources etc., coherence and coordination? If yes, what extent?
  3. How did the JP arrangement led to increased synergies amongst the Participating UN Organizations (PUNOs) enabling the JP to surpass expected outcomes or to respond to requests from the BARMM government?
  4. To what extent did the JP leverage the strategies and implementation modalities chosen, especially the JP team members’ expertise, partnership arrangements and inter-agency monitoring and evaluation?


  1. To what extent did the JP mitigate the immediate challenges to building and sustaining peace amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, during the crucial final stages of the BARMM’s transition period and the impact of the 2022 elections and change in national government on the peace process? Consider the level of implementation of each outcome and output, including against the JP results framework, based on concrete evidence.
  2. What are the major factors influencing the achievement of the intervention’s desired objectives and outcomes?
  3. To what extent has the JP adapted to changing external conditions in order to ensure JP outcomes?


  1. What are the positive and/or negative and intended and/or unintended higher-level effects produced by the JP?
  2. Are identified impact attributable to JP activities, from external factors, or from both?
  3. How did the JP mitigate any unplanned negative impacts, if any?
  4. To what degree has the JP influenced policies and programs of the BARMM ministries and other agencies?


  1. Are structures, resources, and processes in place to ensure that benefits generated by the JP continue once the JP period ends?
  2. To what extent do partners/JP beneficiaries benefiting from the intervention have adequate technical, financial, and managerial capacities for ensuring that the benefits are retained in the long run?
  3. Is the JP supported by local institutions and well-integrated into local social and cultural structures as well as local governance processes? To what extent will BARMM and local government be able to support the JP interventions?

Gender Mainstreaming

  1. How did the JP address different needs and capacities of the beneficiaries, target communities, and local stakeholders?
  2. Did the intervention capture gender perspectives that measure gender-specific changes, such as perceptions of gender norms, roles, and relations within the context of women, peace and security?
  3. Was the JP able to adjust or adapt activities and interventions as needed in relation to contextual and periodic gender analysis?
  4. To what extent did the JP contribute to supporting women’s role in peacebuilding?

Lessons Learnt

  1. What lessons can be learnt to improve timeliness and efficiency for future peace building programmes, especially those that are joint programmes?
  2. To what extent (and how) was the program able to adapt from its original design, in response to technical recommendations, and contextual factors?

IOM, UNFPA and UN Women suggests a mixed methods approach utilising primary and secondary sources, and both qualitative and quantitative approaches to ensure triangulation. Participative techniques are also envisioned, where feasible. Final methodology will be proposed by the Evaluators and confirmed following discussions with the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG). The Evaluators should provide a detailed and appropriate methodology and data collection methods to get credible evidence to address the evaluation objectives, respond to the above evaluation questions and capture data on the achievement of JP as per its results framework.

Suggested appropriate methods for quantitative data include:

  • Surveys with the beneficiaries, community members, Civil Society Organization (CSO) representatives, local authorities, and/or government officials.

Suggested appropriate methods for qualitative data include:

  • Desk review of JP documentation, including JP proposal, narrative donor updates, monitoring data and reports, and baseline report.

A baseline survey was conducted at the start of the JP utilizing different data collection methodologies and statistical tools. It engaged 383 BIWAB representatives from fifteen Cooperatives and CBAs across Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur and SGA through a perception survey. The survey questionnaire gathered information on women former combatants’ level of participation in their reintegration and overall peace process in their communities. A total of ninety-five focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of perceptions of the different sectors in the community in terms of safety and security, inclusive community participation, reintegration processes of BIWAB members, and sustainable livelihood. It engaged a purposely selected group of youth, women, elderly, non-Moro, and other community members in fifty FGD sessions in Maguindanao, twenty in Lanao del Sur and twenty-five in SGA covering a total of twenty-four barangays that yielded both qualitative and observational data on changes in perception by sector. Furthermore, key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with the Ministry representatives and municipal focal points to collect qualitative data from a wide range of stakeholders involved in local governance, planning and implementation who have first-hand knowledge about the existing policies, programs, and activities being implemented in their covered areas and sectors.

  • KIIs and FGDs with the JP teams, implementation partners, beneficiaries, community members, CSO representatives, local authorities, and/or government officials.
  • Outcome harvesting to collect evidence of what has changed and determine whether and how the intervention has contributed to these changes.

The evaluation will include travel to the target communities across Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and SGA depending on the security situation. Target areas will be confirmed during the inception phase.

The Evaluators will execute the evaluation with the support and oversight of the EMG and ERG. It is envisioned that the joint final independent evaluation will engage at the minimum a two-person evaluation team comprised of a Lead International Evaluation Consultant and a National Peace & Conflict Specialist in BARMM, along with possible local enumerators. The Lead International Evaluation Consultant is expected to be familiar with the UN Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) evaluation process while the National Consultant is expected to have an intimate knowledge of the peacebuilding context and dynamics in BARMM. The EMG, composed of evaluation focals from the PUNOs and UN Resident Coordinator Office (RCO), will oversee the day-to day oversight and management of the evaluation while the ERG, composed of members of the JP Steering Committee, will provide strategic oversight to the evaluation. The members roles and responsibilities of the EMG and ERG are outlined in Section 8.

IOM, UNFPA and UN Women abides by the Norms and Standards of UNEG[4] and expects all evaluation stakeholders and the consultants to be familiar and compliant with the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation,[5] as well as the UNEG Codes of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System.[6]

The evaluation must be conducted in full respect of IOM Data Protection Principles.

The following deliverables are to be provided by the Evaluators throughout the evaluation process, upon a pre-agreed schedule confirmed in the inception phase:

1. First Deliverable:

Inception report with detailed description of the evaluation approach, methodology and work plan. The inception report should also include an evaluation matrix, perception survey questionnaire, interview and focus group guides, and other data collection instruments to capture the information and data outlined in the key evaluation questions and as per the JP results framework.

  • Payment requirements: Evaluation design including the methodology, detailed work plan and research instruments presented by the Evaluators and approved by the EMG and ERG.
  • Payment Tranche: 20%
  • Payment Timeline: 12 December 2022

2. Second Deliverable:

Draft evaluation report submitted for comments to the EMG supported by annexes of quantitative and or qualitative analysis, including cleaned dataset.

Presentation of the draft evaluation (PowerPoint)

  • Payment requirements: Draft evaluation report are submitted by the Evaluators and presented to the EMG, ERG. Relevant parties – such as government stakeholders, beneficiaries, CSO representatives, implementing partners, UN RCO and UN PBSO – may also be invited in the validation workshop.
  • **Payment Tranche:**40%
  • Payment Timeline: 8 February 2023

Presentation of the draft evaluation (PowerPoint)

3. Final Deliverable:

Final evaluation report incorporating the management response and comments from the presentation of the draft report*.* Supported annexes of quantitative and/or qualitative analysis should also be included.

Evaluation brief that provides a short overview of the evaluation and outlines the key findings, conclusions, recommendations, lessons learned and good practices (two-page summary)

Preliminary management response matrix[6]populated by the Evaluatorsthat details recommendations from the evaluation report, as well as a follow-up action plan and indicative time frame for implementation.

Payment requirements:

  1. Packaged final evaluation report is submitted by the Evaluators and cleared by the EMG, ERG, UN RCO, UN PBSO, and PUNO Heads of Agencies (HoA).
  2. Evaluation Brief developed and submitted by the Evaluators with the clearance of the EMG and ERG.
  3. Preliminary management response matrix prepared and submitted by the consultant with the clearance of the EMG and ERG.
  • Payment Tranche: 40%
  • Payment Timeline: 28 February 2023

The evaluation report should follow a structure the include the following sections, at minimum:

  1. Cover page, including the title of the evaluation, date of completion, and the name of the Evaluators or evaluation firm(s)
  2. Executive summary, including an explanation of the JP background, overview of the evaluation background, concise description of the evaluation methodology, summary of all evaluation findings, summary of all conclusions, summary of all lessons learned, and good practices and a summary of all recommendations
  3. Introduction, including a brief overview of the JP’s contextual factors, clear and relevant description of key stakeholders, and description of intervention logic and funding arrangements
  4. Evaluation background, including an explanation of the purpose of the evaluation, description of evaluation scope, and list of the main audience for the report
  5. Evaluation framework and methodology, including a statement of the evaluation approach, evaluation questions and criteria, methodology used, inclusion of cross-cutting themes, stakeholder participation, limitations of the evaluation, and description of evaluation norms and standards
  6. Evaluation findings per criteria that are complete (all questions are addressed, and findings aligned with purpose, questions, and approach), robust (findings are justified by evidence and data disaggregated by key variables), identify causal factors that led to accomplishments and failures, and adequately address cross-cutting themes
  7. Conclusions that are based on and clearly linked to the evidence presented in the Evaluation findings section and that are, to the extent possible, objective and clearly justified
  8. Recommendations for the different stakeholders involved in the JP, that are clear and concise, based on findings and/or conclusions of the report are relevant and actionable
  9. Lessons learned that are relevant, specific to the context, targeting specific users and applicable
  10. Good practices that concisely capture the context from which they are derived and specify target users, are applicable and replicable and demonstrate a link to specific impacts that are realistic
  11. Annexes, including data collection itinerary, communities and stakeholder institutions/organisations engaged, question guides, etc.

The Evaluators are expected to submit the Evaluation Report and relevant accompanying annexes in English no later than the set timeline agreed upon during the inception phase.

The Evaluators’ primary focal person for the evaluation will be Karissa ATIENZA, the M&E Reporting Assistant in IOM Philippines Cotabato Sub-Office in coordination with the EMG and ERG. To ensure independence and impartiality, the following mechanisms will be established and used:

  1. An Evaluation Management Group (EMG): Composed of evaluation focals from IOM, UNFPA, UN Women and RCO who are not part of the day-today implementation of the programme. The EMG will be responsible in overseeing the day-to-day oversight and management of the evaluation, making key decisions, and reviewing evaluation products.

Karissa May ATIENZA

  • Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting Assistant
  • IOM Philippines

John Jeferson MAIGTING

  • Monitoring and Evaluation Analyst and Information Management Officer
  • UNFPA Mindanao


  • Monitoring and Reporting Analyst
  • UN Women Philippines


  • Partnerships and Development Finance Officer
  • UN Resident Coordinator Office

The specific roles and responsibilities of the EMG include:

  • Management of the evaluation process through all phases, including drafting this Terms of Reference
  • Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the Evaluators
  • Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational
  • Ensure that the Evaluators have access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation, assist and coordinate with local stakeholders and communities, and provide logistic support during the fieldwork
  • Organise security briefings for the Evaluators and provide any materials, as required
  • The IOM Evaluation Manager/Focal Point will lead communications with the Evaluators, EMG and ERG and sharing of evaluation products with stakeholders. All evaluation managers will lead in reviewing and addressing comments specific to their agencies and ensure that comments of the ERG are addressed by the Evaluators. These comments will then be consolidated by the IOM Evaluation Manager.
  1. The Evaluation Reference Group (ERG): Members of the JP Steering Committee will serve as ERG to provide strategic oversight to the evaluation. The ERG will provide inputs and comments on the evaluation TOR, draft inception and evaluation reports.

Matthew Aaron Mark BIDDER

  • Head of Sub-office OIC
  • IOM Cotabato Sub-Office

Rochelle YU

  • Head of Office
  • UNFPA Mindanao

Nery Nuyda RONATAY

  • Program Specialist, Women, Peace, and Security and Humanitarian Action
  • UN Women Philippines


  • Senior Peace and Development Advisor
  • UN Resident Coordinator Office


  • Program Manager
  • UN Peace Building Support Office


  • National Project Officer (EPC)
  • IOM Cotabato Sub-Office

The Evaluation Management Group will ensure that the appropriate safeguards for impartiality and independence are applied throughout the process. The IOM National Monitoring and Evaluation Officer and RCO Data Management and Results Monitoring and Reporting Officer will provide additional support to the management process as required.

IOM, UNFPA and UN Women team will arrange meetings to ensure a common understanding of the evaluation process, confirm the methodology and provide inputs on the inception report. The team will also support in identifying relevant stakeholders and arranging meetings with the JP team and key partners.

A quality assurance process shall be integrated into the evaluation, as follows:

  1. Final terms of reference (ToR) shall be agreed between EMG, ERG and Evaluators
  2. The inception report shall be reviewed by the EMG and ERG, revised by the Evaluators, and finalized only upon EMG and ERG’s acceptance
  3. The Evaluators will timely raise any emergent challenges or barriers with the EMG, who will support with finding appropriate solutions to facilitate the evaluation process
  4. The initial evaluation findings shall be presented by the Evaluators to the EMG and ERG along with relevant parties – such as government stakeholders, beneficiaries, CSO representatives, implementing partners and UN RCO and UN PBSO representatives not part of the ERG – for the validation workshop
  5. The final evaluation report and brief shall be reviewed by the EMG, ERG, the Resident Coordinator, and PUNO Heads of Agencies revised by the Evaluators, and finalized only upon EMG and ERG’s acceptance

An indicative schedule for the evaluation is provided below, to be finalized upon agreement with the evaluator and approval of the EMG (EM) and ERG (herein referred as SC) during the inception phase. The timeline assumes start date of 5 December 2022 and anticipates the Evaluator’s commitment for 35 full working days.

Realistic Delivery Dates and Details as to how the work must be delivered

Realistic Delivery Dates and Details as to how the work must be delivered

Below is the indicative timeline for the consultant.

Inception meeting

  • Responsible party: Evaluators and EM and SC
  • Number of Days: 0.5
  • Deadline: 5 December

Detailed Inception Report (including evaluation matrix, methodology and data collection tools) submitted to EM

  • Responsible party: Evaluators
  • Number of Days: 4.5
  • Deadline: 12 December

Inception Report returned to evaluator for revision

  • Responsible party: EM and SC
  • Deadline: 22 December

Final Inception Report submitted to EM

  • Responsible party: Evaluator
  • Number of Days: 4
  • Deadline: 29 December

Final Inception Report accepted by SC

  • Responsible party: EM and SC
  • Deadline: 9 January

Evaluation data collection (desk review and field work)

  • Responsible party: Evaluator and Enumerators
  • Number of Days: 15
  • Deadline: 31 January

Draft Evaluation Report submitted to EM

  • Responsible party: Evaluator
  • Number of Days: 5
  • Deadline: 8 February

Presentation and validation of the evaluation findings

  • Responsible party: Evaluator
  • Number of Days: 0.5
  • Deadline: 8 February

Draft Evaluation Report returned to Evaluator for revision

  • Responsible party: EM and SC
  • Deadline: 20 February

Draft brief and management response submitted to EM

  • Responsible party: Evaluator
  • Number of Days: 0.5
  • Deadline: 27 February

Final Evaluation Report, Evaluation Brief, and draft Management Response Matrix submitted by Evaluator to EM for final approval of SC

  • Responsible party: Evaluator
  • Number of Days: 5
  • Deadline: 28 February

Final report accepted by SC

  • Responsible party: EM, SC, UN RCO, UN PBSO and PUNO HoA
  • Deadline: 14 March

Performance indicators for evaluation results

  • Quality and timeliness of the expected deliverables (value of services rendered in relation to their cost)
  • Effective adaptation of thematic resources and information into materials and key messaging that are relevant to the target audience
  • Application of a results-based approach to the consultancy – i.e., deliverables are aligned with project objectives and contribute concretely to the overall impact of the project
  • Efficient coordination with the IOM’s project teams and all necessary stakeholders
  • Strict adherence to ethical standards, including confidentiality and data protection

Required Qualifications and Experience

The international evaluator should meet the following requirements:

  • Advanced degree in a relevant field such as social sciences or statistics is required
  • Minimum of seven years of experience conducting evaluations is required, with demonstrated experience on gender issues and women and peacebuilding within evaluation being a strong asset
  • Experience in the country or region, especially in the area of Women, Peace, and Security, is preferred
  • Demonstrated familiarity with the United Nations and its Agencies, Funds and Programmes
  • For all applicants, fluency in English is required (oral and written). Fluency in the local language is an advantage
  • Excellent skills in evaluation design, quantitative and qualitative research methods, drafting and editing in English are required
  • Demonstrated ability to deliver quality results within strict deadlines
  • Strong communication skills, written and oral, including in cross-cultural contexts

The national specialist should possess the following skills and expertise:

  • Advanced degree in a relevant field such as social sciences, history or conflict studies is required
  • Minimum of five years of experience with demonstrated experience on gender issues and women and peacebuilding within evaluation a strong asset
  • Experience in BARMM, especially in the area of Women, Peace, and Security
  • Excellent knowledge of BARMM’s cultural, political, and socio-economic context with a focus on post-conflict recovery
  • Demonstrated familiarity with the United Nations and its Agencies, Funds and Programmes
  • For all applicants, fluency in English is required (oral and written). Fluency in the local language is an advantage
  • Demonstrated ability to deliver quality results within strict deadlines
  • Strong communication skills, written and oral, including in cross-cultural contexts

Travel required

The consultant is expected to conduct onsite assessments, consultations, and planning with relevant stakeholders and communities. Expected local travel will be within the BARMM areas.


The consultant must adhere to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Data Protection Principles (IN/138) and maintain confidentiality.

The consultant will be responsible to follow IOM writing guidelines and latest glossaries in all given assignments for accurate translation.

IOM is an intergovernmental organization, and as such is exempted of all taxes in the Philippines. Therefore, it is not obligated to retain any taxes that should be owed to the Government of the Philippines as part of the execution of this contract. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to comply with any fiscal obligations that might be applicable.


The ownership of intellectual products developed during this project will be shared with the government entities partaking in its creation, as well as IOM’s regional office. Government agencies and the cooperating agency must be warranted visibility and recognition, through the use of their logos in every document and any other material that might be a result of these intellectual production. Applications received later or that do not specify the name of the call will not be considered.

Required Competencies


  • Inclusion and respect for diversity: respects and promotes individual and cultural differences; encourages diversity and inclusion wherever possible.
  • Integrity and transparency: maintains high ethical standards and acts in a manner consistent with organizational principles/rules and standards of conduct.
  • Professionalism: demonstrates ability to work in a composed, competent and committed manner and exercises careful judgment in meeting day-to-day challenges.

Core Competencies – behavioural indicators level 1

  • Teamwork: develops and promotes effective collaboration within and across units to achieve shared goals and optimize results.
  • Delivering results: produces and delivers quality results in a service-oriented and timely manner; is action oriented and committed to achieving agreed outcomes.
  • Managing and sharing knowledge: continuously seeks to learn, share knowledge and innovate.
  • Accountability: takes ownership for achieving the Organization’s priorities and assumes responsibility for own action and delegated work.
  • Communication: encourages and contributes to clear and open communication; explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring and motivational way.

IOM’s competency framework can be found at this link.

Competencies will be assessed during a competency-based interview.


The appointment is subject to funding confirmation.

Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment, accreditation, any residency or visa requirements, and security clearances.

No late applications will be accepted.

[1] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into All

Policies and Programmes of the United Nations System: A/52/3/Rev. 1 (SUPP).

[2] OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris,

[3] OECD (1991), Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance, Paris,

[4] United Nations Evaluation Group (2016), UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation,

[5] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Ethical Guidelines,

[6] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system,

[7] A management response matrix template is available in the OIG/Evaluation publication, Management Response and Follow-up on IOM Evaluation Recommendations.

How to apply

In order for an application to be considered valid, IOM will only accept applications which should include a cover letter (not more than one page) and CV highlighting the required education and experience or a duly completed IOM Personal History Form. To access the form, please visit link.

Interested evaluators are invited to submit the following materials to by 28 November 2022 with a subject line CON 2022 011 – Consultant (Final External Evaluation) – PB.0059 in the subject line of your message:

  • CV of the Evaluator
  • References, including names and contact details of three referees
  • Technical proposal (outlining proposed evaluation methodology including data collection plans and analysis techniques, quality control measures, and timeline)
  • Financial proposal (all-inclusive budget for the evaluation, to include expert fees and all other expenses to be incurred)
  • Sample evaluation study relevant to the proposed evaluation

Any questions should be addressed to the e-mail mentioned above, with the Evaluation Manager in copy (

Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

No Fees:

IOM does not charge a fee at any stage of its recruitment process (application, interview, processing, training or other fee). IOM does not request any information related to bank accounts.

Join Now

Search Jobs By Country

List of Countries

July 2024