Analysis table: Authorised for use/Funding Application

A. Quality of the project (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact)
1. RELEVANCE ANALYSIS / Yes / No / Comments
1.1 Are the beneficiaries clearly identified?
1.2 Were the beneficiaries/target groups involved in identifying the problems?
1.3 Are the problems and their causes clearly identified?
1.4 Do the objectives defined offer a suitable response to the problems identified?
1.5 Are the expected outcomes relevant and consistent with the specific objective(s)?
1.6 Are the objectives in line with the priorities outlined in the call for proposals and/or national priorities?
General assessment - summary
2. POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS / Yes / No / Comments
2.1 Isit possible to implement the activities and achieve the objectivesin the intervention context?
2.2 Are the activities consistent with expected outcomes?
2.3 Are the proposed means sufficient and adapted to the implementation of the activities?
2.4 Is the duration of the project sufficient for realising all the activities and achieving the expected outcomes?
2.5 Will the results indicators (OVI) and monitoring system effectively measure whether outcomes have been obtained?
General assessment - summary
3. POTENTIAL EFFICENCY ANALYSIS / Yes / No / Comments
3.1 Are the means and resources (human, financial and technical) sufficient and adapted to the project as a whole and to each activity?
3.2 Is the timeline for the organisation of activities realistic and consistent with the project's expected outcomes?
* presented in the form of a Pert diagram, for example
3.3 Is priority given to local material, financing and human resources (of equal competence)?
3.4 Are administrative costs kept to an acceptable proportion of the overall cost of the activities, in the context and for this type of project?
General assessment - summary
4. POTENTIAL SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS / Yes / No / Comments
4.1 Are the technical, human and financial resources needed for the activities and their possible continuation accessible and available locally?
4.2 Is it planned totransfer competencies to local stakeholders (beneficiaries, partners, authorities, services) or strengthen their capacities?
4.3 Have funding sources been identified for maintaining the activities when the project comes to an end?Will the people in charge of these activities be capable of continuing them?
4.4 Is a learning-from-experience approach in place so that the activities can later be duplicated/disseminated, particularly pilot activities?
4.5 Is HI's exit strategy clearly identified?
General assessment - summary
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS / Yes / No / Comments
5.1 Will the project's expected outcomes contribute towards strengthening the target public'scapacities and opportunities over the long-term (for example, recognition of their rights, improved living or health conditions, increased social participation, etc.)?
5.2 Are longer-term changes envisaged for people and/or structures that are not part of the project?(other vulnerable communities and/orpublic administrations, for example)
5.3 Has anynegative impact liable to be caused by the project been avoided or reduced to a minimum?
5.4 Does the project contribute towards realising Handicap International's mission and/or strengthening the organisation?(Know-how, recognition, etc.)
General assessment - summary

SUMMARY OF QUALITY CRITERIA ANALYSES

Yes / No / Comments
1 Relevance
2 Effectiveness
3 Efficiency
4 Sustainability
5 Impact
Generalassessment
B – Consistency with internal technical reference documents (TC Unit strategy, technical framework documents)
ANALYSIS OF CONSISTENCY WITH TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS / Yes / No / Comments
With internal framework documents validated by the TRD
With internal technical reference documents ( HI lesson-learning)
General assessment
C – Feasibility of the project with regard to required technical resources
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO REQUIRED TECHNICAL RESOURCES / Yes / No / Comments
Are the technical staffing requirements clearly formulated and sufficient?(number and competencies required)
Are the requirements in terms of material technical resources clearly formulated and sufficient?
Are the external risks and assumptions relative to technical resources outlined in the logical framework?
Have the risks mentioned given rise to a risk management plan or an alternative scenario?
General assessment