1
Water Services Trust Fund
Use of Appraisal Forms and Criteria
The UPC Appraisal Form consists of 2 main parts:
Part 1: COMPARATIVE RATING
The comparative rating exercise allows the WSTF to prioritise Project Proposals
(Funding Applications). Part 1 focuses upon the:
1. Cost per Beneficiary
2. Impact Rating
3. Confidence Rating
4. Sustainability Rating
Part 2:
Is a tool which allows the UPC team to assess whether a Project Proposal is
acceptable or not. Part 2 considers the:
1. BoQ and Budget.
2. Engineering concept.
3. Accompanying Measures concept.
Part 1 and Part 2 (both MS excel sheets) are not linked (through formulas).
If a Project Proposal is not acceptable under Part 2 it will not be considered for
funding.
Only acceptable Project Proposals (output of Part 2) are ranked according to their
scores (output of Part 1)
The use of Part 1 and Part 2 is explained in more detail in the sections below.
WSTF/UPC
Funding Applications Appraisal Procedure
February 2010
2
PART 1
1. Cost per beneficiary
is an important criterion as it allows the ranking of proposals to reflect the value the
WSTF will receive for the funds it will invest (value for money).
2. Impact rating
considers and compares:
A. The current water supply or sanitation situation
(i.e. The percentages of the project area residents using very safe, safe,
reasonably safe, unsafe or very unsafe sources of water for drinking &
cooking and for other usages).
B. The Safety Factor.
This section of the Appraisal Form aims to assess the impact of “health
events” (i.e. illnesses or other health related events caused by water).
C. The Time Factor aims to factor in the impact of the reduced water collection
time.
D. The Cost Factor aims to consider the impact the new price (KSh/20-litre
container) residents of the proposed project area will have to pay.
The Impact Rating for public sanitation does not consider the Time Factor and Cost
Factor but does consider the Location Factor.
3. Confidence rating
The Confidence uses a number of criteria to assess the confidence the WSTF has
in:

The capacity of the WSP to implement the proposed project.

The proposed project plan.
4. Sustainability Rating
The Confidence uses a number of criteria to assess the ability of the WSP to operate
the project scheme in a sustainable manner.
The Sustainability Rating exercise focuses upon four (4) aspects:

WSP Governance.

(Project) Facility operations.

Company (WSP) operations.

Other threats.
WSTF/UPC
Funding Applications Appraisal Procedure
February 2010
3
PART 2
1. BoQ and Budget
This section of the Appraisal Form, using the FAWN approach, aims to assess the
appropriateness and correctness of the bills of quantities and the budget of the
proposed project.
The BoQ and Budget appraisal consists of a number of sections:

Primary Works & Pipeline.

Ancillary Works.

Sociology Budget.

Administration, Task Team and Incidentals Budget.
2. Engineering concept
The “Engineering Rating” was developed to appraise the appropriateness and
correctness of the engineering programme.
Some figures (sizes) are based upon GoK rules & guidelines (see Bibliography).
3. Accompanying Measures concept
The “Sociology Rating” was developed to appraise the appropriateness and
correctness of the accompanying measures programme.
Part 2 output:
A proposal can be:

“acceptable”,

“acceptable with reservations” or

“not acceptable”.
If (part of) a Project Proposal is “not acceptable” further action is required. The
WSTF may decide to reject the Funding Application (Project Proposal) or to ask the
WSP to:
 Provide additional information.
 Make the necessary adaptations.
WSTF/UPC
Funding Applications Appraisal Procedure
February 2010
4
Using the FAWN Scores
The FAWN scores are used to rank the Project Proposals (Funding Applications). How is
the FAWN row used?
For example, if the appraiser works on the Confidence Rating WSP & WSB Capacity, he or
she can record his or her observations relating to the questions (criteria) considered.
Subsequently the appraiser, on the basis of these observations and comments, makes a
professional judgement with regard to the “confidence” level (“Yes”, “No” or “Unknown”).
Assessing the confidence level can be regarded as the assessment of risk.
Risk levels: Yes < Unknown < No.
The various observations and risk levels should be used to fill in the “FAWN” row.
The forms are divided into sections and each section leads to a key question to define the
purpose and focus of the individual criteria. Each section is assessed overall as:
FAWN:
F = Fully Acceptable
A = Acceptable with minor reservations
W = Weak
N = Not acceptable
In other words, the appraiser should come to a well-founded professional assessment (i.e.
placing the “x” in the appropriate FAWN cell) on the basis of a number of risk assessments.
Fully acceptable, Acceptable with reservations, Weak or Not Acceptable are scored as 100,
80, 40, -1000 respectively.
Each section is allocated a weighting in establishing the overall rating factor, which is
expressed as a percentage. The weightings currently included are shown underneath the
Rating figure.
Weighing
Not all aspects (sections) which constitute a rating focus (e.g. “Sustainability Rating”)
are given the same weight. Each section is allocated a weighting in establishing the
overall rating factor.
If one, for example, consider the Sustainability Rating was given the following
weighting:
Section
Weighting

WSP Governance:
2

(Project) Facility operations:
4

Company (WSP) operations:
3

Other threats:
1
WSTF/UPC
Funding Applications Appraisal Procedure
February 2010