EVALUATION AND AUDIT
Step 1: Opening Session – Administrative and Eligibility Check
“Eligibility check” (verification of eligibility criteria) : it is necessary to verify that the application meets all the technical prerequisites as well as the given conditions of the Programme. The criteria are divided into key and specific
Key criteria (core criteria) should be met by all applicants:
- The application form was submitted on time
- The form is filled out correctly and all attachments are attached
- Everything is fulfilled in accordance with EU and national legislation
- The application provides added value and there is no doubt about double funding
Step 2: “Concept Note” Evaluation
At this stage, the process is mainly organized internally, although there are also examples when this evaluation is done by independent evaluators. The evaluation is done according to a predetermined form (evaluation grid), which mainly relates to relevance and methodology (project design).
Result: List of projects proposed for full application form evaluation
Step 3: Full Application Form Evaluation
Independent evaluators are hired and evaluation is done on the basis of defined evaluation forms (vary slightly for individual programs). Each project is evaluated by two evaluators. The difference in ratings should not exceed 10%. The final grade of the project is the grade point average of two evaluators.
Result: List of projects proposed for funding
Step 4: Final decision on project financing
During this stage, a ranking list of all projects is created by priority or measure. Applicants are informed of the success of their project proposals and the contracts are signed.
Full application evaluation criteria:
- Financial and operational capacity;
1. Financial and operational capacity
This criterion evaluates:
- Expertise of applicants and partners in the field of the proposed project;
- Experience working with proposed target groups;
- Experience working on projects (with special reference to EU projects);
- Quality of human, financial and management/operational capacities;
- The quality of the proposed candidates for the project;
- Division of tasks and responsibilities, how realistic and transparent the work plan is.
|1. Financial and operational capacity||20|
|1.1 Do applicants and, if applicable, partners have sufficient experience in project management?||5|
|1.2. Do applicants and, if applicable, partners have sufficient expertise? (especially knowledge of the topics they deal with.)||5|
|1.3 Do applicants and, where applicable, partners have sufficient management skills? (including personnel, equipment and project budget management capability)||5|
|1.4 Does the applicant have permanent and sufficient sources of funding?||5|
1.1 Do applicants and partners have sufficient experience in project management?
Have the applicant and partners implemented EU-funded projects??
Is there a project management mechanism established within the application structure with a clear distinction between partner functions and responsibilities?
Is there a mechanism for the inflow of information and who and how makes decisions based on this information, especially those relating to funding?
1.2 Do applicants and partners have sufficient expertise?
Have the applicant and partners dealt with similar topics so far (as those described in the project) and have they worked with project target groups so far?
Do team members have the necessary expertise? (Do the attached CVs state experience in previous projects, publications, relevant occupation, etc.)?
Do the applicant and partners rely solely on external experts to carry out project activities? Is the involvement of external experts on the project justified?
1.3 Do applicants and partners have sufficient management capacity?
- Do the applicant or partners have a sufficient number of staff for the implementation of project activities (permanent staff, volunteers, members of the Management Board, etc.)?
- Do the applicant or partners have the minimum required equipment for the implementation of activities (computer, phone, e-mail)?
- Is there a permanent financial expert/accountant in the applicant institution?
1.4 Do applicants and partners have permanent and sufficient sources of funding?
- Is there evidence of the applicant’s and fundraising partners’ ability?
- Is there any evidence of sustainability of project results at the end of the project by the applicant’s own financial resources and partners?
Relevance criterion evaluates:
- the importance of the problem that the project wants to solve in relation to the defined target groups and
- coherence of problems with objectives and priorities (cross-border cooperation programmes or other programmes);
- Relevance is among the most scoring criteria
|2.1 How relevant is the project proposal to the objectives and priorities of the call for proposals?|
Note: 5 points (very good) will only be awarded if the proposal contains specific elements of added value, such as promoting gender equality and equal opportunities …
|5 x 2|
|2.2 How relevant is the project proposal to the specific needs and limitations of the programme area? (including synergies with other EC initiatives and avoiding duplication).||5|
|2.3 How clearly defined and strategically selected are the persons involved (the final users, target groups)? Are their needs clearly defined, and does the project proposal refer to them appropriately? (Does the proposal refer to the needs of target groups on both sides of the border?)||5 x 2|
|(2.4. Does the proposal include real cross-border cooperation? Proposals with more than one form of cooperation and credible cross-border cooperation (joint development, joint funding, joint staff and joint implementation) will be awarded more points.)|
|(2.5 Is there a likelihood that the proposed actions will have a clear cross-border benefit?)|
2.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and selected priority measures of the call for proposals
- Is there consistency between the overall objectives of the project and the program objectives?
- Will the implementation of the project contribute (in the long term) to the achievement of the programme objectives?
- Is there a clear connection between the project and the Program (OP, dr.?)
2.2 How relevant is the proposal to the specific needs and limitations of the programme area?
- Is there a well-established problem in the “justification” section of the project?
- Is there evidence that the applicant used official data (strategies, statistics office data, etc.) and that justification is not based solely on perception/rumors?
2.3 How clearly defined and strategically selected are the persons involved (end users, target groups)?
- Are there significant groups not involved in the project whose non-participation could have a detrimental impact on its implementation?
- Are there groups that could adversely affect the implementation of activities?
The methodology also evaluates:
- the quality of partnerships between actors,
- degree of involvement of target groups,
- an assessment of the established time frame and
- indicator quality.
|3.1 Whether the proposed activities are appropriate, practical and consistent with|
Goals and expected results? (Is the level of action taken on both sides of the border balanced?)
|3.2 How coherent is the overall structure of the project?|
(in particular, does the analysis of the problems involved reflect, are external factors taken into account?)
|3.3 Is the level of involvement and participation of partners and/or other stakeholders in the project satisfactory?|
(How well is the cross-border partnership organized?)
|3.4 Is the action plan clear and feasible?||5|
|3.5 Whether the proposal contains objectively verifiable project outcome indicators?||5|
3.1 Are the proposed activities appropriate, practical and consistent with the objectives and expected results?
- Are the goal, target groups, results, duration and date of completion, resources, responsibilities, etc. defined for each activity?
- Are the activities in line with the project objectives? Are there activities that are not foreseen that are necessary for the effective implementation of the project?
- Are activities feasible with regard to number, time, cost efficiency (human and material resources used)?
3.2 How coherent is the overall structure of the project?
- Is the methodology of implementation of activities detailed and clear?
- Are all the proposed methods and approaches relevant to the level of knowledge/background and the cultural specificity of the target group?
- Is there any confirmation that the proposed team has the skills and experience necessary to apply the proposed methodology?
3.3 Is the level of involvement and participation of applicants and partners satisfactory?
- Is the participation of partners justified?
- Do partners have a real role to play in the implementation of the project?
3.4 Is the Action Plan clear and feasible?
- Are these activities realistically feasible at the foreseen time and with the specified human resources?
- Are the responsibilities of the partners clearly defined for each activity?
Check to see if the indicators are:
- ldefined with regard to the overall objective of the project, specific objectives and results?
- specific to the project and closely related to the project objectives and results?
- quantified and in a time frame?
- reliable? Do they allow comparability of results?
- simple and inexpensive, or require a lot of time and resources to collect?
- Have the sources of funding been identified, as well as the frequency of data collection and the responsibility of partners with regard to the collection of this data?
The sustainability criterion evaluates:
- the expected impact or positive change that the project will cause in the target group is assessed;
- the effectiveness of the envisaged mechanisms that guarantee the availability of factors (financial and institutional), which will affect the sustainability of project results;
- the impact of projects on decision-making and on environmental protection;
|4.1 Will the project have a tangible impact on target groups?||5|
|4.2 Is there a likelihood that the proposal will have a multiplication effect? (includingand opportunities for replication and expansion of project results and dissemination of information).||5|
|4.3 Are the expected results of the proposed project sustainable:|
– financial (how will activities be financed after the termination of the given funding?)
– Institutional (will the structures that allow the continuation of activities be in the same position at the end of the project? Will there be local “ownership” of the project results?)
– at the level of public policy (where applicable) (what will be the structural impact of the project -whether it will lead to improvements in legislation, code of conduct, methods,etc.)?
– environmentally friendly (if applicable) (will the project have a negative/positive environmental impact?)
4.1 Will the project have a tangible impact on target groups?
- Will the planned activities lead to the achievement of these results?
- Will these results lead to the achievement of the specific objectives of the project? Will the achievement of specific objectives contribute to the achievement of the overall objectives of the project?
4.2 Is there a probability that the proposal will have a multiplier effect?
- Do applicants and partners identify parties/organisations that may be interested in implementing this model/practice?
- Does the project provide a mechanism for providing information to parties/organizations during the implementation of the project, so that these institutions are interested and motivated to apply?
4.3 Whether the expected results of the proposed project are sustainable; financially, institutionally, at the level of public policy, environmentally?
Other important questions
Ecological: Is there any evidence that the project will have a negative/positive impact on the environment?
Gender issue(s): Does the project provide equal access for men and women in project activities and results?