How to write a research TOR that gets useful proposals

A good terms of reference document makes proposals easier to compare because it explains the decision, the evidence needed and the conditions under which the work must be delivered.

Start with the decision, then describe the study

A procurement brief often begins with a preferred method: a survey, interviews or an evaluation. First explain what the organization needs to decide. A study intended to prioritize service improvements requires different evidence from one intended to estimate market demand or assess a programme’s contribution to change.

Name the intended users of the findings and when they will use them. Describe the context, what is already known and the uncertainties that matter. This gives a bidder enough information to challenge an unsuitable method constructively instead of simply pricing the requested activity.

Separate required evidence from preferred methods

State the research questions and define the population or organizational units of interest. If a method is mandatory, explain why. If it is open to recommendation, ask the proposal to justify the design and disclose its limitations.

For a survey, a large sample does not fix poor coverage or a biased questionnaire. AAPOR’s guidance emphasizes the connection between objectives, mode, sampling and instrument design. Ask bidders to explain recruitment, quality controls and what the results can represent, rather than judging the methodology only by the number of interviews.

Specify outputs people can use

“Final report” is usually too broad to support acceptance. Describe the expected audience, format and content. A management team may need an executive decision brief alongside the full findings; a research team may need the clean dataset, codebook, scripts and documented data exclusions.

Define review rounds, file formats and ownership of working materials. If the assignment includes a workshop, clarify whether the purpose is to validate findings, decide actions or train staff. Those are different deliverables and should be scoped accordingly.

Make dependencies visible

List the materials and access the organization can provide, including previous studies, administrative data, stakeholder introductions and site permissions. Identify uncertainty honestly. If access to a sampling frame has not been confirmed, proposals should explain how that affects the approach and cost.

For international work, address languages, country coverage, remote collaboration, field access and permitted data locations. Before sharing personal data across borders, ask the responsible privacy team to determine the applicable transfer requirements. The European Commission and UK ICO provide separate guidance; a generic confidentiality clause does not resolve every data-transfer question.

Create a clear review and acceptance process

Use milestones tied to decisions: inception review, instrument approval, pilot review, fieldwork completion, draft findings and final handover. Assign a client decision-maker and explain how comments will be consolidated. Avoid a schedule that assumes immediate access or approval when those dependencies are outside the supplier’s control.

State how methodological questions will be handled and how proposals will be evaluated. Ask for an itemized commercial response aligned to the workplan, with assumptions and exclusions visible. This makes it easier to compare the actual scope of competing offers.

A practical final check

Before issuing the TOR, ask a colleague unfamiliar with the project to read it. They should be able to explain the decision, the people or systems being studied, the expected outputs, the deadline and the approvals required. If those points are unclear, a supplier is likely to fill the gaps with assumptions.

The strongest brief leaves room for professional judgement while being precise about the outcome and constraints. It invites a reasoned proposal rather than a promise to perform a list of activities.