1

Bicol University Tabaco Campus

Tabaco City
ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEPARTMENT

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING FEASIBILITY STUDY (ENTREP 26 – PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY)

Name of Student: _____________________________ Date: _____________ Score: _______________

CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5 TOTA % REMARKS

(P) (F) (S) (VS) (E) L equivalent
I. QUALITY OF SCHOLARY REPORT (60%)
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
1. Introduction
a. Rationale & objectives
b. Name of the business & nature of the
project
c. Location
B. MARKET STUDY
a. Product description
b. Name/characteristics of the products
b.1. Uses/application of the product
b.2. Users of the product
c. Demand analysis
c.1. Historical data for the demand
c.2. Projected data for the demand
d. Competitors/supply analysis
d.1. Historical data for the supply
d.2. Projected data for the supply
e. Demand & supply gap analysis
e.1. Market share
f. Marketing strategies & program
f.1. Product
f.2. Price
f.3. Promotion
f.4. Place/channel of distribution
C. TECHNICAL STUDY
a. Manufacturing process
b. machineries & equipment/tools/utensils
c. Raw materials & sources
d. Plant location
e. Plant layout
f. Production schedule & requirements
g. Production manpower requirements
h. utilities requirements
i. Waste disposal scheme
D. MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION STUDY
a. Forms of business organization
b. organizational chart
c. Officers & personnel
c.1 Positions & qualifications
c.2. Duties & responsibilities
E. FINANCIAL STUDY
a. Project cost
b. Sources of financing & amortizations
schedule
c. Projected financial statements
c.1. Profit & loss statement
c.2. Cash Flow
c.3. Balance sheet
1
 2
d. Production cost analysis
e. Financial analysis
B. QUALITY OF SCHOLARLY DIALOGUE (40%)
1. Mastery of the subject matter.
2. Skills in carrying out academic dialogue,
rationally justifying persuasiveness
3. Facility of expression, articulation, etc. of ideas
indicating ability to describe and explain the
study.
4. Student’s openness, flexibility, intellectual
honesty.
TOTAL

Remarks: FOR EXPLANATION (REVISE OR REPHARSE)

FOR DATA (RECOMPUTE OR CHECK COMPUTATION OR CHANGE THE DATA)

Evaluator: ___________________________

2
 3

RUBRICS FOR QUALITY OF SCHORLARLY REPORT

SCORE % EQUIVALENT SCALE DESCRIPTION

5 94 - 100% Excellent The justification for the study is appropriate.
Prototype for the product is presented with complete packaging, label and markings.
Computations are correct.
Data are accurate & realistic
The method of projection used is appropriate for the data
Factors considered in projection are stated.
The analyses are coherent (logical, rational, articulate, sound)
Follow the prescribe format, and utilize correct style (punctuation, indention, spacing,
appropriate font, markings)
The layout is very appropriate, specifications of machineries & capacities are
presented, maps, illustrations, photo, etc. are complete.
4 90 – 94% Very The justification for the study is appropriate but the presentation is not coherent.
satisfactory
Prototype for the product is presented with incomplete label, marking, etc., the
packaging is not appropriate for the product.
Computations are correct
Data are accurate but not very realistic.
The method of projection used is appropriate for the data
Factors considered in projections are not completely stated.
The analyses are not very coherent (logical, rational, articulate and sound).
The prescribe format is partially followed (inappropriate punctuation, indention,
spacing, font and markings).
The layout is not well done; some specification & capacities, maps, illustration, photo,
etc. are missing.
3 85 - 89 Satisfactory The justification is not well stated.
Prototype for the product is presented with incomplete label, marking, etc. and
inappropriate packaging.
Computations are correct
Data are somewhat doubtful & some are not realistic.
The method of projection is appropriate for the data.
Factors considered in projections are not stated.
Analyses is fair (not very logical, grammars are in correct and not articulate)
The prescribe format is partially followed
The layout is not well done; some specification & capacities, maps, illustration, photo,
etc. are missing.
2 80 – 84 Fair There is no justification, the proponent presented information which does not justify
the purpose for preparing business plan.
No prototype is presented
Computations are correct
Data are not realistic and not accurate
Method of projection is inappropriate for the data
Factors considered in the projections are not stated.
Analyses are poorly done.
The prescribe format is partially followed
Incomplete layout, specification and capacities, illustrations, photo, etc.
Recommendation: Consider revising
1 75 - 79 Poor The proponent cannot justify the conduct of the business plan.
No prototype is presented
Computations are wrong
Data are not realistic and not accurate.
Methods of projection are not appropriate.
Factors considered in the projections are not stated.
Analysis for some tables is missing and incomplete.
Format are not followed
No layout, specification and capacities, illustrations, photo, etc.
The panel cannot accept the proposal, hence, revision is needed.
Recommendation: Consider revising and to be submitted on 3 days after the proposal
defense.

3
 4
RUBRICS FOR QUALITY OF SCHORLARLY DIALOGUE

RAW PERCENTAGE SCALE DESCRIPTION

SCORE EQUIVALENT
5 94 - 100% Excellent The proponent has complete mastery of the subject matter as shown by articulate
presentation of the proposal, and with complete power point presentation.
The proponent show confidence in carrying out academic dialogue and rationally
justifies persuasiveness.
The proponent is articulate, has facility of expression hence ably describe and present
the study
The proponent shows openness, flexibility and intellectual honesty.
4 90 – 94% Very The proponent shows limited mastery of the subject matter as shown by his/her by
satisfactory inarticulate presentation of the proposal, with power point presentation.
The proponent shows nervousness in carrying out academic dialogue and cannot
rationally justify persuasiveness.
The proponent is not very articulate, has limited facility of expression hence find
difficulty in explaining the proposal.
The proponent shows openness, flexibility and with reservation for intellectual
honesty.
3 85 - 89 Satisfactory The proponent has semblance of the mastery for the subject matter as shown by
his/her inability not fully explain the proposal.
The proponent shows nervousness in carrying out academic dialogue and is not
persuasive.
The proponent is not articulate, has partial facility of expression hence encounter
problem in explaining the proposal.
The proponent is not open for suggestion, not flexible, disregard intellectual honesty.
2 80 – 84 Fair The proponents do not have mastery of the subject matter, he/she memorizes the
proposal as shown by his/her uneasy gesture during the presentation, but with power
point presentation, instead read the content of the proposal.
The proponent is not articulate, no facility of expression and uses the dialect during
presentation.
Since the proponent does not have mastery, he/she has a high degree of flexibility and
openness, i.e., accepting what the entire panel suggested, because he/she cannot
justify the study.
1 75 - 79 Poor The proponent has difficulty in presenting the proposal, no power point presentation.
The proponent cannot answer the question and only shows his/her smile when
question is asked by the panel.
Due to lack of mastery, the proponent is uneasy, hence, has no facility of expression.
Its is recommended that the proponent should study the business plan and present it
again subject to the availability of time.