ANNEX I Example of Project Score Card - CBPF Standard Allocation
- 07 Dec 2023
- 1 Minute to read
- Print
- DarkLight
ANNEX I Example of Project Score Card - CBPF Standard Allocation
- Updated on 07 Dec 2023
- 1 Minute to read
- Print
- DarkLight
Article Summary
Share feedback
Thanks for sharing your feedback!
| Name of Partner: | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scorecard Parameters | Score | Notes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| 100 | Total Score: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| A | Strategic Relevance | 35 | Remarks | |||||||
| 1 | Is the project in line with the strategy outlined in the call for proposals and has it been discussed in advance with cluster coordinators? (Yes: 15; Partially: 5; No: 0) | 15 | ||||||||
| 2 | Do project activities directly address life-saving needs and are undertaken in a high priority geographical area as identified in the allocation strategy paper? (Yes: 10; No: 0) | 10 | ||||||||
| 3 | Are the activities time-critical and address anticipated needs in a timely fashion? (Yes: 10; Partially: 5; No: 0) | 10 | ||||||||
| B | Programmatic Relevance | 25 | ||||||||
| 4 | Does the project specifically respond to the programmatic approaches as defined in the cluster objectives outlined in the call for proposal? (Yes: 10; Partially: 5; No: 0) | 10 | ||||||||
| 5 | Are humanitarian needs presented in the proposal clearly defined and based on recent needs assessments? (Yes: 5; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 6 | Are beneficiaries clearly identified? Does the proposal clearly explain which beneficiaries will be targeted and where? (Yes: 5; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 7 | Does the proposal consider PSEA, gender, accountability to affected people, and mainstream protection? (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| C | Cost effectiveness | 15 | ||||||||
| 8 | Is the cost structure competitive or in line with cluster norms for the same type of project? (cost per beneficiary) (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 9 | Are the budget lines appropriate and reasonable for the proposed activities? (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 10 | Does the proposed period of implementation represent most efficient use of the resources? (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| D | Management and Monitoring | 15 | ||||||||
| 11 | Does the partner currently have sufficient capacity to implement proposed activities and has clearly articulated possible risks related to project delivery? (Yes:5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 12 | Does the partner have reliable presence in the project area? (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| 13 | Is the project logical framework SMART? (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) (Yes: 5; Partially: 3; No: 0) | 5 | ||||||||
| E | Engagement with Coordination | 10 | ||||||||
| 14 | Does the partner participate at cluster task force meeting (federal/regional) and provide timely information/reports? (Yes: 4; No: 0) | 4 | ||||||||
| 15 | Is the project sufficiently coordinated with other stakeholders on the ground? Is the cluster assured that the project will not lead to duplication and overlap of activities with other projects? (Yes: 3; No: 0) | 3 | ||||||||
| 16 | Does the proposing partner work with local Partners /NNGOs or is the proposal submitted by NNGO? (Yes:3; No: 0) | 3 | Total Score: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Recommended | Recommended by sector | |||||||
| Not recommended by sector |
Was this article helpful?