International Consultant on Bioenergy Mid-Term Review

Detailed Scope of the MTR

The MTR Consultant will assess the following four categories of project progress. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for extended descriptions.

I. Project Strategy

Project design:

• Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions. Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document;
• Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results.? Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?
• Review how the project addresses country priorities. Review country ownership. Was the project concept in line with the national sector development priorities and plans of the country (or of participating countries in the case of multi-country projects)?
• Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?
• Review the extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design. See Annex 9 of Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for further guidelines;
• If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logframe:

• Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the midterm and end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound), and suggest specific amendments/revisions to the targets and indicators as necessary;
• Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within the project time frame?
• Is the project on track to achieve its global environmental benefits in terms of tonnes of CO2 to be reduced (direct and indirect GHG emissions) as defined in the project document;
• Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis;
• Ensure broader development and gender aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.? Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators, including sex-disaggregated indicators and indicators that capture development benefits.

II. Progress Towards Results

Progress Towards Outcomes Analysis:

• Review the logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and following the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects; colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

Table 1-1: Progress Towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes against End-of-project Targets)

This table should assess project’s achievement against all project objectives/outcomes described by indicators and include following information for every outcome indicator:

• Baseline level
• Level in 1st PIR (self-reported)
• Midterm Target
• End-of-project Target
• Midterm Level and Assessment
• Achievement Rating
• Justification for Rating

Indicator Assessment Key:

• Green = Achieved
• Yellow = On target to be achieved
• Red = Not on target to be achieved

In addition to the progress towards outcomes analysis:

• Compare and analyse the GEF Tracking Tool at the Baseline with the one completed right before the Midterm Review.
• Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.
• By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

III. Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

• Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.? Have changes been made and are they effective? Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear? Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner? Recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of execution of the Executing Agency/Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement;
• Review the quality of support provided by the GEF Partner Agency (UNDP) and recommend areas for improvement.

Specific issues and activities to be reviewed in relation to each of the following project components:

Component 1 - Market-oriented policy and legal/regulatory framework

This component aims to contribute to the improvement and introduction of a streamlined and comprehensive market-oriented policy and legal/regulatory framework (“macro level” activities) to promote municipal biomass for heat and hot water services in the country, which includes national/municipal targets for biomass energy for heating.

• How has the project contributed to improvement of the policy and legal/regulatory framework related to biomass energy in Ukraine;
• How has the project contributed to sharpening the focus of the respective roles and responsibilities of Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food, Ministry for Regional Development, Construction, Housing and Communal Services, State Agency on Energy Efficiency and Energy Savings of Ukraine;
• How has the project contributed towards the establishment of criteria and procedures for the introduction of a transparent process in the selection/award of municipal biomass projects?

Component 2 - Capacity building within the Ministry of agrarian policy and food of Ukraine (MAPF) including the establishment of a Biomass Support Unit (BSU)

This component aims to support development and implementation of a municipal biomass programme and to formulate appropriate incentives to attract project developers.

• Assess the adaptive management that been carried out on the establishing a Biomass Working Group;
• What progress has been made on establishing a Biomass Support Unit (BSU) within the Governmental Institutions and what is the likelihood of this unit being sustainable beyond the lifetime of the project?
• How has the project contributed towards development of a sustainable methodology for the economic/financial evaluation of municipal biomass systems?
• How has the capacity of the BSU been built and strengthened and what is planned in this regard for the future? What specifically should the project do in order to strengthen the capacity of the BSU?

Component 3 - Promote investment in municipal biomass through the establishment/strengthening of a Financial Support Mechanism (FSM) within financial institutions.

This component is aimed to design and implement a Financial Support Mechanism (with financial institution(s)) able to encourage and appropriately incentivize additional investment in biomass energy in the municipal sector in Ukraine; as well as implement pilot projects in municipal biomass heating and hot water systems.

• Assess the adaptive management that has been carried out in the design and implementation of the financial support mechanism from what was envisaged in the UNDP project document to what is actually being implemented under the project;
• Assess the design of the financial support mechanism, as it has been carried out, with regards to whether or not the proposed approach is likely to encourage and appropriately incentivize additional investment in biomass energy in the municipal sector in Ukraine;
• Undertake (as part of the review on financial support mechanism) a brief review of other financial support mechanisms (FSMs) for renewable energy in Ukraine (e.g UKEEP, USELF, etc …) and determine how the proposed financial support mechanism, being developed under this project, either duplicates or is complementary to other ongoing existing initiatives to support renewable energy in Ukraine;
• What is the progress of the project in having 18 municipal biomass heating and hot water systems supported;
• Assess the likely effectiveness of the planned training and capacity building activities that are taking place/planned to take place and assess their likely effectiveness;
• Assess the likelihood of the financial support mechanism (FSM) being sustainable beyond the lifetime of the project.

Component 4 - Outreach programme and dissemination of project experience/best practices.

This component is to formulate an outreach programme and document/disseminate project experience/best practices/lessons learned for replication within the country (and in the region). It also includes marketing-related activities, awareness raising, and dissemination of information related to the use of biomass energy at the municipal level.

• Assess the progress towards preparing and finalizing a national Plan to implement outreach/promotional activities for supporting national biomass projects;
• Assess the progress towards preparing a Municipal Biomass Guide?
• What other activities has the project carried out related to marketing, awareness raising, and dissemination of information related to the use of biomass energy at the municipal level. How successful have these initiatives been?

Other Activities Carried Out by the Project not defined under component 1, 2, 3 or 4:

• Assess any other activities or outputs carried out by the project that were not directly listed under component 1, 2, 3, or 4 and assess their relevance and effectiveness in terms of supporting the overall goals of the project;
• Evaluate the adaptive management that was carried out in order to implement these additional activities and outputs, the justification, and their relevance for the project implementation.

Work Planning:

• Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved;
• Has the work planning been carried out in a manner which is consistent with the project document and with the project workplan or are there significant deviations;
• Are work-planning processes results-based? If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?
• Examine the use of the project’s results framework/ logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start.

Finance and co-finance:

• Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions meaning that GEF grants should have all leveraged significant co-financing. What is the co-financing ratio?
• Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such budget revisions;
• Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?
• Informed by the co-financing monitoring table to be filled out, provide commentary on co-financing: is co-financing being used strategically to help the objectives of the project? Is the Project Team meeting with all co-financing partners regularly in order to align financing priorities and annual work plans?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• Review the monitoring tools currently being used: Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Are they aligned or mainstreamed with national systems? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?
• Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget. Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

• Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?
• Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?? Do they continue to have an active role in project decision-making that supports efficient and effective project implementation?
• Participation and public awareness: to what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

• Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Board.
• Assess how well the project has worked with UNDP Ukraine and the UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub in identifying and implementing adaptive management measures;
• Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil GEF reporting requirements (i.e. how have they addressed poorly-rated PIRs, if applicable?)
• Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process has been documented, shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

• Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?
• Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public (is there a web presence, for example? Or did the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns?)
• For reporting purposes, write one half-page paragraph that summarizes the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.

IV. Sustainability

• Validate whether the risks identified in the Project Document, Annual Project Review/PIRs and the ATLAS Risk Management Module are the most important and whether the risk ratings applied are appropriate and up to date. If not, explain why.
• In addition, assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

• What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the GEF assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?
• What is the likelihood of the financial support mechanism being established by the project being sustainable (meaning that the FSM will continue to operate and function beyond the lifetime of the project)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

• Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained?
• Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project? Are lessons learned being documented by the Project Team on a continual basis and shared/ transferred to appropriate parties who could learn from the project and potentially replicate and/or scale it in the future?

Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability:

• Do the legal frameworks, policies, governance structures and processes pose risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project benefits? While assessing this parameter, also consider if the required systems/ mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and technical knowledge transfer are in place;
• To what extent has the project managed to improve or contribute to legal frameworks related to biomass energy in Ukraine.

Environmental risks to sustainability:

• Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

V. Conclusions & Recommendations

The MTR International Consultant will include a section of the report setting out the MTR’s evidence-based conclusions, in light of the findings with the main goal of making recommendations on how to significantly improve the project over the second half of the project lifetime. Alternatively, MTR conclusions may be integrated into the body of the report.

Recommendations should be succinct suggestions for critical intervention that are specific, measurable, achievable, and relevant.

A recommendation table should be put in the report’s executive summary. See the Guidance For Conducting Midterm Reviews of UNDP-Supported, GEF-Financed Projects for guidance on a recommendation table.

It is highly recommended that the MTR International Consultant will make no more than 15 recommendations in total.

VI. Ratings

The MTR International Consultant will include its ratings of the project’s results and brief descriptions of the associated achievements in a MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary Table in the Executive Summary of the MTR report. See Annex E for ratings scales. Ratings are required for Project Design & Strategy, Progress Towards Results, Project Implementation and Adaptive Management, and Sustainability. An overall project rating is optional. The ratings are 6 points (highly satisfactory), 5 points (satisfactory), 4 points (marginally satisfactory), 3 points (marginally unsatisfactory), 2 points (unsatisfactory), and 1 point (highly unsatisfactory). For sustainability ratings, they are 4 (likely), 3 (moderately likely), 2 (moderately unlikely) and 1 (unlikely).

MTR Ratings & Achievement Summary:

• The MTR Ratings and Achievement Summary Table should contain the following information:
• Overall rating – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description (the overall rating is optional)
• Project Design and Strategy – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Progress Towards Results:
• Objective Achievement – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Outcome 1 Achievement Rating – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Outcome 2 Achievement Rating – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Outcome 3 Achievement Rating – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Etc.
• Project Implementation & Adaptive Management – rate 6 pt. scale – Achievement description
• Sustainability – rate 4 pt. scale – Achievement description

Timeframe (Schedule of Work)

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 25 working days spread over a period of 3 months from 1st October 2016 to 31 December 2016 and shall be broken down as follows:

• By 1st October 2016:
  • Contract issuance prior to 1st October and Preparation for the MTR (initial phone conversation and handover of all relevant Project Documents);
• By 20th October – 5 days:
  • Documents review, initial discussions with key stakeholders, and preparation of MTR Inception Report;
• By 31st October – 1 day:
  • Finalization and Validation of MTR Inception Report which includes list of stakeholders for interviews during the mission, and full list of questions being asked by the evaluator;
• October-November 2016 – 10 days:
  • MTR mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, field visits;
  • Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings- earliest end of MTR mission. The mission includes 10 working days but minimum number of days to be spent in Ukraine is 12 days because the weekend is not included as working days. At the end of the mission a power point presentation with initial findings should be made to UNDP Ukraine showing the initial findings of the evaluation;
• By 10th December – 6 days:
  • Preparing draft MTR report and submitting to Project Manager, UNDP Ukraine, and UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub and holding conference call to discuss the draft report;
• By 15th December – 2 days:
  • Incorporation of comments into the draft MTR report from the Project Manager, UNDP Ukraine, UNDP IRH, and other key stakeholders. In addition, the consultant should incorporating audit trail from feedback on draft report/Finalization of MTR report with a view to finalization of the draft report;
• By 31st December – 1 day:
  • Hold conference call with UNDP Ukraine and UNDP IRH related to discussion of the draft Management Response by UNDP Ukraine (to be prepared by UNDP Ukraine in consultation and discussion with MTR Consultant)

The two weeks or 10 working days mission to Ukraine should be broken down into Kiev (5 days), Poltava (1 day), Uman (1 day), Zhytomyr (1 day) and Ivano-Frankivsk (1 day). The travel within Kiev may be altered following discussions between UNDP and key project stakeholders. The dates of the mission to Ukraine will be agreed at the start of the assignment but it should be carried out in October-November 2016. The evaluation mission should start no later than the middle of November and finish no later than the end of November.

Midterm Review Deliverables

• MTR Inception Report:
  • Description: MTR Consultant clarifies objectives and methods of Midterm Review;
  • Timing: No later than 10 days before the MTR mission;
  • Responsibilities: MTR International Consultant submits to the Commissioning Unit and project management.
• Presentation:
  • Description: Initial Findings;
  • Timing: End of MTR mission;
  • Responsibilities: MTR International Consultant presents to project management and the Commissioning Unit a power point presentation.
• Draft final report:
  • Description: Full report (using guidelines on content outlined in Annex B) with annexes;
  • Timing: Within 3 weeks of the MTR mission;
  • Responsibilities: Sent to the Commissioning Unit, reviewed by RTA, Project Coordinating Unit, GEF OFP.
• Final report*:
  • Description: Revised report with audit trail detailing how all received comments have (and have not) been addressed in the final MTR report;
  • Timing: Within 1 week of receiving UNDP comments on draft;
  • Responsibilities: Sent to the Commissioning Unit.

*The final MTR report must be in English. If applicable, the Commissioning Unit may choose to arrange for a translation of the report into a language more widely shared by national stakeholders.

MTR Arrangements

Institutional arrangements

The principal responsibility for managing this MTR resides with the Commissioning Unit. The Commissioning Unit for this project’s MTR is UNDP Ukraine Country Office. The commissioning unit will contract the Consultant and ensure the timely provision of per diems and travel arrangements within Ukraine for the MTR Consultant. The Project Team will be responsible for liaising with the MTR Consultant to provide all relevant documents, set up stakeholder interviews, and arrange field visits.

Duty Station

Homebased with one two weeks mission (10 working days) to Ukraine which should be carried out before the end of November 2016.

Travel:

• International travel (2 weeks mission, 10 working days) will be required to Ukraine during the MTR mission;
• The Basic Security in the Field II and Advanced Security in the Field courses must be successfully completed prior to commencement of travel;
• Individual Consultant is responsible for ensuring he/she has vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director;
• Consultant is required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under https://dss.un.org/dssweb/.

All envisaged travel costs and per diems (DSA) and terminal expenses must NOT be included in the Offeror’s financial proposal. UNDP shall purchase for the consultant with the air tickets (not exceeding those of the economy class) to join duty station (Kyiv) and repatriate, vehicle transport for mission travel in Ukraine and air tickets if flights are required (e.g – Ivano-Frankivsk). If the consultant wishes to fly business class, the consultant should cover the cost of upgrade from economy class to business class with their own funds. UNDP shall also pay the consultant a per diem for their time to be spent in Ukraine in accordance with UNDP rules and procedures. The official UNDP DSA rate for Kiev is currently $263 per day, and for elsewhere it is $83 per day. The means of reimbursement will be via signed F10 form and payment/reimbursement into the nominated bank account of the consultant.

• Strong client orientation and advisory skills;
• Excellent communication and negotiation skills;
• Excellent analytical skills;
• Strong interpersonal skills.

The MTR International Consultant should be an international expert with experience and exposure to sustainable energy projects and evaluations in the Europe & CIS region and/or other regions globally. The international consultant cannot have participated in the project preparation, formulation, and/or implementation (including the writing of the Project Document) and should not have a conflict of interest with project’s related activities, meaning that the international consultant should not have previously been contracted by this project in any manner, shape or form.

The MTR Consultant should have the following qualifications and experience:

Education:

• At least a Master’s degree in Energy, Environment, Business Administration, Economics, Engineering or other closely related field.

Experience:

• Competence in adaptive management in the past seven years, as applied to mainstreaming energy efficiency and renewables (including biomass);
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF project evaluations within the past seven years including experience with SMART based indicators (Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset);
• Experience working with international technical assistance projects in the Eastern Europe countries or CIS region in the past seven years;
• At least 10-years work experience and proven track record with policy advice and/or project development/implementation in energy efficiency and renewables (including at least some experience with biomass) in transition economies;
• Demonstrated understanding of issues related to gender; experience in gender sensitive evaluation and analysis.

Languages:

• Writing and verbal skills in English, knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian would be an asset.

Payment Modalities and Specifications

• 10 % of total consultancy fee:
  • Upon approval by UNDP of the final MTR detailed workplan and submission of related invoice, prior to mission to Ukraine;
• 50 % of total consultancy fee:
  • Upon submission of the draft MTR report and acceptance of the report by UNDP and submission of related invoice;
• 40 % of total consultancy fee:
  • Upon finalization of the MTR report and acceptance of the report by UNDP and submission of related invoice;
• Travel costs:
  • 80% of the total travel cost to join the duty station will be paid upon confirmation on the travel dates and provision of a copy of the air ticket (this amount includes two-way economy air ticket, visa costs, and living allowances in Kyiv / field visits;
  • The remaining 20% of travel cost will be paid at the end of the mission upon submission of the UNDP Travel Claim Form (F10).

Note

• Travel costs (including ticket, per diems and terminal expenses) must NOT be included in the offeror’s financial proposal as these costs will be covered by UNDP;
• Individual contractor wishing to upgrade his/her travel to business or first class shall do so at his/her own expense;
• Each payment will be made in US dollars upon satisfactory completion of the tasks and respective deliverables as per submission of deliverables/claims by the consultant and the project/UNDP approvals;
• Each payment will be transferred by UNDP through Electronic Fund Transfer to the Dollar account number of the contractor introduced through an official letter indicating full banking information;
• Any payment under this contract will be made using UN Operational Rate of Exchange.? For update rates please see: http://treasury.un.org/operationalrates/OperationalRates.aspx;
• Payments will be made according to UNDP regulations as explained in the contract documents;
• The International Consultant shall not do any work, provide any equipment, materials and supplies or perform any other services which may result in any cost in excess of the agreed contract amount.

Application Process

Applicants shall submit the following documents:

• Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP;
• Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive fixed total contract price and all other travel related costs (such as flight ticket, per diem, etc), supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template attached to the Letter of Confirmation of Interest template.

  *Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of service, etc.). Travel costs, including those to join duty station (Kyiv) and repatriate, travel costs in Ukraine to perform site visits and per diems (DSA) must NOT be included into the financial proposal and will be provided by UNDP. The number of overnights is estimated as 12 and not 10 because weekend stay is required during the mission to Ukraine. Therefore, there are two non-working days covered as part of the DSA cost. The UN DSA rate for Kiev is $263 USD per day and for other parts of Ukraine is $83 per day.

  If an applicant is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the applicant must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

• CV or a Personal History Form (P11 form), including information about past experience in similar assignments and contact details for referees;
• Brief description of approach to work/technical proposal of why the individual considers him/herself as the most suitable for the assignment, and a proposed methodology on how they will approach and complete the assignment.

Evaluation

Criteria for Evaluation of Proposals:

Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated.

Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring. Total scoring will be calculated from technical scores (70%) + financial scores (30%) and a validation interview will be conducting only with the selected candidate who should have the highest overall total score.

The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

The following criteria will be rated as indicated below:

• Educational background (Advanced University degree, Masters or preferably a PhD, in Energy, Environment, Business Administration, Economics, Engineering or related field) – 10 points max; (PhD related to Energy/Environment = 10 points, PhD related to other relevant topic = 8 points, Masters related to Energy/Environment = 6 points, Masters related to other relevant topic = 4 points, combined (2 or more) Masters related to relevant topics = 8);
• Extensive (at least 10-year) work experience and proven track record with policy advice and/or project development/implementation in energy efficiency and renewables (including at least some experience with biomass) in transition economies – 20 points max (more points if experience is specifically renewables related; more than 20 years = 20 points, 15-20 years = 15 points, 14-10 years = 10 points);
• Experience working with the GEF or GEF project evaluations within the past seven years including experience with SMART based indicators (Project evaluation/review experiences within United Nations system will be considered an asset) – 10 points max (excellent evidences of the required experience = 10 points; good evidences = 5 points; satisfactory evidences = 3 points; no evidences = 0 points);
• Experience working with international technical assistance projects in the Eastern Europe countries or CIS region in the past seven years (experience in Ukraine will be an asset) – 10 points max (strong experience = 10 points; good experience – 5 points, satisfactory experience – 3 points, no experience = 0);
• Competence in adaptive management, as applied to mainstreaming energy efficiency and renewables (including biomass) – 10 points max (strong competence = 10 points; good competence – 5 points, satisfactory competence – 3 points, no competence = 0);
• Language skills (English required, knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian will be an asset) – 10 points max (10 points for superior writing and oral skills in English + some knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian; 8 points for superior writing and oral skills in English, 5 points for fluent English and satisfactory writing skills).

Maximum available technical (education, experience and competencies) score – 70 points.

Maximum available financial score – 30 points. The lowest financial offer from a technically compliant offer will score 30 points and all other technically compliant offers will score a percentage of 30 points based on the formula of lowest financial offer divided by financial offer of the applicant x 100 x 30%.

This advertisement as well as PDF version of original TOR with respective Annexes and Guidelines can also be found at the following link:

http://procurement-notices.undp.org/view_notice.cfm?notice_id=31990