International Expert Final Project Evaluation, Sustainable Development and Integrated Water Management

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Riyadh Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

Location :Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA
Application Deadline :09-Sep-21 (Midnight New York, USA)
Time left :13d 9h 35m
Additional Category :Management
Type of Contract :Individual Contract
Post Level :International Consultant
Languages Required :English  
Duration of Initial Contract :The consultancy should be conducted and completed within 26 days over 2.5 months between (November 2
Expected Duration of Assignment :The consultancy should be conducted and completed within 26 days over 2.5 months between (November 2


  1. Background and context

With a rapidly growing population of presently close to 32 million, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia faces a number of challenges including growing urbanization and environmental change. While urbanization poses great pressure on regional water and sewage infrastructure and bears pollution risks, environmental challenges include depletion of aquifers and increasing torrential flood risks. Earning relatively high annual revenues from natural resources, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in development and upgrading infrastructure during the past few decades, including in water and sewage infrastructure, road networks, housing, hospitals, and schools.

Due to Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture’s (MEWA) recent initiatives, efficient water use and governance in the municipal and irrigation subsector, reuse of wastewater and exploitation of shallow aquifers caused significant reduction of groundwater abstractions.

Nevertheless, a set of bolstering measures towards sustainable water supply even in stress and emergency situations and minimizing the climatically induced environmental risks needs to be formulated. These actions or interventions simultaneously should target the supply side; curtail water demands in various productive sectors; and mitigate the environmental risks.

However, to make a transition from the current patterns of water administration to sound water management mode, two prerequisites are required. First, there is strong need to strengthen the technical and organizational capacities of the MEWA to deal with the triple challenge of water exploitation and distribution (operational side), research for additional resources and cutting-edge technologies to satisfy the increasing demand (research side), and rigid control and administration of all water-related aspects (control side). Second, a sound information base covering data on groundwater availability, quality, withdrawal, and usage is about to be put in place.

The transformation of this information into an all-encompassing water resources management requires sustained long-term efforts, especially since the MEWA has limited capacity and experience in this field. It needs to go a long way in terms of development and strengthening its technical capacities in order to be able to meet its mandates.

To this effect MEWA partnered with UNDP Country Office to address challenges being faced in capacity development and strengthening institutional role of the Ministry. The project has been designed to initiate a systematic process of capacity development to help in sustainable development of water resources and management of water-related affairs in the Kingdom. This approach is meant to ensure permanent and sufficient supply, achieving the key directions of the Saudi Vision 2030 which includes maintaining security of vital resources of the KSA, safeguarding the environment and natural resources; as well as promoting the national implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Annual evaluations are set within this project document to ensure targets are met and course of action corrected when needed during the lifetime of the project. A first evaluation was conducted in 2019 which resulted in a list of recommendations by the evaluator. Since then, all recommendations have been addressed. As of 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic as the new coronavirus rapidly spread to all regions of the world. Travel to the country is limited and travel in the country is also restricted to those who are fully vaccinated.

And due to this ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease all subsequent planned annual evaluations have been halted; however, a final evaluation will be taking place. The evaluation will be taking place with in-country field visit as per required by the national partner. And if for any reason the in-country visit is restricted the evaluation will be postponed.

This intervention requires working with all heads of departments involved with the various outcomes as well as all consultants on the project and other relevant project and ministry staff.

The evaluation will take place in Riyadh, within the offices of MEWA but may require meetings with various national stakeholders.

Project/outcome titleSustainable Development and Integrated Water Management
Atlas IDSAU10/107888
Corporate outcome and output National Capacities Developed for Better Management of Non-oil Natural Resources6.4 & 6.5
CountrySaudi Arabia
Date project document signed20/02/2018
Project datesStartPlanned end
Project budget$24,859,429
Project expenditure at the time of evaluation$ 3,200,000
Funding sourceGovernment Cost-Sharing
Implementing party[1]Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture

Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Evaluation purpose, scope and objectives

This evaluation is the final evaluation for the afore mentioned project aimed at re-positioning the project to help MEWA meet its new mandate.  The evaluation and ensuing recommendations will help build a new project document serving MEWA better deliver its intended task and learn lessons from previous activities. 

Scope and objectives of the evaluation:

  • Strengthening and optimizing the technical and organizational capacities of the MEWA with respect to water resources and water supply management of the Kingdom
  • Implementation of IWIS
  • Integrated Water Resources and Supply Management
  • Establishing an all-encompassing monitoring system for the surface water and groundwater processes
  • The effects of climate change
  • Secondary Water Resources
  • Environmental Risk
  • Investigating Hydrothermal Energy
  • Establishing an Environmental Awareness Center for public awareness
  • This evaluation will cover all outcomes of the project documents.  It will delve into the details of the achievements, how these feed into the final target (or fail to do so). 
  • Coordination amongst all project components has also been a matter of concern
  • This evaluation will cover all activities held during the span of the project and highlight issues and recommendations in all aspects (technical, financial, management, structural and operational), including the effective use of resources and delivery outputs in the signed project document and workplan
  • The evaluation will suggest recommendations which will help build a new project document.

The evaluator needs to address how the Project sought to mainstream gender in development efforts, considered disability issues and applied the rights-based approach.

  1. Evaluation criteria and key guiding questions

Evaluation questions define the information that the evaluation will generate. This section proposes the questions that, when answered, will give intended users of the evaluation the information they seek in order to make decisions, take action or add to knowledge. Questions should be grouped according to the four OECD-DAC evaluation criteria: (a) relevance; (b) effectiveness; (c) efficiency; and (d) sustainability (and/or other criteria used).  

Project evaluation sample questions:  Relevance/ Coherence   To what extent was the project in line with national development priorities, country programme outputs and outcomes, the UNDP Strategic Plan, and the SDGs? To what extent does the project contribute to the theory of change for the relevant country programme outcome? To what extent were lessons learned from other relevant projects considered in the design? To what extent does the project contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the human rights-based approach?  To what extent has the project been appropriately responsive to political, legal, economic, institutional, etc., changes in the country?  Effectiveness To what extent did the project contribute to the country programme outcomes and outputs, the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan, and national development priorities? To what extent were the project outputs achieved, considering men, women, and vulnerable groups?  What factors have contributed to achieving, or not, intended country programme outputs and outcomes? To what extent has the UNDP partnership strategy been appropriate and effective? What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness? In which areas does the project have the greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the project build on or expand these achievements? In which areas does the project have the fewest achievements? What have been the constraining factors and why? How can or could they be overcome? What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in achieving the project objectives? Are the project objectives and outputs clear, practical, and feasible within its frame?  Do they clearly address women, men, and vulnerable groups? To what extent are project management and implementation participatory, and is this participation of men, women and vulnerable groups contributing towards achievement of the project objectives?   Efficiency  To what extent was the project management structure as outlined in the project document efficient in generating the expected results? To what extent have the UNDP project implementation strategy and execution been efficient and cost-effective? To what extent have resources been used efficiently? Have activities supporting the strategy been cost-effective?  To what extent have project funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?  To what extent do the M&E systems utilized by UNDP ensure effective and efficient project management?  Sustainability  To what extent will financial and economic resources be available to sustain the benefits achieved by the project? Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outputs and the project contributions to country programme outputs and outcomes? Do the legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes within which the project operates pose risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project benefits? To what extent do mechanisms, procedures and policies exist to allow primary stakeholders to carry forward the results attained on gender equality, empowerment of women, human rights, and human development? To what extent are lessons learned documented by the project team on a continual basis and shared with appropriate parties who could learn from the project?  To what extent do UNDP interventions have well-designed and well-planned exit strategies which include a gender dimension? What could be done to strengthen exit strategies and sustainability in order to support female and male project beneficiaries as well as marginalized groups?    
Evaluation questions on cross-cutting issues   Human rights  To what extent have poor, indigenous and physically challenged, women, men and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefited from the work of UNDP in the country?  Gender equality All evaluation criteria and evaluation questions applied need to be checked to see if there are any further gender dimensions attached to them, in addition to the stated gender equality questions.  To what extent have gender equality and the empowerment of women been addressed in the design, implementation, and monitoring of the project?  Is the gender marker assigned to this project representative of reality? To what extent has the project promoted positive changes in gender equality and the empowerment of women? Did any unintended effects emerge for women, men or vulnerable groups?  Disability  Were persons with disabilities consulted and meaningfully involved in programme planning and implementation?  What proportion of the beneficiaries of a programme were persons with disabilities? What barriers did persons with disabilities face? Was a twin-track approach adopted? 2   
  1. Methodology

Evaluation should employ a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and male and female direct beneficiaries.  Methodological tools and approaches may include: 

  • Document review. This would include a review of all relevant documentation, inter alia
    • Project document (contribution agreement).
    • Theory of change and results framework.
    • Programme and project quality assurance reports.
    • Annual workplans.
    • Activity designs.
    • Consolidated quarterly and annual reports.
    • Results-oriented monitoring report.
    • Highlights of project board meetings. 
    • Technical/financial monitoring reports.
  • Interviews and meetings with key stakeholders (men and women) such as key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, United Nations country team (UNCT) members and implementing partners: 
    • Semi-structured interviews, based on questions designed for different stakeholders based on evaluation questions around relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.
    • Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries and stakeholders.
    • All interviews with men and women should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.
  • Surveys and questionnaires including male and female participants in development programmes, UNCT members and/or surveys and questionnaires to other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.
  • Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
  • The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.
  • Other methods such as outcome mapping, observational visits, group discussions, etc.
  • Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods. To ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use, the evaluation team will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.
  • Gender and human rights lens. All evaluation products need to address gender, disability, and human right issues. 

The final methodological approach including interview schedule, field visits and data to be used in the evaluation should be clearly outlined in the inception report and fully discussed and agreed between UNDP, key stakeholders, and the evaluator.

  1. Evaluation products (deliverables)
  • Evaluation inception report (10-15 pages). The inception report should be carried out following and based on preliminary discussions with UNDP after the desk review and should be produced before the evaluation starts (before any formal evaluation interviews, survey distribution or field visits) and prior to the country visit in the case of international evaluators.
  • Evaluation debriefings. Immediately following the evaluation, UNDP expects a preliminary debriefing and findings.
  • Draft evaluation report (within an agreed length).[1] A length of 40 to 60 pages including an executive summary is suggested. 
  • Evaluation report audit trail. The programme unit and key stakeholders in the evaluation should review the draft evaluation report and provide an amalgamated set of comments to the evaluator within one week of submission of the draft, as outlined in these guidelines. Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be retained by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments.
  • Final evaluation report. With a one-page evaluation summary to be presented to HE the Minister. The one-pager is to highlight key achievements of the project and their impact. 
  • Presentations to stakeholders and/or the evaluation reference group (if required).
  • Evaluation brief and other knowledge products or participation in knowledge-sharing events, if relevant.

Due to the current COVID-19 situation and its implications, a pre-field visit partial payment will be given if an in-country field visit is not possible.

[1] A length of 40 to 60 pages including executive summary is suggested.


The evaluation will be carried out by an international consultant. The consultant shall be responsible for carrying out and performing all the duties and responsibilities as defined in the implementation arrangements section and required by the evaluation.

  • Technical competencies: Team leadership skills and experience, technical knowledge in UNDP thematic areas, with specifics depending on the focus of the evaluation, data analysis and report writing etc.
  • Technical knowledge and experience: Gender and disability inclusion competencies preferable. Technical knowledge and experience in other cross-cutting areas such as equality, disability issues, rights-based approach, and capacity development. 
  • Language skills required: Fluent English, knowledge of Arabic considered an asset

Evidence to be presented: 

  • resume 
  • work samples 
  • references 

To support claims of knowledge, skills and experience.  

The evaluators should be independent from any organizations that have been involved in designing, executing, or advising any aspect of the project that is the subject of the evaluation.3   

Required Skills and Experience

The evaluation will be carried out by an international consultant. The consultant shall be responsible for carrying out and performing all the duties and responsibilities as defined in the implementation arrangements section and required by the evaluation.

  • Required qualifications:
    • Academic qualification:
      • PHD degree in relevant discipline
    • Work Experience:
      • minimum 10 years’ experience in evaluations, preferable in the field of Water Resources Management.
      • Knowledge of Saudi, region or similar context, a plus.
      • Extensive background in Evaluation Filed;
      • Previous experience working for the UN or other international organization is a plus.
  1. Evaluation ethics

Evaluations in UNDP will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’.[1]

This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

  1. Implementation arrangements

The section describes the specific roles and responsibilities of all involved in this evaluation: 

  1. Evaluation commissioner: The Resident Representative who will approve the inception report and the final evaluation report.
  2. Evaluation manager: Lead the evaluation process and participate in all of its stages – evaluability assessment, preparation, implementation, management and use. Ensure quality assurance and manage the ERC portal 
  3. Evaluator:  
  4. Fulfil the contractual arrangements under the TOR 
  5. Develop the evaluation inception report, including an evaluation matrix and a gender responsive methodology and evaluation, in line with the TOR, UNEG norms and standards and ethical guidelines  
  6. Conduct data collection and field visits according to the TOR and inception report  
  7. Produce draft reports adhering to UNDP evaluation templates, UNDP Evaluation guidelines including the required quality criteria, and brief the evaluation manager, programme/ project managers and stakeholders on the progress and key findings and recommendations  
  8. Consider gender equality and women’s empowerment and other cross-cutting issues, check if all and respective evaluation questions are answered, and relevant data, disaggregated by sex, is presented, analysed and interpreted. The evaluator needs to ensure that all the evaluation sections are gender responsive. 
  9. Finalize the evaluation report, incorporating comments and questions from the feedback/ audit trail. Record own feedback in the audit trail including those of the members of the team, the evaluation manager, the commissioning programme unit, and key stakeholders.  
  10. Project manager:  
  11. Provide inputs/ advice to the evaluation manager and evaluation reference group on the detail and scope of the TOR for the evaluation and how the findings will be used 
  12. Ensure and safeguard the independence of evaluations 
  13. Provide the evaluation manager with all required data (e.g. relevant monitoring data) and documentation (reports, minutes, reviews, studies, etc.), contacts/ stakeholder list etc. 
  14. Ensure that data and documentation in general, but in particular related to gender equality and women’s empowerment and other cross-cutting issues, are made available to the evaluation manager 
  15. Provide comments and clarification on the TOR, inception report and draft evaluation reports 
  16. Respond to evaluation recommendations by providing management responses and key actions to all recommendations addressed to UNDP 
  17. Ensure dissemination of the evaluation report to all the stakeholders including the project board 
  18. Implement relevant key actions on evaluation recommendations 

5.            Evaluation reference group

  1. Time frame for the evaluation process

The consultancy should be conducted and completed within 26 days over 2.5 months between ( November 2021 – Jan 2022).

This section lists and describes all tasks and deliverables for which the evaluator will be responsible and accountable, as well as those involving the commissioning office (e.g. workplan, agreements, briefings, draft report, final report).  

  • Desk review. 
  • Briefings of evaluator. 
  • Finalizing the evaluation design and methods and preparing the detailed inception report. 
  • In-country data collection and analysis (visits to the field, interviews, questionnaires). 
  • Preparing the draft report. 
  • Stakeholder meeting and review of the draft report (for quality assurance). 
  • Incorporating comments and finalizing the evaluation report. 

In addition, the evaluator may be expected to support UNDP efforts in knowledge sharing and dissemination.  

Working day allocation and schedule for an evaluation

Phase One: Desk review and inception report 
Meeting briefing with UNDP (programme managers and project staff as needed) At the time of contract signing 1 November 2021UNDP or remote  Evaluation manager and commissioner 
Sharing of the relevant documentation with the evaluator At the time of contract signing  1 November 2021Via email Evaluation manager and commissioner 
Desk review, Evaluation design, methodology and updated workplan including the list of stakeholders to be interviewed 3 daysWithin two weeks of contract signing  1-15 November 2021 Home- based Evaluator 
Submission of the inception report  (15 pages maximum) Within two weeks of contract signing 15 November 2021  Evaluator 
Comments and approval of inception report Within one week of submission of the inception report 22 November 2021 UNDP Evaluation manager 
Phase Two: Data-collection mission 
Consultations and field visits, in-depth interviews, and focus groups 10 daysWithin four weeks of contract signing 28 November – 9 December 2021In country  With field visits UNDP to organize with local project partners, project staff, local authorities, NGOs, etc. 
Debriefing to UNDP and key stakeholders 1 day9 December 2021In country Evaluator 
Phase Three: Evaluation report writing 
Preparation of draft evaluation report (50 pages maximum excluding annexes), executive summary (4-5 pages) 9 daysWithin two weeks of the completion of the field mission 12-24 December 2021Home- based Evaluator 
Draft report submission   Evaluator 
Consolidated UNDP and stakeholder comments to the draft report  Within one week of submission of the draft evaluation report 30 December 2021UNDP Evaluation manager 
Debriefing with UNDP 1 dayWithin one week of receipt of comments 6 January 2022 Remotely UNDP UNDP, stakeholder, and evaluator 
Finalization of the evaluation report incorporating additions and comments provided by project staff and UNDP country office 2 daysWithin one week of final debriefing 13 January 2022Home- based Evaluator 
Submission of the final evaluation report to UNDP country office (50 pages maximum excluding executive summary and annexes) Within one week of final debriefing 13 January 2022Home- based Evaluator 
Estimated total days for the evaluation 26   
Excludes days estimated for UNDP’s review    
  1. Application submission process and criteria for selection 

Recommended Presentation of Offer

For purposes of generating Offers whose contents are uniformly presented and to facilitate their comparative analysis, it is best to recommend the preferred contents and presentation of the Offer to be submitted, as well as the format/sequencing of their presentation. The following documents may be requested:

  1. Duly accomplished Letter of Confirmation of Interest and Availability using the template provided by UNDP.
  2. Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.
  3. Financial Proposal that indicates the all-inclusive total contract price, supported by a breakdown of costs, as per template provided. The terms “all-inclusive” implies that all costs (professional fees, travel costs, living allowances, communications, consumables, etc.) that could possibly be incurred are already factored into the final amounts submitted in the proposal. If an Offeror 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 Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.
  4. work samples and reference to demonstrate previous experience.  


Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodologies:

Step I: Screening and desk review:

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on the following methodology.

Technical Criteria (CV review and Desk Review / Interview) – maximum 70 points. Only candidates who obtained at least 70% of points from the CV desk review (who will score at least 49 points) will be considered for the next stage of evaluation, i.e. financial evaluation.

Applications will be first screened and only candidates meeting the following minimum criteria will progress to the pool for shortlisting:

  • Educational qualifications
  • Minimum of 5 years as experienced
  • Work experience.
Qualification and Experience (20 marks);Interview (50 marks)Only candidates obtaining a minimum of 49 points (70% of the total technical points) would be considered for the Financial Evaluation.Weight Per Technical Competence5 (outstanding): 96% – 100%The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated an OUTSTANDING capacity for the analyzed competence.4 (Very good): 86% – 95%The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a VERY GOOD capacity for the analyzed competence.3 (Good): 76% – 85%The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a GOOD capacity for the analyzed competence.2 (Satisfactory): 70% – 75%The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a SATISFACTORY capacity for the analyzed competence.1 (Weak): Below 70%The individual consultant/contractor has demonstrated a WEAK capacity for the analyzed competence. UNDP applies the “Best value for money approach” – the final selection will be based on the combination of the applicants’ qualification and financial proposal.Financial proposal – Maximum 30 pointsDuly accomplished Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal Template using the template provided by UNDP (Annex II)RICE PROPOSAL AND SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS The contractor shall submit a price proposal as below:The total professional fee shall be converted into a lump-sum contract and payments under the contract shall be made on submission and acceptance of deliverables under the contract in accordance with the schedule of payment linked with deliverables. Financial proposal should include all relevant cost (consultancy fees, all envisaged travel costs, living allowances, etc.).

Financial evaluation – Total 30% (30 points)

The following formula will be used to evaluate the financial proposal:

p = y (µ/z), where

p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated

y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal

µ = price of the lowest-priced proposal

z = price of the proposal being evaluated

Interested applicants are advised to carefully review this advertisement and ensure that they meet the requirements and qualifications described. 

  1. TOR annexes

Table 1. Sample evaluation matrix

Relevant evaluation criteriaKey questionsSpecific sub questionsData sourcesData-collection methods/toolsIndicators/ success standardMethods for data analysis
  • Schedule of tasks, milestones and deliverables. Based on the time frame specified in the TOR, the evaluators present the detailed schedule.
  • Required format for the evaluation report. The final report must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the elements outlined in the quality criteria for evaluation reports as mentioned in section 6 of the evaluation guidelines.
  • Dispute and wrongdoing resolution process and contact details (annex A)
  • Pledge of ethical conduct  in evaluation. UNDP programme units should request each member of the evaluation team to read carefully, understand and sign the ‘Pledge of Ethical Conduct in Evaluation of the United Nations system’.5  

Annex A 

UNDP Evaluation dispute resolution process 

Dispute settlement 

Should you or a member of the evaluation team feel unduly pressured to change the findings or  

conclusions of an evaluation you have been contracted to undertake you are freely able to raise your  

concerns with the management within UNDP. 

Please send your concerns to the Deputy Director of the Region who will ensure a timely response.  

Please also include the Independent Evaluation Office, in your correspondence  

([email protected]). 

Reporting wrongdoing 

UNDP takes all reports of alleged wrongdoing seriously. In accordance with the UNDP Legal 

Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct, the Office of Audit and  

Investigation is the principal channel to receive allegations*. 

Anyone with information regarding fraud against UNDP programmes or involving UNDP staff is  

strongly encouraged to report this information through the Investigations Hotline (+1-844-595- 


People reporting wrongdoing to the Investigations Hotline have the option to leave relevant contact  

information or to remain anonymous. However, allegations of workplace harassment and abuse of  

authority cannot be reported anonymously. 

When reporting to the Investigations Hotline, people are encouraged to be as specific as possible,  

including the basic details of who, what, where, when and how any of these incidents occurred.  

Specific information will allow OAI to properly investigate the alleged wrongdoing. 

The investigations hotline, managed by an independent service provider on behalf of UNDP to  

protect confidentiality, can be directly accessed worldwide and free of charge in different ways: 

ONLINE REFERRAL FORM (You will be redirected to an independent third-party site.) 

PHONE – REVERSED CHARGES Click here for worldwide numbers (interpreters available 24  

hours/day) Call +1-844-595-5206 in the USA 

EMAIL directly to OAI at: [email protected] 


Deputy Director (Investigations) 

Office of Audit and Investigations 

United Nations Development Programme 

One UN Plaza, DC1, 4th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 USA

[1] UNEG, ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’, June 2008. Available at

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document:

  • Technical Methodology/Proposal  
  • Duly accomplished Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal Template using the template provided by UNDP (Annex II);
  • Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects, as well as the contact details (email and telephone number) of the Candidate and at least three (3) professional references.

The interested offeror must read the Individual Consultant (IC) Procurement Notice, which can be viewed at  for more detail information about term of references, instructions to the offeror, and to download the documents to be submitted in the offer through online.

UNDP reserves rights to reject any applications that are incomplete.

Please be informed that we don’t accept application submitted via email.

Interested Offerors are required to submit an application via UNDP Jobsite system as the application screening and evaluation will be done through UNDP Jobsite system. Please note that UNDP Jobsite system allows only one uploading of application document, so please make sure that you merge all your documents into a single file. Your on¬line application submission will be acknowledged where an email address has been provided. If you do not receive an email acknowledgement within 24 hours of submission, your application may not have been received. In such cases, please resubmit the application, if necessary. Please combine all your documents into one (1) single PDF document as the system only allows to upload maximum one document.

Any request for clarification/additional information on this procurement notice shall be communicated in writing to UNDP office or send to email [email protected]. While the Procurement Unit would endeavour to provide information expeditiously, only requests receiving at least 3 working days prior to the submission deadline will be entertained. Any delay in providing such information will not be considered as a reason for extending the submission deadline. The UNDP’s response (including an explanation of the query but without identifying the source of inquiry) will be posted in the Individual Consultant (IC) Procurement Notice page as provided above. Therefore, all prospective Offerors are advised to visit the page regularly to make obtain update related to this Individual Consultant (IC) Procurement Notice

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence.

UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.


Annex-1 – Template Confirmation of Interest and Submission of Financial Proposal.

Annex-2 – Individual Consultant General Terms and Conditions.

Annex 3 : TOR

Forms are available on the following link