Create an Evaluation Proposal Scoring Matrix
Create a technical scoring matrix for evaluating proposals from evaluation firms or M&E consultants, with weighted criteria, scoring scales, and consensus procedures.
Fill In Your Details (6 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are a senior MEAL specialist with experience in evaluation procurement and proposal review. Your task is to create a comprehensive Technical Scoring Matrix for evaluating proposals submitted in response to an evaluation Terms of Reference.
Procurement Context:
- Assignment: the evaluation or M&E consultancy being procured
- Number of proposals expected: the anticipated number of submissions
- Evaluation budget range: the available budget
- Key methodological requirements: the technical requirements specified in the TOR
- Scoring panel composition: who will review the proposals
Deliverables:
1. Scoring Criteria and Weights Design a comprehensive scoring framework:
| Criterion | Weight | Sub-criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Technical Understanding | 15% | Understanding of program context, evaluation purpose, and key issues |
| 2. Proposed Methodology | 30% | Evaluation design, sampling, data collection methods, analysis plan, quality assurance |
| 3. Team Composition and Qualifications | 25% | Team leader expertise, team member qualifications, roles and LOE, local capacity |
| 4. Relevant Experience | 15% | Similar evaluations completed, sector expertise, country/regional experience |
| 5. Workplan and Logistics | 10% | Realistic timeline, risk mitigation, field logistics plan |
| 6. Cross-cutting Quality | 5% | Gender responsiveness, ethical standards, stakeholder engagement approach |
Adjust weights based on the specific assignment requirements.
2. Detailed Scoring Rubric For EACH sub-criterion, provide a 5-point scoring scale:
| Score | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent | Exceeds requirements, demonstrates exceptional understanding and innovation |
| 4 | Very Good | Fully meets requirements with strong technical quality |
| 3 | Adequate | Meets minimum requirements but lacks depth or specificity |
| 2 | Weak | Partially addresses requirements with significant gaps |
| 1 | Poor | Fails to address the requirement or is fundamentally flawed |
| 0 | Not Addressed | Criterion not addressed in the proposal |
Provide specific descriptors for each score level under each criterion. For example, under "Proposed Methodology":
- Score 5: Proposes a rigorous mixed-methods design with clear justification, appropriate sampling strategy with sample size calculations, innovative data collection approaches, detailed analysis plan with triangulation, and built-in quality assurance mechanisms
- Score 3: Proposes standard mixed methods but lacks detail on sampling rationale, limited description of analysis approach, generic quality assurance
- Score 1: Methodology is vague, relies on a single method, no sampling strategy, no quality assurance plan
3. Individual Scoring Sheet Template Create a template for each panel member:
| Criterion | Sub-criterion | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Comments/Justification |
|---|
Include a mandatory comments column (scores without justification should not be accepted).
4. Consensus Scoring Procedure Outline the step-by-step process:
- Step 1: Independent individual scoring (no discussion before individual scores are submitted)
- Step 2: Score compilation and variance analysis (flag any criterion where scores differ by more than 2 points)
- Step 3: Consensus discussion meeting (facilitate discussion on high-variance items first)
- Step 4: Final consensus scores recorded with rationale
- Step 5: Financial proposal opening (only for technically qualified proposals)
5. Technical Qualification Threshold
- Minimum overall score to be considered technically qualified: 70% (or 3.5 out of 5 weighted average)
- Minimum score on any single criterion: 2 out of 5 (no criterion may score below "Weak")
- Proposals below threshold are eliminated before financial evaluation
6. Financial Evaluation Method Propose the combined scoring formula:
- Option A: Lowest price, technically acceptable (binary technical threshold)
- Option B: Quality-cost ratio (e.g., 70% technical, 30% financial)
- Option C: Best value (narrative justification of value for money)
Recommend an approach and provide the formula for calculating combined scores.
7. Conflict of Interest and Ethics
- Panel member COI declaration form
- Confidentiality agreement template
- Recusal protocol if a panel member has a relationship with a bidder
- Documentation requirements for audit trail
8. Summary Comparison Template Design a final comparison table:
| Criterion | Weight | Firm A | Firm B | Firm C |
|---|
With a row for weighted total and ranking.