SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND
FOR IBEROAMERICA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS AND
COOPERATION
SECRETARY GENERAL FOR DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION
Evaluation for Development Policies and
Knowledge Management Division
ANNOTATED INDEX
FOR DRAFTING
TERMS OF REFERENCE
FOR OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS
TEMPLATE
Read the instructions before filling out this template
February 2015
INDEX
1.
JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
1
2.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1
3.
SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
2
4.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
2
5.
METHODOLOGY
3
6.
EVALUATION MANAGEMENT
4
7.
SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
6
8.
EVALUATION PRINCIPLES, AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION
10
9.
PROFILE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
11
10.
SUBMISSION OF BIDS, BUDGET AND BIDS’ APPRAISAL CRITERIA
12
APPENDIX I. PRELIMINARY LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
14
APPENDIX II. PRELIMINARY LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
15
APPENDIX III. STYLE GUIDE FOR EVALUATION REPORTS
APPENDIX IV. DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
APPENDIX V. EVALUATION MATRIX MODEL
23
TITLE OF THE EVALUATION
1.
JUSTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
Grounds for evaluation:
Evaluation objectives:
Intended use of the evaluation:
CHECKLIST
 Are the reasons for carrying out the evaluation at this specific time clearly
justified?
 Is the number of objectives reasonable? (between 2-4 objectives is recommended)
 Are they clear and specific enough, and do they appropriately reflect the levels of
priority or relevance?
 Is their scope feasible, based on the context, resources available and scope of the
evaluation?
 Is the use to be given to the evaluation findings specified? Who will be the main
users of the evaluation?
2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
CHECKLIST
 Are the most important aspects of the evaluation object and its implementation
until the time of the evaluation clearly described?
 Is the particular context in which the intervention took place clearly described,
addressing the relevant economic, social and political factors?
1
3. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
Definition of the evaluation object:
Geographic scope:
Time frame:
Considerations regarding cross-cutting priorities:
Other relevant information to be included in Appendix
Appendix I should present a preliminary list of the main stakeholders involved in the
evaluation process1.
Annex II should detail main reference documents related to the evaluation object as
well as a set of links to websites containing updated information and publications
relevant to the object of this evaluation2.
CHECKLIST
 Is the subject matter of the evaluation made clear?
 Is the evaluation scope evaluation object, time frame, geographical coverage,
etc. clearly identified?
 Are the main stakeholders clearly identified and are all relevant groups covered?
 Are the main documents linked to the evaluation object completely covered?
 Is the evaluation scope consistent with the evaluation objectives and questions?
Is it realistic and flexible given time and resources constraints?
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1.
2.
…
1
The different authorities comprised by the Reference Group for the evaluation will provide
updated information to the evaluation team during phase one of the evaluation.
2
The different authorities comprised by the Reference Group for the evaluation will provide the
evaluation team with updated information during phase one of the evaluation.
2
In consultation with the different stakeholders and after a preliminary documentary
review, the evaluation team will revise the evaluation questions and analyse the explicit
interest in and feasibility of including them, so that they can be adjusted in a wellreasoned manner based on the information required, the evaluation deadlines and the
resources earmarked for the evaluation. This adjustment will be included in the
inception report, and should be validated by the management team.
CHECKLIST
 Are the evaluation questions clear enough and do they cover the evaluation
objectives?
 Are they sufficient but not excessive in number, taking into account the time and
resources allocated?
 Do the questions have an evaluative approach, one that is not limited to
clarifying points regarding the intervention or to filling in gaps in the existing
data?
 Is there consistency between the evaluation objectives, the questions, and the
information needs of stakeholders?
 Has the questions’ flexible role been specified?
5. METHODOLOGY
To articulate in a systematic and logical matter the comprehensive judgement of the
evaluation object, the technical proposal shall revolve around an evaluation matrix3.
The matrix is a tool for the operationalization of the evaluation questions, but it cannot
be a substitute for the theoretical and methodological approach guiding the evaluation,
which should be reflected clearly in its own section of the proposal. Furthermore, it is
worth bearing in mind that methodology is not merely a list of techniques; rather, it
involves a theoretical and epistemological stance, orienting the manner in which the
evaluation is to be focused in order to meet the evaluation objectives, and setting out
the form (specific techniques) in which the data is to be collected, classified, analysed
and presented, with the aim of producing solid findings and evaluation deliverables
meeting quality standards.
A preliminary evaluability analysis should be included, indicating which are the main a
priori /enabling factors and limitations for satisfying the evaluation objectives meeting
the planned aims for this evaluation, and answering the questions set forth.
3Appendix
V includes a model for the evaluation matrix.
3
It is the evaluation team’s responsibility to present in its proposal an appropriate
theoretical and methodological framework for the purposes, objectives and utility of the
evaluation (adjusted to the time and resources available for carrying this out), as well
as a coherent approach that makes possible to operationalize in the evaluation matrix
the evaluation’s different objectives, levels of analysis, questions and sub-questions. In
this regard, it is important to clarify that this operationalization does not have to involve,
in principle, any modification to the evaluation questions presented, but rather their
development in subquestions, in line with the rest of the formulations of each of the
columns in the evaluation matrix.
In its proposal, the evaluation team will ensure: the complementarity and diversity of
methods and information sources, making clear the existing limitations and specifying
how and to what point the analysis is going to include the cross-cutting approaches
included in Spanish Cooperation’s Evaluation Policy (human rights, gender, cultural
diversity and environmental sustainability).
These techniques should be consistent with the methodological approach chosen and
appropriate for the nature of the information that is expected to be available in order to
answer the evaluation’s different questions and subquestions. The proposal will justify
in a specific and concrete manner the contribution of and need for each technique used
in this evaluation, avoiding generic paragraphs on the technique and its characteristics.
Likewise, it should avoid the mere juxtaposition or listing of basic techniques (e.g.,
interviews, surveys, focus groups) without specifying their details, relevance, and
complementarity. As long as the information available so permits, quantitative and
qualitative methods will be combined, which means the use of data collection
techniques and specific analysis procedures for providing information that is sufficiently
precise and robust and adequately explained and put into context..
Among the selection of techniques that the evaluation team considers opportune to
propose, at least XXXX should be included (indicate the techniques appropriate for
each case, e.g. review of the literature, interviews, discussion groups, case studies,
surveys).
(Only when appropriate): Taking into account the scope, levels of analysis and
evaluation questions and in order to adequately address the evaluation object, it is
recommended that the evaluation team follow the methodological proposal of XXX.
6. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT
The evaluation will be carried out ensuring the participation of the main stakeholders
involved in the evaluation object. The management structure of the evaluation will
comprise:
4

(Only for joint evaluations) A Management Committee composed of XXX and
ZZZ, with the following functions

(Only for individual evaluations) The management unit of the evaluation, in this
case XXX, with the following functions:
-
Provide broad guidance and direction in drafting ToR in consultation with the
Reference Group, and give approval to the ToR.
-
Appraise bidding proposals and select the evaluation team.
Maintain a close, efficient and regular liaison and dialogue with the evaluation
team and the Reference Group.
Provide technical advice and methodological oversight to the evaluation
process.
Carry out the evaluation quality control and supervise the accomplishment of
deadlines.
Validate the inception report and approve all the evaluation products in
consultation with the Reference Group.
Release the evaluation products and facilitate the dissemination of the
evaluation results.
-
Coordinate filling out the management response document and promote use of
the evaluation recommendations.
To enhance the appraisal process and introduce appropriate participation channels for
the different stakeholders, a Reference Group will be created, including the
participation of XXX (specify the principal stakeholders involved in the intervention
evaluated)
The Reference Group’s main functions will be to:

Bring comments, suggestions and informative requirements to the Management
Committee (whichever is appropriate) to draft the ToR.

Be closely involved in the evaluation process by providing comments and
suggestions on the evaluation products (inception and final reports and other
products) to the Management Committee/unit (whichever is appropriate).

Provide the evaluation team with all needed contacts and access to all the relevant
information to carry out the evaluation.


Contribute to the dissemination of the evaluation results.
Support the implementation of the evaluation recommendations.
The secretariat and coordination services for the Management Committee shall be the
responsibility of XXX. This secretariat will be involved throughout the evaluation,
serving as a liaison between the Reference Group and the management /unit
(whichever is appropriate) and will provide support and advisory services to the latter
during the entire process.
5
7. SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
The time scheduled for this evaluation is XXX weeks since the formalization of the
contract, and will follow the distribution of phases, tasks, deliverables and times
indicated on the table below. The scheduled deadlines may be extended with the
consent of the evaluation’s Management Committee/unit (whichever is appropriate),
until the evaluation team’s deliverables are considered of sufficient quality.
During Phase I, the evaluation team will be accompanied by the evaluation’s
Management Committee/unit (whichever is appropriate) in order to facilitate adjustment
of the work and drafting of the preparatory report.
Unless expressly indicated otherwise, all deliverables shall be in (indicate language).
All deliverables shall be presented in Word, to guarantee their subsequent publication
under adequate conditions, in whatever formats are considered appropriate. The final
report shall include photographs, maps, tables, infographics and other visual resources
to make the report more user-friendly and easily understood.
Follow the style guide included as Appendix III. We recommend using the OECD DAC
Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management as a means to
clarify terms (e.g. instrument).
6
Phase
Phase I.
Preparatory
Activities and
Desk Study
Activities
Duration
- Initial meeting between the evaluation team and
the Management Committee/unit (whichever is
appropriate), gathering of information and workplan
adjustment
- Stakeholder analysis and identification of the
X weeks
evaluation key informants.
- Preliminary literature review and collection of new
(a minimum of
documentation at the office and on the ground.
2 additional
- Description of the evaluation object
weeks are to
- Preliminary mapping of interventions (only when
be included for
faced with a complex evaluation involving many
review,
interventions).
adjustment
- Preliminary reconstruction of the intervention’s
and approval
rationale
of the
- Adjustment
of
the
evaluation
questions,
inception
methodology and work plan.
report)
- Review of the documentation submitted by the
evaluation team as part of the preparatory report
by Management Committee/unit (whichever is
appropriate) and by the Reference Group
- Adjustment of the deliverables by the evaluation
team and their formal approval, when applicable.
Phase I deliverable: Inception Report
The report is to contain the final evaluation design, which must include: i) a description
of the evaluation object; ii) the intervention’s rationale (reconstructed if it were not
expressly formulated); iii) the conceptual analytical framework; iv) a methodological
proposal, including a brief evaluability analysis (describing the limitations found or
foreseen and justifying, when applicable, any changes with regard to the initial plan),
specification of the techniques and data collection tools, and a detailed analysis plan;
v) the updated work plan; and vi) a definitive evaluation matrix.
Phase II.
Fieldwork
Application of data collection tools according to
what was set forth in the Inception Report.
X weeks
(this requires
prior approval
of the
Inception
Report)
Phase II deliverables: Presentations at the beginning and end of the fieldwork
7
Phase
Activities
Duration
The fieldwork will begin by briefing the Reference Group and the Management
Committee/unit (whichever is appropriate). Other stakeholders may also be invited to
this briefing. Once the fieldwork phase has finished, the evaluation team will make a
presentation that will include the activities carried out, and it will present preliminary
findings for discussion with the Management Committee/unit and with the Reference
Group
Phase III.
XX weeks
- In-depth analysis and interpretation of the
Analysis and
information collected.
(a minimum of
interpretation - Drawing up of the first draft of the final report,
3 additional
of the
which will include the corresponding appendices.
weeks are to
information.
- Integration of observations and comments
be included for
Drafting and
forwarded by the Management Committee/unit of
review,
submission
the evaluation. The evaluation team will explain
adjustment
of the final
how these observations have been included in the
and approval
report
document and will present, when applicable, the
of the final
arguments for their non-consideration, preserving
report)
at all times the independence of the evaluation, in
line with the Quality Standards for Development
Evaluation of the OECD’s Development Assistance
Committee (DAC).
- Drafting of the final report.
- Submission of the final report.
Phase III deliverable: Final Report
This shall comprise the following documents:
-
The final report itself (maximum 70 pages without appendices), which must
respond to the evaluation objectives and answer the questions set forth. The
conclusions and recommendations in the report must stem from the findings.
-
A list of appendices, which will include, among other documents, the detailed
methodology, the list of techniques and instruments applied, and a list of the
principal sources of information.
-
An executive summary, written in Spanish, English and in the language of the
partner country if different from these two (maximum 5 pages in each language),
the format and wording of which must be tailored for its dissemination and
facilitating decision-making. It must include, as a minimum: an introduction to the
object of the evaluation and to the methodology used and a summary of the
principal findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. This
executive summary is to be submitted once the final report has been formally
approved.
8
Below is a guideline for the content structure of the final evaluation report. However,
the index and definitive outline of the report shall be agreed upon between the
Management Committee/unit and the evaluation team.
In any case, the findings and conclusions must be structured so that they respond
clearly to the evaluation questions.
Lessons learned (either positive or negative) should include generalizations that go
beyond the immediate intervention being evaluated, highlighting the wider-ranging
relevance that the knowledge generated during the process might have. It is not a
matter of repeating the conclusions with a different wording, and it must be understood
that not all evaluations generate a large number of lessons learned. Lessons must only
be drawn if they represent actual contributions to general knowledge. They must be
solidly backed by the evaluation findings and conclusions. They may strengthen or
complement commonly-accepted lessons, but they must not be a mere repetition of
common knowledge. Lessons learned must be worded simply; they must specify the
context from which they were drawn; they must explain the knowledge generated,
identifying factors that explain why things happened in a certain way; and, with the
necessary adaptations to each new context, they must be able to serve as guidelines
for future interventions.
Recommendations should be limited in number, avoid generic wording, and state to
whom they are addressed.
1. Introduction.
1.1. Structure of the Report.
1.2. Background, Scope and Evaluation objectives
1.3. Evaluation Questions and Levels of Analysis .
1.4. Theoretical and Methodological Framework.
1.5. Data Collection Tools and Analysis s.
1.6. Determining Factors and Limitations of the Evaluation.
2. Analysis and Interpretation of the Data (Findings).
3. Conclusions
4. Lessons Learned
5. Recommendations (Strategic and Operational).
Appendices
9
CHECKLIST
 Are the different phases, tasks, deliverables and deadlines clearly established?
 Are the deadlines set forth for the entire evaluation and for each of its phases
realistic and sufficiently flexible?
 Are the general characteristics—including the language(s) used—of the different
deliverables described?
 Has an initial outline been proposed for the final evaluation report?
8. EVALUATION PRINCIPLES, AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION
The evaluation shall follow the OECD DAC Quality Standards for Development
Evaluation and Spanish Cooperation’s Evaluation Policy. Throughout the evaluation
process, the evaluation team must respect the principles published in the Spanish
Cooperation website.
Regarding authorship, without prejudice to recognition of the evaluation team’s moral
rights, the (corresponding contracting entity) is to be responsible for designing the
layout, printing and publishing the documents.
The contract shall comprise at least a presentation of the results of the evaluation in
(the corresponding partner country) by the evaluation team. The evaluation team may
also be required to participate in other activities involving presentation and delivery of
results; in such cases, the costs that may be incurred by said activities are to be paid
independently.
CHECKLIST
 Have the principles to be met by the evaluation team, and which will guide their
work, been specified?
 Have the holders of the reports’ publication and distribution rights been clearly
defined?
10
9. PROFILE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation team is to comprise at least XXX people. It is recommended that there
be an appropriate balance between men and women, and that it include local
professionals.
The team coordinator must have a university degree and specialized training in
evaluation or social research, and at least 3 years’ experience in carrying out
evaluations.
XXX members of the team shall be required to have a university degree, preferably in
development cooperation, evaluation, or public policies.
As a whole, the evaluation team must prove to have:
 Wide-ranging knowledge of the socio-economic context and public policies of
the country where the evaluation is being carried out.
 Knowledge of Spanish Cooperation.
 Specific knowledge of XXX (sectors, languages, etc. depending on the object of
the evaluation)
 Knowledge of cross-cutting approaches. This requirement will be adapted
depending on the specific weight of the different approaches in each case.
The technical proposal is to include the tasks to be carried out and the period of time
that each professional will dedicate to the evaluation, as well as their formal
commitment to being a member of the evaluation team during the validity of the
contract. Any change to the makeup of the evaluation team must be previously agreed
upon with the Management Committee.
CHECKLIST
 Is the minimum number of members in the evaluation team sufficient for
conducting the exercise, given the existing time constraints and available
resources?
 Have all the requirements regarding training, professional experience (general
and specific), cross-cutting approaches and languages been included?
 Is there a clear distinction between requirements that need to be met and merits
that will be appraised positively?
 Is there a recommendation regarding an adequate balance between women and
men in the team and the participation of local professionals?
11
10. SUBMISSION OF BIDS, BUDGET AND BIDS’ APPRAISAL CRITERIA
Bids are to be submitted in XXX before XXX (time) XXX (day).
The following documentation must be included:

Presentation of the company (if applicable) and the résumés of the evaluation
team. It shall be stated that the presentation of documents accrediting the
accuracy of this information may be required at any time.

Technical proposal, which is to include a description of the object to be evaluated,
a methodological proposal including the operationalization of the evaluation matrix,
and a work plan.

Financial proposal. This must be broken down into the different types of expenses
(travel, accommodation, meals, fees, materials, etc.). In the case of fees, the tasks
and fees of each member of the evaluation team are to be specified, indicating the
amount per person and per day.
 The maximum budget for this evaluation is XXX euros (excluding VAT). The
price shall be paid in three instalments, following the validation of the corresponding
deliverables (adjust on a case-by-case basis):
- After approval of the inception report (30%)
- After presentation of fieldwork conclusions (20%)
- After approval of the final report and reception of all the documentation (50%)
 The criteria for bids’ appraisal are the following:
Financial proposal (30%):
Technical proposal (70%):
-
Knowledge of the evaluation object (15 points)
-
Methodological rigour and clarity of the proposal and its adaptation to the
nature and purpose of the evaluation (30 points)
-
Quality of the evaluation matrix (30 points)
-
Feasibility of the work plan (12.5 points)
-
Coverage of cross-cutting issues (12.5 points)
12
CHECKLIST
 Are deadlines and modalities for submitting bids clearly detailed?
 Is the specific documentation to be submitted in each case specified?
 Are the available budget and applicable taxes clearly detailed?
 Are the payment instalments, together with the associated deliverables,
specified?
 Is the minimum content that must be included in the technical proposal and in
the financial proposal established?
 Is there a general description of the criteria that will guide the appraisal, with a
clear distinction between solvency requirements and aspects to be appraised?
 Does the distribution of score percentages between technical and financial
criteria ensure that the weight of the financial bid does not exceed 30%?
13
APPENDIX I. PRELIMINARY LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
Below is, as a guideline only, the preliminary list of principal stakeholders involved in
the evaluation: To be completed on a case-by-case basis
14
APPENDIX II. PRELIMINARY LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Some examples of reference documents are listed below, as well as a series of web
links to updated information and relevant publications for the evaluation object. To be
completed on a case-by-case basis
Spanish Cooperation Framework Documents:
-
Fourth Master Plan for Spanish Cooperation (2013-2016)
Spanish Cooperation Evaluation Policy, 2013
Web links to information and reference publications regarding Spanish
Cooperation:
-
AECID
Web links to information and reference publications regarding the intervention
under evaluation:
15
APPENDIX III: STYLE GUIDE FOR EVALUATION REPORTS
1. FORMATTING
All deliverables shall be submitted in Word format, with the following characteristics:
1. The text shall be presented in A4 format, in two columns, with single spacing
(1.0), in Berthold Akzidenz font or failing that, Arial, size 10 (approximately 690
characters without spaces).
2. Paragraphs are to be separated by double spacing.
3. Reports are to include any tables and graphs necessary for proper
understanding of the text. These tables, diagrams, graphs and images must be
submitted separately and in their original formats, so that they may be edited
when designing the layout of the texts.
4. Page margins are to remain in “normal” mode:
-
Top and bottom: 2.5 cm
-
Left and right: 3 cm
5. The font colour in the main body of the publication must be automatic (black),
and the titles and outstanding subtitles are to be in blue, Pantone 312 (RGB 0,
175, 208).
6. Titles:
-
The titles heading each chapter are to be in a larger font (12), in bold, and
include the corresponding numbering. Example: 1. Introduction
-
For the following level of title (first subtitle), the typography is to be in font 11
bold, and preceded by the corresponding numbering. Example 1.1.
Background and Aims of the Evaluation
-
For the third level, the font is to be 10, in italics and in blue. Example: 1.2.1.
Analysis of the Effective Use of Resources
-
For the next level, if there is one, the font is to be 10, in automatic colour
(black) and in italics, without any numbering. Example: Implications for AECID
7. Numbered lists must be in Arabic numerals and with a space between the colon
and the first numeral. There should be no extra spacing between the different
items. Example:
“The principal assumptions underlying the CPF, as an instrument, are:
1. That the partner country defines its strategic priorities.
2. That Spanish Cooperation as a whole carries out a comparative advantage
analysis as a basis for dialogue with the partner.
16
3. That, once approved, the CPF…”
8. Footnotes must always be at the bottom of the page to which they refer, and
they must be sequential in all the chapters; i.e., each chapter will begin
following the last number of the previous chapter.
9. Page numbering: page numbers are to be in the same font as the body of the
text, only stating the number, in font size 10 black.
10. All reports must contain a text index, as well as an index of tables and graphs.
In turn, tables and graphs must be accompanied by their number and the
corresponding description, and they must be located over the image they
accompany.
Example: Table 1. Phases of the Evaluation
The indices must have the following format:
- The general index must only go down to the second level.
- The index of tables and graphs must include the description of the
numbered table or graph. Example: Graph 2: Planning Process.
- The font must be the same as that of the general body of the text, and the
criteria set forth for the different levels in items 5 and 6 are to be applied.
2. STYLE
The style used must be simple and straightforward, avoiding metaphors, wordiness and
double negatives, so that it is easy to read and not unnecessarily complicated.
3. QUOTES
All quotes must be placed between inverted commas, and cite the corresponding
source. In the case of excerpts from interviews, the confidentiality of informants must
be preserved, clearly specifying whether they are strictly personal opinions or quotes
serving as examples of opinions shared by several stakeholders.
4. SPACING AND BOLDFACE
A larger space must be left between paragraphs expressing different ideas, and words
identifying key ideas must be highlighted in boldface, in order to make the text more
user-friendly. However, it is important to prevent visual overload by avoiding excessive
use of italics and boldface.
5. ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS
Abbreviations
17
To avoid impairing the comprehension and readability of a text, abbreviations should
be used sparingly—mostly in notes, references, quotes and specialized texts.
Avoid the use of abbreviations that may be misleading or are not used outside the field
of international development cooperation: MP for Master Plan (which could be
mistaken for Member of Parliament), SC for Spanish Cooperation, etc.
Units of measurement are not abbreviations, but symbols; therefore, they must never
be followed by a full stop: g; km; kW
Acronyms and Initialisms
It is very important to provide the full meaning of an acronym or initial on first reference
in a text.
In English, acronyms vary. Their plurals are formed by adding a small “s”: an NGO,
NGOs; a CPF, CPFs. Never use an apostrophe before this “s”.
Certain acronyms have become common nouns in the English language, and,
therefore, are written in small case and pluralized like any other word, e.g. radar,
radars.
When a prefix is attached to an acronym, it shall not be part of the acronym itself, but
attached to it with a hyphen, e.g. anti-NATO.
In the event of needing to use an acronym corresponding to a term in another
language, indicate its translation or meaning in the language of origin, without using
italics: AECID (Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo).
6. USE OF CAPITALS
The following are capitalized:
• Entities, institutions, organizations, departments: Technical Cooperation Office,
Emergency and Post-Conflict Department.
• Committees, commissions, working groups with a name of their own: Working Party
on Aid Effectiveness and Quality.
• Conferences, seminars, fairs, etc. with a name of their own: World Day for Decent
Work, Round Table on Indigenous Women.
• International years, days and weeks: World Cancer Day, Development Cooperation
Week.
• Periodicals and collections with a name of their own: Journal of International
Cooperation.
• All the significant words in the name or title of programmes, plans and projects:
Masar Programme, Cultural Action Plan.
18
• Awards with a name of their own: Vicente Ferrer Award, Princess of Asturias Award.
• All principal words in the titles of works and documents: New Paths Out of Poverty,
Free Trade in Spain.
• The names and surnames of persons.
• Forms of address: Ms, Mr, Prof.
• Specific jobs and positions: the Secretary-General for International Development
Cooperation.
• Geopolitical areas, continents, countries, cities: Southern Cone, Horn of Africa,
European Union, Federated States of Micronesia.
• Territorial subdivisions: Autonomous Community of La Rioja.
• Days of the week and months, but not seasons: the first Monday of August is my
favourite day of summer.
• Languages and words indicating origin: Many Finns speak English and Swedish.
The following are not capitalized:
• Generic nouns: sectoral round tables, working groups, directors, accountability,
management for development results, specific goal, strategic line, plans and
strategies, etc.
7. NUMBERS
Each language has its own rules for writing numbers. In the case of translations, avoid
replicating the original and follow, to the greatest possible extent, the rules of English.
Some general rules are set forth below.
Numbers spelled out:
• Numbers from one to nine (both included) are usually spelled out. However, avoid
mixing numbers spelled out and numbers in digits in the same sentence, such as
“Also present were 500 aid workers, 30 coordinators and four directors”. It is
preferable to say “500 aid workers, 30 coordinators and 4 directors”.
• Fractions outside of mathematical contexts: “Three-fourths of its inhabitants are
minors.”
Combination of words and digits:
• Units of millions, billions, or trillions: 1 trillion, 10 billion, 100 million.
• If the base is the numeral one thousand, do not combine digits and words: 432,000
inhabitants, not 432 thousand inhabitants.
19
Currencies:
• Whenever possible, amounts in currency should be stated in euros, regardless of
whether other commonly-used currencies are also included in the evaluated
intervention.
20
APPENDIX IV: DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Declaration of absence of conflict of interest (companies)
Mr/Ms .............................................................., with ID no. ……………………………, in
representation of the company …………………, with Tax ID no. ……………………,
contracted to evaluate .……………………………………………………………………
starting on the date .......... ..................... 201...
I hereby declare, under my responsibility, that the company I represent is free from any
conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the evaluation, and, specifically:
That the company I represent shall carry out the evaluation in a fully independent
manner, without any type of pressure or influence.
That the company I represent has not participated in a relevant manner in the design or
implementation of the object of this evaluation.
That the company I represent shall clearly state the existence of beneficiaries or
partners of the evaluated interventions with which it has engaged in professional
relations during the two years prior to this evaluation.
That the company I represent shall not establish contractual relations with the principal
managers of the evaluated intervention to carry out design or implementation activities
directly linked to the evaluation object for a minimum period of six months after the end
of the evaluation.
That the company I represent shall refuse to obtain any advantage, either financial or in
kind, constituting an illegal practice or corruption, as an incentive or reward relating to
the evaluation object.
That the company I represent shall immediately inform the Evaluation Division of any
other situation that may constitute a conflict of interest or that could lead to a conflict of
interest.
And in witness whereof for the appropriate purposes, I hereby issue and sign the
present declaration at ……………….., on ……… ……………………… 20...
Signature:
21
Declaration of absence of conflict of interest (individual)
Mr/Ms .............................................................., with ID no. ……………………………,
acting in my own name and right and as an external evaluator participating in the
evaluation of ………………………………………………………………
I hereby declare, under my responsibility that I am free from any conflict of interest of a
financial nature or relating to political affinities or ties of family or friendship which could
affect my impartial performance of this evaluation, and to this end I undertake to:

Inform the Evaluation and Knowledge Management Division of the Spanish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of any prior or subsequent personal
or professional activity or relationship directly related to the evaluation object,
so that the non-existence of conflict of interest that might bias the exercise of
the evaluation may be verified.

Avoid introducing bias into the evaluation or altering its design, process or
content as a result of having received an incentive, reward or advantage, either
financial or in kind, or to create favourable conditions that may influence
subsequent contracts, appointments or benefits.

Abstain during a minimum period of six months after the end of the evaluation
from establishing contractual relations with the principal managers of the
evaluated intervention that involve carrying out design or implementation
activities directly linked to the evaluation object.
And in witness whereof for the appropriate purposes, I hereby issue and sign the
present declaration at ……………….., on ……… ……………………… 20...
Signature:
22
APPENDIX V. EVALUATION MATRIX MODEL
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
(WHEN APPLICABLE)
EVALUATION
QUESTIONS
SUBQUESTIONS AND
CLARIFICATIONS
23
INDICATORS
TECHNIQUES AND
SOURCES