ATTACHMENT A: INVESTMENT QUALITY ASSESSMENT

TOOL & SCORING MATRIX

This tool must be used to assess the quality of the design document, using the DFAT aid Investment
Design Quality Scoring Matrix. All independent appraisals and written formal peer review comments
must be uploaded to AidWorks. Delegates should see all collated scores in the design approval
minute.

Investment name:

Start date: End Date:

Total proposed funding allocation: $_______ Risk profile: <high/low risk>/ <high/low value>

Investment outcomes: <State the end program outcomes expected from this investment>

Investment description: <Briefly describe how this investment will be implemented>

Appraiser/peer reviewer name (and position, if internal to DFAT)

Date of appraisal or peer review:

DESIGN QUALITY SCORING

Appraisers and formal peer reviewers should address each design quality criterion with reference to
the Investment Design Quality Scoring Matrix.
Satisfactory rating (4, 5 and 6) Less than satisfactory rating (1, 2 and 3)
6 Very high quality; does not require amendment 3 Less than adequate quality; needs to be
before proceeding improved in core areas
5 Good quality; needs minor work to improve in 2 Poor quality; needs major work to improve
some areas
4 Adequate quality; needs some work to improve 1 Very poor quality; needs major overhaul

Criterion Score Criterion Score

Relevance Sustainability

Effectiveness Gender equality and cross-cutting issues

Efficiency Innovation and private sector

Monitoring and evaluation Risk management and safeguards

1
INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL/FORMAL PEER REVIEW
COMMENTS

Comments to support rating

Required action (if needed)
(usually 1-3 paragraphs is sufficient)

1. Relevance: how well does the design explain why DFAT should make this investment, and the evidence
underpinning this rationale?

2. Effectiveness: does the design clearly describe end of program and intermediate outcomes, and a strong
program logic? Will governance and management arrangements enable effective implementation of the
investment?

3. Efficiency: will the investment demonstrate value for money, and will it be an economical and ethical
use of Australia’s (and other partners’) resources?

4. Monitoring and evaluation: are M&E arrangements appropriate for measuring progress towards
expected outcomes?

5. Sustainability: will expected benefits be long-lasting?

6. Gender equality and cross-cutting issues: how well does the design address gender equality and
women’s empowerment, and cross cutting issues including disability inclusion and climate change?

7. Innovation and private sector: does the design adequately explore opportunities to use innovative
approaches and private sector engagement?

8. Risk management and safeguards: does the design address what could go wrong, and explain
appropriate responses?

Other comments or issues for attention

2
INVESTMENT DESIGN QUALITY SCORING MATRIX
This matrix sets out DFAT’s expectations for investment design quality, and guidance on the application of scoring for appraisers, peer review chairs and
participants, investment managers and delegates. Information about quality assurance requirements, including when scores must be applied, are set out
in the Aid Programming Guide and DFAT’s Investment Design Quality Assurance and Scoring Guidance.
Investment design quality is scored on six-point scale (below). Each design quality criterion must be scored by each appraiser and peer reviewer. When
determining a score, reviewers should consider the available evidence on the design, normally restricted to the publicly available investment design
document, aid investment plans, and policy statements, and may include reference to internal and sensitive material. Particular attention should be paid
to justifying ratings of three and four.

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Less than adequate; on balance does not satisfy criteria and/or

6 Very good; satisfies criteria in all areas 3
fails in at least one major area

5 Good; satisfies criteria in almost all areas 2 Poor; does not satisfy criteria in several major areas

Adequate; on balance satisfies criteria;

4 1 Very poor; does not satisfy criteria in any major area
does not fail in any major area

This matrix emphasises the importance of analysis and evidence to support DFAT’s investment decisions. High quality analysis of the investment
context, including political economy analysis and gender analysis, should inform all of DFAT’s investments. Recommendations and lessons learned from
evaluations, independent reviews/evaluations, appraisal reports, aides-memoire, feedback from partners and other stakeholders, and independent
research conducted in the context or sector should be clearly stated and responded to.

Some designs (including those for facilities and other extremely flexible, adaptive investments, design and implement arrangements, and innovative
procurement trials) may defer development of some elements of the design (e.g. a detailed program logic) to implementation. In these cases this must
be explained clearly, and responsibilities for development, quality assurance, and approval of these elements must be identified. Please contact
designmail@dfat.gov.au to discuss how to adapt this matrix for these types of investments.

3
1. RELEVANCE Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Does the design Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating 3) Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
explain why DFAT
should make the The design meets the four aid tests: The design does not meet one or more of the four aid tests.
proposed investment,
and the evidence that 1. Pursuing national interest and extending Australia’s influence;
has informed 2. Impact on promoting growth and reducing poverty;
3. Australia’s value-add and leverage (reflects Australia’s relative advantages); and
decisions?
4. Making performance count (stronger focus on results and value for money, drawing on
Focus areas: previous sector performance, including other donor experiences)
 Strategic focus and DFAT’s strategic intent for the investment is explicitly There is reference to DFAT’s strategic intent DFAT’s strategic intent is not There are cursory references
policy alignment set out, and reflects the priorities and objectives in the for the investment and reflects the priorities identified and links to the Aid to DFAT’s formal and publicly
Aid Investment Plan (and sector strategies, where and objectives in the Aid Investment Plan Investment Plan (and sector stated policy commitments.
 Analysis and lessons
relevant). (and sector strategies, where relevant). strategies, where relevant)
There are cursory references
 Modality selection are weak.
It is clear how the investment aligns with Australia’s and Australia’s and the partner country’s formal to partners’ plans and
the partner country’s formal policy commitments. policy commitments are set out, and Policy commitments are strategies.
alignment and linkages between them and summarised, with little
The investment’s intersection with a broader range of
the investment are demonstrated. analysis or description of their
Australian and partner country interests are described
relationship to the proposed
and analysed.
investment. Statements are
general. Links to partners’
plans and strategies are
poorly articulated.

Relevant analyses and commissioned research are Information from secondary sources is used Assertions are based on few The justification for
provided, along with details of consultation and to justify the investment. There is evidence sources and references, with Australia’s investment is
feedback from local stakeholders including government, of consultation with and incorporation of little reference to past lessons poorly explained.
civil society and the private sector. Lessons and feedback from key stakeholders (including relevant to the investment.
There is no evidence of
recommendations from reviews and evaluations are local stakeholders). There is limited evidence of
engagement with key
explicitly addressed. consultation with and
Plans for conducting further analysis and stakeholders.
incorporating feedback from
using the evidence collected are stated
key stakeholders. There are no plans for future
clearly.
analysis.

4
1. RELEVANCE Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Plans for future analysis are
non-specific, or not focused
on use of the evidence
collected.

A range of options to address the identified There is minimal discussion of alternative Alternative options are not The approach(es) to
development challenges have been explored. options for addressing identified outlined. delivering aid are either not
development challenges. described, or described
The chosen approach(es) to delivering aid draw on high There is little explanation for
without reference to other
quality analysis (for example, political economy analysis) There is a credible evidence-based the chosen approach(es) to
options, or justification of the
and lessons from past practice. There is considered explanation for why the chosen approach(es) delivering aid.
delivery approach.
assessment of alternative delivery options (including to delivering aid are appropriate for the
working in partner systems, sector wide approaches, context.
partnerships, facilities, projects, co-financing,
multilateral, NGO, TA, twinning, WoG engagement, and
other modalities).

5
2. EFFECTIVENESS Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Are the changes the Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
investment is expected 3)
to deliver clearly
identified, along with Both end of investment and intermediate outcomes Outcome statements identify changes that can It is not clear who or what Outcomes are set out as
an explanation of how fulfil the requirements in the ‘adequate/rating 4’ reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the will change as a result of general statements of intent, or
they will occur? box at right. investment, and define: the investment, in what strategic goals.
way, and/or by when.
There is evidence to support DFAT’s assertions that  An ‘end state’ when the outcome has been achieved Stakeholder perspectives are
Focus areas:
these outcomes are achievable, and that available  Who or what is expected to change Outcomes are overly or not defined.
resources, context, and relationships have been  The type of change expected to occur: knowledge insufficiently ambitious,
 Outcomes and analysed to confirm this. (awareness of new ideas, techniques or strategies); taking into account the
results focus action (behaviour change based upon new human and financial
There is evidence that outcomes have been
information/ideas); or condition (organisational or resources, context, and
 Program logic developed in consultation with stakeholders
societal condition changes due to the stakeholders’ relationships.
(particularly the partner government).
 Delivery approaches actions)
Stakeholder perspectives
 When the changes are expected to be seen
 Policy and partner on outcomes are poorly
DFAT’s level of ambition for the investment is realistic, explained.
engagement
taking into account the human and financial resources,
context, and relationships.
Outcomes are demonstrably acceptable to identified
key stakeholders.

A program logic explains the causal sequence There is a program logic that explains credible causal Links between activities, There is little evidence, or
through which DFAT expects to achieve the desired links between activities, outputs, and outcomes. outputs and outcomes are outline of causal linkages, to
outcomes, beginning with inputs, moving through tenuous, poorly defined, suggest that the investment
The program logic is expressed in a graphic and in plain
activities, outputs, intermediate and end of and/or depend on will achieve the intended
English, using language that can be understood by
investment outcomes, and a compelling case for significant assumptions that outcomes.
stakeholders.
how the end-of-program outcomes are expected to pose crucial threats to the
contribute to the investment’s broader goals. There may be little evidence of previous success or investment.
achievement, but there is an explanation of how it will
The program logic is articulated in a graphic and in The graphic or narrative
be tested and reviewed throughout implementation.
plain English, with clear and specific language, and explanation is absent or
was developed through extensive consultation and unclear.
stakeholder involvement.

6
2. EFFECTIVENESS Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

It is supported by strong evidence and past practice, Evidence to support the

and demonstrates analysis and testing in the specific logic is absent, with little to
context, including explanations of assumptions and no reference to ongoing
risks. testing and review.

There is a clear justification for the implementation The delivery approach is clearly articulated, there is The delivery approach The delivery approach and/or
approach and partner selection. Analysis of options evidence that it is appropriate to the context, and it and/or rationale for partner partner selection is
for delivery arrangements is based on principles has been agreed to by key stakeholders (e.g. partner selection are not clearly inappropriate, and/or there is
agreed with key stakeholders, and draws on strong government). explained and/or justified. no explanation or justification.
evidence.

Australia’s expectations for leveraging the Opportunities for policy and budget dialogue are Opportunities for policy References to potential for
investment to strengthen policy engagement are set outlined. and budget dialogue are policy and budget dialogue are
out. Contributions to broader objectives are clearly implicit or broadly stated. absent or cursory.
Roles and responsibilities are described for DFAT and
articulated.
partners (including WoG). Roles and responsibilities
Roles, responsibilities and opportunities for policy are unclear or not
dialogue are outlined, with reference to DFAT and described in detail.
partner staff at various levels.

7
3. EFFICIENCY Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Is there a compelling Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
argument that this (rating 3)
investment will
demonstrate value for Tailored governance arrangements will enable a wide Specific and workable governance arrangements Standard governance Governance arrangements are
money, and be an range of representatives and stakeholders, including the for the investment are set out, reflecting formal arrangements between poorly defined, or unlikely to
economical and partner government, to participate in decision-making. agreements between Australia and key partners. the key partners are achieve participation and
ethical use of outlined, with no or little support from key parties in
Australia’s (and other Governance arrangements and M&E arrangements are Strategies to broaden participation and
adaptation for this practice.
partners’) resources? fully integrated. stakeholder engagement in decision-making are
investment.
outlined. There are no or cursory
Gender equality and inclusive participation will be
There are no or few references to the use of
pursued explicitly.
opportunities for partner performance information for
government, vulnerable decision-making.
groups, civil society,
private sector or other
stakeholders to influence
decision making.
Links between decision-
making and performance
data are not clearly set
out.

Focus areas: The roles and responsibilities of DFAT and partners are The roles and responsibilities of DFAT and partners Roles and responsibilities Processes for selecting delivery
clearly described, along with processes for their are clearly described. are unclear or not fully partners and defining roles,
 Governance
evolution and review over time. described. responsibilities, and
If not defined, there are plans to negotiate and
 Management accountabilities are absent.
Accountability for outputs and outcomes, and DFAT’s clarify accountability for outputs and outcomes, There are not clear plans
arrangements and
roles in policy dialogue and quality assurance processes and roles in policy dialogue and quality assurance to define accountability Risks to implementation,
capabilities
are articulated. during early implementation. for outcomes, policy related to capacity, personnel,
 Value for money dialogue, and quality and partnerships in the context
The process for, or justification for, selection of delivery There is a credible process for, or justification for,
assurance. are not explored.
 Financing and partner/s that will ensure sufficient capacity, experience selection of delivery partner/s.
resourcing and expertise to implement the program. The process for selecting Australia’s and potential
There is evidence that Australia and potential
delivery partner/s is partners’ capabilities are not
delivery partners will have capacity to carry out
unclear or not credible. discussed.
what is expected of them.

8
3. EFFICIENCY Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Accountability for implementation, quality assurance It is not clear whether or
and policy influence are specifically outlined. Roles and not Australia and
responsibilities of all stakeholders throughout potential delivery
implementation are articulated. partners will be capable
of carrying out what is
Australia and expected delivery partners have
expected of them.
demonstrated capacity to deliver what is expected.

Analysis of alternative financing options and delivery Value for money is justified through a narrative Value for money is Value for money is not clearly
arrangements provides a clear justification of the value analysis of benefits and costs of the proposed implied through justified in the investment
for money of the selected delivery approach, including approach, based on lessons learnt and prior reference to previous design.
selection and relative costs of implementation partners. experience, but may not include a detailed cost- experience and external
benefit or efficiency analysis. benchmarks, but not
explicitly justified in the
investment design.

A detailed input and resource schedule is provided, with An inputs and resource schedule is provided which A high level inputs The inputs schedule is scant or
internal transaction costs and inputs from DFAT, outlines the major cost categories and funding schedule is provided not provided.
independent contractors, and implementing partners, allocations, but detailed input costing may be which fails to include all
for implementation, policy dialogue, quality assurance, provided through a procurement process or later the inputs and costs
risk management and M&E resources. detailed planning stage requiring further scrutiny which may be required.
at inception.

9
4. MONITORING &
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
EVALUATION

Will M&E Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating 3) Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
arrangements ensure
that performance A detailed M&E framework is linked to the program An M&E framework links expected Key elements of an M&E system A framework for M&E with
information is logic, and includes indicators and methods for assessing performance (results and indicators) to the have been outlined, but this is not related indicators either
collected, and progress in key time periods against identified baseline program logic. clearly linked to the program logic. absent or of poor quality, not
available to decision- data. A rationale and justification of selection of OR there is an overly complex and linked to the program logic,
makers throughout Sufficient information is provided to enable
methods and tools for M&E is provided. unrealistic M&E system. and plans for developing and
implementation? development of a detailed M&E plan during
using the M&E system to
The system draws on (and where appropriate feeds early implementation, including collection of There is insufficient information
inform decision-making and
into) partner country data collection and reporting baseline information, review of the program provided to enable development of
policy dialogue are unclear.
systems, and supplements them where necessary. logic, and development of methods and tools an M&E plan during early
Focus areas:
Australia's requirements are harmonised with other for data collection, analysis and reporting. implementation OR plans for M&E DFAT’s M&E standards are
 Measurement of actors. are too strictly defined for the wholly or mostly unmet.
results Reporting expectations are clearly outlined
investment type and context.
All of DFAT’s M&E standards are met to a high standard. with reference to DFAT’s M&E standards and
 Use of M&E reporting requirements (for example, Reporting expectations are poorly
monthly partner dialogues are set out within defined, and it is not clear how
 Independent
governance arrangements, and there are DFAT will collect evidence to meet
monitoring and
references to information needs for AQCs). its internal M&E standards and
evaluation
reporting requirements (e.g. AQCs).
Most of DFAT’s M&E standards are met, with
 Resources for M&E
any shortcomings described and justified. Key elements of DFAT’s M&E
standards are not met.

Expectations for use of M&E information for decision-
making are clearly set out. Timing of collection of M&E
data synchs with decision-making. Roles and
responsibilities in reporting and feedback loops are
articulated.
There is a system to ensure reporting information is
available to decision-makers in ‘real time’ during
implementation to support performance and policy
conversations.
Expectations for use of M&E information are
outlined, including when and how partners
will use data to for decision-making.
Roles and responsibilities in reporting and
feedback loops are articulated.
Data collection, analysis and
reporting is provided to partners
routinely. Use of data for decision-
making and feedback loops are not
described.
Opportunities for feedback and
follow up rely on pro-active
engagement from partners.
Standard reporting processes
and products are outlined.
Roles are responsibilities of
partners and stakeholders,
and use of data.

10
4. MONITORING &
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
EVALUATION
Methods and tools for broad stakeholder reflection on There are no formal opportunities
progress are set out, including provision of data and for broader stakeholders to be
reporting products for feedback and verification. informed or influence the
investment.
There are plans for periodic review and re-design, and
an appropriate level of flexibility to enable adaptive
program management.

The design explains when and how independent
expertise and technical advisory group input will be
engaged.
Terms of reference for expected evaluations/reviews
are drafted.
DFAT’s role in monitoring (e.g. site visits,
reviewing data and reporting) is set out. Use
of external independent monitoring and
advisory bodies, such as technical advisory
groups and/or consultants, are described.
Timing and purpose of key review and
evaluation points are identified.
Independent monitoring by DFAT
officers or separately contracted
consultants is implicit and not
detailed in the investment design.
Review and evaluation points are
not identified.
No arrangements are
articulated for independent
monitoring and evaluation.
Less than 4% of the
investment budget, if any, is
dedicated to M&E.

Appropriate human and financial resource needs for
M&E and M&E systems oversight have been identified,
both within DFAT and the partner(s) (including input
from qualified senior M&E practitioners and
independent expertise).
4-7% of the investment budget is dedicated to M&E, and
this level is justified with reference to the investment
type, performance information required, and context.
The budget has provision for human and
financial resources, including those to be
provided by DFAT outside the implementing
partner’s funding arrangements.
4-7% of the investment budget is dedicated
to M&E.
Budget for inputs for M&E is There is no discussion of
included in implementation costing budget for M&E.
but not separately identified.
Less than 4% of the investment
budget is dedicated to M&E.

11
5. SUSTAINABILITY Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Will the investment Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating 3) Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
lead to benefits and
partnerships that will The program logic includes references to the policy, The program logic references aspects of The program logic fails to address Consideration of key
last beyond the institutional, behavioural, financial and/or sustainability that may be relevant to the key elements of sustainability that sustainability issues are not
duration of the environmental changes that are expected to last context and nature of the investment, are critical to the context or nature reflected in the investment
investment? beyond the life of the investment (the end of and a sustainability strategy is articulated of the investment, though they design.
investment outcomes and overarching development to work towards enduring and lasting may be implicit or justified
objectives). benefits. elsewhere in the design.
Focus areas:
A definition and strategy for sustainability is clearly
 Lasting benefits articulated in the design.
 Local systems
‘Thinking and working politically’ is integrated The investment’s delivery approach An approach to policy dialogue and Policy dialogue and reform are
 Leveraging resources throughout the design, and the investment will be recognises the constraints and challenges reform agenda are implicit or not mentioned.
well placed to pursue windows of opportunity for to sustainability, and articulates an poorly articulated.
The delivery approach is
reform. approach to policy dialogue and a reform
The design mentions work with entirely independent of local
agenda.
The investment uses local systems and institutions local partners but key constraints systems and institutions and
appropriately and adequately, with a strong focus on There is a plan to increasingly work with to longer term benefits and change sustainability is likely to be low.
policy dialogue and a clear reform agenda. local systems and with local partners and are not adequately addressed.
institutions.

Requirements for DFAT staff time, effort, and Requirements for DFAT staff time, effort,
capabilities for strategic and policy dialogue tasks are and capabilities for strategic and policy
identified and will enable strategic dialogue within dialogue tasks are identified.
the context and sector.
Opportunities for leveraging domestic
Domestic partner resources and those of other and external resources are identified in
donors/sources of funding are well described and the design, although implementation
leveraged. may not be dependent or reliant on
them.
Requirements for DFAT staff
involvement in strategic and policy
dialogue tasks are not clearly
identified.
The design articulates linkages and
dependencies with other partners
and resources, but fails to
adequately align Australian
assistance or explain opportunities
to leverage other resources, or
contribute to longer term goals.
Requirements for DFAT staff
involvement are absent.
The program operates as a
standalone investment,
without buy-in from local
partners or leverage
opportunities. All activities are
entirely dependent on
resources from Australia for
implementation.

12
6. GENDER EQUALITY
AND CROSS- Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
CUTTING ISSUES

Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating 3) Poor, very poor (rating
Does the investment
1-2)
adequately address
gender equality and
women’s A high quality gender analysis highlights key enablers Key enablers and barriers to gender References to gender analysis or key enablers There are no references
empowerment \? and barriers to women's participation, and these are equality and women’s empowerment and barriers related to gender are few and/or to gender in the design,
addressed. are identified. cursory, and any strategies to enhance gender or there is a poor
equality are implicit rather than clearly understanding of
Specific actions are planned to promote gender equality Plans for further analysis are set out,
articulated. opportunities to address
Focus areas: throughout implementation. and a strategy to integrate gender
gender equality and
equality throughout implementation There are no specific plans for further analysis
 Gender analysis women’s empowerment
is described. or actions to promote gender equality and
mainstreamed through this investment.
women’s empowerment throughout
throughout design
implementation.

Gender analysis and opportunities to improve women’s A strategy for enhancing women’s Governance, M&E and implementation There are cursory, if
empowerment are reflected in the program logic and participation in governance and arrangements refer to gender or women’s any, references to
throughout the design document. management of the program over participation, but do not set out clear plans or gender in the
time is described. strategies to improve gender equality and investment’s
Governance and M&E arrangements (including collection
women’s empowerment. governance,
of sex-disaggregated data) will ensure that gender M&E arrangements will ensure
management and M&E
equality is addressed throughout implementation. collection of sex-disaggregated data. M&E arrangements make cursory or vague
arrangements.
mentions of gender.

13
6. GENDER EQUALITY
AND CROSS- Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
CUTTING ISSUES

Does the investment The program logic and implementation arrangements
adequately address reflect detailed analysis of opportunities and issues
priority cross-cutting related to the cross-cutting policy priorities of disability
issues? inclusive development, innovation, private sector
engagement and climate change.
Either the design document or annexes articulate
Focus areas:
problem definitions based on analysis and evidence and
 Disability identify ways to address these issues throughout
implementation, as appropriate for the context and
 Innovation
nature of the investment.
 Private sector Cross cutting issues are integrated into the M&E
engagement framework, and the implementation plan includes
 Climate change specific plans for further analysis and independent
reviews of progress and opportunities.
Key opportunities and barriers are
included in the design’s program logic
and implementation arrangements.
The investment design acknowledges
the challenges of disability inclusive
development, innovation, private
sector engagement and climate
change, as relevant to the context and
nature of the investment.
The M&E framework and
implementation plan include plans for
further analysis of cross-cutting
issues, and independent review of
progress and opportunities.
The relevance and importance of cross-cutting Significant aspects of
issues of disability inclusive development, the context or nature of
innovation, private sector engagement and the design related to
climate change, are implicit in the design, disability inclusive
rather than specifically addressed. development,
innovation, private
There are few if any references to relevant
sector engagement and
cross-cutting issues in the governance,
climate change, are
implementation and M&E arrangements of the
missing or ignored in the
investment.
investment design.

14
7. RISK
MANAGEMENT & Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
SAFEGUARDS

Does the design Good, very good (rating 5-6) Adequate (rating 4) Less than adequate (rating 3) Poor, very poor (rating 1-2)
identify all relevant
risks in detail, and set A risk analysis reflects the participation of key stakeholders and A risk matrix is provided that Key risks may be identified, but Significant risk areas are not
out plans to mitigate partners, and identifies a comprehensive range of political, highlights key risks across main risk not all categories are considered. addressed in the design, and
their effects? policy, program, implementation, safeguards and other risks. categories, with justified risk ratings, or the risk assessment
Responsibilities for acting on risk
and presents realistic plans to provided is unrealistic.
Risk sharing and responsibilities have been negotiated and events may not be considered.
ameliorate them.
Focus areas: included in a risk register that outlines steps taken to ameliorate
risk in the design and roles and responsibilities for residual risks. Roles and responsibilities for acting
 Risk on risk events are described.
Risks are also drawn from the assumptions in the program logic.
 Safeguards
Legal obligations and other issues related to DFAT’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy are The document fails to identify and/or address relevant safeguards
identified and addressed (see current version in the APG). issues relevant to the investment.

15
ATTACHMENT B: QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY FOR
DESIGN APPROVAL
This document must be attached to all design approval minutes, and uploaded into AidWorks.

Investment name:

Total proposed funding allocation: $_______ Risk profile: <high/low risk>/ <high/low value>

QUALITY ASSURANCE UNDERTAKEN

Short summary of all quality assurance undertaken. Refer to the mandatory requirements and any
additional quality assurance processes. Include names of appraisers and formal peer reviewers and the
dates of any relevant meetings.

ISSUES FOR DFAT ATTENTION DURING IMPLEMENTATION

Set out issues requiring DFAT attention during implementation. Include resources required for investment
management/oversight and policy dialogue.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED AND DFAT RESPONSES (ADD ROWS

FOR EACH COMMENT OR ISSUE)

Raised by Comment/issue Required change(s) DFAT response

Relevance
(e.g. appraiser (e.g. explanation of how
or peer reviewer the design was changed
name(s), in response or why it
comment from was not)
X section(s))

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Monitoring and evaluation

16
 Sustainability

Gender equality and cross-cutting issues

Innovation and private sector

Risk management and safeguards

Other/overarching

17
ATTACHMENT C: SUGGESTED TEMPLATE FOR INFORMAL
COMMENTS
For use in informal quality assurance processes; not a substitute for independent appraisal or formal peer
review.

Source Issue/section/page Change required/requested DFAT response

18
ATTACHMENT D: INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL AND FORMAL PEER REVIEW SCORES
(DELETE REFERENCE TO PEER REVIEW IF NOT APPLICABLE)
Satisfactory rating (4, 5 and 6)
6 Very high quality; does not require amendment before proceeding
5 Good quality; needs minor work to improve in some areas
4 Adequate quality; needs some work to improve
Less than satisfactory rating (1, 2 and 3)
3 Less than adequate quality; needs to be improved in core areas
2 Poor quality; needs major work to improve
1 Very poor quality; needs major overhaul

Scores
Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Monitoring Sustainability Gender & Innovation & Risk &
& evaluation cross cutting private sector safeguards
Consensus Score
Independent appraiser
name
Independent appraiser
name
Formal peer reviewer
name and area e.g.
Investment Design
Section, ACD
Formal peer reviewer
name and area
Formal peer reviewer
name and area

19
ATTACHMENT E: STANDARD FORMAL PEER REVIEW
AGENDA
Formal peer review of [investment name]
[date, time, location]
2:00 – 2:10 Welcome by Chair [name, position]
 Quick self-introduction of participants around the table
 Purpose of formal peer review
2:10 – 2:20 Brief background to [investment] and the design process
 Short introduction of [investment] and DFAT’s strategic intent
 Outline of process to date
2:20 – 2:30 Summary of key issues raised in appraisals/written comments from formal peer
reviewers and planned responses
2:30 – 3:40 Discussion of appraiser and formal peer reviewer scores and comments for each
quality criterion as it relates to [investment], and their implications for
implementation. Consensus on a single score reflecting the peer review’s collective
opinion for each criterion:
 Relevance
 Effectiveness
 Efficiency
 Monitoring and Evaluation
 Sustainability
 Gender Equality and Cross-Cutting Issues
 Risk Management and Safeguards
 Innovation and private sector
3:45 – 4:00 Chair summary on agreed outcomes:
 Is [investment] fit for purpose and suitable to fund?;
 Consensus scores;
 Further treatment of risks and management strategies;
 Summary of any further improvements; and
 If investment is recommended, summary of specific areas of management focus for
DFAT during implementation, including DFAT resourcing for managing the program
and policy dialogue with partners.
 Provide approximate timeframe for circulating the Quality Assurance Summary (and
if required, timeframe for recirculating the amended document)

20
ATTACHMENT G: SAMPLE DESIGN QUALITY ASSURANCE
TIMELINE (HIGH VALUE/HIGH RISK INVESTMENT,
CONCEPT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY AGB)

Design document/summary provided to 19 February

independent appraisers and formal peer
reviewers

Appraisal reports and scores received from 26 February

appraiser and provided to peer reviewers

Peer review meeting 6 March

Revised design and Quality Assurance Summary 12 March

circulated to reviewers for review

Design and Quality Assurance Summary 16 March

provided to AGB Secretariat

AGB meeting—design endorsed with no 16 April

minimal changes

Revised final design presented to delegate for 20 April

approval

21