Funding Formula Stage 6

Scoring breakdown for project proposal

The following are examples only. Donors will determine the final weighting standards and benchmarks.

1. TEMPLATE A

Section	Criteria	Score
Quality of Personnel and Approach to Management	Quality of Programme Director in terms of leading and motivating people and managing a large, complex innovative multi-country programme. Availability of the Programme Director for the duration of the programme	5%
	Strength and relevance of skills and experience across the whole team, including expertise in accountability and transparency, governance, human rights and women’s empowerment, capacity building, results and monitoring, as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights	10%
	Overall programme and partner management, including quality control	5%
	Demonstrated meaningful engagement of southern partners in proposal development and programme delivery	5%
Methodology	Demonstrated understanding of the Terms of Reference including strong problem statement and clear understanding of how accountability interventions address this problem	10%
	Approach to programme design and country, including clear/convincing evidence-based theory of change that demonstrates the application of core accountability principles and interventions; approach to national and sub-national contextual analysis (both at baseline and throughout the programme) and approach to designing nested national and, where appropriate, sub-national theories of change and associated intervention packages based on the overall theory of change and contextual analyses	20%
	Approach to country selection	5%
	Clarity and robustness of results chain and deliverables and associated monitoring and evaluation framework, including appropriateness of the proposed key outcome and output targets, indicators and milestones	10%
Commercial	A payment plan that is clearly linked to the delivery of programme outputs and achievement of anticipated results, and reflects an appropriate level of risk sharing	6%
	A robust financial plan that clearly outlines the costs associated with delivering individual programme outputs	2%
	Identification and management of financial risk	2%
	Competitiveness of fee rates, and full breakdown of costs to reflect profit margins, overheads and benchmarking against rates charged elsewhere	8%
Value for Money	Overall assessment of whether the proposal demonstrates VFM across the overall results chain (i.e. strong economy, efficiency, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) particularly when considered against the range of focal countries and activities proposed within the budget envelope	10%

2. TEMPLATE B

The project proposal will be evaluated using the following scale for each point in the scoring sheet:

1. Clarity and Relevance (50 points)
   1. Demonstration of a real need or problem: proposal documents demonstrate a real need for the project; the documents include convincing data, case studies, interviews, focus group results – including input from beneficiaries.
   2. Innovation: demonstration of creativity or uniqueness of the project – the concept is innovative and not redundant with other projects funded by other donors.
   3. Objectives are clear, appropriate and measurable: the objectives should also explain why the project is important to the society, in terms of the longer-term benefits to final beneficiaries. They should also show how the programme fits into the regional/sectoral policies of the national government. The overall objectives must include measurable indicators for monitoring and evaluation purposes (quality, quantity, target groups, time, and place).
   4. The objectives should also have academic and technical merit.
      
      
   5. The project outputs, outcomes and results are clear, tangible and do include measurable indicators: the outputs, outcomes and results are “products” of the activities undertaken, the combination of which achieve the Purpose/Goal of the project, namely the enjoyment of sustainable benefits by the target groups.
   6. Methodology: the proposed methods, approaches and strategies are realistic, reasonable, effective, relevant and outcome-orientated – drawing on noted best practice and the latest thinking and research.
   7. The project activities are anticipated to achieve the expected outputs, outcomes and results: the actions and means that have to be taken or provided to produce the results; they summarize what will be undertaken by the project.
   8. The target group(s) in the project are well defined: the groups who will be positively affected by the project at the purpose level, and with/for whom the project will work very closely.
   9. The project activities are reflected in the estimated budget: the project activities have a cost for implementation, and this should be shown in the estimated budget.
   10. Monitoring and Evaluation plan: monitoring can be defined as the systematic and continuous collection, analysing and using of information for the purpose of management control and decision-making. Project monitoring is an integral part of day-to-day management. Its purpose is to provide the information by which management can identify and solve implementation problems, and assess progress in relation to which was originally planned. The purpose of evaluation is to review the achievements of the project against planned expectations, and to use experience from the project to improve the design of future projects.
2. Influence and Impact (25 points)
   1. There is a long-term, wide and large impact on the named beneficiaries and their needs: the expected results of the project will have an explicit impact on the beneficiaries’ lives and health.
   2. There is a significant impact on institutional improvement and human resources, for example, health systems strengthening via new equipment, application of technology, training of staff, development of better systems.
   3. External benefits are measured by partnerships: the score should reflect clarity of the partnership and supportive documents, for example, a Letter of Agreement, or MoU, showing the role of partners in the project and benefits of the partnership.

3. Feasibility and Sustainability (25 points)
   1. The Member Association has a history in management and implementation capacity for this project; the Member Association has credibility for this kind of work – strengths, name recognition, a history or track record of achievements, related mission and goals. (See Stage 2: Credibility for more information about the Credibility of your Member Association)
   2. The human and physical resources allocated to this project are appropriate: internal staff expertise, use of external consultants, an advisory committee are spelled out.
   3. The project is sustainable: it will be institutionalized, and alternative sources of funding will be pursued to ensure its longevity: the likelihood of a continuation in the stream of benefits produced by the project after the period of support has ended. Your Member Association should ensure a source of funding has been identified, or that it shows a commitment to cover all the project’s financial requirements after this funding has ended.
   4. In-kind contributions: in-kind donations of funding, staffing, equipment, land, office space should be included.
   5. Quality improvement is demonstrated through the impact of the project on the sexual and reproductive health sector in general, and on your Member Association in particular: a significant impact on the sustainability of benefits generated by the project, and which have to be taken into account in the design and implementation phase (ownership by beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender, appropriate technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management capacity).
   6. The expected risks and the tools to overcome them are well defined: external factors and events that could affect the progress or success of the project, and that are not very likely to hold true, and are formulated in a negative way.