Understandably when responding to a ToR it is simply not advisable to complain about the poor quality of the ToR…. You just do your very best possible to respond in line with what is requested …, however, you see the ‘mess’ and you are amazed that this is not stopped by the hierarchy before the ToR is being published….
As an example we see ToRs with numerous Project Purposes instead of one, as is being advocated in their own training manual. Some of those purposes are either results or even activities or just a silly statement like ‘implement the project’. Results are mostly activities and assumptions are supposed to have been checked and confirmed before the launch, like: ‘farmers willing to cooperate’. The intervention logic is often difficult to comprehend or has never been intended to be logical…. The elements of the project design are often mixed up and activities vague, simplistic or over estimated, like: ‘stimulate enterprises’. Moreover the execution capacity of the implementing agency is rarely properly assessed or even asked to assess …
You may think ‘lets not bother’ because once you have won the tender you may get a chance anyhow to fundamentally modify and negotiate the proposal during the Inception Phase, which sometimes even seems to be true…. Sounds weird isn’t it? What is the point of tendering this way?
When not complaining actually the author of the ToR and the organization are not even pointed at the weaknesses and will just continue producing poor quality ToRs.
Maybe you have an idea on how this problem can be addressed?
The dependency of the consultant on the administrator and on the typical tendering procedure does inhibit a frank and open discussion on the ToR and I guess you are not ventilating such ‘wise’ observations in the chapter ‘Comments on the ToR’? So where could one drop such complaints?
Lets gather ideas on how this problem can be highlighted, pin-pointed and hopefully corrected… How can we accept such flaws while our proposals are being judged for proper application of all the principles of the guiding planning instruments that must be followed….
Please provide your comments and suggestions at the bottom of this page
Leave your name and email and tick the right box of your interest and we will get back to you as soon as possible!
‘Standard format’ of a Terms of Reference
When you would like to test your ToR you could consult the following format which tries to cover most chapters and sub-chapters that should show up somehow in a Terms of Reference.
We have divided the ToR into two main components:
- The WHAT should happen part dealing with the project under study and
- The HOW should it happen part dealing with the organization of the mission, which actually can be considered as a project too.
Then on the content and methodology you can expect either instructions or questions.
Please use the following check-list to verify and compare your ToR and identify possible weaknesses in your ToR. As noted in the discussion above you may develop an approach on how to respond to that ToR.
Format of a Terms of Reference
for an (identification) mission and indicating aspects for a (formulation / monitoring / evaluation) mission
THE MISSION (instructions)
Chapter A: Justification of the ( identification) mission
- Request
- Relevance of the mission in relation to donor policy / sectors / themes
- Description of formulation of the request
- Description context of the request
- Justification proposed location of the proposed intervention
Chapter B: Objectives of mission
- Delivery of a qualitative proper document
- Verify the reliability of the given data
Chapter C: Scope of the mission
- Present decisions on geographical areas, beneficiaries and sectors decided upon.
Chapter D: Role of the organisations in mission
- Lead partner!
- National experts!
- Legal framework and mandate!
- Office and secretarial support to the mission.
Chapter E: Method to be applied
- Method(s) of data collection (workshops, interviews, PRA, etc.
- Contacts / institutions to consult
- Own suggestions?
Chapter F: Expertise required
- Positions and roles of members in the mission
- Local expertise
- Expatriate expertise
Chapter G: Duration of the mission
- Duration
- Phases
- Steps plan
Chapter H: Budget mission
- By component
Chapter I: Reporting mission
- Rapport: when, form, length, language, copies, abbreviations, content, style, chapters, ToR and CV’s of the members of the mission
Chapter J: Products
- Identification report on project
- ToR of Formulation mission
- Memorandum of Understanding with partners
- Report on the mission
THE PROJECT (questions to be answered)
Chapter 1: Background information
- Verify the location of the proposed intervention?
- Check reliability of the data mentioned in the request
- General motivation- why this request – to us?, at this moment ?
Chapter 2: The intervention (WHAT should happen to satisfy the beneficiaries)
- Who are the beneficiaries / ‘end-users’ and why were they selected?
- Description?
- Diagnosis using the problem analysis
- Logical Framework
– Overall Objectives?
– Project Purpose + OVI’s?
– Results + OVI’s?
– FORMULATION: Activities? - Options or alternatives: justification of the choice
- FORMULATION: indicators of Results, Project Purpose and Assumptions
- FORMULATION: modifications to the Logical Framework
- FORMULATION: Feasibility of choices
Chapter 3: Hypotheses and risk factors to the WHAT matrix
- Define assumptions / hypotheses
- What could be possible negative side effects?
- Assess the coherence with other donors
- What is the flexibility of the project design with respect of the occurrence of possible risk factors
Chapter 4: FORMULATION: Institutional strengthening (HOW should it happen)
- Who are the actors and implementing agencies and why were they selected?
- Description?
- Diagnosis using the problem analysis
- Management matrix:
– Management Purpose: Professional functioning
– Management Results?
– Management activities? - Options or alternatives: justification of the choice
- Indicators of Management Results, Management Purpose and Assumptions
Chapter 5: Hypotheses and risk factors to the Management matrix (HOW)
- Define assumptions / hypotheses
- What could be possible negative side effects?
- Assess the coherence with other donors
- What is the flexibility of the project design with respect of the occurrence of possible risk factors
Chapter 6: Sustainability
- Test project design on sustainability criteria
- Government policy?
- Legal framework?
- Ownership?
- Technological aspects / maintenance?
- Social factors?
- Gender specificities?
- Environmental concerns?
- Management and organisational capacity. Expected organisational capacity of the implementing agencies in future
- Financial sustainability?
- Economic embedding?
Chapter 7: Execution / co-operation modalities
- How will the beneficiaries be involved
- What will be the contribution of the recipient country / organisation / beneficiaries?
- What is the commitment of the involved parties?
- What is the type / modality of the assistance?
- Formal structures / Memoranda of Understanding
- What would be the scope of the Technical Assistance?
- Procurement procedures and organisation?
- FORMULATION: How is or will the capacity of the implementing agencies be strengthened ?
Chapter 8: Project Management
- Organisational structure?
- Inter-organisational relations?
- Staffing (expatriate vs national)?
- Tasks & Job descriptions?
- Internal strengthening (Support matrix)
- and operational budget?
- Monitoring & Evaluation modalities?
- Handing-over plan?
Chapter 9: FORMULATION: Monitoring & Evaluation Plan
- Participatory M&E processes?
- Objectively Verifiable Indicators of Results, Project Purpose, (Overall Objectives) and Assumptions?
- Monitoring plan: Data collection and analysis
- Learning: Who reports what, when and to who?
Chapter 10: Duration project
- What will be the expected duration of the project?
- What phases can be identified?
- FORMULATION: More details on phases.
Chapter 11: Budget
- Rough budget
- FORMULATION: Budget check and details
- FORMULATION: Financing plan
Chapter 12 References
- List of consulted evaluation report
- publications
Chapter 13: ANNEXES
- ToR Formulation (and scope of mission)
– Results + OVI’s
– Activities
– Financing plan
– Budget of the Formulation mission
– etc. - FORMULATION: ToR Technical Assistance
- FORMULATION: Proposal for the agreement / contract
Please do send your document (Terms of Reference) in case you would like us to review and comment on it.
Leave your name and email and tick the right box of your interest and we will get back to you as soon as possible!
Thank you Erik! This is a real issue and it is getting worst. I guess it comes from high turn over, no proper training of staff and overload of projects to follow. My experience is that it is very hard to change them during the inception phase, it depends on the level of open mindness of the task manager and if he/she wrote the ToR…however, I always try to develop a logframe which is more coherent and this is generally accepted
Effectively it’s quite difficult to criticize the ToRs in the proposal.
That’s why I am always suggesting to answer exactly to the ToRs and to bit as low as possible.
If extension in funds and time is authorized, I suggest including the chapter ‘Comments on the ToR’ in the inception report and like Stephanie to rework the logical framework in order to justify an extension. And it’s work: I got a few extensions in funds and time and 3 times the maximum of 50%
not only for little projects but for 3.5 millions extended to 4.6 and 1 million to 1.5, for 3 years to 4 ½ years, 2 years to 3 years.
There is no doubt that the quality of the ToRs has seriously decreased in the last years as has their use as a criteria for assessing the final product. In my view, this is largely due to a widespread policy among development agencies to get rid of experienced staff and have them replaced by cheaper less-experienced younger staff. How many times have I seen either very poorly-written ToR that seem to have a very superficial understanding of what is or should be asked or very generic ToR. In all these cases, the poor drafting of the ToR allow the agency staff to use a very broad interpretation of what had been asked: in other words, the agency staff had not done proper diligence in thinking out the key aspects of the project and only start identifying what they think they were upon delivery of the final product. As they hold the key to the delivery of final funds based on their satisfaction of their new understanding, the contractor is held hostage.
Trying to address the deficiencies of the ToR in the inception report can lead to a significantly altered budgetary amount for the project which many agencies will reject as it would force a reshuffling of their whole resources while saying that it is now the responsibility of the winning contractor. Bad situation all around…
I can’t agree more with what has been said by the colleagues. Not only: when conducting evaluations and criticizing the Logic of Intervention of the programme I evaluated, I often got the feeling that the donor really does not understand the rationale behind a well-structured intervention logic, and what bad consequences come from a badly designed logic. Maybe -as already pointed out- this is one of the consequences of having experienced staff replaced by young, inexperienced ones… Thanks in any case to Guibert for his hint, a very interesting indeed.
My experience is mainly with Call for tenders for Technical assistance to DGs and they are becoming worse and worse. Especially now that they work with a lump sum for Main Tasks…which they can’t define precisely :-((
If you are tendering against me, please go ahead and criticise the ToRs !
But joking aside, it is a problem of woolly thinking at the beginning of the project and raises the chance of poor performance and missed opportunities. Probably just rushing and throwing money out there to use up a budget within a financial year. After all these decades of learning by its mistakes the industry now loses its gains going up the experience curve, with junior or amateur specifiers, and no apparent QA to deal with the problem.
Indeed, when I see the rising percentage of M&E tenders on offer these days I wonder “what on earth are they measuring or evaluating” when jobs are badly designed or inadequately described in the ToRs ?
I guess, if you don’t know where you were going originally it’s a lot easier to say you have already arrived. Then it’s up to the implementer fashion the inception report accordingly and then to persuade the M&E specialist that this is what the client intended and “didn’t we do well ! “.
I do recognize that the quality of ToR can be a serious problem. My advice to you is to do your best to try and get the ToR improved before making your offer by simply asking a lot of (pertinent) questions as soon as you have read them (do not read them 2 days before the deadline for submitting your proposal). You will help the author think about his/her request and hopefully improve it and resubmit an improved version. There is no other way than trusting the capacity of the future client to recognize your added value. What do you think?