The Environment The Grant Assessment and Selection

‐ ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 63 for the decision—for example, ‘appears to represent better value for money than assessed’. On those occasions where the Panel amended the merit score, the inclusion of additional information for the decision‐maker on the reasons for the change, specifically relating to the particular merit of the relevant application against the published criteria, would have improved the transparency of the decision‐making process. Merit assessment by the Moderation Group

4.16 Following

the assessment by internal and external assessors, and the normalisation process, all applications were merit ranked by departmental officers using the scores determined by the assessors or the Normalisation Panel. The highly‐ranked applications were then considered by a Moderation Group in each round. The Moderation Group included an independent chair, three external assessors, and two senior departmental staff the Program Sponsor and the Program Manager. 90 In addition, a small number of Environment officers provided advice and secretariat services, with the probity adviser attending all meetings.

4.17 Under

the grant assessment plan for each round, the role of the Moderation Group was to:  confirm projects considered suitable for investment;  ensure appropriate geographic distribution of projects across Australia;  ensure appropriate balance of funding across program themes and project types;  ensure an appropriate mix of large and small‐scale projects;  ensure appropriate representation by Indigenous groups;  address budget allocations for 2011–12 and the impact for the forward estimates for Round 1 only; and  address any matters raised by assessors. 90 Environment appointed two independent chairs—one chaired the Round 1 and NATI Moderation Groups, and the second chaired the Round 2 and Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests Moderation Groups. The external assessors participating in the Moderation Groups varied across the rounds, as each round had involved different external assessors with relevant experience and regional knowledge. ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program 64 Moderation tool

4.18 Environment

developed a ‘tool’ a spreadsheet with formulae and macros to provide calculations to assist the Moderation Group in its deliberations and decision‐making. The tool was populated with information on each application, including the project name, its description, location stateterritory, type of applicant for example, statelocal government organisation, community group, NRM body, individual, the requested funding amount, and the Biodiversity Fund program themes that the project would address. 91 The post‐normalisation ranking was also included in the moderation tool. The tool allowed the Moderation Group to run various scenarios—for example, to display the range and characteristics of projects that would be selected if a specified percentage of the available funding was allocated. 92 Processes used to select applications for funding

4.19 The

Moderation Groups employed a range of methods to determine the selection of recommended projects that both fit the established budget envelope for each round which had been stipulated by the department for the Round 2, NATI and Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests rounds and, in the Moderation