Structural Funds Appraisal Form ESIF-Form-X-XXX The Full Appraisal must be completed by the Managing Authority (MA) based exclusively on the Full Application (including any appendices). This will be undertaken via the IT system. The MA will make their report will be available to the LEP Area ESIF Committee. Purple text pulled through from the Outline Application Green new text 1
Identification Application version and date received Part 1 Unique reference number Version # Date 1. Project Details 1.1 Project name 1.2 Applicant organisation 1.3 Size of organisation (S, M or L) 1.4 Name/unique identifier of Call 1.5 Project Description (pulled through from 3.1 of OA) 1.6 LEP Areas covered 1.7 Lead LEP Area 1.8 Name of relevant ERDF or ESF Operation Programme Priority Axis 1.9 Name of ESIF Investment Priority 1.10 Name of LEP Area Contact 1.11 Name of Managing 2
Authority Contact Proposed Start Date* i.e. date from which eligible expenditure will be incurred Proposed Financial Completion Date* i.e. date by which eligible costs will have been defrayed (ESF contractual completion date) Proposed Project Practical Completion Date* i.e. date by which all Outputs/Results will be achieved (ERDF only) 2. Project Summary (Pulled through from 3.2 of FA) 3. Project Funding ERDF / ESF (a) ( ) Capital Revenue Sub Total Capital Revenue Sub Total Revenue Sub Total TOTAL ERDF ESF YEI Public Match (b) ( ) Private Match (c) ( ) Total (d) ( ) Contributio n rate (%) (a)/(d) x 100 Total public funding (%) (a+b)/d 100 4. Deliverables: Outputs (ERDF and ESF) Results (ESF) Please indicate which, and how many outputs (results for ESF) your project will deliver. Add additional rows and columns to cover the full delivery period. Complete a separate table for ERDF and ESF (where applicable) and LEP Area (if applicable). ERDF or ESF? LEP Area 3
Output / Result (drop down list) Target figures Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 5. Outline Application Conditions Outline Application Stage Condition Summary of how the condition was met 1 2 3 4 Comment: 6. Key changes since Outline Application Change Justification for the Change Comment: Part 2 7. Project description Is this sufficiently well-defined to enable MA to enter into a funding agreement eg How well are the main activities defined? To what extent is it easy to understand what is being proposed? It is clear what the funding will be spent on? Is it clear who will benefit from the activities and the results of the project? Is there a realistic, detailed timetable when the activity occurs? Is it clear who will carry out the project and who is responsible for the project delivery and compliance? Are relevant key partners roles clearly defined? For revenue (business support) projects, is there a clear description of the client journey? If no, recommended action: 4
8. Project objectives Is what the project aiming to achieve eligible according to the Structural Funds regulations and national rules? (Gateway Assessment) Are the project objectives SMART? Is there a logical rationale that flows from the objectives to the main activities and deliverables expected from the project? Are the end beneficiaries eligible? Is there a sufficiently defined exit strategy? If no, reject. 9. Strategic Fit Does the project contribute towards the Operational Programme Priority Axis and Thematic Objective(s) (Gateway Assessment) Does the proposal fit the call Criteria? Can the proposal be viewed as the best option (solution) Does the proposal fit with the Operational Programme? Do the proposed activities contribute to the delivery of the local ESIF strategy for growth? Does the project compliment and/or duplicate other activities already taking place in the programme area Are linkages with other initiatives and plans clearly described and evidenced? Comment on other strategic links, e.g. alignment with local growth priorities/ local ESIF strategies/ annual investment plan. Has a clear exit strategy been defined If no, recommended action 5
10. ESIF Cross-cutting themes 10.1 Does the proposal meet the environmental sustainability crosscutting theme requirements? Have all relevant Environmental and Sustainability theme requirements been considered and are they reflected in the design and delivery of the project? Is it easy to understand the environmental impacts associated with the project? Is there a clear explanation as to how any negative environmental impacts will be avoided or minimised and is this realistic? If the project intends to deliver any environmental indicators, are these in line with the OP requirements and are the activities clearly defined, viable and measurable? If no, recommended action 10.2 Does the proposal meet equality and diversity cross-cutting theme requirements? Have all relevant equality theme requirements been considered and are they reflected in the design and delivery of the project? Is there a clear description of who will benefit from the project? Is this supported by any data/research? Has an equality policy been supplied and has the likely impact of the project on particular groups been identified? Have appropriate steps been taken to address the likely adverse impact or encourage positive promotion? If no, recommended action: 6
11. Evidence to support the proposal - need for the project within the market: 11.1 ERDF only: Does the proposal address a market failure? Has the applicant clearly defined the market failure? Is it clear that additional activity/outputs/results and/or benefits will be delivered with the ESIF support compared with the reference case? 11.2 Demand for the project Has the applicant clearly identified a demand and within that, described evidence sources and projections 11.3 Proposed design Does the proposed delivery model build on evidence of best practice and what works most effectively for the target group If no, reject Comments: As the LEP has endorsed the outline, the need/demand and rationale for project investment has already been assessed. This draft template therefore excludes these sections, but provides an opportunity for the appraiser to comment on areas of concern in Part 1, ESIF Technical Assessment Recommendation. 12. Why the proposal should receive ESIF support 12.1 Has the applicant clearly demonstrated additionality provided by the proposal i.e. Has the applicant identified or taken steps to identify organisations offering similar activities? Has the applicant described how the proposal compliments rather than displaces other activity and thus demonstrates additionality? 12.2 Has the applicant demonstrated the impact of NOT securing ESIF funding ie What will happen if ESIF funding is not awarded? What will happen if ESIF funding is awarded at a reduced rate? What will happen if there is a delay in awarding ESIF funding? 7
12.3 Does this proposal represent good / best value for money, taking account of: Efficiency: the rate/unit costs at which the project converts inputs to ESI Fund outputs and/or results? Economy: the extent to which the project will ensure that inputs to the project are at the minimum costs commensurate with the required quality? Effectiveness: the extent to which the project contributes to the ESI Fund targets in terms of ESI Fund deliverables, results and/or significant strategic impact at the local level? If no, provide details and recommended action 13. Project Finances: does the organisation and its finances appear sound. 13.1 Is the project budget clear and complete in Annex 1? 13.2 Are the key assumptions and research used in the development of the budget reasonable? 13.3 Has the applicant adequately explained how the ESIF funding requirement has been calculated, and is this reasonable? 13.4 Is it clear and are we confident that the applicant can manage the ESIF funding being paid in arrears? 13.5 Is the overhead methodology stated and appropriate for this proposal? 13.6 Have the sources of match funding been confirmed and are they appropriate (eligible)? If no, provide details and recommended action 14. Project schedules and deliverables Do the stated key dates and milestones appear realistic and deliverable i.e. Is it clear how the project will operate over its lifetime? Is there a clear description of all the key activities to be undertaken and any dependencies and the related key milestones by which progress of the project can be measured? If included, is the Project Gantt Chart and schedule of key milestones consistent with the application? If no, recommended action 8
15. Project outputs (ESF & ERDF) and results (ESF only) 15.1 Has the applicant adequately described the rationale for the outputs and/or results in the proposal and do they link to the objectives of the proposal ie Are the outputs appropriate for the project activity both in terms of type and size of project? Is there a clear logic chain linking outputs, results and eventual impacts? Is there a clear explanation of how the indicator targets have been calculated? Has the baseline situation been sufficiently described so that the changes forecast as a result of the project can be measured? 15.2 Has the applicant satisfactorily? explained the rationale / approach to calculating the forecast levels? 15.3 Has the applicant adequately demonstrated how they will calculate and verify outputs and results and ensure that an audit trail is in place? 15.4 Does the applicant have the capability to carry out checks that beneficiary businesses and/or individuals are eligible? If no, provide details and recommended action 16. Project Management and Governance 16.1 Has the organisation maintained a consistent status over the recent past eg Has the organisation recently changed hands Has the organisation recently changed its status eg partnership to limited Company Have there been any extraordinary withdrawals from or capital introduced to the business 16.2 Has the applicant adequately detailed the project s management structures and processes, to demonstrate that the project has the appropriate capacity to meet the requirements of ESI funds? 16.3 Has the applicant demonstrated that the team set up to manage and deliver the project has appropriate resources, expertise, skills, responsibility and experience to achieve this? Is there evidence that existing staff have been identified appropriately and new staff will be openly recruited? Are individual posts and team roles adequately described? 16.4 Has the applicant adequately explained the mechanisms which 9
will be used to ensure that the project delivery team fully understand the requirements of the proposal? 16.5 Has the applicant satisfactorily demonstrated how it will ensure continuous improvement in the quality of service or provision? 16.6 Has the applicant satisfactorily detailed how it will meet the requirements and liabilities that flow from the receipt of ESI funds? 16.7 If applicable, has the applicant adequately described how they will ensure that Delivery Partner(s) comply with the requirements of ESI funding and how they will monitor and manage the performance of Delivery Partner(s) and/or sub-contractors? 16.8 Has the applicant demonstrated that satisfactory financial management and control procedures are or will be put in place for the project, including the process for compiling and authorising ESIF claims for payment, and which individuals will manage this process? 16.9 has the applicant adequately described the document management system for the project and how the audit trail will be maintained and accessible for the period required under the terms of the ESI Funding Agreement? If no, provide details and recommended action: 17. Financial Management & Control 17.1 Has the applicant adequately set out their organisation s financial policy which describes processes, roles and schemes of delegation? 17.2 Has the applicant adequately described their system used for filing and retrieving original invoices and explained satisfactorily how evidence of costs incurred will be checked and verified? 17.3 If applicable, has the applicant adequately explained how they will ensure that partners/financial beneficiaries engaged in the delivery of the project will comply with the requirements relating to defrayal of expenditure? 17.4 Is it clear that the applicant has the capability to manage cash flow through the lifetime of the project? 17.5 Is it clear how the applicant will ensure that only eligible and defrayed expenditure will be included in claims? 17.6 Does the applicant (and its partners)have sufficient accounting and software controls in place? 17.7 Has the applicant comprehensively described how (if appropriate) irrecoverable VAT will be accounted for? If no, provide details and recommended action: 10
18. Project Risks and Issues Has the applicant adequately explained the issues and risks identified for the project and how these will be managed and mitigated? If no, provide details and recommended action: 19. Compliance 19.1 State Aid: has the applicant listed all the organisations which may benefit from the measure? 19.2 State Aid: for each potential beneficiary (including the applicant and any delivery partners) has the applicant applied the State Aid test and reached conclusions? 19.3 State Aid: for each potential beneficiary (including the applicant and any deliver partners) in receipt of State Aid, has the applicant set out a clear explanation of which exemption will be applied and why the terms of the exemption have been met? 19.4 State Aid: has the applicant adequately demonstrated that a satisfactory system is or will be put in place for collecting and recording the required information for audits/returns? 19.5 Procurement: Has the applicant provided a list of all the relevant procurements for the project (both contracts already awarded and those that will be let in the event of the project being funded)? 19.6 Procurement: for those contracts which have already been awarded, has the applicant reviewed the documents and provided a convincing explanation as to why these are compliant? Is the applicant able to provide copies of all tender documents? 19.7 Procurement: for contracts that have yet to be let, has the applicant set out a convincing explanation of the processes that will be put in place to ensure all procurement requirements are met? 19.8 Publicity: has the applicant adequately set out how the lead applicant and, if applicable, delivery partners and / or sub-contractors, will meet the ESI fund publicity requirements? 19.9 General: has the applicant set out a clear process for monitoring that it is meeting its obligations during the project? 19.10 General: are there any conflicts of interest which are not going to be managed in the delivery of the project? If no, reject 11
20 Summary of Technical Assessment MA technical assessment recommendation Approve Approve with conditions Reject Core Selection criteria 1. Strategic Fit, including contribution to crosscutting themes: Sections 7, 8, 9 & 10 Comments: 2. Value for money Sections 13 & 15 Comments: 3. Market need and VFM: Sections 11 & 12 Comments: 4. Deliverability: Sections 14, 17, 18 Comments: 5. Project management and governance: Sections 16 Comments: 6. Compliance: State Aid, procurement, publicity: Section 19 Comments: Recommended Conditions 1 2 3 4 5 10. MA confirmation Completed by: Reviewed by: Date: Date: 12
Post LEP Area ESIF Committee 13