UNDP Sudan programme has been operating within the framework of the Country Cooperation Framework for 2002-2006, approved by the Government of Sudan and by UNDP Executive Board on September 22, 2002. In light of the signed Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of the Republic of the Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Sudan People’s Liberation Army on January 9, 2005, and the subsequent Darfur Peace Agreement on May 5, 2006 and the East Peace Agreement, the country is experiencing new political, economic and social needs. In May 15, 2006 the UN Country Team in Sudan decided to extend the UNDAF for two more years until the end of 2008. The agreed timeframe for the next CCA/UNDAF is 2009-2012 where the year 2012 will be used for consolidation of the results of that period. Consequently, UNDP requested its governing body, the UNDP Executive Board, for an extension of the CCF-2 of two years. The two-year extension is also known as the UNDP Bridging Programme 2007-2008 which not only reflects the extended time period but also the changed priorities following the signing of the CPA. A mid term review of the CCF-2 was conducted in October – November 2006. The review provided an intensive analysis on the pre- and post- CPA programmes in UNDP Sudan, identifying the significant roles the programme played in the post conflict/transitional phase. The key recommendations have been reflected in the Bridging Programme 2007-2008, and in the drafting of the new Country Programme Document 2009-2012. Accordingly UNDP Sudan in coordination with its Government counterpart Ministry of International Cooperation (MIC) agreed to review the priorities defined in the CCF for 2002-2006 and re-align its agenda with that of the country having a bridging programme for 2007-2008. Thus, UNDP Sudan has decided to conduct a CCF evaluation in 2008, covering the period of the CCF2 and the bridging programme. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Sudan is therefore planning to conduct a country evaluation for the Country Corporation Framework (CCF-2) 2002 – 2006 and the Bridging Programme 2007 – 2008. The CCF-2 evaluation has been designed for a number of reasons: The completion of the 2002-2008 Country Cooperation Framework presents an opportunity to evaluate the achievements over the past programme cycle and before, to capture and demonstrate evaluative evidence of UNDP’s contributions to development results at the country level and provide strategic analysis for enhancing performance and strategically positioning UNDP support within national development priorities and UNDP corporate policy directions. The evaluation should also generate lessons and experiences that could provide inputs or feed into the implementation of the next country programme document (CPD 2009- 2012). Purpose The purpose of the proposed CCF-2 evaluation is to measure UNDP’s contribution to the development results and approaches employed with a view to fine-tune the current UNDP country programme, and inform the new programming CP/CPAP cycle 2009 - 20012 under the UNDAF 2009-2012. The evaluation will support the country management team’s substantive accountability function to national stakeholders and partners, and serve as a vehicle for quality assurance of UNDP interventions at the country level; generate lessons learned from experience to inform current and future programming at the country and corporate levels; and provide country programme stakeholders an objective assessment of results at programme/outcomes level that have been achieved through UNDP support in partnerships with other key actors for the period 2002 - 2008.

Objectives of the Evaluation: The evaluation will assess UNDP’s contributions to development results and strategic positioning in Sudan, drawing lessons learned and outlining options for improvements. The evaluation will specifically: 1. Provide an independent assessment of development results at the country level, with particular emphasis on UNDP’s Country Programme, assessing the relevance and effectiveness achieved through UNDP support and in partnership with other development actors during the last five to seven years; 2. Assess performance of country programme and specify the development results achieved in the areas of policy advice, capacity development and knowledge management within the core results areas that the programme has focused on, and assess the scope and range of strategic partnerships formed; 3. Based on the actual results, ascertain how the country programme has strategically positioned UNDP to establish its comparative advantage or niche as a major upstream national policy advisor for poverty reduction and sustainable human development and as a knowledge-based organization in the country; and 4. Present key findings, draw key lessons learned, and identify innovative approaches in incubation and provide forward-looking options for management to make adjustments in the current strategy and next Country Programme. Scope of the Evaluation: The evaluation will review UNDP Sudan country programme during the CCF-2 period (2002 – 2008). It will refer to the UNDP activities under the Second Country Cooperation Framework (CCF) 2002-2008 and, when necessary, to the first CCF 1997-2001. It will be conducted as a meta-evaluation, drawing on the conclusion of outcome evaluations undertaken during the 2002 - 2008, (CCF) and will be largely based on secondary data. In assessing the strategic importance, partnership strategy, underlying factors, strategic positioning of UNDP, relevance, and development effectiveness of the CCF, the evaluation will cover the following key areas in relation to the four study objectives above, inter alia: a) Providing an examination of the effectiveness and sustainability of the UNDP programmes by i) highlighting main achievements at programme, at the national level in the last seven years and UNDP’s contribution in terms of key outputs, ii) ascertaining current progress made in achieving different outcomes in the given thematic areas and UNDP’s support to this. Qualify UNDP’s contribution to the programme with a fair degree of plausibility. b) Assessing contribution to cross cutting issues, including contribution to capacity development at the national and sub-national level to the extent that it is implicit in the intended results, as well as contribution to gender equality. Consider anticipated and unanticipated, positive and negative outcomes. c) Providing an in-depth analysis of the main programme areas, assessing the anticipated progress in achieving intended outcomes under each of the objectives and programme areas. d) Identifying and analyzing the main factors influencing results, including the range and quality of development partnerships forged and their contribution to outcomes, and how the positioning of UNDP influences its results and partnership strategy. e) Identifying lessons learnt and best practices and related innovative ideas and approaches in incubation, and in relation to management and implementation of activities to achieve related outcomes in the thematic areas of focus and on positioning that can provide a useful basis for strengthening UNDP and its support to the country and for improving programme performance, results and effectiveness in the future. Draw lessons from unintended results. Underlying factors: Analyze the underlying factors beyond UNDP’s control that influenced the country programme performance. Distinguish the substantive design issues from the key implementation and/or management capacities and issues including the timeliness of outputs, the degree of stakeholders and partners’ involvement in the completion of outputs, and how processes were managed/ carried out. Strategic Positioning of UNDP: Examine the distinctive characteristics and features of UNDP support to national needs, development goals and priorities, including linkages with the goal of reducing poverty and other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and how it has shaped UNDP's relevance as a current and potential partner. The Country Office (CO) position will be analyzed in terms of communication that goes into articulating UNDP's relevance, or how the CO is positioned to meet partner needs by offering specific, tailored services to these partners, creating value by responding to partners' needs, mobilizing resources for the benefit of the country, not for UNDP, demonstrating a clear breakdown of tailored UNDP services and having comparative advantages relative to other development organizations in major national challenges to development. Assess how UNDP has anticipated and responded to significant changes in the national development context affecting specific thematic areas. The evaluation should consider key events at the national and political level that influenced the development context, notably the risk management of UNDP, any missed opportunities for UNDP involvement and contribution, efforts at advocacy, and UNDP’s responsiveness versus concentration of efforts. The evaluation should consider the influence of systemic issues, i.e. policy and administrative constraints affecting the programme, on both the donor and programme country sides, as well as how the development results achieved and the partnerships established have contributed to ensure a relevant and strategic position of UNDP. Partnership strategy: Ascertain whether UNDP’s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective. What were the partnerships formed? What was the role of UNDP? How did the partnership contribute to the achievement of development results? What was the level of stakeholders’ participation? Examine the partnership among UN Agencies and other donor organizations in the relevant field. This will also aim at validating the appropriateness and relevance of thematic areas to the country’s needs and the partnership strategy and hence enhancing development effectiveness and/or decision making on UNDP future assistance. Methodology: Based on the objectives mentioned above, the lead consultant will propose a methodology and plan for this assignment, which will be approved by UNDP senior management. A design matrix approach relating objectives and/or expected results to indicators, study questions, data required to measure indicators and data sources. However, it’s recommended that the methodology should take into account the following, namely; Triangulation of information and data sources will constitute the primary methodology for the assessment. The evaluation will utilize both primary and secondary data from both routine and non-routine sources; coupling quantitative and qualitative designs, hence facilitating both quantification of variables of interest and explication of why these variables are at the observed levels. It will utilize the methodology for meta-evaluation of UNDP’s country programme focus areas. The meta-evaluation will review and validate findings and data from existing evaluations; conduct selective spot checks, i.e. in-country project visits and consultations with CCF stakeholders on the ground. Data gathering techniques will include: desk reviews, stakeholder meetings, client surveys, and focus group interviews and selected site visits. The evaluation consultants will use triangulation of perceptions, documents and validations and will review national policy documents, such as the record of the roundtable meetings and sector policies and action plans, as well as programming frameworks (UNDAF, Country Assessment, CCF, Strategic Result Framework/ Results-oriented Annual Report, etc.), which gives an overall picture of the country context. Desk review of existing documents and materials such as support documents, evaluations, assessments, and a variety of temporal and focused reports will be conducted. In particular it will review mission, programme/project reports, the annual reports and the consultant’s technical assessment reports. A stakeholder involvement and consultation process is envisaged. The evaluation consultants will meet with government ministries/agencies, other institutions, civil society organizations, NGOs, private sector representatives, UN agencies, multilateral and bilateral donors, and beneficiaries. Field visits to selected sites; and briefing and debriefing sessions with UNDP and the Government, as well as with donors and partners. Key deliverables: The consultant(s) will produce a report structured demonstrating disaggregation’s were possible for South and North Sudan, totaling 30 pages plus annexes, with an executive summary of not more than 5 pages describing key findings and recommendations. The assessment will entail, inter alia: 1) A report containing (Hard copy, a soft copy in MS Word and Acrobat reader, Times New Roman, Size 12, Single Spacing): a) Executive summary of conclusions and recommendations b) Introduction, description of the evaluation methodology c) An analysis of key interactions (the development results, substantive influences, UNDP’s contribution and how UNDP works with other relevant actors) and associations between variables measuring programme performance d) Key lessons learnt, highlighting key factors that might have hampered the impact of country programme and suggesting possible recommendations for future e) Conceptual Framework to guide country programme in terms of future programming and policy f) Assumptions made during the evaluation and study limitations, and g) Conclusions and recommendations h) Annexes: ToRs, field visits, people interviewed, documents reviewed, etc 2) Provide a draft report before leaving Sudan, and submit a final report within two weeks 3) Debrief UNDP, Government of Sudan, GoSS, other UN agencies and development partners in Sudan UNDP’s obligations: UNDP will: a) Provide the consultant with all the necessary support (not under the consultant’s control) to ensure that the consultant(s) undertake the study with reasonable efficiency. b) Appoint a focal point in the programme section to support the consultant(s) during the evaluation process. c) Collect background documentation and inform partners and selected project counterparts. d) Meet all travel related costs to project sites as part of the programme evaluation cost. e) Support to identify key stakeholders to be interviewed as part of the evaluation. f) The programme staff members will be responsible for liaising with partners, logistical backstopping and providing relevant documentation and feedback to the evaluation team g) Cover any costs related to stakeholder workshops during dissemination of results h) Organize inception meeting between the consultants, partners and stakeholders, including Government prior to the scheduled start of the evaluation assignment. Time Frame: The evaluation consultancy is tentatively scheduled to take place from September/October 2008 onwards. Tentative timetable (Sudan) Evaluation Team Review of documents, 4 days Consultations with UNDP Senior management team, key programme stakeholders in Khartoum and Juba 2 days Field visits - project and institutional visits (Northern and Southern Sudan) 27 days Report writing and de-briefing/presentation to stakeholders (Khartoum & Juba) 6 days Incorporation of comments and submission of final report 4 days Total Work Days: 43 days Reporting: The consultant(s) will be reporting directly to UNDP senior management.

The evaluation team shall consist of three consultants: An international consultant (team leader) and two national consultants with extensive knowledge of the country situation. The Team Leader (International) will have the responsibility for the overall co-ordination of the evaluation and for the overall quality and timely submission of the evaluation report to the UNDP Country Office. Education: Possesses advanced university degree in economics and/or social development field, demonstrate strong understanding of development results concepts and prior experience of programming in a post-conflict setting Experience: • Proven experience of a minimum of 7 years at the national level, preferably with UN experience. Knowledge and familiarity of the United Nations system, its reform process and UNDP programme policies, procedures. • Solid academic/research records/ publications on development work. • Previous experience in conducting country programme evaluations is an asset • Knowledge of the political, cultural and economic situation in Sudan or ability to quickly acquire such knowledge is desirable • Excellent writing and analytical skills • Ability to meet tight deadlines Language Requirements: Fluency in English and Arabic

Conditions of Work: Consultants will be expected to use their own laptop computers. UNDP will support and facilitate the consultants travel, provide administrative, logistics and facilitate security related issues of the consultancy. Reference materials: The consultants should study the following documents among others: a) UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results b) Ethical Code of Conduct for UNDP Evaluations; c) Guideline for Reviewing the Evaluation Report; d) UNDP Results-Based Management: Technical Note e) CCF-2, Bridging Programme documents f) CCF-2 mid term review report g) Project Documents and relevant reports h) Other documents and materials related to the country programme to be evaluated (from the government, donors, etc.) i) Sudan 5 Year Strategic Plan j) SP and Rule of Law Outcome evaluations Only short-listed consultants will be contacted Evaluation Criteria: After the interview, qualified candidates will be asked for their consulting fee. The contract should be awarded to the consultant who is technically responsive (i.e. meets quality requirements) and has offered the lowest consulting fee or lowest lump sum price as the case may be. Payment: The standard method of payment to individual contractors under SSA, whether national or international, shall be the output-based lump-sum scheme. Notice: UNDP, as a matter of practice, does not charge any application, processing or training fee at any stage of the procurement process.

For further information about UNDP Procurement and how UNDP operates, please review our website.