An advisory terms-of-reference checklist is a commissioning aid for defining the problem, scope, deliverables, evidence and institutional responsibilities.
Within public administration, Schedule 3A national public entities and Schedule 3C provincial public entities operate under the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) Revised Framework.
In provincial administration, the Western Cape Governance Guidelines provide oversight norms and RACI tools for provincial entities. Planning frameworks establish oversight principles without creating new procurement obligations or tender requirements.
clarify the duties and responsibilities
— Western Cape Public Entity Governance Guidelines, RACI guidance, page7
Framing the institutional problem statement and operational mandate
A terms of reference (ToR) begins with a problem statement grounded in a diagnostic review. Institutions must articulate the specific operational breakdown or performance gap that external assistance addresses. A clear problem statement aligns advisory workstreams with strategic objectives and performance plans.
Framing the mandate requires establishing project boundaries and scope exclusions. The ToR specifies which units, financial systems, or branches are included, excluding unrelated administrative areas. Scope exclusions prevent scope creep and enable specialists to focus analysis on designated priorities.
ToR drafting is distinct from procurement stages like proposal evaluation or implementation. Terms of reference define requirements before market engagement; this checklist focuses on requirement design, while procurement procedures and evaluation criteria must follow the applicable rules. Legal context remains concise, aligning project objectives with planning frameworks.
Defining technical deliverables, institutional access and data governance
To ensure accountability, the ToR defines concrete technical deliverables linked to workstreams. Generic outputs should be replaced with defined technical artefacts, including diagnostic reports and mapped operating procedures. Deliverable definitions outline technical acceptance criteria to guide management reviews.
Executing workstreams requires establishing explicit protocols for access and data governance. The brief should identify which records are needed and the permitted access mode, rather than assuming every specialist needs direct system access. Approved extracts or read-only access may suit diagnostic work where authorised. The checklist does not itself grant system access.
Data governance protocols enforce security standards and preserve evidence. The proposed brief should define secure handling, retention and access arrangements for records, working papers and logs. Access boundaries protect institutional records while giving advisors visibility to complete assigned tasks.
Clarifying internal responsibilities and governance decision rights
Drafting a ToR requires establishing clear governance interfaces between external teams, line managers, and oversight bodies. Using governance tools, such as a RACI chart (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed), clarifies stakeholder participation across project activities. A RACI map defines who prepares deliverables, who grants formal approval, who provides technical input, and who receives progress reports.
Proposed governance interfaces represent contract design recommendations rather than new statutory duties. As emphasised in provincial guidelines, applying a RACI chart supports role clarity without creating or displacing statutory responsibilities (Western Cape Governance Guidelines, page 7). The ToR explicitly states that accounting officers and authorities retain ultimate statutory accountability for governance and financial administration.
Statutory accountability does not imply that all powers are non-delegable or that boards hold sole authority over every transaction. Under applicable legislation, accounting officers and authorities may delegate operational functions to executive managers or line heads. Clarifying delegation arrangements helps staff follow the correct review and approval routes.
Designing acceptance evidence, knowledge transfer and contract exit
Connecting milestone payments to verified technical evidence protects public funds and supports performance. Where agreed commercial terms link a payment to acceptance, the brief should identify the authorised reviewer and the evidence required, such as a reconciliation file or approved report. Clear acceptance records help reviewers assess whether the agreed conditions have been met.
Where capability building is part of the mandate, the ToR should describe the intended staff tasks and evidence of application. Advisory support should avoid operational dependency; the scope can include practical coaching and joint working sessions with staff. Knowledge transfer is demonstrated when internal officials independently apply new tools and operating procedures.
Contract exit criteria must be defined upfront to govern completion and handover. The ToR specifies that contract closeout occurs after executive sponsors confirm all deliverables are accepted, manuals are archived, and staff competency sign-offs are completed. Exit criteria make remaining handover tasks and support needs visible.
Institutional leads should use the following practical checklist when drafting an advisory ToR:
- Articulating a precise problem statement grounded in a diagnostic assessment.
- Specifying technical workstream scope, operational boundaries, and scope exclusions.
- Defining concrete deliverables, technical acceptance criteria, and evidence artefacts.
- Establishing read-only system access protocols and data governance boundaries.
- Deploying a RACI matrix to clarify internal roles while preserving approval authority.
- Specifying agreed knowledge transfer activities verified through staff application.
- Setting objective contract exit criteria and resource archiving protocols for closeout.
Advisory terms-of-reference design matrix
To assist institutional leads in structuring commissioning briefs, the table below provides an advisory ToR design matrix. This framework represents a contract design recommendation rather than a statutory form, detailing key ToR sections, core design focus, primary evidence artefacts, and retained governance roles.
| ToR checklist section | Core contract design focus | Primary evidence artefact | Retained governance role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem & Scope | Define operational breakdown and technical boundaries | Approved diagnostic statement & scope map | Accounting Officer / CFO scope sign-off |
| Deliverables & Access | Specify technical outputs & read-only data access rules | Deliverable acceptance checklist & access log | Line Manager deliverable review |
| Governance & RACI | Map stakeholder duties using RACI framework | Approved RACI matrix & delegation register | Accounting Authority approval |
| Skills Transfer & Exit | Agree staff practice & exit evidence | Staff competency log & exit sign-off file | Executive Sponsor closeout |
What good looks like
A well-drafted terms of reference establishes a bounded commissioning framework aligning external support with institutional priorities. By articulating precise problem statements, defining evidence-backed deliverables, preserving statutory decision rights, reviewing evidence of knowledge transfer, and establishing exit criteria, public institutions build internal capability and support a more controlled advisory engagement.
Sources
Frequently Asked Questions
How does an advisory terms of reference differ from a proposal evaluation framework?
Terms of reference define the institutional problem, scope, deliverables and governance boundaries. A proposal evaluation framework addresses how submissions will be assessed under the applicable procurement process; the requirement checklist does not replace it.
Why should a terms-of-reference checklist include scope exclusions?
Scope exclusions identify units, systems or activities that the engagement does not cover. Making those boundaries explicit helps the institution review proposed additions and distinguish the approved mandate from unrelated work.
What should the brief specify about access to institutional records?
The brief should identify the records needed, the permitted access mode and the authorised handling arrangements. Approved extracts or read-only access may suit diagnostic work, but the checklist itself grants no system permissions.
How does a RACI matrix clarify responsibilities in terms of reference?
A RACI matrix identifies who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed for a task or decision. The proposed matrix should reflect actual approval routes and delegations, rather than create new authority for an adviser or delivery office.
How can terms of reference make knowledge transfer assessable?
Where knowledge transfer is agreed, the brief can define practical coaching, joint work and tasks staff should later perform independently. Staff-generated work and manager-reviewed demonstrations provide evidence for assessing that element of the mandate; attendance alone is insufficient evidence of application.
For the wider context, read defining an effective government advisory mandate.