Please provide your comments and suggestions at the bottom of this page Lets gather ideas on how this problem can be highlighted, pin-pointed and hopefully corrected… How can we accept such flaws while our proposals are being judged for proper application of all the principles of the guiding planning instruments that must be followed…. The dependency of the consultant on the administrator and on the typical tendering procedure does inhibit a frank and open discussion on the ToR and I guess you are not ventilating such ‘wise’ observations in the chapter ‘Comments on the ToR’? So where could one drop such complaints? Maybe you have an idea on how this problem can be addressed? When not complaining actually the author of the ToR and the organization are not even pointed at the weaknesses and will just continue producing poor quality ToRs. Sounds weird isn’t it? What is the point of tendering this way? You may think ‘lets not bother’ because once you have won the tender you may get a chance anyhow to fundamentally modify and negotiate the proposal during the Inception Phase, which sometimes even seems to be true….
Moreover the execution capacity of the implementing agency is rarely properly assessed or even asked to assess … The elements of the project design are often mixed up and activities vague, simplistic or over estimated, like: ‘stimulate enterprises’.
The intervention logic is often difficult to comprehend or has never been intended to be logical…. Results are mostly activities and assumptions are supposed to have been checked and confirmed before the launch, like: ‘farmers willing to cooperate’. Some of those purposes are either results or even activities or just a silly statement like ‘implement the project’.
As an example we see ToRs with numerous Project Purposes instead of one, as is being advocated in their own training manual.
0 kommentar(er)
