Documente online.
Username / Parola inexistente
  Zona de administrare documente. Fisierele tale  
Am uitat parola x Creaza cont nou
  Home Exploreaza
Upload






























EVALUATION GRID

administration


Evaluation Grid

For BG ACCESS-2000 Macro/Micro-Project Scheme



Grid completed by __________ ______ ____ ____________ Date: __/__/2002

I. IDENTIFICATION DATA

Reference number:

Budget line:

BG 0010

Main Applicant (country):

Bulgaria

Partner 1 (country)

Partner 2 (country)

Partner . (country)

Title of Project:

Region(s) or countries targeted:

Amount requested (and % of total):

________ EUR ( ___%)

Duration:

___ months

Scoring Guidelines

This evaluation grid is divided into sections and subsections. Each subsection must be given a score between 1 and 5 in accordance with the following guidelines:

Score

Meaning

Very poor

Poor

Adequate

Good

Very good

These scores are to be added up and, together, they will form the total score for any given section. These section totals are to be listed in section 6 and, added up, they will form the total score for the proposal.

Each section contains a box for comments. These comments should address the issues covered by that section. Comments must be made on each section. If an evaluator allocates a score of 1 (very poor), 2 (poor) or 5 (very good) to a subsection, the reasons for allocating such a score must be given in the comments box. The comments boxes may be expanded if necessary.

Evaluation Grid

Section

Score

Application Form

1. Relevance

How relevant is the proposal to the Programme priorities? Note: A score of 5 will only be allocated if the project addresses at least 1 priority.

/2 x 5 =

I.1.5

I.6.(f), (g)

How relevant is the proposal to the needs and constraints of Bulgaria?

I.1.6(a)

How clearly defined and strategically chosen are the target groups and the beneficiaries?

I.1.6(b), (c

How relevant is the proposal to the needs of the proposed target groups?

I.1.6(d), (e)

How coherent, appropriate and practical are the activities proposed?

I.1.7

To what extent does the proposal contain innovative approaches, models for good practice, promotion of gender equality and equal opportunities?

General

Comments

2. Methodology

2.1 How coherent is the overall project design?

I.1.8

2.2 How satisfactory is the level of involvement and activity of the partners?   Note: For micro-projects, If there are no partner(s) the score will be 1

I.1.8(f), (g)

2.3 How appropriate and practical are the activities proposed? How clear and feasible is the plan of action?



I.1.9

2.4 How satisfactory is the level of community involvement and co-operation with other institutions (regardless of co-operation with the partner)?

I.1.8 (h)

2.5 To what extent does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators for project outcomes? How feasible are results of the project?

Logframe

Comments

3. Sustainability

3.1 To what extent is the project likely to have a tangible impact on its target groups?

I.2.1

3.2 To what extent does the proposal contain potential multiplier effects? (Including possibilities for replication and extension of project outcomes, dissemination of information.)

I.2.3

3.3 To what extent are the results of the proposed project sustainable:

financially (how will the activities be financed after the EC funding ends?)

institutionally (Will structures allowing the activities to continue be in place at the end of the present project? Will there be local "ownership" of project outcomes?)

at the policy level (where applicable) (what will be the structural impact of the project - e.g. will it lead to improved legislation, codes of conduct, methods)

I.2.4

Comments

4. Budget and Cost-effectiveness

To what extent is the budget clear and detailed?

I.3, Budget

4.2 To what extent is the proposed expenditure necessary for the implementation of the project?

I.3, Budget

Comments

5. Management Capacity and Expertise

5.1 How satisfactory is the previous project management experience of the applicant? Note: if the applicant has no previous project management experience, the score will be 1.

II.4, II.5

5.2 How satisfactory is the technical expertise of the applicant?

(I.e. knowledge of the issues to be addressed.)

II.4.1

CVs

5.3 How satisfactory is the current management capacity of the applicant (including staff, equipment and its ability to handle the project budget)?

II.4.2

CVs

Comments

6. Total Score and Recommendations

Score

6.1 Relevance

6.2 Methodology

6.3 Sustainability

6.4 Budget and Cost-effectiveness

6.5 Management Capacity and Expertise

TOTAL:

Recommendation:

Not Selected:

Note on Section 1. Relevance

If a total score lower than "good" (28 points) is obtained for section 1, the proposal will not be evaluated further.

Note on Scoring

Priority will be given to applications, which have obtained the highest scores.





Document Info


Accesari: 1079
Apreciat: hand-up

Comenteaza documentul:

Nu esti inregistrat
Trebuie sa fii utilizator inregistrat pentru a putea comenta


Creaza cont nou

A fost util?

Daca documentul a fost util si crezi ca merita
sa adaugi un link catre el la tine in site


in pagina web a site-ului tau.




eCoduri.com - coduri postale, contabile, CAEN sau bancare

Politica de confidentialitate | Termenii si conditii de utilizare




Copyright Contact (SCRIGROUP Int. 2024 )