local partnership for employment, croatia aspects of project assessment, evaluation & selection...

Local Partnership for Employment, Croatia

Aspectsof Project Assessment, Evaluation & Selection

(Technical & Financial Quality)


Workshop Structure & Method

Welcome Presenter & participant introductions,

roles & expectations Domestic arrangements & logistics Active participation & sharing of

experience Clarification of issues through:

- questions & answers, discussion, participant & trainer feedback


Aims of Training Workshop

To fully understand roles & use of Evaluation Grid, Evaluation Criteria & Project Scoring.

To examine key elements in Technical Quality Assessment of proposals.

To examine key elements in Financial Quality Assessment of proposals.

To fully understand roles in assisting in Project Selection & Award by the Evaluation Committee.


Eligibility & Role of Assessors

To be eligible, an assessor should- not have been involved in preparatory work for any projects that s/he may be required to assess;- nor should they offer their services under a sub-contract to successful project that they have assessed.



All assessors should- Sign a standard declaration of impartiality & confidentiality;- Attend a training session to aquaint them with specific aspects of evaluation & assessment;- Assess a number of small-scale project proposals (which have passed Administrative & Eligibility Compliance);


Eligibility & Role of Assessors All assessors should

- Use an Evaluation Grid & forms following a format recommended by PRAG (with each project assessed by at least 2 assessors working separately & producing their own independent assessment);- Be available to the Evaluation Committee should the committee require further explanation of points made by assessors in evaluated projects;- Strictly follow the Evaluation Grid & scoring system, including the 5- point scale (very poor to very good) given to them (EC Phare requirement).


Eligibility & Role of Assessors - Summary

Technical & Financial Quality Assessment- Requires from assessors a declaration of impartiality & confidentiality;- Uses an evaluation grid, selection & award criteria based upon a pre-defined scoring system;- Produces a list of all proposals ranked by score for award by the Evaluation Committee.



Practical Exercise- Consider your role as an assessor.- Have you been involved in any preparatory work for any LRDGS projects?- Are you prepared to sign a standard declaration of impartiality & confidentiality?- Clarification, Discussion, Q & A.


DECLARATION OFIMPARTIALITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

PUBLICATION REF:____________________

I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I agree to participate in the evaluation of the above-mentioned [ tender procedure / call for proposals ]*. By making this declaration, I confirm that I have familiarised myself with the information available to date concerning this [ tender procedure / call for proposals ]*. I further declare that I shall execute my responsibilities honestly and fairly.I am independent of all parties which stand to gain from the outcome of the evaluation process. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no facts or circumstances, past or present, or that could arise in the foreseeable future, which might call into question my independence in the eyes of any party; and, should it become apparent during the course of the evaluation process that such a relationship exists or has been established, I will immediately cease to participate in the evaluation process.I agree to hold in trust and confidence any information or documents ("confidential information") disclosed to me or discovered by me or prepared by me in the course of or as a result of the evaluation and agree that it shall be used only for the purposes of this evaluation and shall not be disclosed to any third party. I also agree not to retain copies of any written information or prototypes supplied.Confidential information shall not be disclosed to any employee or expert unless they agree to execute and be bound by the terms of this Declaration. *Delete as applicable


Overall Context -

Supports implementation ofOperational Programme – Basic Infrastructure, National Development Plan & Single Programming Document NUTS II, Objective 2.

Three areas of activity - Strands A, B, C. Funded under EC Phare 2004 programme

& will operate over the period 2005-2007.


The Three Strands of LRDGS

Strand A – Strategies & Partnerships= elaboration of local & regional economic strategies (grant award: EUR 10,000 - 50,000).

Strand B – Local Development Organisations= promotion & stimulation of local development activities (grant award: EUR 10,000 - 50,000).

Strand C – Project Development= technical preparation of locally significant infrastructure projects (grant award: EUR 50,000 - 100,000).


PRAG – Main Principles

Fair competition (to avoid conflicts of interest – e.g., those who programme, manage or administer contract award procedures are excluded from bidding).

Transparency & impartiality (must apply to all contract award procedures).

Best value for money (most technically/economically advantageous offers to be selected).


PRAG – Grants (6)

6.2.3 Equal Treatment- Grant award process must be completely impartial.- Selected by Evaluation Committee with advice of assessors using published eligibility & evaluation (selection & award) criteria.


PRAG – Grants (6)

6.2.4 Non-Cumulation- No single beneficiary may receive more than 1 (EC funded) grant for a given action.- A beneficiary may be awarded only 1 (EC funded) operating grant per financial year.


PRAG – Grants (6)

6.2.5 Non-Retroactivity- Only cover costs incurred after the date on which the grant contract is signed.- No grant may be awarded for actions already completed.- Expenditure incurred before grant application was lodged are not eligible for financing.


PRAG – Grants (6) 6.2.7 Non-Profit

- Grants may not have the purpose or effect of producing a profit for the beneficiary.- Profit is defined as:(a) a surplus of aggregate receipts over costs when request is made for final payment;(b) a surplus on the operating budget of a body in receipt of an operating grant.


EU Practical Guide

Practical Exercise- Consider the information on EU PRAG.- Is everything clear to you?- Clarification, Discussion, Q & A.




Selection Process – Main Process & Flow Chart


Selection Process – Main Principles Evaluation Committee appointed by

contracting authority carries out assessment of project proposals.

Contracting authority & Technical Secretariats responsible for undertaking Administrative & Eligibility Compliance.

Evaluation Committee appoints assessors to undertake Technical & Financial Quality Assessment.


Selection Process – Main Principles cont. Contracting authority contracts

selected projects on the basis of Evaluation Committee recommendations.

Approved projects are sent for endorsement by EC Delegation.

Contracting authority signs contracts for approved projects with beneficiaries.


Selection Process – Main Principles cont. A formal process conducted in camera

& confidential, in which total number of applications received & their compliance with grant scheme requirements is established.

No information about examination, clarification, evaluation & comparison of proposals, or decisions about contract award can be given to anyone not involved.


Selection Process – Main Principles cont. All Evaluation Committee members

must sign a declaration of impartiality & confidentiality.

Any committee member with existing or past link with any applicant must declare it & immediately withdraw from the selection process.

If needed, an independent observer from EC Delegation may be present at Evaluation Committee meetings.


Selection Process – Flow ChartPROJECT APPLICATIONS

▼ ▼PHASE I – CONFORMITY CHECK

▼ ▼PHASE II – ELIGIBILITY CHECK

▼ ▼

PHASE III – TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION▼ ▼

PHASE IV – PROJECTS RANKING▼ ▼

PHASE V – DECISION ON THE AWARD OF GRANTS▼ ▼

PHASE VI – ENDORSEMENT OF GRANT AWARDS


Aspectsof Project Assessment, Evaluation &

Selection(Technical & Financial Quality)

Evaluation Grid, Evaluation Criteria& Project Scoring


Evaluation Grid, Evaluation Criteria & Project Scoring

Scoring Financial & Operational Capacity 20 Relevance 25 Methodology 30 Sustainability 15 Budget & Cost Effectiveness 10

Maximum Total Score 100



Evaluation criteria are divided into sections & sub-sections.- Each sub-section is given a score from 1 to 5 as follows:

1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = adequate,4 = good, 5 = very good

Priority given to highest scoring applications.



Section 1 – Financial & Operational Capacity- If total score lower than ‘adequate’ (12 points), OR

Section 2 – Relevance- If total score lower than ‘good’ (20 points),

…The proposal will be eliminated by the Evaluation Committee…


SectionMaximum

ScoreApplication

form

1. Financial and operational capacity 20

1.1 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient experience of project management? 5

II.4.1 and III.1

1.2 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient technical expertise?(notably knowledge of the issues to be addressed.)

5II.4.1 and

III.1

1.3 Do the applicant and partners have sufficient management capacity? (including staff, equipment and ability to handle the budget for the action)?

5II.4.2 and

III.1

1.4 Does the applicant have stable and sufficient sources of finance?

5 II.4.2


SectionMaximum

ScoreApplication

form

2. Relevance 25

2.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and one or more of the priorities of the call for proposals? Note: A score of 5 (very good) will only be allocated if the proposal specifically addresses at least one priority.

5 I.1.6(a)(b)

2.2 Is the proposal in accord with the Operational Programme – Basic Infrastructure, National Development Plan and Single programming document NUTS Objective 2, and economic and social development program of the region in accordance

5 I.1.6(c)

2.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are those involved (intermediaries, final beneficiaries, target groups)?

5 I.1.6(e)

2.4 Have the needs of the target groups proposed and the final beneficiaries been clearly defined and does the proposal address them appropriately?

5 I.1.6 (c)(f)

2.5 Does the proposal contain specific elements of added value, such as innovative approaches, models for good practice, strong and evident local/regional impact, are the proposal ready for implementation?

5 Passim


SectionMaximum

ScoreApplication

form

3. Methodology 30

3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and consistent with the objectives and expected results? 5 I.1.7

3.2 How coherent is the overall design of the action? (in particular, does it reflect the analysis of the problems involved, take into account external factors and anticipate an evaluation?)

5 I.1.8

3.3 Is the partners' level of involvement and participation in the action satisfactory?Note: If there are no partners the score will be 1.

5 I.1.8(e)

3.4 Is the target groups' and final beneficiaries' level of involvement and participation in the action satisfactory? 5 I.1.8(e)

3.5 Is the action plan clear and feasible? 5 I.1.9

3.6 Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcome of the action? 5 I.2.1


SectionMaximum

ScoreApplicatio

n form

4. Sustainability 15

4.1 Is the action likely to have a tangible impact on its target groups?

5 I.2.1

4.2 Is the proposal likely to have multiplier effects? (including scope for replication and extension of the outcome of the action and dissemination of information.)

5 I.2.2 & I.2.3

4.3 Are the expected results of the proposed action sustainable:- financially (how will the activities be financed after the EC funding ends?)- institutionally (will structures allowing the activities to continue be in place at the end of the action? Will there be local “ownership” of the results of the action?)- at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the structural impact of the action — e.g. will it lead to improved legislation, codes of conduct, methods, etc?)?

5 I.2.4


SectionMaximum

ScoreApplication

form

5. Budget and cost-effectiveness 10

5.1 is the ratio between the estimated costs and the expected results satisfactory? 5 I.3

5.2 Is the proposed expenditure necessary for the implementation of the action? 5 I.3



Practical Exercise- Consider the Evaluation Grid.- Understand the selection & award criteria.- Clarification, Discussion, Q & A.




Technical Quality Assessment


Technical Quality Assessment Considers specifically…

Section 2 (Relevance)Section 3 (Methodology)Section 4 (Sustainability)

of the Evaluation Grid.

Be aware of what the Eligible Actions & Activities are under Strands A, B, C.


Eligible Actions & Activities

Must take place in Slovakia & meet the following conditions:

- Have a strong & evident local/regional impact;

- Be financially assessed as realistic & transparent;

- Be ready for implementation;


Eligible Actions & Activities continued &

- Be in accordance with Operational Programme – Basic Infrastructure, National Development Plan & Single Programming Document, Objective 2, long-term development plans of municipalities or regions;

- Contain innovative approaches;- Comply with the maximum & minimum levels of project support.


Aspectsof Project Assessment, Evaluation &

Selection(Technical & Financial Quality)

Financial Quality Assessment


Financial Quality Assessment Considers specifically…

Section 1 (Financial & Operational Capacity)

&Section 5 (Budget & Cost-Effectiveness)

of the Evaluation Grid.

Be aware of what the Eligible Costs are.


Eligible Costs These costs must:

- Be necessary for carrying out the project, be provided for in the budget & comply with the principles of sound financial management (i.e., value for money & cost-effectiveness;- Be incurred in the course of the execution of the project & following signature of the contract;- Be actually incurred, be recorded in project promoter’s accounts, be identifiable & verifiable & be backed by originals of supporting evidence.


Eligible Costs continued Direct costs deemed eligible are:

- Cost of staff assigned to the project.- Travel & subsistence costs for participating staff.- Purchase costs for equipment (new or used).- Cost of consumables & supplies.- Expenditure on sub-contracting.- Costs derived from the contract (e.g., dissemination, translation, audit etc).


Eligible Costs continued Indirect costs deemed eligible are:

- A lump sum not exceeding 7% of the direct eligible costs may be claimed as indirect costs to cover the administrative overheads incurred.- Provided they do not include costs assigned to another heading of the project budget.


Summary & Conclusions Appointed assessors must be wholly

independent, be impartial & maintain confidentiality.

EU PRAG rules & formats, Guidelines & Evaluation Grid, Selection & Award Criteria & Project Scoring must be strictly applied.

Technical Quality Assessment should be carried out systematically & diligently (Sections 2, 3, 4).

Financial Quality Assessment should be carried out carefully & accurately (Sections 1, 5).

local partnership for employment, croatia aspects of project assessment, evaluation & selection...

Documents

local partnership

training workshop n

evaluation committee

evaluation grid forms

evaluation grid scoring

project selection award

independent assessment

successful project