Jean Roberts

Evaluation methodology is an important feature in your tender, proposal, quote or submission document

Therefore, you should include sufficient details of your proposed evaluation methodology to assure the assessors of your intention and ability to ensure satisfactory delivery of the specified goods or services, for example, meeting or complying with specifications relating to cost, delivery, quality and timeliness.

It’s very easy to make statements and claims relating to delivery of the specified goods or services offered in your tender, proposal, quote or submission document.  However, at key stages – and/or on conclusion – of the contract period, you will be held accountable for process and progress in fulfilling your statements and claims.

It’s always wise to include details of your evaluation (i) methodology and (ii) schedule in your document, explaining how you are going to monitor and measure process (how and in what order things are done) and progress (meeting/complying with assessment criteria, deliverables and schedules as detailed in the pre-deadline specifications or discussions).

Note:  This article is also a feature of Jean’s Successful Quoting and Tendering e-book 

Suggested evaluation report

This article offers a structure for an evaluation report.  Apart from satisfying your client or funding source, such a report also offers substantial benefits within your own organisation by providing a factual basis for review and improvement of your existing systems, methods, estimating and project management, ie it becomes a tool in your internal continuous quality improvement processes.

The basis of an evaluation report should include:

1. evaluation or assessment criteria and detailed specifications as set out in the pre-deadline documentation or discussions,
2. stated aim and objectives of the contract or funded deliverables,
3. offers of quality levels, value-add or innovative approaches presented in your document,
4. cost, price, delivery and timeliness estimates,
5. target dates through the project life-time, especially the target end-date,
6. anticipated levels of satisfaction for key stakeholders
7. anticipated performance and continuity of people identified as significant in the contract implementation, management, monitoring and evaluation, and
8. evaluation methodology as identified and explained in your document and included in your contract schedule, together with related costs that would have been included in your budget estimates.

Suggested structure

This sample structure – for the purpose of simplicity - is based on the following stated criteria for the assessment of small grant submissions from Community Workers for CALD-specific community awareness projects.   It can be adapted to projects of a wide range of complexity or simplicity.  You are welcome to contact Jean with any queries relating to adaptation, particularly relating to deliverables required to meet or comply with detailed and measurable specifications.

Five Criteria:

1. process of selection of the focus on community awareness reflects the needs of the specified CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) Community
2. project outcomes are relevant and clearly articulated
3. strategies for delivery are practical and reflect identified needs or specifications
4. evaluation methodology is practical and directly linked to the project
5. project is achievable within the time and budgetary constraints

First section:          Criterion 1 – process of selection of the focus on community awareness reflects the needs of the specified CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) Community

1. Identify the community awareness focus
2. Explain the process you used to select this focus
3. Give your reasons for selecting this focus, which could include a description of the difficulties experienced through lack of awareness of community resources within your CALD Community, and how your project was designed to reduce the nature, extent and impact of such difficulties within your Community
4. Explain the social, personal and financial impact of these difficulties on an individual, families, workplaces, neighbourhoods – or the community as a whole
5. Explain the improvements/outcomes you expected through implementation of your project – immediate, short-term and long-term (these will be referred to as ‘anticipated outcomes’)

Second section:    Criterion 2 – project outcomes are relevant and clearly articulated - as you are writing this evaluation report very soon after completion of your project, you can only report on the immediate outcomes of your project:  short-term outcomes are things that happen or are recognised after a period of 3 months, and long-term outcomes are things that happen or are recognised after a period of 1 year

1. List your project’s ‘anticipated outcomes’, as featured in your document, and explain the process you used to select them
2. On reflection, were your anticipated outcomes realistic?  If not, why weren’t they?
3. Explain how these ‘anticipated outcomes’ addressed (a) the incidence of your stated difficulties within your Community, (b) the effect, impact or likelihood of these difficulties within your Community
4. Explain (a) whether, how and how well your anticipated outcomes were achieved, and (b) other things that happened that you had not expected, ie unanticipated outcomes

Third section:     Criterion 3 – strategies for delivery are practical and reflect identified needs or specifications

1. Did your target group find your project easy to understand and follow?
2. Was it easy for them to take part, or were numbers reduced due to travel or other ‘access’ difficulties?
3. Was the information and assistance offered through your project accepted and used by your target group, and/or seen to be of use in the future?
4. Did you expect the incidence of these difficulties to be less after your project than it was before:  did this happen, and how were you able to predict this?
5. Explain how you can assess these likely outcomes (this relates to your evaluation method)
6. On reflection, could you have implemented your project in another way to achieve a greater level of use and usefulness?
7. Would you do anything differently if you were to repeat this project?
8. What advice would you give to someone else who wishes to implement your project in another CALD community?

Fourth section:    Criterion 4 – evaluation methodology is practical and directly linked to the project

1. Explain why you chose this evaluation methodology above another
2. How did you implement your evaluation methodology?  (Was it a useful methodology?  Did it take a reasonable amount of time or too much time?  Did your target group feel comfortable with it?)
3. How do you interpret your evaluation results?  (Link this interpretation directly to your anticipated outcomes firstly, then to your unanticipated outcomes)
4. Did your budget cover your evaluation?
5. Would you use this evaluation methodology again for a similar project?

Fifth section:      Criterion 5 – project is achievable within the time and budgetary constraints

1. Explain whether your costs were within budget, and whether individual categories of expenditure were adequate
2. Explain whether your implementation plan was able to be completed as planned, or if you had to change dates or sequence for any reason
3. Explain if any task within your implementation plan was not able to be done, and why not
4. Explain if there were other things that had to be done that you hadn’t anticipated, and whether your budget was adequate to cover the cost of these
5. What pleased your target group most about this project?

Email Jean if you are interested in adapting this sample evaluation report structure to your specific requirements