Evaluation purpose is sometimes unclear
A TOR should explain why the evaluation is being commissioned and how the findings will be used. Without a clear purpose, evaluators may produce a report that is technically complete but not useful for decisions.
Evaluation questions can be too many or too broad
A long list of questions often leads to shallow analysis. Strong TORs prioritise the most important questions and link them to intended users, available evidence and feasible methods.
Scope and geography may be unrealistic
Some TORs request large geographic coverage, many stakeholder groups and complex methods within a limited budget and timeline. This creates risk for quality. A good TOR aligns scope, methods, timeline and resources.
Data availability is not always explained
Evaluators need to know whether baseline data, monitoring data, project documents, beneficiary lists and indicator definitions are available. This affects design, analysis and pricing.
Expected deliverables may lack detail
The TOR should specify expected outputs such as inception report, tools, cleaned dataset, draft report, validation presentation, final report, executive summary and recommendation matrix. Clear deliverables reduce misunderstanding.
Method requirements can be over-specified
Some TORs prescribe a long list of methods before explaining the questions those methods must answer. This can force evaluators to carry out activities that add little value or prevent them from proposing a more appropriate design.
A stronger TOR specifies the required standards, key questions and non-negotiable data needs while allowing bidders to justify the methodological combination that best fits the assignment.
Sampling expectations may be incomplete
TORs sometimes request representative surveys without identifying the population size, sampling frame, geographic strata or level at which estimates are expected. These omissions make it difficult for bidders to calculate a defensible sample or compare budgets on the same basis.
Where the client expects the consultant to propose the sample, the TOR should still provide available population and beneficiary information and identify any required subgroup analysis.
Review and approval processes may be missing
Evaluation schedules often include several deliverables but do not state how long the client will take to review them, who consolidates comments or how disagreements are resolved. This can turn a feasible consultancy timeline into an unrealistic one.
A good TOR includes review windows and identifies key decision points such as approval of the inception report, tools, draft findings and final report.
Ethical and data responsibilities need clarity
The TOR should state relevant requirements for consent, safeguarding, data protection, ethics review, ownership of raw data and secure transfer. These responsibilities affect staffing, schedule and cost and should not be discovered after contract award.
For sensitive studies, clients should also clarify whether referral pathways, child safeguarding procedures or other specialised protections already exist or must be developed by the consultant.