ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
117
that the department had identified differences in how the scoring approach
was being applied and that:
the
score had to be 50 per cent to constitute a pass; and
the merit criterion one score had to be at least 35 out of 70, merit criteria
two and three scores had to be at least eight out of 15. The final score
had to be at least 50 out of 100 or 60 out of 120 as relevant.
5.16 In
this respect, there were a number of recommended applications that were
allocated a score of less than 50 per cent against at least one of the merit criteria,
as shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Recommended applications that scored less than 50
per cent against the merit criteria
133
Merit Criterion Recommended applications that
scored less than 50 in the departmental assessment
Recommended applications that scored less than 50 in the
committee assessment
1 28
8 2
14 7
3 36 35
4 2
4
Source: ANAO analysis of departmental records.
5.17 Overall,
there were six
134
recommended and approved applications that scored
less than 50 per cent of the total available score after the departmental assessment
and two applications that scored less than 50 per cent of the total score
available following the IA committees’ assessment.
135
133 The total population for the departmental assessment was 849 applications. For the committee assessment, merit scores against each criterion were not available for 48 applications and were not
consistent with the total merit score for 142 applications. A further 35 applications were not considered by the delegate due to the closure of the programs. These applications were excluded from the
analysis of committee merit criterion scores, leaving a total population of 624 applications. 134 Five were approved before December 2012 and one after December 2012.
135 The department advised ANAO in November 2014 that five of the six projects have been completed and that three projects have exceeded predicted total carbon savings, with two projects not achieving
expected savings.
ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
118
Funding decisions
5.18 The
program guidelines stated that the program delegate was responsible
for taking decisions on whether to approve funding for each grant application
made under the programs subject to:
accepting that the application was eligible;
referring
the application to IA for merit assessment;
receiving an IA funding recommendation
136
; and
confirming
that funding was available.
5.19 Following
receipt of a recommendation, the program delegate took decisions
on applications until the programs were closed by the Government in
October 2013. To assist the approver, the procedures manual for the programs
allocated responsibility to officers in the department’s committee secretariat
and program management areas to prepare decision sheets ‘based on
the IA recommendations and the availability of funds’. These sheets were then
provided to the delegate for review and, if satisfied, approval for the commitment
of program funds was given.
5.20 The
delegate accepted all of the funding recommendations made by the IA
committees.
137
As a result, the recommendations made by the IA
committees formed the basis for the approver’s reasonable inquiries that each
grant proposal recommended was a proper use of resources. The two key
factors referred to in the program delegate’s decision as forming the basis for
reasonable inquiries were that the:
merit
assessment process had been conducted in accordance with the agreed
framework; and
the applicant was competitive against the relevant merit criteria
established for the program.
136 Applications for grants of 10 million or more, that had been merit assessed by IA and recommended for funding, were also required to be referred to the Cabinet of the Australian Government for
consideration prior to final approval by the program delegate. 137 In July 2014, the approver advised the ANAO that, when making funding decisions, she took into
