DMD-2026-015
National household income & expenditure survey 2027
EvaluationDevelopment proposal
- Priority score
- 72
- Estimated cost
- SYP 462.5M
- Net present value
- SYP 139M
- Internal rate of return
- 16.4%
- Payback period
- 3.6 years
- Rank in the 2027 plan
- #5
Preliminary score from screening — confirmed after evaluation
of 9 candidates
- Gate into «Submitted»DecisionGoDate27 May 2026DraftComplete
- Gate into «Initial review»DecisionGoDate5 July 2026SubmittedComplete
- Gate into «Feasibility»DecisionGoDate14 August 2026Initial reviewComplete
- Gate into «Evaluation»DecisionGoDate22 September 2026FeasibilityComplete
- Gate into «Committee review»DecisionNot held yetEvaluationCurrent stageCurrent stage
- Gate into «Approved»DecisionNot held yet6Committee reviewNot started
- Gate into «Prioritized»DecisionNot held yet7ApprovedNot started
- Gate into «Converted to project»DecisionNot held yet8PrioritizedNot started
- 9Converted to projectNot started
P2P2 · High priority — score 72 of 100
Priority class
High priority
Computed from the score and the approved model’s thresholds; may be changed with a reason kept in the history
By the model: P2 (score 72)
Class thresholds
P175–100P260–74P345–59P40–44
The approved model (version 4) with the eleven criteria; the score is the weighted mean of the ratings scaled to 100. You are evaluating: change a criterion’s rating and the score updates at once.
Evaluation against the priority model
| Criterion | Weight | Rating (1–5) | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value | |||
| Fit with the development frameworkHow far the proposal moves the objectives of the 2026–2030 development framework, its six pillars and the initiatives and KPIs of the 2026–2028 medium-term plan.Raises priority | 20% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 20.0 |
| Development valueThe value it adds for citizens and the governorates: a public service restored, infrastructure rehabilitated or a new national capability.Raises priority | 12% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 12.0 |
| Economic & social returnThe economic and social return in the feasibility study, and its contribution to rationalised investment spending and restored production.Raises priority | 8% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 4.8 |
| Urgency & compliance | |||
| UrgencyThe cost of delay: what citizens and the beneficiary bodies lose if work does not start this year.Raises priority | 10% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 7.5 |
| Legal requirementIs it required by a law, a decree, a Council of Ministers decision or a directive from a control body or the competent ministry (Ministry of Communications and IT, the Central Organisation for Financial Control)?Raises priority | 10% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 1.0 |
| Impact | |||
| Impact on citizens & beneficiariesIts direct effect on citizens, returning families, students, patients and farmers: time, effort, cost and satisfaction.Raises priority | 14% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 7.7 |
| Sustainability impactIts contribution to energy and water efficiency in public facilities, renewable energy and lower emissions.Raises priority | 3% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 0.6 |
| Digital transformation impactIts contribution to digital government services, public-body processes and the use of statistical data.Raises priority | 5% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 5.0 |
| Effort & risk | |||
| RiskDelivery, technical and contractual risk — the higher it is, the lower the priority.Lowers priority | 7% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 5.4 |
| ComplexityThe number of bodies, governorates, systems, integrations and procedure changes involved.Lowers priority | 6% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 3.4 |
| Resource requirementThe team, budget and scarce skills it draws from the portfolio’s capacity.Lowers priority | 5% | 1 · Very weak2 · Weak3 · Average4 · Good5 · Excellent | 4.1 |
| Priority scorePreliminary score from screening — confirmed after evaluation | 72 / 100 | ||
Evaluation profile
This request’s ratings against the average approved request
- This request
- Approved average
| Category | This request | Approved average |
|---|---|---|
| Alignment | 100 | 94 |
| Value | 100 | 91 |
| Return | 60 | 77 |
| Urgency | 75 | 79 |
| Regulatory | 10 | 27 |
| Risk | 78 | 89 |
| Complexity | 57 | 79 |
| Resources | 83 | 91 |
| Beneficiary | 55 | 63 |
| Sustainability | 20 | 30 |
| Digital | 100 | 58 |
Evaluation panel
The request goes to committee only when everyone has signed
Kinan Azzam
Senior Digital Delivery Consultant — National PMO
High statistical impact, high field complexity
Signed 2026-10-01Eng. Rita Ghanem
Enterprise Architect
Needs a shared data standard with the census platform
Signed 2026-10-09Huda Al-Dandal
Senior Financial Analyst — Investment Plan
Pending a review of the fieldwork cost
Awaiting signature
The remaining evaluators sign and the current ratings are fixed