2016 Practical Worksheet V 1.0. Simp Public Investment Project Selection a Practical Worksheet V 1.0 May-16 Priorization for Ex Ante Evaluation Start new Prioritization V 1.0. Simplified Methodology for Selection and Prioritization in 1. Project Descriptors Project Name Project Code Project Sector Institution Geographic Location Total Project Cost (USD) Total State Funding (USD) 2. Project Scoring Key Criteria & Sub-criteria Key Indicators for Evaluation Relevance, design, strategic consistency& readiness Statement of project objectives and expected development outcomes and outputs in relation to the need of the locality/sector. 1.1. Assess the rationale and A report form stating inputs, outputs, justification for the project/ outcomes, and impacts, and monitoring program (6 points) . plan. Compliance with relevant laws and regulations. 1.2. Assess the realism of the Project implementation implementation plan (4 points) . arrangements/readiness. Stakeholders and beneficiaries consultations. 1.3. Assess the appropriateness Location, land acquisition and of choice of location, land resettlement (LAR) plan, where relevant. acquisition, and technical option (9 points) . Choice of technology, basic engineering design, and analysis of technical feasibility. Total investment requirement and financing plan. 1.4. Assess how realistic and feasible the financing plan is (7 points) 1.4. Assess how realistic and feasible the financing plan is (7 Funding sources (own, state, borrowing points) as relevant). 1.5. Any other governorate- or sector-specific sub-criteria that To be defined case by case may be added (4 points) . Short-term assumptions performance Reliability of forecasts. 2.1. Assess the user satisfaction Beneficiaries who received attention and and quality indicator. were satisfied with the goods and services received. 2.2. Assess the economic Percentage of budget executed per year; indicator. percentage of credit recovery. 2.3. Assess the costs indicator. Percentage deviation of total cost. 2.4. Assess the timing indicator. Percentage deviation of total timing. Percentage of beneficiaries that receive 2.5. Assess the quantity the goods and services, compared to the indicator. percentage that was intended. Efficiency in resource use 3.1. Assess the plan to ensure Project’s implementation schedule. process efficiency (timelines) (5 Procurement plan and fund utilization points) . schedule. Financial internal rate of return (to be viable it should be higher than the 3.2. Assess financial viability (6 weighted average cost of capital).Or, points) . project unit cost comparisons for non- revenue generating projects. Identification and quantification of economic costs and benefits. Estimation of economic internal rate of return (IRR) (higher than the economic 3.3. Assess economic viability opportunity cost of capital). Or, cost (8 points) . effectiveness (compared with cost of alternatives and unit costs in the sector) in the case of projects/programs where economic benefits are not quantifiable). Positive impact on employment creation and gender equity – jobs for girls and women. 3.4. Assess plan for social efficiency (10 points). Resettlement of project-affected households and likely improvement in their welfare (income, health, education). Improvement in household income. National defence and social security, as appropriate. 3.5 Environmental efficiency (4 Plan for addressing environmental issues points). (if relevant). 3.6. Any other governorate- or sector-specific sub-criteria that To be defined case by case. may be added (3 points). Effectiveness (achieving outcomes) Targets for achieving project outputs and 4.1. Assess how realistically outcomes (consistent with that stated in targets and indicators for the RF). outputs and outcomes are set (8 Baseline target (beginning) and end-lines points) . (final) for outputs and outcomes. 4.2. Any other governorate- or sector-specific sub-criteria that To be defined case by case may be added (2 points) . Sustainability Risk identification. 5.1. Assess the plan for the sustainability of outputs and Financing of O&M. outcomes of the proposed project (16 points) . Capacity development plan. 5.2. Any other governorate- specific sub-criteria that may To be defined case by case be added (4 points) . Scoring Basis/Justification Score Max Score Objectives and outcomes are clearly defined, linked to provincial, sector and national socioeconomic development plan, and targets realistically set. 0 2 Outcomes and outputs are clearly defined and measurable, and data sources and responsibility for monitoring identified. 0 2 To what extent the design of the project complies with major laws, regulations and technical standards (e.g. investment, budget, procurement, and environment). 0 2 Quality of the approach and content (including logistics, budget and staffing) of the implementation plan. 0 4 Coverage and quality of the consultations with stakeholders and beneficiaries.. 0 3 Justification for the location. 0 1 Coverage and appropriateness of the LAR plan for the project. 0 2 How realistic are the technical justifications given in the project document and the justification for the choice of technology? 0 3 How realistic is the estimation of the total investment requirement and financing plan (sources of funding)? 0 3 Normal mark for state capital funding (2.5). 0 2 Extra mark for governorate’s off-budget resources and PPP planned (2 as maximum on top of normal mark). 0 2 To be defined case by case 0 4 The range of variation of forecast was not higher than 20%. 0 2 More than 80% of beneficiaries were satisfied with the goods and services provided by the project. 0 2 The percentage of the budget executed per year was above 80%. 0 4 The percentage of deviation from the total cost was below 80%. 0 4 The number of days of delay in given activity was below 25%. 0 4 The percentage of total beneficiaries that received the goods and services per year was above 80%. 0 4 Schedule for project implementation, including construction, where appropriate. 0 3 Whether approach, timelines and milestones for procurement and fund utilization are realistic. 0 2 Financial viability based on estimated returns on investment (the higher the EIRR the better, minimum should be not less than the cost of borrowing). Or, where it is not possible to estimate EIRR, comparison of unit cost with similar projects in the governorate 0 6 or nearby locations and construction standards. How realistically has the economic cost and benefit been identified and estimated? 0 4 Economic viability based on the estimates of EIRR, higher then better but minimum should be not less than the opportunity cost of capital. Or, where it is not possible to measure EIRR (e.g. in small-scale projects, social sector projects), cost effectiveness analysis may be used or unit cost comparison within the 0 4 governorate or within the sector, or cost of alternative may be used. How realistic are the plans for ensuring social efficiency and safeguards? Total jobs likely to be created. Of which, jobs created for women and girls, where applicable (gender: % of women/girls among the total beneficiaries of the program/project as determined by a social impact assessment). Other benefits to women and girls (e.g. health, education, anti- 0 4 trafficking, where relevant). Or, where the above is not relevant due to the specific nature of the project, assessment may be based on the estimate for total jobs creation Whether all the number of affected households are going to be resettled and their welfare (income, health, education) improved. 0 2 Increase in household income in the project-influenced area(s). 0 2 Realistic plan for ensuring national defence and social security. 0 2 How realistic is the plan to (a) address positive or negative effect in local environment as identified in environmental impact analysis; (b) reduce % CO2 emissions (where applicable); and (c) 0 4 comply with green standards and others (where applicable)? To be defined case by case. 0 3 How realistic are targets and timelines for achieving project outputs and outcomes? 0 4 How well are the baselines and targets for outputs and outcomes defined? 0 4 To be defined case by case 0 2 Assess nature and extent of risks to continuity of outputs and outcomes, and their mitigation measures. 0 10 How realistic is the financing plan for O&M? What are the main sources of funding O&M cost? 0 3 How plausible are the plans for staff training, equipment, spare parts, as applicable to the project? 0 3 To be defined case by case 0 4 Clear Information Save Results Finish Remark (Further Justification for the Score) A. Criteria Weight Aggregated Indicator Evaluation Criteria Relevance indicator Relevance, design, strategic consistency& readiness Short-term assumptions performance Efficiency in resource use Performance indicator Effectiveness (achieving outcomes) Sustainability B. Sector List Transport Sector Education Sector Healt Sector Agriculture and Irrigation Sector Electricity Sector Water Supply Sector Public Infrastucture Sector Culture Sector % Weight Av Weight 50.0% 50.0% 12.5% 25.0% 18.8% 37.5% 50.0% 6.3% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 100.0%