Guidance

UK Shared Prosperity Fund (Northern Ireland): Assessment process for project competitions

Published 14 December 2022

Applies to Northern Ireland

1. The assessment process set out in this document will be used by UK government to assess all competitive project applications in Northern Ireland. A similar process will also apply to commissioned projects, excluding the additional considerations set out in Stage 3.

2. Associated documents are available on GOV.UK:

• Northern Ireland Investment Plan
• Application form
• Application guidance

Stage 1. Gateway criteria

Criteria

1. The project proposal will be delivered by a corporate body, registered with either Companies House or the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland.

For joint bids, all organisations included in the project proposal must be legally registered and confirm their support. A UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF): joint bids form should be submitted for each partner.

2. A fully completed application has been submitted, including Supplementary Information Form, customer journey (where needed), evidence of match and/or funding (where needed), and accounts (for private and voluntary sector applicants).

3. The project proposal will deliver eligible activity in line with section 7 of the UKSPF prospectus.*

4. Project proposal responds to a need identified in the competition document.*

5. Project proposal will be delivered (including all expenditure incurred) by 31 March 2025.

6. Funding requested is within parameters set out in the competition document (for example, meets any minimum value and does not exceed any maximum value).

7. Project proposal will be delivered in accordance with branding requirements.

Assessment

Pass/Fail

Projects must pass all gateway criteria to be considered for selection. Failure to adequately demonstrate one or more of these criteria will result in project rejection.

*Criteria 3 and 4 are assessed as Pass/Fail/Partial. Where the project could proceed with amendments, it will be considered to pass Gateway Criteria.

Stage 2: Scoring

Criterion 1: Strategic fit

Sub-criteria

1. Level of contribution to an investment priority set out in the Northern Ireland Investment Plan.

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

As a minimum, projects will need to articulate: the groups they intend to support; the proposed project activities and the applicable interventions they propose to deliver under the relevant priority; and how the interventions will deliver and contribute to relevant fund outcomes.

Projects are likely to score higher where they:

• focus on groups/cohorts or themes identified in the prospectus, Northern Ireland Investment Plan and competition/commission
• demonstrate robust forecast assumptions, methodology and model outputs
• will deliver a significant and observable contribution to relevant fund outcomes (e.g. 100 people have moved into employment, including self-employment, following support)

Applicants that propose projects working with people or businesses should submit a customer journey using a flow chart showing specific project activities; and/or provide a supporting logic model which clearly demonstrates the links between the activities and inputs, outputs and outcomes.

2. Level of contribution to needs and target beneficiaries with evidence of local support, how the proposals will address existing or anticipated future problems and evidence of whether the proposal is likely to resolve the issue identified.

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

As a minimum, projects will need to articulate how they will meet local needs, including any specific policies, strategies, plans or evidence available at council or sub-regional level or at Northern Ireland level.

Projects are likely to score higher where they:

• directly address an identified issue or opportunity set out by local partners such as investing in a target sector or place, or specific cohort
• can evidence support from local partners for the proposed project
• demonstrate that the applicant has considered other provision available in the area/for the target cohorts and taken steps to ensure the project is not duplicative; that it adds value to existing or planned provision where it exists

3. The extent of contribution to cross-cutting themes – namely equalities, low/zero carbon and ensuring access for people and enterprises located in rural areas.

Additionally, the extent to which community engagement in design, designing out crime, accessibility and sustainable maintenance of assets has been factored into project design.

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

As a minimum, applications should:

• meet the clean growth principle and support the UK’s legal commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050,
• meet all legal obligations in respect of equalities, and
• make adjustments to facilitate access for people and enterprises in rural areas (where this is relevant).

Projects are likely to score higher where:

• they actively support progress to net zero
• work proactively to target people with protected characteristics, and take account of barriers to engagement
• work proactively to address barriers to engagement from people and enterprises located in rural areas

Assessment

Each sub-criteria is given a mark out of 5. These are summed with equal weighting.

This is converted to a percentage score for the theme (e.g. a maximum mark of 15 would give a score of 100%).

Criterion 2: Deliverability

Sub-criteria

1. The project can be delivered as proposed by 31 March 2025.

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

Projects are likely to score higher where they demonstrate:

• a fully secured funding package (including match funding where relevant) or a clear and realistic plan to secure prior to project start
• a track record for delivering relevant/comparable government projects
• credible evidence of service demand and routes for referrals
• an appropriate management structure to deliver the project, especially where partners are involved
• a good understanding of the roles and responsibilities, skills, capability, or capacity needed, ideally with evidence of existing project management expertise and evidence
• an effective approach to monitoring and evaluation
• a good understanding of how the proposal is compliant with UK subsidy control regime and/or State Aid (where relevant)

2. Project milestones and risks have been identified and are adequately mitigated, including project-level management controls.

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

Projects are likely to score higher where they have:

• provided within the supplementary information, a realistic and robust timetable which includes milestones for:
  • securing internal approvals for the project or any other funding
  • establishing the project team
  • project launch and recruiting beneficiaries,
  • key points on the beneficiary journey
  • procurement for external services/suppliers
• carefully considered and identified implementation and delivery risks, including financial risks relating to cost overruns/funding shortfalls.
• corresponding and appropriate mitigations for key risks
• articulated arrangements for managing and escalating risk, including roles and responsibilities
• contingency plans in place to manage risks, including project delays.

3. The applicant has provided evidence of a reliable financial position and adequate fraud controls

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

Projects are likely to score higher where they demonstrate:

• (for private and voluntary sector applicants) that the Lead Applicant has sound financial standing and is not over-reliant on public funding for its core business
• the Lead Applicant has appropriate financial and fraud controls in place.
• the Lead Applicant has the capacity to underwrite the entire project costs, including partner costs where needed
• partners have been verified to the satisfaction of the Lead Applicant’s financial controller
• good practice in fraud prevention

Assessment

Each sub-criteria is given a mark out of 5. These are summed with equal weighting.

This is converted to a percentage score for the theme (e.g. a maximum mark of 15 would give a score of 100%).

Criterion 3: Value for money and effectiveness

Sub-criteria

1. The applicant sets out an efficient mode of delivery, taking account of the type of project proposed and will operate at an appropriate scale. This shall include an assessment of value for money taking account of:

• the level of contribution to programme outputs for funding sought
• the amount of match funding or leverage proposed to maximise impact

Example evidence of meeting the criteria (this is non-exhaustive and other evidence may be considered as part of the assessment)

All projects must set out that they would not proceed without funding or could only be delivered on a smaller scale without UKSPF funding.

Projects are likely to score higher where they:

• demonstrate robust forecast assumptions, methodology and model outputs
• include realistic assumptions demonstrating how outcomes will flow from the interventions, at an efficient rate and an appropriate scale
• demonstrate value for money taking account of
  • the level of contribution to programme outputs for funding sought
  • the amount of match funding or leverage proposed to maximise impact
• clearly articulate the additional outcomes, benefits and impacts UKSPF will achieve, compared with the status quo
• evidence they are delivering at an appropriate scale and impact. This may include meeting an anticipated minimum financial value, or minimum number of beneficiaries set out in the competition document, either via a single organisation or working with other organisations to achieve the same result.

UK government assessment will take account of innovation in service delivery, complexity or intensity of delivery (including potential higher initial or ongoing costs) and efforts to address access for rural communities.

Assessment

This criterion is given a mark out of 5.

Stage 3: Selection

1. Projects will be prioritised based on a combined percentage score (i.e. out of 100) across the criteria with equal weighting. For example, a project that scored 70% on strategic fit, 60% on deliverability and 60% on value for money and effectiveness would receive a combined score of 63%.

2. Ministers will make selection decisions for UKSPF competitions. The UK government will be looking to select a portfolio of projects, covering a range of themes/cohorts and geographies, subject to the volume and quality of proposals received. In addition to selecting projects based on a project’s score, Ministers can exercise discretion to meet the following finite set of additional considerations:

a. Ensuring a reasonable split of approved projects (e.g. that there is a good spread of projects covering relevant cohorts or themes)

b. Ensuring a balanced spread of approved projects across Northern Ireland

3. The intention is to support projects at their preferred scale up to the indicative allocation set out for each project competition. However, DLUHC reserves the right to increase or decrease the indicative allocation depending on need and demand, the volume and quality of applications or other factors. Ministers may elect to support one or more project on a reduced scale, in line with the reduced project set out in response to questions 42a and 42b of the application if there is insufficient allocation to fund in full. For the avoidance of doubt, if a project is not scalable, and cannot be funded in full, it may be rejected, and another project that can utilise remaining funding may be supported instead.