• English (United Kingdom)
  • Khmer (Cambodia)
Home >> TOR Individual International Consultant Service of Project End Evaluation
User Login


TOR Individual International Consultant Service of Project End Evaluation

(0 K2_VOTES)

Approved on 08 August, 2013



1. Background

The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) recognizes the importance of strengthening governance through its National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 2006-10 and its Rectangular Strategy (RS) 2004-08. The RGC has also publicly acknowledged, “achieving good governance will require the active participation and commitment of all segments of the society, through enhanced information sharing, accountability, transparency, equality, inclusiveness, and the rule of law” (RGC 2004). A number of key government policy documents, such as the RS, the Governance Action Plan, and the Decentralization and De-concentration (D&D) Strategic Framework recognize the important role that civil society can play in strengthening governance processes.

The DFGG Project was designed as a response to the governments push for governance reform, receiving grant funding of US$20 million-equivalent IDA funding from the World Bank. The project commenced on 24 June 2009 and following a one-year extension is due to be completed on 31 March 2014. The project is coordinated through the Ministry of Interior (MOI) as the Executing Agency. There were 5 other implementing agencies in the original project design, reduced to 3 others at the mid-term review. The DFGG project governance reform concept included:

• Increasing the ability of citizens and other non-state actors (NSAs) to hold the state accountable for its actions, and to make it more responsive to their needs; and

• Enhancing the capacity of the state institutions to become more transparent, accountable and responsive to citizens.

The process of operationalizing this concept was envisaged through four key activities: (i) promoting demand by disclosing, demystifying, and disseminating information on key government programs; (ii) mediating demand for good governance by creating and strengthening avenues for citizen feedback and addressing citizen concerns; (iii) responding to such demand by creating programs for service delivery; and (iv) promoting regular monitoring and oversight of the public sector by independent actors.

1.1 Project Development Objective

The overall project development objective (PDO) of DFGG is to enhance demand for good governance in priority reform areas by strengthening institutions, promoting partnerships, and sharing lessons.

This is to be achieved by supporting selected state institutions (SIs) engaged in DFGG through promotion, mediation, response, or monitoring functions; supporting non-state actors (NSAs) to develop DFGG programs in partnership with SIs or independently; and promoting learning, awareness raising, and capacity building on demand-side governance approaches in a broader context.

1.2 Project Components

The DFGG project includes 3 main components:

Component 1: Support to State Institutions.

(Original Total Budget $10,664,546; Reallocated Budget 15 Jan 2013 $9,100,805)

The original project design included support to 4 implementing agencies under component 1, including;

i. The Arbitration Council under the the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training, (Component 1A)

ii. The Ministry of National Assembly and Senate Relations and Inspections for law dissemination and complaints handling, (Component 1B)

iii. The One Window Service Office and District Ombudsman under the National Committee for Democratic Decentralization (NCDD) (Component 1C), and

iv. Radio National Kampuchea under the Ministry of Information, (Component 1D).

Based on the outcome of the project mid-term review mission performed from June 6-21, 2011, the RGC executing agency made a strategic decision to discontinue two implementing agencies from the state actor components (1B and 1D) due to poor performance in attaining project development objectives.

The project was subsequently restructured to focus project resources at achieving the project development objectives in a more effective manner.

Component 2: Support to Non-State Institutions.

(Original Total Budget $ 4,275,000; Reallocated Budget 15 Jan 2013 $5,014,748)

Component 2 was designed to strengthen engagement of state institutions with civil society and non-state actors (NSAs) through DFGG related activities. The project design makes provision for component 2 to provide grant funding and capacity building assistance to NSAs to support DFGG activities at grass roots level. This process has been managed through the non state actor secretariat with the Asia Foundation as the implementing agency for this component. Since project effectiveness there have been approximately 50 grants awarded for governance related activities performed by NGOs through the project.

Component 3: Coordination and Learning.

(Original Total Budget $2,422,071; Reallocated Budget 15 Jan 2013 $3,734,472)

Component 3 is divided into 2 sub components;

• Component 3A – Project Coordination, which includes overseeing the daily management of the project, tracking progress, ensuring timely reporting, and promoting adherence to best management practices on part of all IAs. The MOI is responsible for overall project coordination.

• Component 3 B – Learning, which includes awareness raising; and capacity building for a broader range of institutions than merely those directly involved in project implementation. The establishment of Governance Resource and Learning Center (GRLC) was agreed in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) in October, 2008. GRLC aims to be a repository of knowledge and skills, interaction between state and non-state actors, and building capacity for demand-side approaches, by bringing together the power of knowledge, skills, and people for good governance. GRLC strives to be among the very best in the area of Good governance to foster growth-oriented and poverty reduction.

The project started from 24 June 2009 to 31 March 2013 (original closing date) while the project extension was approved and the closing date revised to 31 March 2014. After the project implementation, MOI/PCO has committed the final evaluation study as part of project learning.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the final evaluation are to assist PCO in their final evaluation:

- Provide an independent evaluation of the project’s performance against the overall project development objectives (PDO) as stated in project agreement and as measured by the results framework. The project outcome indicators in the revised Results Framework are attached as annex 1.

- Coordinate and compile the findings of the component evaluations for the purposes of one overall project evaluation.

- Provide an aassessment of the original project design, and the overall implementation,

- Provide lessons learned from the project design and experiences in implementation that can be applied in current or future local good governance projects in the country and in projects designed under similar conditions or target sectors. Provide clear recommendations on how the design could have been improved to achieve greater impact and sustainability of project activities.

3. Scope of Evaluation

The evaluation will cover all project components and implementing agencies. The evaluation should assess the achievements of the project in reaching its targets and objectives as outlined in the Financing Agreement and Project Documents.

Each implementing agency will perform an independent final evaluation. For this overall project evaluation the consultant will draw on each implementing agency’s evaluation report, the ToRs for those evaluations, and have detailed interaction with each implementing agency while reviewing the evaluations, consolidating them to draw overall conclusions and lessons learned without duplicating the work already completed. The TOR’s of the final evaluation planned by the implementing agencies are attached as annex 4.

The evaluation will address issues of project design, implementation, management, lessons learned, and replicability. It will provide recommendations for future projects operations. The key activities to be addressed in the evaluation are included in the evaluation methodology should be organized to provide an assessment of the;

• Relevance - compliance with policies of the donor and recipients, along with a review of project relevance for the beneficiaries,

• Effectiveness -to what extent are the project objectives were achieved,

• Efficiency - to what extent was project implementation at minimal cost,

• Impact and Sustainability - review of project outcomes and impact.

The scope and content of the evaluation will focus on the three elements of the PDO strengthening institutions, building partnerships and sharing lessons). It will include:

1) Reflection on the project context, including National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP, Governance Action Plan), and D&D Strategic Framework,

2) Review of objectives at project design stage and completion assessing their relevance with RGC and World bank objectives,

3) Review original Project Development Objectives, Key Indicators (as approved), and Original Components at project design and after project midterm review which resulted in project restructuring.

4) Review of main beneficiaries and their importance in NSDP.

5) Drawing on the component evaluations, review project design and implementation and evaluate;

a. Soundness of the background analysis supporting the project, lessons learned incorporated, and the rationale for the Bank’s intervention;

b. Assessment of the project design—objectives, components, and organization— including its realism and the degree of complexity (e.g., the number of organizations involved, the number of project components and their substantive dispersion, novelty or innovations in approaches, capacity of the implementing agencies, the number of co-financiers and partners, and soft factors such as the political climate and RCG priorities at the time of the design).

c. Adequacy of government’s commitment, stakeholder involvement in the design and their expected contribution, participatory processes and stakeholder participation built into the project and the use of a partnership approach during the design of the project.

d. The extent to which the Good Governance Framework (GGF) and the Risk Management Matrix (RMM) were utilized by the project and if they were successful in mitigating risks identified during project design and implementation.

6) Provide a specific review of the experience of Component 3A (Coordination and Component 3B (the Learning Program) as this is not evaluated separately).

7) Factors affecting success. Describe the factors that contributed to successful implementation or gave rise to problems.

8) Review roles and responsibilities, systems of delegation and available capacity for the implementation of the project.

9) Linkages. Document communication and cooperation between communication and learning program as well as implementing agencies.

10) Review at least four case studies that illustrate the outcome and working of the project. Identify situations and sub-projects that made a good contribution to the Development Objective. Describe the factors that contributed to this success.

11) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation, and Utilization (with particular attention to a set of M & E indicators at component/sub-component levels and a methodology for aggregation have been developed during project design and after mid-term review).

12) Review Project results (outcomes) and sustainability through;

a. Assessment of outcomes,

b. Relevance of Objectives, Design, and Implementation,

c. Achievement of Project Development Objective,

d. Efficiency of project implementation

e. Crosscutting Themes with a particular focus on Gender,

13) Project sustainability and expected long term impacts, Describe and evaluate the agreed post-project sustainability strategy, (e.g. the Social Accountability Framework, the establishment of the Governance Resource and Learning Center (GRLC), the ACF sustainability strategy, the strategic institutionalization of the OWSO in the MoI). Review agreed strategy and identify any possible alternatives and synergies.

14) Performance of each partner and stakeholders:

a. PCO


c. ACF

d. TAF


f. RNK

g. World Bank, and

h. Advisory groups.

15) Recommend any follow-up by the World Bank that might contribute to sustaining benefits; discuss the desirability of follow-on project financing.

16) Lesson learned in relation to;

a. Prioritization and alignment with the government policy (including NSDP)

b. Project design and preparation

c. Implementation of demand-side governance activities

d. The factors leading to Success

e. Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency during implementation.

17) Identification of other issues that emerge during the evaluation.

4. Evaluation Methodology

It is expected that the evaluation will adopt a flexible approach as required by the results framework, and the consultant should propose and select a mix of appropriate methods and approaches that will provide data and description for the results framework indicators and other relevant indicators that are identified and useful in describing project outcomes.

Proposed evaluation methodology to be used could include:

The consultant shall:

• Conduct a review all project documents (e.g. project agreements, progress reports, aide memoires and evaluations) all provided by PCO and listed in Annex 1.

• Conduct interviews with all key stakeholders including the MEF, the NCDD, ACF, TAF, MOI leadership, local officials as appropriate, the World Bank, LCFG, PCG, GRLC’s Advisory Committee, grantees and members of civil society.

• Conduct fieldwork as agreed at inception, specifically in relation to the OWSOs and the non-state grants, although this supplements the specific in depth field surveys carried out by these components.

• As required by the Results Framework, the following tools/reports could be developed:

o Beneficiary survey. Carry out a targeted survey of beneficiaries of all components (in close collaboration with IAs)

o Capacity review. Review the development of capacity over the project, utilizing baselines and other situation analysis that are available (Baselines have been difficult to put in place)

o Process review/audit. Review the processes that each IA has undertaken, identifying blockages

o Other proposed reviews that consolidate key issues identified in the results framework.

PCO, implementing agencies as well as the World Bank will be expected to assist the evaluation consultant by responding to questions through interviews and participating in individual meetings, group discussions, and dissemination meetings.

5. Deliverables and Timing

The evaluation is expected to start in December 2013 and finish in February 2014 for a three months period.

The consultant will produce the following outputs:

1. An Inception Report, within 2 weeks after the start of the assignment. This report will be 10 to 15 pages in length and will propose the methods, sources and procedures to be used for data collection. It will also include a proposed work plan;

2. A Draft Report that presents the consultant’s findings (in English) that shall be submitted within 10 weeks after mobilization;

3. A workshop during which the findings are discussed (at least 3 days after submission of the draft report);

4. A Final Report that includes the comments received during and after the Workshop; submitted within three weeks of receiving feedback from the PCO, IAs, and the Bank on the draft report.

The English version of the Report shall not exceed 30 pages (appendices should be used to expand documentation) and shall include an executive summary (of the main findings that shall not exceed 2 pages). The executive summary should be translated into Khmer.

The evaluation consultant will work under the direct supervision of the MOI Project Director/Project Manager. The evaluation consultant will coordinate closely with Monitoring & Evaluation unit, MOI/PCO staff, and consultants engaged in the project implementation. The MOI/PCO will assist the evaluation consultant with necessary administrative support, including technical assistance, making appointments, organizing meetings and workshops, distributing documents, and other provisions necessary to facilitate the work.

6. Qualification and Selection Criteria of Consultant

- A minimum of 10 years of experience in social accountability, DFGG, civil society, good governance and decentralization/sub-national democratic development

- A strong and proven track record in monitoring and evaluation of governance and capacity building projects

- Track record of in-depth knowledge in at least one-component focus (labor relations, citizen service centers/decentralized administrations, social accountability activities, capacity building and partnerships between state and non-state actors).

- Experience with World Bank/ Funded projects and in the preparation of completion reports.

- Previous relevant working experience in the Cambodian or South East Asian context

- Fluency in written English

- Understanding Khmer language will be an advantage.


mod_vvisit_counterThis week2007
mod_vvisit_counterLast week2373
mod_vvisit_counterThis month6293
mod_vvisit_counterLast month5749
mod_vvisit_counterAll days2299955

We have: 13 guests, 6 bots online
Your IP:
Today: កញ្ញា 23, 2017