Evaluation Questions. Q1. Describe the customer service team that will be dedicated to the State of Florida account, including the team structure and how State of Florida users will be able to contact your company for customer service.
Evaluation Questions. This section is worth 250 points in the Technical Proposal. Each Question will be assigned points based evaluation criteria outlined below: Evaluation Questions
Evaluation Questions. The crawler used in the evaluation has four functions; each of them was inspected.
Evaluation Questions. Below are a set of general questions organized by categories that support the evaluation goals and objectives. The general questions served as the basis for the interview guides. Technical progress toward achieving results • Is the CIRD technical strategy clearly linked to the USAID results? • Are the workplan andactivities clearly linked to the USAID results? • What measurable progress has been made toward the expected results? • Does the monitoring and evaluation plan, process and tools adequately measure the desired results? • If there have been problems achieving the stated results, what have they been and why? • How can the strategy and/or workplan be modified to address these challenges? Management support toward achieving results • Has CIRD hired the staff and consultants with the appropriate skills and experience? Are there enough staff to carry out the workplan within budget? • Do CIRD staff and consultants’ scopes of work job match the technical program? Are the staff fully utilized to their potential? Are the staff producing the desired technical results? • Does the workplan program the right type and mix of technical activities that will lead to the desired technical results? • Does the budget support these activities? • Does CIRD management review workplan activities and budgets on a regular basis to ensure that activities are on-time and on-track to deliver results? Do they review it with the staff? • Do CIRD staff and consultants receive adequate and timely guidance and feedback on their work from Project Director? From USAID? Quality of CIRD technical assistance • Does CIRD provide timely and quality technical assistance that responds to the counterparts needs? • How well do CIRD staff work with the counterparts? With USAID? With other partner organizations? • Do CIRD staff use the latest methodologies and technical approaches in their work? • What is positive and you want CIRD to continue and/or expand? • How can CIRD improve the quality of their technical assistance?
Evaluation Questions. The following is a list of indicative and generic evaluation questions. A more specific set of evaluation questions shall be drafted and validated during the inception phase of the evaluation, especially taking account of the results described in ‘COVID delays mitigation’ above, so that the external evaluation efforts are complementary to those already evident from the project progress reports produced in December 2022. The CLIMWAR project (started 2017) also provided an extensive report, including self-assessment, at the end of 2022. In line with the main purpose presented above, the evaluation will focus on the following two main aspects. ⮚ Adequacy of XXXX Governance, management and coordination mechanisms: Coherence: • In what ways could the deployment of resources under XXXX be optimized to enhance the potential impacts of the invested financial resources (e.g., ensuring complementarities with other UNESCO donors in order to multiply effects and avoid duplications)? (Question AC-1) Efficiency: • How effective and efficient are the governance, coordination, advisory, management frameworks established under the trust fund by the two sides? This includes the meetings of the Steering Committee and bilateral consultations between UNESCO’s relevant services and the Flemish Government (in particular with BSP, the Natural Science Sector, IOC and concerned field offices) and the project selection process in Flanders. (Question AE-1) ⮚ Assessment of projects funded under the Trust Fund, in particular the following selected Large-Scale projects: OTGA 2, OIH, PACMAN, CLIMWAR and BE- RESILIENT - Relevance: • To what extent was the timeframe, the geographic coverage and thematic coverage of the projects adequate within the context of the overall programmes? (Question R-1) • What is the current and future potential of the projects to contribute to relevant UNESCO’s/ the Flemish government policies in the light of the 2030 Agenda? (Question R-2) • To what extent did the selected projects meet stakeholder and beneficiaries’ needs in consideration of regional, national and basin scale (local) priorities? (Question R-3) Has there been particular attention to consideration of how scientific and science-based activities can be true enablers, how the projects related to specific area-based disadvantaged groups, indigenous peoples, and any social and environmental concerns specific to the project and, more generally, of gender equality? (Question R-4) Coherence: • How has t...
Evaluation Questions. This M&E Plan contains the following evaluation questions; however, the final list of questions will be documented in the final evaluation designs. Facility Sub-Activity: Wherever relevant, each evaluation question shall be addressed for both funding windows
Evaluation Questions. During the evaluation and selection process, the Lead State and its evaluation team may require the availability of a Proposer's representative, who is able to bind the Proposer contractually, to answer specific questions in writing.
Evaluation Questions. Evaluation questions should be informed by the theories of change, and the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria. It is expected that the Mid-Term Evaluations will focus particularly on the DAC evaluation criteria of efficiency, effectiveness and relevance. The End- Programme Evaluations should additionally cover the criteria of impact and sustainability.1
Evaluation Questions. The IEB will evaluate the extent to which IGC successfully influences the adoption and implementation of credible growth policies in developing countries, and influences global debates. The IEB should be guided by considering the evaluation questions below, but are free to set their own, and ensure alignment with the evaluation purpose and objectives set out in Section 2 above as well as recognised evaluation criteria (the DAC evaluation criteria).
Evaluation Questions. The desired outcomes driving Georgia Organics’ FTS program are centered around increased access and implementation of FTS for districts and ECE centers, improved access for historically underrepresented and under-resourced populations, increased purchasing from and connectedness to local organic farms, and specific farm to school activities related to regenerative agriculture and climate change mitigation. As such, the key outcome questions motivating the evaluation follow these specific program themes and anticipated program results. Key evaluation questions include:
