Consultant for Final Project Evaluation

Evaluation Requester: Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) Evaluation Manager: IOM Peru Office | Program Support Unit | Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant IOM are/unit: PSU Duty Station: Lima, Perú Consultant type: B Service duration: 3 months Total budget: 15,000 USD WBL: IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 1. Evaluation Context The political, socio-economic, and human rights crisis in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter Venezuela) has triggered the departure of over 5.1 million Venezuelans to neighboring countries and beyond. Peru is the second largest recipient country and, as of August 2021, hosts around 1.1 million Venezuelan refugees and migrants living in communities with limited capacity to absorb them, particularly in terms of providing basic services and access to livelihoods. Data collected through the 2021 Joint Needs Assessment (JNA), as well as information compiled and analyzed by the Refugee and Migrant Working Group (GTRM for its acronym in Spanish), aligned with the 2021 Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP), indicate that access to essential goods and services to meet basic immediate needs (Outcome 1.1)[1] and opportunities for socio-economic integration, including employment, livelihoods, and entrepreneurship support (Outcome 1.2) [2]are among the most urgent priority needs for Venezuelans residing in Peru. The GTRM estimated that around 100,000 Venezuelan refugee and migrant children and adolescents were out of the Peruvian school system in 2020. To ensure school enrollment and prevent dropout, schools in Peru must promote safe environments free from xenophobia and discrimination (Outcome 1.3)[3]. Despite governmental efforts, significant challenges remain, including limited school capacity, insufficient teacher capacity to provide inclusive education, and inadequate school infrastructure. Since education has been virtual in both Peru and Venezuela since March 2020, there has been no interaction between students from both countries, affecting integration efforts. Additionally, the GTRM’s Joint Needs Assessment reported that "access to health services, including mental health, remains limited due to the exclusion of refugees and migrants in the national health system." Strengthening mental and emotional well-being plays a key role in promoting integration. In this context, the project “SUPPORTING THE INTEGRATION OF VENEZUELAN REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS INTO PERUVIAN HOST COMMUNITIES THROUGH SOCIOECONOMIC INTERVENTION” funded by KOICA aims to contribute to stable and inclusive community development by promoting social cohesion and peaceful coexistence between host communities and Venezuelan refugees and migrants through socioeconomic integration interventions. Implemented at the national level, the project aims to increase the proportion of refugees and migrants who feel economically and socially included within their host communities. The project's intervention logic is based on four outputs, each with a set of indicators used to measure progress and achievements: • Vulnerable Migrants and refugees from Venezuela have gained work experience through the implementation of sustainable community development initiatives in their host communities through labour market inclusion (LMI) interventions in prioritized areas.• Percentage of refugee and migrants supported that initiated a job • Percentage of increase in perception of refugees and migrants feeling integrated economically • Refugees and migrants from Venezuela and members of the host community have improved entrepreneurship skills and business management knowledge. • Percentage of refugees and migrants declaring they have improved their companies’ sales income as a result of training and/or seed capital • Refugee, Migrant and host communities have access to education and increased knowledge of migration issues. • Percentage of parents or legal tutors trained by the project that demonstrate knowing the school enrollment procedure • Vulnerable refugees and migrants have improved socio-emotional stability through inclusion and social development.• Percentage of increase in perception of refugees and migrants feeling integrated socially • The project has been implemented since August 2023 and is currently in its final stage of implementation with a project end scheduled for December 2026. [1] "Vulnerable migrants and refugees from Venezuela will gain work experience through the implementation of sustainable community development initiatives in their host communities, via labor market inclusion (LMI) interventions in prioritized areas," as stated in the project document. [2] "Venezuelan migrants and refugees, along with members of the host community, have improved their entrepreneurial skills and knowledge in business management," as stated in the project document. [3] "Venezuelan migrants and refugees, along with members of the host community, have gained access to education and increased their knowledge on migration-related issues," as stated in the project document. 2. Purpose and objectives of the evaluation As the project is coming to an end, the final evaluation of the project “Promoting the Integration of Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees into the Peruvian Host Community through Socioeconomic Interventions” main purpose is accountability to the donor to show how resources were used, what results were achieved andwhether the project achieved its objectives and produced intended changes. Additionally, it will support learning and provide evidence of both planned and unplanned results—what is working, what is not, and why. Likewise, the evaluation will help identify lessons learned and gather evidence of potential good practices, which may be adopted and implemented during the remainder of this project and in future projects, within the framework of IOM’s institutional strategy on migration, integration, and mental health. Main objective Evaluate the overall achievement of the project/program against its established objectives, identify key achievements and challenges encountered during implementation, and provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of future interventions. Specific objectives • Analyze the extent to which the project results have been achieved and whether key indicators are met. • Evaluate the relevance, coherence effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the intervention proposed in the project, and assess strategies, approaches, and implementation processes in terms of performance, gender sensitivity, and inclusiveness. • Obtain recommendations, identify implementation gaps, and document independent lessons and good evidence-based practices to enhance strategies and interventions for strengthening project implementation. Target audience of the evaluation: The IOM, the project implementing team, Government counterparts (e.g., Ministry of Labor and employment promotion, Ministry of Education, and Ministry of Health), Socio implementing partners, sector directors participating in workshops and activities, Other relevant stakeholders, and the donor ,Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA). Expected uses for the evaluation: • Assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended outcomes and outputs and evaluate the relevance and responsiveness of the intervention to the needs of refugees, migrants, and host communities • IOM Peru Mission team will use the evaluation as a reflection document on the project and its methodology, develop and follow up on a management response matrix to the evaluation's recommendations including corresponding updates in the Project Information and Management Application - PRIMA, and formulate and implement a communication plan for the results.[1] • KOICA could use the evaluation findings, conclusions, and performance ratings under each evaluation criterion to assess the value and results generated through the resources allocated to the implementation of project activities. • Government entities directly involved, socio implementing partners, and other relevant stakeholders involved in the project implementation process will use the conclusions to improve the quality of their work and institutional relationship with IOM regarding the project objectives. 3. Scope of the evaluation Temporal scope: The final evaluation will cover the design phase of the intervention and its implementation period from August 2023 to September 2026.[2] Thematic scope: The evaluation will cover all results, outputs, and activities of the project in accordance with the Project Results Matrix (see Annex 1). Geographic scope: The evaluation will consider national-level actions and complementary actions in all the regions of implementation: Lima, Callao, Tumbes, and Tacna. Cross-cutting issues: The evaluation must consider a series of cross-cutting themes relevant to the intervention, in accordance with IOM and United Nations guidelines on the matter: the Rights-Based Approach to Programming[3], gender[4], and disability[5]. These cross-cutting issues must be integrated into the evaluation questions, the design and implementation of the evaluation, and the presentation of its results. In line with its purpose and objectives, the evaluation is expected to identify and document lessons learned and potential good practices, and present action[6]-oriented recommendations, all of which must be clearly supported by findings and conclusions based on triangulated evidence. It is important to acknowledge the limitations identified during the mid-term evaluation and the corresponding mitigation measures to be implemented to strengthen the final evaluation process. One key limitation is that the mid-term evaluation timeline needed to be extended due to delays in the information-gathering process. In addition, although IOM has the contact information of the beneficiaries served, previous experiences indicate an approximate 30% non-response rate. To mitigate this limitation, IOM maintains backup databases that allow non-respondents to be replaced until the required sample size is achieved. [1] See IOM (2022) Guidance on the Use of Evaluation and Follow-Up of Recommendations [2] Although the project formally concludes in December 2026, the evaluation will assess implementation progress and emerging outcomes up to September 2026 due to operational timelines for evaluation completion. [3] See IOM (2015) Rights-based approach to programming. [4] See UNEG (2014) Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations; IOM (2018) Guidance for Addressing Gender in Evaluations; y UNEG (2018) UN-SWAP Evaluation Performance Indicator Technical Note. Annex 1. [5] See UNEG (2022) Guidance on Integrating Disability Inclusion in Evaluations and Reporting on the UNDIS Entity Accountability Framework Evaluation Indicator (2022) [6] See UNEG (2018) Improved Quality of Evaluation Recommendations Checklist Responsibilities 4. Criteria of Evaluation This evaluation will apply the standard evaluation criteria for development projects, following the definitions and guidelines of the OECD-DAC (Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) as revised in 2019[1]. The final evaluation aligns with IOM’s Evaluation Policy [2]and guidelines[3] and relevant OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, including effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability to provide good practices, lessons learned and recommendations for future programming. Aligned with these principles of utility of evaluation criteria, the objectives of the evaluation exercise, and the Utility Norm and Evaluability Standard of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)[4], the following six criteria will be considered: • Relevance: Degree to which the intervention responds to the needs, priorities, and context of the target population and stakeholders. • Coherence: The extent to which the intervention is compatible and aligned with other interventions, policies, strategies, and needs, and how well it complements or avoids duplication with other actors’ efforts. • Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and results, including differentiated results among groups. • Efficiency: The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely manner. • Impact: The extent to which the intervention has generated, or is expected to generate, significant effects -positive or negative, intended or unintended-at the highest level.[5] • Sustainability: Likelihood that the benefits of the intervention will continue after external support has ended. Also, it will be important to consider a separate section for cross-cutting issues as the extent to which the intervention integrated and addressed key themes such as gender equality, human rights, environmental sustainability, and inclusion of vulnerable groups. 5. Questions of Evaluation Below is a list of questions derived from the previously mentioned objectives and criteria. This list is not exhaustive and may be adjusted during the inception phase in discussion with the evaluator and based on the scope of the evaluation and the available resources and duration. A finalized version will be included in the inception report. The inception report must include an evaluation matrix in which the evaluator specifies sub-questions, measurement indicators, sources of verification, and data collection and analysis methods aligned with the project performance rating matrix. Criteria Evaluation questions Relevance • Were the intervention’s objectives and design appropriate to the country context, responsive to identified socioeconomic integration and aligned with national priorities? Coherence • To what extent were there operational overlaps or duplications (if any) across actors and initiatives? What were the drivers (mandates, geography, targeting, timing), and what corrective options exist? Effectiveness • To what extent has the project achieved the proposed results, what factors and main challenges supported or hindered achievement, and how were those challenges addressed? • Were the risks and contingencies faced by the project monitored and managed appropriately and in a timely manner, including those related to the institutional stability of the country? • How effective were civil society engagement modalities (partnerships, referrals, outreach, co-delivery) in achieving intended results, and what enablers/barriers shaped IOM’s performance and participation? Efficiency • How efficiently were the resources used to achieve the intended results in line with the implementation context? • To what extent did coordination arrangements and/or overlaps with other initiatives affect efficiency and value for money, and what practical measures could have improved efficiency through coordination or sequencing? Impact • Is there systematic evidence of changes in the perception of socioeconomic integration among the Venezuelan migrant population, to which the project has contributed at the national and local levels? • Has a positive change in behaviors and habits been objectively observed among populations that received MHPSS (Mental Health and Psychosocial Support) assistance? • Did the project generate unintended results related to the perception of socioeconomic integration among Venezuelan migrants with the host community, or regarding IOM’s relationship with its counterparts? • To what extent did labour market inclusion interventions contribute to improved employment status, income generation, and employment retention among beneficiaries? • To what extent has the project contributed to reducing socioeconomic vulnerabilities among refugees, migrants, and host community members? Sustainability • To what extent have local institutions adopted, replicated or institutionalized project approaches? • What financial or operational mechanisms exist to continue services after project closure? Cross-cutting issues • To what extent were rights-based, protection-sensitive, Do No Harm, gender equality, age considerations, and the specific needs of women, men, boys, girls, and marginalized groups effectively addressed and integrated into the interventions? 6. Methodology and methods This final evaluation will use a non-experimental design and mixed-method approach including both qualitative and quantitative data. The evaluator is expected to propose an approach and data collection and analysis methods that enable credible, valid, and reliable answers to the evaluation questions, generate practical recommendations, and identify lessons and potential good practices from the project’s design, implementation, and monitoring processes—all while considering the cross-cutting issues mentioned above. Basic parameters for methodological proposal: • Data collection methods must be carefully selected to produce reasonable empirical evidence in support of the evaluation criteria, questions, and objectives. • Data triangulation will be used to ensure credibility and validity of findings. Conclusions and recommendations will be validated at key stages of the evaluation process with stakeholders—without compromising the evaluator’s independence. • The proposed methodology must outline a mixed-method approach for data collection and analysis, clearly describing how different sources of evidence will be used to triangulate information and assess how the observed results can realistically be attributed to the project while taking into account other factors that might also have influenced those results. Data Collection Methods may Include (but are not limited to): • Document review to gain an understanding of the context, as well as the documents that support the planning, implementation, and results of the intervention. • Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, partners, and beneficiaries. • Surveys with beneficiaries and stakeholders. • Secondary data analysis using project monitoring data for outcome indicators Method Possible Sources Document Review • Project documents, interim and final reports • ToRs for consultancy • Government correspondence • Narrative reports from suppliers, socio implementing partners and consultants • Means of verification de las activities del project (e.g., Training/activity/events reports elaborated by suppliers and socio implementing partners and its participats’ lists) • Semi-Structured interview • Key representatives from the Donor • IOM project manager • IOM team members • Focal points of Government counterparts • Implementing partners Focus Group • Teachers from educational institutions where the project was implemented (1 FGD in each region/in person) • Migrants and host community members participated in project activities (1 FGDs per output 1, 2 and 4 and per region/ in person) Survey • Online and/or phone-based surveys targeting beneficiaries. • A stratified sample will be used, considering the regions of Lima and Callao, Tumbes, and Tacna and per output. Additionally, the sample design will consider a 95% confidence level and a 0.05 margin of error. • Sample distribution: • Total sample size : 354 • Lima: 200 • Tumbes: 100 • Tacna: 54 • The modules to be considered in the instrument must be aligned with the outcome indicators: • Perception of socioeconomic integration among migrants and refugees (applied to the full sample, including 10% of beneficiaries receiving MHPSS services) • Effective labor market inclusion (applied to 30% of the sample, based on service received) • Income improvements from business training/seed capital [6](applied to 30% of the sample) • Legal guardians of children/adolescents demonstrating awareness of school enrollment procedures (applied to 30% of the sample) The evaluation team is encouraged to use innovative approaches for data collection and analysis. Proposals must clearly define the specific role of each methodological approach in answering the evaluation questions. 7. Limitations In line with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, this final evaluation seeks to assess the extent to which the project contributed to the intended higher-level results, including improvements in livelihoods, economic integration, social cohesion, and other relevant changes among beneficiaries and stakeholders. As such, the evaluation includes an analysis of the project's impact dimension. However, it is important to note that this evaluation given its scope and budget is not designed as a formal impact evaluation. Consequently, findings related to impact should be interpreted with caution and understood primarily as evidence of contribution rather than proof of causality. The project's achievements and potential impacts will be assessed by triangulating information from multiple sources, including primary data collection with beneficiaries and stakeholders, project monitoring data, administrative records, and other secondary sources. This mixed-evidence approach will allow the evaluation to identify perceived and documented changes associated with the intervention and assess the extent to which project outcomes have contributed to broader development objectives. The findings should therefore be interpreted as an assessment of outcomes’ contributions, rather than a rigorous impact evaluation in the methodological sense. 8. Ethics, Norms and Evaluation Standards The evaluation must adhere to the standards and norms of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) [7]and the United Nations Principles on Data Protection and Privacy[8], especially regarding interaction with project beneficiaries. The evaluator must adhere to the ethical guidelines of UNEG[9] and its Code of Conduct for evaluations within the United Nations system[10]; in particular, they must sign the Pledge on Ethical Conduct in Evaluation[11]. At all stages, the evaluation must adhere to the Principles of Data Protection [12]and the IOM Data Protection Manual[13], particularly those related to the legal collection of data, obtaining informed consent from individuals, and the protection and confidentiality of personal data. Obtaining informed consent from data sources is a sine qua non condition for data collection, analysis, and use. Both in its design, execution, and dissemination of results, the evaluation must clearly integrate the rights-based, gender, and disability approaches in accordance with the UNEG and IOM guidelines. It is expected that methodology, methods, tools, and data analysis techniques be gender sensitive. Additionally, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations should reflect an analysis from a gender perspective. 9. Deliverables The following are the expected products and deliverables resulting from the evaluation process. All documents must meet publishable quality standards, including linguistic, structural, and semantic aspects. • Inception report (Spanish), in accordance with the format indicated in Annex 1. This constitutes the detailed proposal of the evaluator and includes the evaluation analysis, the reconstruction of the Theory of Change of the response, the evaluation matrix, and the data collection instruments. Its approval by evaluation management is a requirement to proceed to the data collection stage, and its quality will be assessed using the inception report quality control tool[14]. • A virtual session for presenting and discussing the preliminary findings (Spanish), once the data collection stage is completed and before starting the preparation of the evaluation report. • Draft Evaluation Report (English), in accordance with the format indicated in Annex 3, presenting the findings and conclusions related to the evaluation questions derived from the evidence found, as well as the recommendations derived from the conclusions. Its quality will be assessed using the evaluation report quality control tool[15], and it is expected that its maximum length will be twenty-five (25) pages, excluding annexes, cover page, table of contents, and lists (of acronyms, tables, figures, etc.). • Final version of the Evaluation Report (English), once the observations presented to the draft version by the evaluation management have been considered. • In-person presentation (English) of the evaluation results addressed to the Donor, IOM staff, implementing partners, and stakeholders. Include a summary slide of the methodology used and the implemented instruments. • Information sheet about the evaluation (English), prepared according to the format indicated in Annex 3 and completed according to the guidelines in Annex 4. This does not replace the executive summary, which is part of the evaluation report. This document should be presented in Spanish and English. • Partially completed management response matrix by the evaluator (English) (recommendations section), using the IOM template from Annex 7. 10. Specification and Roles A Reference Group for the Evaluation (GRE) will be established to promote ownership and use of the evaluation findings. This group: • Will be composed of the project manager, the Regional M&E Officer, a representative of the Fund, the Regional Thematic Specialist, and the coordinator of the thematic area in the country office. • Will review the inception and final reports and provide written comments through the evaluation manager. • Will participate in the presentation of preliminary findings, validation of recommendations, and the final presentation of results by the evaluator. • Will provide information and guidance during the inception phase useful for defining the final design of the evaluation and identifying key data sources. Evaluation Manager: Once the Terms of Reference (ToR) have been developed, the evaluation manager will provide technical oversight of the evaluator to ensure the timely and proper delivery of expected outputs. They will gather the project information required for the evaluation and make it available to the evaluator in coordination with the Project Manager or their delegate. The manager will coordinate the distribution of evaluation products among GRE members, compile comments, and forward them to the evaluator within the agreed deadlines. They will convene the GRE for meetings to present findings and conclusions according to the established schedule. The manager will send the final versions of the evaluation documentation to the Fund and the Central Evaluation Unit (EVA) for inclusion in the global repository. They will also introduce the evaluator to the individuals participating in the evaluation, both within IOM and among other project stakeholders. The manager will assess the quality of evaluation products based on the criteria outlined in the Guidelines and may consult with the Regional M&E Officer for technical advice, if needed. Evaluator: In accordance with the ToR, the evaluator must maintain close communication with the evaluation manager to ensure the successful and timely implementation of the evaluation. The evaluator will ensure adequate triangulation of data sources and clearly indicate the level of evidence supporting the findings. The evaluator will include in the Inception Report a detailed description of the data analysis methods and their associated reliability. The evaluator will independently apply the inception report and evaluation report quality control tools before submitting the draft reports to the evaluation manager. Donor: The Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) will review the final draft report and the Evaluation Brief submitted by the evaluator to provide feedback and formally validate the deliverables. 11. Work Plan The timeframe for implementing this evaluation is a maximum of 15 calendar weeks. The evaluator may propose a shorter duration with proper justification, while ensuring that the deliverables meet the expected content and quality standards. Below is a summary of the main milestones: Phase 1: Inception. This phase focuses on the production of the Inception Report, based on document review and interviews with evaluation users. It includes evaluability assessment, the reconstruction of the Theory of Change (ToC), the development of the evaluation matrix, the definition of the sampling strategy, and the creation of data collection and analysis tools. Approval of the Inception Report by the evaluation manager is a prerequisite to proceed to the next phase. Phase 2: Data Collection and Analysis. This involves the implementation of data collection activities from primary and secondary sources, according to the design and tools included in the approved inception report. Once data collection is completed, the evaluation team presents preliminary findings to the evaluation users. Then, the team applies the quantitative and qualitative analysis methods to analyze and triangulate the data collected, and derive evidence-based findings, conclusions, recommendations, lessons learned, and good practices. Phase 3: Report Production and Dissemination. The evaluation team produces the first draft of the final evaluation report for review and comments by the users. A workshop is being held to discuss the feedback on the report and to validate the recommendations. Based on this feedback, the team develops the final version of the report and an information sheet. A final presentation of the results marks the conclusion of the evaluation team’s activities. Project phase Activity Responsible Party Duration (Days) Schedule Implementation phase (Aug) Definition of the Evaluation Reference Group Evaluation Manager 1.00 Week 1 Kick-off meeting Evaluation Manager / Project Manager / RPMEO / Evaluator 1.00 Week 1 Review of project documents Evaluator 5.00 Week 1 Design of data collection instruments Evaluator 2.00 Week 2 Validation of data collection instruments Evaluation Manager 3.00 Week 2 Preparation of inception report draft Evaluator 2.00 Week 2 Review of inception report Evaluation Manager / RPMEO 3.00 Week 3 Finalization and presentation of the inception report Evaluator 2.00 Week 3 Closure phase (Set-Oct) Preparation and review of interview/focus group participant lists Evaluation Manager / Project Manager 2.00 Week 3 Data/information collectionEvaluator 20.00 Week 4,5,6 Processing of collected data/informationEvaluator 4.00 Week 7 Analysis of qualitative data Evaluator 4.00 Week 7, 8 Pesentation of preliminary findings Evaluator 1.00 Week 8 Drafting of evaluation reportEvaluator 5.00 Week 8 Review and feedback on draft evaluation report Evaluation Reference Group /RPMEO 3.00 Week 9 Production of final version of the evaluation report Evaluator 10.00 Week 9,10 Review and feedback on final evaluation report Evaluation Reference Group /RPMEO 5.00 Week 10, 11 Presentation of summary findings and conclusions Evaluator 1.00 Week 11 Preparation of Evaluation Information Sheet Evaluator 2.00 Week 11 Review and validation of Evaluation Info SheetEvaluator 2.00 Week 12 Final version of Evaluation Info Sheet Evaluation Reference Group /RPMEO 3.00 Week 12 Closing meeting Evaluation Manager 1.00 Week 12 12. Budget A maximum budget of USD 15,000.00 (fifteen thousand and 00/100 US dollars) is available, which will allow for the hiring of an external evaluator or a specialized provider for conducting evaluations. The evaluator or the provider offering the evaluation service must take into account all costs necessary to carry out a high-quality evaluation and ensure the quality of the deliverables in the financial proposal they submit. International consultant: PAYMENT DATE AMOUNT BUDGET ALLOCATION WBL DEADLINE Payment 1: Within 10 days after submission of the inception report $2,250 (Two thousand two hundred fifty dollars and 00/100) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 10 days after the start of the consulting service. Payment 2: Within 10 days after submission of the drafting of evaluation report $4,500 (four thousand five hundred and 00/100 soles) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 40 days after the start of the consulting service. Payment 3: Within 10 days after submission of the final evaluation report and information sheet. $8,250 (eight thousand two hundred fifty and 00/100 soles) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 82 days after the start of the consulting service. National consultant: PAYMENT DATE AMOUNT BUDGET ALLOCATION WBL DEADLINE Payment 1: Within 10 days after submission of the inception report S/8,190[16] (two thousand two hundred fifty 00/100 dollars) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 10 days after the start of the consulting service. Payment 2: Within 10 days after submission of the drafting of evaluation report S/16,380 [17] (sixteen thousand three hundred eighty and 00/100 soles) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 40 days after the start of the consulting service. Payment 3: Within 10 days after submission of the final evaluation report and information sheet. S/27,300 [18](twenty-seven thousand three hundred and 00/100 soles) IS0137 / Task X:1:2:001 82 days after the start of the consulting service. [1] See OECD (2020) Mejores criterios para una mejor evaluación y OECD (2021) Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully. [2] Office of the Inspector General/OIM (2018), IOM Evaluation Policy. [3] Directrices de la OIM relativas al seguimiento y evaluación (2022) Capítulo 5 [4]See OECD (2020) Mejores criterios para una mejor evaluación y OECD (2021) Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully. [5] While this evaluation includes an assessment of the OECD DAC impact criterion, it is not an impact evaluation per se and does not seek to establish causal attribution through a counterfactual design. [6] the survey methodology should include clearer parameters for assessing changes in employment status, employment retention, income generation, businesses continuity, and household economic stability. [7] UNEG (2016) Norms and Standards for Evaluation [8] HLCM (2018) UN Principles on Personal Data Protection Privacy [9] UNEG (2020) Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation [10] UNEG (2008) Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system [11] Can download it in the web of UNEG: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866 [12] https://www.iom.int/data-protection [13] IOM (2015) IOM Data Protection Manual [14] IOM (2022) Guidance on Quality Management of IOM Evaluations. Quality Control Tool – Inception reports [15] IOM (2022) Guidance on Quality Management of IOM Evaluations. Quality Control Tool – Evaluation reports [16] This amount may vary depending on monthly exchange rates. [17] This amount may vary depending on monthly exchange rates. [18] This amount may vary depending on monthly exchange rates. Qualification 13. Evaluator Requirements • Experience: Must have more than five (5) years of experience in project and/or program evaluation, in accordance with United Nations standards and applying OECD-DAC criteria. Experience must be verified through documents such as final reports, contracts, certifications, etc. Having worked with United Nations System agencies will be considered an advantage, as will experience in research or evaluation in the areas of migration and socioeconomic integration of migrants. Experience conducting evaluations and studies that are gender-sensitive and aligned with a rights-based approach is also required. • Similar Work: Include at least five previous assignments similar to those required in these terms of reference, specifically Final Evaluation Reports. • Work Team (in the case of consultants and providers): Present the team that will be responsible for the evaluation. Clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of each team member with appropriate justification. Include the CVs of the proposed team. • Other Competencies: Proficiency in the Spanish and English language. 14. Proposal Submission Proposals must consider the following: • Submission of a CV aligned with the requirements specified in this call. • Inclusion of supporting documents that demonstrate compliance with the requirements outlined in these terms of reference. • Inclusion of technical proposal that must include:• Work methodology (preliminarily proposed approach and methods, including sampling strategy and any other relevant aspects). • Description of recent experience in conducting similar evaluations, with two recent final reports attached as annexes. • Work plan and timeline, including the definition of key activities, must also specify whether the evaluator will travel to the selected regions or if local personnel are already present. • Attach the signed Pledge on Ethical Conduct in Evaluation.[1] • The applicant must declare any existing or potential conflict of interest in undertaking this evaluation assignment. • Deadline for proposal submission: TBC • IOM contact person: Dorkas Soto Pomachagua – Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant, email: dosoto@iom.int Additionally, the criteria for evaluating the proposals will be applied as follows: DESCRIPCIÓN PUNTAJE • Technical Proposal Máx. 24 points. (Weight x Score) Weight Each criterion will be evaluated based on the following scale: No cumple = 0 pts. Cumple parcialmente = 1 pts. Cumple totalmente = 2 pts. Supera = 3 pts. The technical proposal and timeline include all activities and are coherently developed according to the objective. 2 The provider has at least 5 years of relevant experience and provides supporting evidence. 2 The provider has experience in at least two previous assignments similar to those required in these terms of reference. 2 The provider has professionals that meet the required profile and attaches the CVs of the team members who will carry out the service, indicating each member's role. 1 The financial proposal is itemized, allowing for an evaluation of financial resource usage. 1 ii. Financial Proposal Máx. 8 points. The evaluation is conducted using the following formula, assigning the maximum score to the lowest-priced offer and calculating the scores of the other offers as follows: Donde: i = Offer Pi = Score of the evaluated offer Oi = Socre of Offer i Om = Score of the lowest PMP = Maximum score of it Total Score Total : The final score is calculated with the following formula: Donde: PO = Score Obtained: sum of (I) + (II) PMP = Maximum Possible Score PF = Final Score (in percentage) Total Máx. 100 puntos [1] Can download it in the web of UNEG: http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866 Required Competencies IOM’s competency framework can be found at this link. Competencies will be assessed during the selection process. Values - all IOM staff members must abide by and demonstrate these five values: • Inclusion and respect for diversity: Respects and promotes individual and cultural differences. Encourages diversity and inclusion. • Integrity and transparency: Maintains high ethical standards and acts in a manner consistent with organizational principles/rules and standards of conduct. • Professionalism: Demonstrates ability to work in a composed, competent and committed manner and exercises careful judgment in meeting day-to-day challenges. • Courage: Demonstrates willingness to take a stand on issues of importance. • Empathy: Shows compassion for others, makes people feel safe, respected and fairly treated. Core Competencies – behavioural indicators • Teamwork: Develops and promotes effective collaboration within and across units to achieve shared goals and optimize results. • Delivering results: Produces and delivers quality results in a service-oriented and timely manner. Is action oriented and committed to achieving agreed outcomes. • Managing and sharing knowledge: Continuously seeks to learn, share knowledge and innovate. • Accountability: Takes ownership for achieving the Organization’s priorities and assumes responsibility for own actions and delegated work. • Communication: Encourages and contributes to clear and open communication. Explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring and motivational way. Notes IOM covers Consultants against occupational accidents and illnesses under the Compensation Plan (CP), free of charge, for the duration of the consultancy. IOM does not provide evacuation or medical insurance for reasons related to non-occupational accidents and illnesses. Consultants are responsible for their own medical insurance for non-occupational accident or illness and will be required to provide written proof of such coverage before commencing work. Any offer made to the candidate in relation to this vacancy notice is subject to funding confirmation. Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment, accreditation, any residency or visa requirements, security clearances. IOM has a zero-tolerance policy on conduct that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of the United Nations and IOM, including sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and discrimination based on gender, nationality, age, race, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic background or disabilities. IOM does not charge a fee at any stage of its recruitment process (application, interview, processing, training or other fee). IOM does not request any information related to bank accounts. IOM only accepts duly completed applications submitted through the IOM e-Recruitment system (for internal candidates link here). The online tool also allows candidates to track the status of their application. No late applications will be accepted. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. For further information and other job postings, you are welcome to visit our website: IOM Careers and Job Vacancies