You are an expert M&E evaluation specialist. Score the evaluation Terms of Reference (ToR) I have attached or pasted using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Evaluation ToR Quality
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Background and Scope Clarity
| 5 | All four elements present and well-developed. Program described specifically (what, where, when, target population, scale), evaluation purpose explicit (formative, summative, or mixed; at what decision point), intended users named (named roles or organizations), decision context articulated (what decisions will be informed by findings). |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. May lack named decision context or fully named users. |
| 3 | At least two of four elements present. Program description and purpose stated, but users or decision context generic. |
| 2 | One element present. Background reads as boilerplate without specific scope or users. |
| 1 | No clear background or scope. ToR jumps straight to tasks without context. |
DIMENSION 2: Evaluation Questions and Criteria
| 5 | All four elements present. Evaluation questions are specific and answerable with the proposed methods, each question is mapped to one or more evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, or alternatives), sub-questions identified for each main question, and the user or decision-maker for each question is named. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Questions are answerable and mapped to criteria; sub-questions or named users partially present. |
| 3 | At least two of four elements present. Questions present but criteria mapping is implicit. No sub-questions or named users. |
| 2 | Questions are vague ("How successful was the program?") or unanswerable with the proposed methods. No criteria mapping. No sub-questions. |
| 1 | No evaluation questions, OR questions are tasks rather than questions ("Conduct an evaluation of..."). |
DIMENSION 3: Methodology Specification
| 5 | All four elements present. Design type named (e.g., quasi-experimental, mixed-methods case study, contribution analysis) with rationale tied to evaluation questions, sampling expectations specified (probability or purposive, approximate size or range), primary and secondary data sources listed, analysis approach described (e.g., mixed-methods integration plan, qualitative coding, statistical methods). |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Design and approach named; sampling or analysis briefly described. |
| 3 | At least two of four elements present. Design type named but rationale generic. Sampling or analysis vague. |
| 2 | Methodology described as "mixed methods" or similar without specification. No design rationale. |
| 1 | No methodology specified, OR ToR specifies methods that cannot answer the evaluation questions. |
DIMENSION 4: Deliverables, Timeline, and Budget Realism
| 5 | All five elements present. Deliverables listed with content specifications (e.g., inception report, draft report, final report, presentation), milestones tied to specific dates or weeks, total days and cost or budget envelope stated, payment schedule linked to deliverables, communication plan with frequency and format. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least four of five elements present. Deliverables and milestones clear; budget or payment schedule may be partial. |
| 3 | At least three of five elements present. Deliverables and timeline present but budget or payment schedule absent. No communication plan. |
| 2 | Two or fewer elements present. Deliverables listed but with no milestones, budget, or schedule. |
| 1 | No specified deliverables, timeline, or budget. ToR is unreasonable to bid on. |
DIMENSION 5: Ethics and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
| 5 | All four elements present. Consent and safeguarding requirements specified for all data subjects, vulnerable population protections defined (children, conflict-affected, marginalized groups), stakeholder validation plan included (when findings will be reviewed by program staff, beneficiaries, or partners), dissemination plan addresses post-evaluation communication. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Consent and validation present; vulnerable population protections or dissemination plan partial. |
| 3 | At least two of four elements present. Consent referenced and one other element present. No detailed safeguarding or validation. |
| 2 | Ethics referenced as a checkbox ("evaluators will follow ethical standards") without specification. No validation or dissemination plan. |
| 1 | No ethics or stakeholder engagement provisions. |
OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from ToR | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background and Scope Clarity | |||
| Evaluation Questions and Criteria | |||
| Methodology Specification | |||
| Deliverables, Timeline, and Budget Realism | |||
| Ethics and Stakeholder Engagement Plan |
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] Procurement Risk: [None / Minor clarifications needed / Recommend revision before issuing / Do not issue without major revision]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
EVALUATION ToR TO SCORE: (See the attached or pasted document.)
Document to review: Attached, or pasted below. Base everything above on it and do not invent details that are not in it.