ToR Budget Fitness

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert M&E procurement specialist with experience pricing evaluations across sectors and geographies. Score the budget section of the evaluation Terms of Reference I will provide, paired with the scope and methods sections, using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - ToR Budget Fitness
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Scope-Cost Alignment
- Score 5: Budget envelope is adequate for the scope and methods specified. Implied daily rates align with market norms for the team composition. Total days of effort match the data collection plan (number of sites, sample size, qualitative depth). No obvious under-resourcing of any major phase (inception, fieldwork, analysis, reporting).
- Score 4: Budget mostly aligned with scope. One phase may be tight (e.g., analysis under-budgeted) but bidders could still deliver.
- Score 3: Budget envelope is plausible but tight given the scope. Bidders will need to compress one or more phases or cut corners on methods.
- Score 2: Budget is clearly inadequate for the methods specified. A mixed-methods evaluation budgeted at a desk-review price, or a multi-country study at a single-country price.
- Score 1: No budget envelope, OR budget is so far from the cost of the work described that no credible bidder could deliver.

DIMENSION 2: Cost Breakdown Specificity
- Score 5: Budget is broken into usable line items: personnel (by role and days), international travel, in-country travel, per diem, data collection costs, translation and transcription, analysis software or services, reporting and production, overhead. Bidders can map their costs to each line.
- Score 4: Most major categories broken out. One or two collapsed (e.g., all travel lumped, or personnel not split by role).
- Score 3: Budget split into 3-4 broad categories. Bidders must guess at internal allocation.
- Score 2: Budget given as a single number with no breakdown, OR split into "personnel" and "other" with no further detail.
- Score 1: No budget breakdown at all.

DIMENSION 3: Field Costs Realism
- Score 5: Transport, per diem, and local hire rates match the operating context. Number of field days, sites, and team members are budgeted consistently with the data collection plan. Security or remote-access premium is included where the context warrants it. Local enumerator rates reflect the country market.
- Score 4: Field costs broadly realistic. One element (e.g., per diem rate, or enumerator daily rate) is below market but bidders can absorb the difference.
- Score 3: Field costs present but generic. Per diem rates are not context-specific. Enumerator costs do not reflect local rates.
- Score 2: Field costs are under-budgeted by a clear margin (e.g., 5 sites budgeted as 2). Per diem and local hire ignored or set at unrealistic rates.
- Score 1: No field costs budgeted, OR field costs are so far from reality that the data collection plan cannot be executed.

DIMENSION 4: Hidden Cost Coverage
- Score 5: Translation and transcription are budgeted as explicit line items (with per-page or per-hour rates). Validation workshops are budgeted with venue, participant per diem, and facilitator time. Ethics review fees, equipment, communications, and final-report production (design, printing, dissemination) are explicit. Bidders do not need to absorb major cost categories.
- Score 4: Most hidden costs covered. One or two missing (e.g., validation workshop not budgeted, or transcription absorbed into "analysis").
- Score 3: Some hidden costs covered. Translation or transcription mentioned but not budgeted at the right scale. Validation absent or vague.
- Score 2: Hidden costs mostly absent. Bidders are expected to absorb translation, transcription, and validation into a thin overhead.
- Score 1: No hidden costs covered. Budget assumes a desk-review production model when the methods require fieldwork, translation, and validation.

DIMENSION 5: Contingency Provision
- Score 5: Contingency line item is included at a rate appropriate for the context (typically 5-10 percent of total, higher in fragile or remote settings). A rule is stated for when contingency can be drawn down (e.g., requires written justification and approval). Currency or inflation adjustment provisions are noted if the project spans more than 12 months.
- Score 4: Contingency line present at an appropriate rate. Drawdown rule absent or thin.
- Score 3: Contingency mentioned but not a separate line item, OR rate is too low for the context (e.g., 2 percent for a remote fragile-context evaluation).
- Score 2: No contingency budgeted. Bidders must absorb all unplanned costs.
- Score 1: No contingency, AND budget is already tight against scope, meaning any disruption forces method compromises.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Scope-Cost Alignment | | | |
| Cost Breakdown Specificity | | | |
| Field Costs Realism | | | |
| Hidden Cost Coverage | | | |
| Contingency Provision | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

BUDGET AND SCOPE SECTIONS TO SCORE:
[Paste your evaluation ToR budget and scope/methods sections here]