Consideration Notes Scoring The relative merit of This is an assessment of whether If the score is seen to be high, score a 1 each application. the applicant scored highly against for this consideration. the assessment criteria. The overall objective/s This is an assessment of the If desirable and/or preferable, score a 1. to be achieved in desirability and preferability of the providing the funding. outcomes the proposal will achieve. If the overall assessment score is low, but the outcomes are desirable and/or preferable, still score a 1. Then note the risks and propose treatments (such as imposing specific or additional conditions) so that the applicant will achieve the outcomes proposed. The relative cost of This is a typical assessment of There are three methods proposed: the proposal, or of value for money, conducted by Where the value for money is to be elements of the weighing up the outcome versus the based on on “Better Return proposal. total expenditure required to the total cost of each Investment”, achieve it. It may also look at the proposal is divided by the total appropriateness of the funding weighted scores of the assessment amount sought. criteria and a score of 1 is given to the ones with the lower price per unit of quality. Where the application is for a service type, the unit price for the service type is compared to other available data on unit price to determine whether it is an appropriate unit price (not too high, not too low). If it is appropriate, score a 1. Where the proposal is similar to other proposals funded under the program, the cost will be compared with those similar proposals. The extent to which This is an assessment of whether If lack of capacity to fund has been the applicant has the applicant could fund more of the demonstrated, score a 1. demonstrated a lack proposal through other sources. of capacity to fund the If a lower amount of funding could be proposal taking into recommended, still score a 1 and make consideration all the comment that a lower amount would possible sources of be recommended (stating the size of finance, including debt funding recommended and why). finance. The geographic This would be employed where If the geographic location is one location of the geographic locations of need are specified or otherwise known as an area proposal. known to the department or have of need, score a 1. been specified in the application kit.
Consideration Notes Scoring The relative merit of each application. This is an assessment of whether the applicant scored highly against the assessment criteria. If the score is seen to be high, score a 1 for this consideration. The overall objective/s to be achieved in providing the funding. This is an assessment of the desirability and preferability of the outcomes the proposal will achieve. If desirable and/or preferable, score a 1. If the overall assessment score is low, but the outcomes are desirable and/or preferable, still score a 1. Then note the risks and propose treatments (such as imposing specific or additional conditions) so that the applicant will achieve the outcomes proposed. The relative cost of the proposal, or of elements of the proposal. This is a typical assessment of value for money, conducted by weighing up the outcome versus the total expenditure required to achieve it. It may also look at the appropriateness of the funding amount sought. There are three methods proposed: Where the value for money is to be based on “Better Return on Investment”, the total cost of each proposal is divided by the total weighted scores of the assessment criteria and a score of 1 is given to the ones with the lower price per unit of quality. Where the application is for a service type, the unit price for the service type is compared to other available data on unit price to determine whether it is an appropriate unit price (not too high, not too low). If it is appropriate, score a 1. Where the proposal is similar to other proposals funded under the program, the cost will be compared with those similar proposals. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a lack of capacity to fund the proposal taking into consideration all possible sources of finance, including debt finance. This is an assessment of whether the applicant could fund more of the proposal through other sources. If lack of capacity to fund has been demonstrated, score a 1. If a lower amount of funding could be recommended, still score a 1 and make the comment that a lower amount would be recommended (stating the size of funding recommended and why). The geographic location of the proposal. This would be employed where geographic locations of need are known to the department or have been specified in the application kit. If the geographic location is one specified or otherwise known as an area of need, score a 1.
hacc_programme_guidelines.docx