Evaluation &
Scoring Criteria
The project proposals are evaluated against four criteria – potential for lasting impact, relevance and coherence, formulation and design, and feasibility
1. Potential for lasting impact
1.1. Extent to which the Project aims at practical and tangible outcomes. Potential of planned outcomes to generate positive changes.
1.2. Potential for the outcomes to be adopted, or to be used or to be streamlined by stakeholders into existing practices. Extent to which the Project deliverables are the actual solution to a problem (or it is part of a bigger project and thus, the issue might not be addressed).
1.3. Potential of the dissemination and communication measures. Extent to which the Project promotes public and private partnership and integrates such cross sectorial collaboration in its implementation.
1.1. Extent to which the Project aims at practical and tangible outcomes. Potential of planned outcomes to generate positive changes.
1.2. Potential for the outcomes to be adopted, or to be used or to be streamlined by stakeholders into existing practices. Extent to which the Project deliverables are the actual solution to a problem (or it is part of a bigger project and thus, the issue might not be addressed).
1.3. Potential of the dissemination and communication measures. Extent to which the Project promotes public and private partnership and integrates such cross sectorial collaboration in its implementation.
2. Relevance and coherence
2.1. Extent to which the Project corresponds to the theme and the selected topic of the 3rd Funding Round of PMI IMPACT; and coherent with PMI's mission and its anti-illicit trade programmes.
2.2. Extent to which the Project responds to the needs of the target groups (beneficiaries, stakeholders).
2.3. Extent to which the Project is coherent with local policies and/or regulations, and contributes to a more effective regulation and/or enforcement.
2.1 Extent to which the Project corresponds to the theme and the selected topic of the 3rd Funding Round of PMI IMPACT; and coherent with PMI's mission and its anti-illicit trade programs.
2.2. Extent to which the Project responds to the needs of the target groups (beneficiaries, stakeholders).
2.3. Extent to which the Project is coherent with local policies and/or regulations, and contributes to a more effective regulation and/or enforcement.
3. Formulation and design
3.1. Extent to which inputs, outputs and outcomes are clearly defined, logically related and credible. Relevance of the achievement indicators identified.
3.2. Extent to which the Project identifies risks factors and mitigation measures.
3.3. Adequacy of the budget.
3.1. Extent to which inputs, outputs and outcomes are clearly defined, logically related and credible. Relevance of the achievement indicators identified.
3.2. Extent to which the Project identifies risks factors and mitigation measures.
3.3. Adequacy of the budget.
4. Feasibility
4.1. Extent to which the Application is complete, succinct, and precise, and relates to the core institutional or business activities of the Applicant, its past experience.
4.2. Extent to which the Applicant has the necessary implementing capacity (i.e., capacity of the Applicant to deliver what it says; how realistic is the commitment).
4.3. Extent to which stakeholders demonstrate an effective commitment/buy-in.
4.1. Extent to which the Application is complete, succinct, and precise, and relates to the core institutional or business activities of the Applicant, its past experience.
4.2. Extent to which the Applicant has the necessary implementing capacity (i.e., capacity of the Applicant to deliver what it says; how realistic is the commitment).
4.3. Extent to which stakeholders demonstrate an effective commitment/buy-in.
For more information, see the Grant Award Guidelines (pdf).
