Established in 1951, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration. It is committed to the principle that orderly and dignified migration benefits migrants and society. It works with its partners in the international community to help address the growing operational challenges of migration, improve understanding of migration issues, foster economic and social development through migration, and safeguard the well-being and human rights of migrants. For more information about IOM, please visit: https://www.iom.int/mission
1. Context and Rationale
The Republic of Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the island of Quisqueya in the Caribbean, but despite this geographical proximity, they differ significantly in terms of governance, language, culture, and development. Border communities are particularly affected by these differences, and tensions are exacerbated by insufficient political and social dialogue, socio-economic disparities, and the absence of spaces to prevent and resolve conflicts, which undermines social cohesion.
The trade relationship between the two countries is important, but since the COVID-19 pandemic these trade exchanges have been disrupted, making vulnerable households even more fragile. In addition, the amplification of the socio-political crisis, growing insecurity, and economic deterioration in Haiti since July 2018 facilitate the increase in Haitian migration to the Dominican Republic. Deportations have become the main means of controlling migration at the border, and border communities lack essential infrastructure and services. Security is particularly precarious due to the smuggling of migrants, drugs and weapons, as well as the theft of property, including cattle rustling.
In 2021, the serious challenges were exacerbated by the assassination of the Haitian president, plunging the country into a period of political uncertainty, highlighting the fragility of governance in Haiti. In addition, Haiti was hit by an earthquake in the same year, adding a new dimension to the humanitarian challenges facing the country. Finally, the 2021 Massacre River conflict hardened relations between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, ultimately leading to the Dominican government’s decision to close its borders with Haiti in September 2023, heightening already existing tensions at the border.
In this context, cooperation between the two countries is mainly carried out through the Haitian-Dominican Bilateral Mixed Commission (CMB), created in 1979 and established in 1996 to facilitate intergovernmental dialogue and guide collaborations. The Commission is chaired by the foreign ministers of both countries and also involves representatives from the public and private sectors. Issues such as border security, citizen security in neighboring provinces and migration management represent complex challenges, but with potential for enhanced cooperation. Despite political tensions, local initiatives involving local authorities, civil society and the private sector promote collaboration.
Aware that the absence of mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution and political dialogue would aggravate insecurity at the border, this project aimed to strengthen the binational dialogue between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to facilitate the peaceful resolution of cross-border conflicts. The objective is to promote community and institutional cooperation between the two countries, with a focus on women and youth, the main victims of conflicts. With a multi-sectoral approach and involving various actors, several strategic axes were prioritized, including awareness raising on irregular migration, intercultural mediation to peacefully resolve territorial conflicts, support for security and justice institutions, as well as the revitalization of the CMB for inclusive binational governance.
To achieve the objective, the project interventions aimed specifically to:
➢Raising awareness among border populations of the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration as well as the benefits of binational collaboration and dialogue.
➢Strengthen social cohesion and the prevention of local conflicts in the border area through cross-border dialogue spaces and local technical and cultural collaboration mechanisms.
➢Contribute to the CMB strengthening binational dialogue, particularly in the area of management of shared natural resources, security and migration.
The project “Strengthening the binational dialogue between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to promote social cohesion in the border area” was jointly implemented by IOM and UNDP over a period of 44 months, from April 2021 to November 2024, with a budget of USD 3,000,000. The intervention was carried out in close collaboration with the CMB, its Technical Secretariat in Haiti and its Executive and Technical Secretariat in the Dominican Republic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic, institutions working in the border area, members of the cross-border dialogue table, local authorities (Mayors and Municipal Administration Councils or CASEC), civil society organizations, as well as women’s and youth organizations. In accordance with the United Nations project management policies and rules, which promote transparency and learning from lessons learned, these Terms of Reference (ToR) have been developed in consultation with the United Nations Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) with the aim of recruiting an international consultant to conduct the independent final evaluation of the project.
2. Objective of the evaluation
The final independent evaluation is an opportunity to assess from several angles the achievements of the project “Strengthening the binational dialogue between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to promote social cohesion in the border area” at the binational level. This evaluation mainly aims to assess the results and outputs of the project in order to determine their contribution to conflict prevention and the promotion of social cohesion in the border area, as well as to strengthen the binational dialogue in order to achieve the peacebuilding objectives targeted by the PBF.
Based on project documentation and other available information, this study will take stock of this project and explain the level of achievement of the expected results and underlying impacts. The evaluation will provide key lessons on successful peacebuilding approaches and operational practices, while highlighting areas where the project has been less effective than expected. It will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the achievements as well as possible solutions for planning similar initiatives in the future. In this sense, this project evaluation is about both accountability and learning.
Specifically, the evaluation must:
➢Assess whether the project’s Theory of Change was well formulated and effectively made the expected contribution in terms of community and institutional cooperation between the two countries for a significant change in the direction of peace consolidation.
➢Link the current contribution of the project to the achievement of SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions), as well as SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities) and 5 (Gender equality), to which the project contributes, and propose avenues for improvement for future interventions in this direction.
➢Assess the extent to which the project has contributed so far to meeting the needs of beneficiaries, particularly women, young people, marginalized people and identified institutions, including the Executive and Technical Secretariats of the CMB, and in particular in conflict prevention, social cohesion, migration, security and binational cooperation.
➢Assess the effectiveness of the methodological approach or implementation strategy of the project, including whether the project was implemented using a conflict-sensitive approach, as well as its institutional arrangements, management and operational systems, and its value for money.
➢Measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project, as well as the degree of implementation and the quality of the products and achievements. Improvement avenues responding to the identified causes of the difficulties, constraints and challenges encountered to address the potential causes and factors of the problem and possible partnerships are also expected.
➢To assess, in particular, with regard to the relevance and adequacy of the project: 1) the consideration of the main drivers of conflict and the most relevant peacebuilding issues; 2) its alignment with the national peacebuilding policy and the national priorities of the Haitian and Dominican governments; 3) the extent to which the project has leveraged the added value of the United Nations in both countries; and 4) the degree to which cross-cutting issues such as conflict and gender sensitivity have been taken into account in both countries, with the necessary intersectionality elements.
➢Examine whether the project actions represent the best response to the challenges identified and formulate recommendations aimed at improving the engagement of each Partner Agency, not only in the area of security, migration and social cohesion, but also in other related areas such as the reduction of community violence and the provision of basic social services.
➢Identify and document good and bad practices in conflict prevention and promotion of social cohesion and binational cooperation, innovations and key lessons learned from each of these practices as well as their impact on peacebuilding. Proposals should be made regarding the best elements that can be the subject of communication or experience sharing, and which will be usable for future programs, particularly the PBF.
➢Report on the perceptions of the various stakeholders and populations in border areas, in particular of the activities and results of the project. Highlight the main reasons for the positive and negative opinions expressed, and propose ways to improve these perceptions in future interventions.
3. Scope of the evaluation
All institutions in both countries (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) that were involved in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project are concerned by this evaluation. Indeed, the institutional sphere of the work of this evaluation must include all parties that took part in the drafting of the first draft of the project document, the direct implementing institutions, the implementing partners, the beneficiaries (institutional and individual), and the fundamental service operators who made possible important aspects of the project’s products and results. The evaluation officer must coordinate well with the implementing institutions, in particular the IOM and UNDP of the two countries, in order to properly identify all state institutions and sectoral ministries as well as civil society and community organizations that were involved in all stages of preparation and implementation of the project over at least the period from April 2021 to November 2024. It should be noted that it would be interesting to consider a few months before the start of the project in order to clearly identify the circumstances and realities that prevailed when the first ideas for the project were designed.
The performance of the indicators selected in conjunction with the stakeholders, including the donor, will be at the center of the evaluation. In fact, it will highlight the determinants of the achievement of the results declared and confirmed by the said evaluation as well as the level of contribution of the project actions to these results. Furthermore, the extent to which the project contributes or not to conflict prevention and the promotion of social cohesion in the border area, as well as to the strengthening of binational dialogue with a view to achieving peace objectives, should be addressed in depth. The positive and negative impacts of the project as well as their sustainability constitute an important angle to explore. Finally, it would be necessary to establish the time horizon required according to realistic estimates for the project interventions to achieve the overall objective pursued as well as the additional interventions that would be required.
4. Evaluation criteria and key indicative questions
In this evaluation, the questions that will guide the examination of the overall performance of the project should be based on the following criteria:
4.1. Relevance
➢To what extent were lessons learned from other relevant projects during the design?
➢To what extent were the perspectives of people and institutions likely to influence the outcomes, and of those who could provide information or other resources for the achievement of the stated outcomes, taken into account during the project design process?
➢To what extent has the project responded appropriately to political, social, legal, economic and institutional developments in the two countries?
➢Did each expected output respond to needs that were part of the national priorities of the two countries on peacebuilding and the promotion of social cohesion, targeted beneficiaries, partners and donors? Were they specific to address the problems identified?
➢Were the choices of institutional partners and the project approach to achieve these objectives relevant?
➢To what extent does this project respond to one of the priority areas defined by the Haitian government during its eligibility for the Peacebuilding Fund?
4.2 Effectiveness
➢To what extent were the project results and outputs achieved and what factors contributed to the achievement or non-achievement of the project’s expected results and outputs?
➢In which areas did the project perform best and worst? Why and what were the facilitating factors?
➢Has the IOM-UNDP partnership strategy been adapted to ensure that the project is on track with significant peacebuilding results?
➢To what extent has the strategy of involving UN agencies on both sides of the border been adapted to ensure good coordination in the implementation of the project’s actions?
➢What were the unique/innovative/interesting things in relation to what the project tried to achieve in terms of peacebuilding and promoting social cohesion?
➢To what extent is project management and implementation participatory, and does this participation contribute to the achievement of the project objectives?
4.3 Efficiency
➢To what extent was the project implementation strategy with IOM and UNDP and its execution efficient and cost-effective?
➢Were human and financial resources used rationally? Were resources (funds, personnel, time, expertise, etc.) allocated strategically to achieve results?
➢To what extent do the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems used by the Agencies ensure efficient project management?
➢Were there other more efficient ways and means to deliver better results with the available resources?
➢To what extent were the partnership arrangements and management and accountability structures conducive to achieving the outputs?
4.4 Coherence
➢To what extent has this project complemented the work of different entities, particularly with other UN actors?
➢Was the project part of a larger set of PBF projects, to what extent were the design, implementation, monitoring and reporting of the project aligned with those of other projects?
➢How were stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of the project?
4.5. Sustainability
➢Do the legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes within which the project operates represent a risk that could threaten the sustainability of the project’s benefits?
➢To what extent has a sustainability strategy, including capacity development of key national stakeholders, been developed or implemented?
➢To what extent does the level of stakeholder ownership represent a risk for the sustainability of the project’s benefits?
➢What measures could be adopted to strengthen disengagement strategies and sustainability?
➢What are the recommendations for similar interventions in the future in terms of peacebuilding and promotion of social cohesion?
In addition to the standard Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) / Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria mentioned above, the following PBF-specific assessment criteria should also be assessed:
4.6 Human rights and gender sensitivity
➢Has the project taken into account the different challenges, opportunities, constraints and capacities of women, men, girls and boys in its design (including in conflict analysis, results statements and results frameworks) and implementation?
➢Were the commitments made in the project proposal to gender-responsive peacebuilding, particularly with regard to the budget, respected throughout implementation?
4.7 Conflict sensitivity
➢Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict sensitivity? Were the internal capacities of state institutions and civil society adequate to ensure an ongoing approach to conflict sensitivity?
➢Can a level of responsibility be attributed to the project for unintended negative impacts, if any?
➢Has an ongoing process been established for monitoring the context in order to anticipate and avoid unintended impacts?
➢Were the internal capacities of IOM and UNDP in both countries sufficient to ensure a continued conflict-sensitive approach?
4.8. Catalytic effect
➢Was the project a catalyst on a financial and/or programmatic level?
➢Has project funding been used to expand other peacebuilding work and/or helped create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
4.9. Risk tolerance and innovation
➢During the implementation of the project, how did the identification and qualification of the level of project risks evolve?
➢Were there adequate risk mitigation measures?
➢To what extent was the project approach new or innovative? Are there lessons that can be learned for similar approaches elsewhere?
5. Evaluation methodology
The development of the detailed methodology, including the implementation schedule, is part of the work of the consultation. However, it is hoped that the prioritization of a comprehensive and inclusive approach that takes into account the different stakeholders and the varied methods of collecting and analyzing information will be applied. National consultants should be recruited in both countries, who will be coordinated by an international consultant. The approach chosen, including the schedule of interviews, the conduct of field visits and the list of data that will be used for the evaluation should be clearly presented in the methodology and the inception report, which should be the subject of in-depth discussions and agreement between the stakeholders, including the agencies that implemented the project (IOM and UNDP). Finally, it should be noted that the development of the methodology will weigh heavily in the evaluation of the proposals. In short, the methodology should present:
➢A good understanding of the different aspects of the study;
➢A relevant method or combination of methods and a realistic timetable for implementing the evaluation activities;
➢Relevant tools to produce quality deliverables within reasonable timeframes.
In fact, it is hoped that the study will be carried out according to a clear methodology which takes into account at least the following different aspects:
o A framing meeting with the sponsors and the evaluation coordination group which will be created;
o Review of key project documents;
o Individual interviews with key informants and focus group discussions, as appropriate, with key stakeholders, including the project team, the Resident Coordinators’ Offices in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the CMB, its Executive and Technical Secretariat in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic, institutions working in the border area, local authorities (Mayors/CASEC), particularly from border areas, members of the cross-border dialogue table, representatives of the Border Police in Haiti (POLIFRONT) and the Specialized Corps for Land Border Security in the Dominican Republic (CESFRONT) who participated in local dialogue meetings, civil society organizations, and women’s and youth organizations. The different approaches should be meaningfully linked to the different types of data produced by each of them and their relationship to the evaluation questions. The person in charge of the evaluation must ensure the participation of men and women and of all age groups;
o A systematic review of monitoring data, evaluations, internal reviews and revisions;
o Systematic review of existing and relevant data at the results level or in the national context in both countries;
o Systematic review of project eligibility requests and periodic reports;
o Field visits;
o Surveys.
The link between the specific role that each of the methodology approaches will play in the quest to answer targeted evaluation questions must be well addressed.
Following the information gathering phase, the consultant must:
➢ Organize a restitution meeting with the teams of the sponsoring agencies and stakeholders. This meeting will allow the sharing of initial conclusions which will be the subject of discussions and criticism with a view to possible improvements.
➢ Submit a draft report of the consultation to stakeholders. This report must take into account the requirements of the ToR. The opinions and comments of the stakeholders will be consolidated by the reference group and transferred to the consultant for integration into the final report.
➢ Submit a final report that takes into account stakeholders’ observations and comments.
6. Evaluation Products
6.1 Inception Report (maximum 10 pages)
This report should be prepared following preliminary discussions with IOM and UNDP, as well as the desk review. Furthermore, it should be finalized before the start of the evaluation itself, which means before any formal interviews, distribution of questionnaires, field visits or information gathering.
6.2 Information meetings
Although they are optional, the sponsors have the right to request to be informed of the initial findings and the progress of the various stages of the evaluation. Should such requests be made, the evaluator must make arrangements to satisfy them.
6.3 Preliminary Report
Once the data analysis and findings have been finalized, a preliminary report should be submitted to the various stakeholders for comment. The report should not exceed 45 pages in length. A reasonable period of approximately two weeks should be allowed for the partners to review and provide comments that will be forwarded to the consultant to improve the document.
6.4 Presentation of the preliminary report
After the integration of the documentaries, a presentation of the evaluation document is expected. Indeed, the PowerPoint presentation and the Word document must be shared with the stakeholders at least two days before the presentation date. This presentation can be done in person or virtually; however, given the context of the COVID 19 pandemic and the security situation in Haiti, it is strongly recommended to plan it online.
6.5 Final Report
Following the presentation of the study document, the consultant will take into account the relevant comments of the persons present to finalize the final evaluation document and submit it. However, it should be understood that the evaluation report is considered final only when it is approved by the lead agency and the PBF Secretariat. This implies that the consultant is required to consider all the substantive and formal comments of the comments before being able to have the validation of the final report.
7. Ethics and professional conduct of the evaluation
This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) “Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation”1. Indeed, the consultant must ensure that the rights and confidentiality of the persons providing the information are safeguarded, through measures to ensure compliance with the legal codes governing the collection and publication of data. He/she must also ensure the security of the information collected and provide protocols to guarantee the anonymity and confidentiality of the sources of information when required. The knowledge and data acquired during the evaluation process must also be used for the evaluation only, to the exclusion of any other use without the express authorization of IOM and its partners.
1 https://www.uneval.org/document/detail/102
8. Execution modality
The winning person must plan and carry out the various stages of the evaluation in complete independence in a professional manner. The costs of all operations of this study, including travel, are the responsibility of the consultant. However, the institutions that implemented the project can play a facilitator role with the stakeholders if necessary. In fact, requests for facilitation must be well planned.
In terms of coordination of the evaluation activities and validation of the deliverables, the process will follow the following scheme:
➢ Evaluation Sponsors : Agency Management (IOM and UNDP) will: (i) provide advice to the evaluator; (ii) respond to the evaluation by preparing a Management Response and using the findings appropriately; (iii) allocate the necessary funds and human resources; (iv) be responsible and accountable for the quality of the evaluation process and products; (v) recommend acceptance of the final report of the Reference Group;
➢ The Evaluation Manager : The OIM M&E specialists, the team leaders of the entities concerned by the project, the project managers and the operations or procurement department will be responsible for: i) managing the contractual arrangements, the budget and the personnel involved in the evaluation; ii) providing support for coordination; iii) providing the evaluator with administrative assistance and the required data and information; iv) analyzing the methodological approach document and the evaluation reports to ensure that the final version meets the PBF quality standards.
➢ A reference group will be set up to support the evaluation and validate all the mission deliverables. This reference group will be composed of at least:
o Heads of the IOM Immigration and Border Governance Unit in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
o From the Head of the Governance Unit within UNDP in Haiti and the Dominican Republic;
o Representatives from the Resident Coordinators’ Offices in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
o Respective project managers within IOM and UNDP in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
o A CMB representative in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
o From the IOM M&E specialist in Haiti.
o A representative of the PBF Secretariat in Haiti.
o National partners.
o Some key implementation partners.
o Some local beneficiaries.
The role of the Reference Group will be to facilitate the collection of required data and information, monitor the progress of the evaluation and review the draft evaluation report to ensure its quality. A workshop will be held with this Reference Group to review the draft report.
➢ The consultant is responsible for the proper conduct of the evaluation and the provision of all deliverables within the planned deadlines. The consultant must follow the instructions in the terms of reference and subsequent instructions (while maintaining autonomy and neutrality). He/she must propose a methodological approach, collect and analyze data and information, lead meetings, prepare a provisional report, make a restitution and then a final report.
If necessary, IOM can provide office space for some meetings and the work of the consultation. Its main role will be to provide strategic, financial and administrative support. It must also lead the overall coordination to manage the entire evaluation process with the team and
also ensure the dissemination and use of the evaluation findings and recommendations to strengthen learning with stakeholders and improve the implementation of the Country Programme.
At all stages, the evaluation must comply with the data protection principles and the IOM Data Protection Manual2, in particular those relating to the collection of data by lawful means, obtaining informed consent from individuals, and the protection and confidentiality of personal data. Obtaining informed consent from data sources is a prerequisite for the collection, analysis and use of data. The evaluator/team should describe in the inception report the procedures he/she will use to protect the rights and confidentiality of his/her sources.
9. Timetable for the evaluation
This evaluation will extend over a period of three months from the signing of the contract. The estimated start date is October 7, 2024. Indeed, any proposal must include a detailed timetable that shows the period for carrying out the different stages of the study, taking into account at least the following points:
Activity 1 Framework meeting with the Reference Group.
Calendar
Upon signing the contract
October 7, 2024
Place
OIM or remote meeting
Responsible
Consultant and
IOM/UNDP team
Activity 2
Sharing relevant documentation with the evaluation team
Document review
Calendar
Upon signing the contract
From October 7 to October 11, 2024
Place
Via e-mail
Responsible
Consultant and IOM/UNDP project team
Activity 3
Development of the final evaluation methodology
Calendar
At the latest during the second week after signing the contract
From October 14 to October 18, 2024
Place
From a distance
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 4
Submission of inception report: methodology and updated work plan, including list of stakeholders to be interviewed, questions
(10 pages maximum)
Calendar
At the end of the second week after signing the contract
October 18, 2024
Place
IOM
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 5
Comments and approval of the inception report and documentary analysis
Calendar
One (1) week after submission of the framework report
October 25, 2024
Place
IOM
Responsible
Project Reference Group and PBF
Activity 6
Consultations and field visits, in-depth interviews and focus groups
Calendar
From the fourth week after signing the contract.
From October 28 to November 22, 2024
Place
Field visits
Responsible
The IOM/UNDP team will facilitate meetings with local project partners, project staff, local authorities, etc.
Activity 7
Preparation of the draft evaluation report (45 pages maximum excluding annexes)
Executive summary
Calendar
Two (2) weeks after the data collection phase
From November 25 to December 6, 2024
Place
From a distance
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 8
Presentation and submission of the preliminary report
Calendar
Two (2) weeks after the data collection phase
December 6, 2024
Place
From a distance
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 9
Consolidation of comments from the Reference Group and the PBF on the draft report
Calendar
Two (2) weeks after submission of the evaluation report
From December 9 to December 20, 2024
Place
IOM
Responsible
Consultant, reference group, and PBF
Activity 10
Consolidation of comments on the preliminary report
Calendar
One (1) week after the submission of the preliminary report
From December 23 to December 27, 2024
Place
Remote meeting
Responsible
Consultant and reference group
Activity 11
Finalization of the evaluation report incorporating the additions and comments provided by the Reference Group and the PBF.
Calendar
One (1) week after the debriefing
From December 30, 2024 to January 3, 2025
Place
From a distance
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 12
Submission of the final evaluation report to the IOM country office in Haiti for transmission to the Reference Group
(45 pages maximum, excluding summary and annexes).
Calendar
One (1) week after the debriefing
January 3, 2025
Place
From a distance
Responsible
Consultant
Activity 13
Estimated duration of the evaluation
Calendar
3 months
2 https://www.iom.int/data-protection
10. Qualification of bidders
Given that national consultants will have to be recruited in both countries (Haiti and Dominican Republic), who will be coordinated by a consultant at the international level, international bidders must have the following professional profile:
➢Master’s degree in economics, project management, development, statistics, or any other field relevant to carrying out the study. A lower level (Bac+4 or Bac+5) will be accepted if additional specialized training (e.g. monitoring – evaluation) or equivalent additional professional experience can be justified.
➢Have at least 3 years of experience in M&E responsibilities;
➢Have conducted at least two similar studies (baseline or reference study, mid-term evaluation, final evaluation) using quantitative and qualitative methods of information collection and analysis;
➢Have carried out (led or participated substantially) at least in one evaluation exercise of a project to strengthen the capacity of state institutions or civil society in the field of conflict prevention or promotion of social cohesion, or have worked for at least a period of two years in a similar project financed by the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund.
➢Have a good knowledge of the Sustainable Development Goals, and the political, security and socio-economic context of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Profiles of national consultants that the international consultant must include in his/her team of evaluators:
➢Master’s degree in economics, project management, development, statistics, or any other field relevant to carrying out the study. A lower level (Bac+4 or Bac+5) will be accepted if additional specialized training (e.g. monitoring – evaluation) or equivalent additional professional experience can be justified.
➢Have at least 2 years of experience in data collection and analysis, and in-depth knowledge of interview techniques, focus groups and other qualitative methods.
➢Have participated in at least one similar study (baseline or reference study, mid-term evaluation, final evaluation) using quantitative and qualitative methods of information collection and analysis;
➢Have participated in at least one evaluation exercise of a project to strengthen the capacity of state institutions or civil society in the field of conflict prevention or promotion of social cohesion, or have worked for at least a period of one year in a similar project financed by the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund.
➢Have a good knowledge of the social context of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, respectively.
10.1 Additional skills and abilities:
➢Good interpersonal skills.
➢Excellent skills in conducting surveys/focus groups and delivering presentations.
➢Be proactive and autonomous.
➢Excellent oral and written communication skills in French and Spanish. Fluency in Haitian Creole would be an asset.
➢Good command of IT tools.
NB: Female applications are strongly encouraged.
11. Expected deliverables
The consultant in the proposed methodology must guarantee the following deliverables, in French and Spanish, which will be validated by the two sponsoring agencies:
➢ Deliverable 1: Inception report, and Submission of tools (Questionnaire, Interview guide, Focus group guide, Data processing grid) for information collection and the schedule of data collection operations. These documents will be provided to the evaluation manager.
➢ Deliverable 2 : Submission of the preliminary evaluation report.
➢ Deliverable 3 : Submission and validation of the final report.
12. Payment terms for the consultation
Payment Deliverables Deadline for submission of deliverables %
Payment 1
Deliverables
Inception report, and submission and validation of information collection tools as well as the schedule of information collection operations.
Deadline for submission of deliverables
No later than 2 weeks after signing the contract
% 40
Payment 2
Deliverables
Submission and presentation of the preliminary evaluation report
Deadline for submission of deliverables No later than 2 months after signing the contract
%
30
Payment 3
Deliverables
Submission and validation of the final evaluation report
Deadline for submission of deliverables 3 months after signing the contract
% 30
Total
100%
EVALUATION FORM
Job Title: International Consultant to conduct the final evaluation of the project entitled “Strengthening the binational dialogue between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to promote social cohesion in the border area”.
The technical and financial proposals of the candidates will be evaluated according to the following matrix:
STAGE
1. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Verification of required documents:
➢Signed letter of confirmation of interest and availability,
➢Updated CV and/or Personal Notice
➢Technical proposal: summary description of the reasons why the candidate believes he/she is best qualified to provide the consultation, the methodology that will be used, the description of the tools and the schedule of activities, including respective expected results and deliverables.
➢Financial proposal: description of needs and forecast expenses for travel, daily fees, travel expenses, materials and tools, carrying out surveys, workshops, etc.
➢Recently produced evaluation report in a similar area of work to capacity building of state institutions.
➢Copy of the signed Pledge on Ethical Conduct in Evaluation.
% 70
STAGE
2.TECHNICAL EVALUATION
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
A. EDUCATION
Master’s degree in economics, project management, development, statistics, or any other field relevant to carrying out the study:
➢Master’s degree in one of the disciplines mentioned and at least 3 years of experience related to project management, monitoring and evaluation: 15 points
➢1st cycle degree (Bac+4 or Bac+5) in one of the above disciplines and more than 5 years of experience in project management, monitoring and evaluation: 12 points
➢Bachelor’s degree (Bac+4 or Bac+5) and three to five years of experience: 7 points
MAXIMUM POINT 15 points
% 70
B. GENERAL EXPERIENCE
At least 3 years of experience in project management and monitoring and evaluation responsibilities with the conduct of at least 2 evaluation studies as acquired. Evaluation studies can be baseline or reference studies, mid-term evaluations, final evaluations, etc.
➢At least 3 years of experience and completion of at least two project evaluation projects: 5 points
➢3 to 5 years of experience and the conduct of at least two assessments: 7 points
➢More than 5 years of experience and the conduct of at least two assessments: 10 points
MAXIMUM POINT 10 points
% 70
C. SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
➢Participation in the management, monitoring and evaluation of at least two projects relating to the strengthening of the capacities of state institutions and/or civil society: 4 points
➢Proven experience in the management and/or monitoring and evaluation of projects relating to the themes of conflict prevention and the promotion of social cohesion: 3 points
➢Experience in conducting studies within the United Nations system: 1 point
➢Proven experience in projects on the theme of peacebuilding and familiarity with the analytical frameworks of PBF projects: 2 points
MAXIMUM POINT 10 points
% 70
D. LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Excellent command of French and Spanish (oral and written), basic notions of Haitian Creole would be an asset.
➢Excellent: 5 points
➢Pretty good: 2 points
MAXIMUM POINT 5 points
% 70
E.UNDERSTANDING THE MISSION & COMPETENCE
➢Good understanding of the mandate, aspects of the evaluation, and stakeholders to be taken into account in the evaluation process: 5 points
➢Excellent understanding of the task by proposing an appropriate methodology to accomplish it and a schedule of activities consistent with the tasks defined in the ToRs: 15 points
➢Important aspects of the task are addressed with great clarity including sufficient detail: 7 points
➢The consideration of specific themes (such as the gender aspect and the link between project interventions and peacebuilding) is well addressed: 3 points
MAXIMUM POINT 30 points
% 70
STAGE
3.FINANCIAL EVALUATION
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
MAXIMUM POINT OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION (100*70%)
MAXIMUM POINT 70
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
FINANCIAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
➢The lowest financial proposal will receive the maximum number of points
➢All other proposals will receive proportional points calculated according to the following formula:
N=V(Z/Y)
Where:
N= Rating of the financial proposal evaluated V= Maximum number of points awarded to the financial offer
Z= Amount of the lowest proposal
Y= Amount of the proposal evaluated
%
30
How to apply
Interested persons are requested to send a complete application including their curriculum vitae, a technical proposal, and a financial offer detached from the technical proposal. In addition, an example of a recently produced evaluation report in a field of work similar to capacity building of state institutions and/or civil society as well as a copy of the signed Pledge on Ethical Conduct in Evaluation3 should be submitted.
The deadline for submission is 20 September 2024 to SMHTIRecruitment@iom.int. No applications will be considered after this date and shortlisted candidates will be invited for an interview. The tender evaluation criteria and submission channels are attached.
3 The document can be downloaded from the UNEG website: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866
