Specifically, In Access to Funding

‐  ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 85  seven applications that were reframed, but no clear reason was given; and  five applications that were reframed to exclude ineligible expenditure. Probity of requesting additional information and reframing applications

3.35 In

previous audits, ANAO has observed that, where a department has sought to amend a selection process, probity advice has generally recommended that assessment and selection documentation be amended to provide for a transparent resubmission process. This includes allowing all applications or a subset of applications that have been assessed and shortlisted as meeting primary program objectives as reflected by all or the most highly weighted merit criteria to revise and resubmit information.

3.36 For

example, in relation to the Building Better Regional Cities Program see ANAO Audit Report No. 25 2013–14, an additional step was added to the application and assessment process to allow all applications in a particular cohort to be revised and re‐submitted. 103 In that program, the administering department, in consultation with its probity adviser, decided that an addendum should be added to the Assessment and Selection Plan for the program to allow a resubmission process to be employed for all shortlisted applications. Applicants were informed as to those elements of their application that they were being invited to re‐submit, with departmental preferences in terms of those responses that would be more favourably considered in the merit assessment process clearly identified to each applicant that was invited to re‐submit.

3.37 As

noted at paragraph 2.12, the department did not develop a probity plan or engage a probity advisor for the programs. Further, the department did not establish a similar approach to that observed in respect to the Building Better Regional Cities Program, or similar arrangements, for seeking additional information or reframing applications to the programs. In particular, the program guidelines did not identify the circumstances under which the department or the IA committees could seek additional information from 103 Those applications assessed and found to meet the program objectives, but for which some improvement in terms of the value for money criterion was sought.