‐ ‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
59
Figure 4.1: Overview of Biodiversity Fund program grant assessment
and selection process
Source: ANAO analysis of Environment information.
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
60
4.3 The
ANAO examined a 20 per cent random sample of all unsuccessful and
successful applications 471 applications in total and the funding agreements
and other documentation for 72 successful applicants. The sample was
taken from across all four funding rounds and included the EOI process.
Receipt of applications
4.4 The
grant guidelines established for each funding round clearly set out the
closing datetime for applications. While the department encouraged applicants
to complete and submit an online application form, applicants were also
able to submit their application as an attachment to an email, or print it and
send it in hard copy by post or via a courier, provided it was post‐marked prior
to the closing datetime.
4.5 Overall,
the receipt of applications was appropriately recorded via an automatic
datetime stamp and system‐generated receipt emailed to the applicant,
or for those lodged via email or hard‐copy, an email receipt to the applicant
in all four rounds. The department did, however, experience significant
problems with the receipt of online applications in Round 1.
Round 1 application submission
4.6 The
closing datetime for Round 1 applications was 5:00pm on Tuesday,
31 January 2012.
82
The information technology IT system being used by
Environment was unable to process the volume of applications being lodged
and the server crashed, which meant that applicants were unable to use the
‘submit’ button on the online application form.
83
4.7 Environment
responded to this problem by advising applicants that contacted
the Biodiversity Fund program hotline which had been published in the
guidelines and on the website to email their application or provide it in hard
‐copy. The department also extended the closing time for online submissions
by two hours. While a small number of stakeholders consulted by the
ANAO reported that they had experienced difficulty in submitting their application
online, they considered that Environment had been responsive in providing
an alternative means of submitting the application. There were,
82 Australian Eastern Daylight Time AEDT.
83 Under whole-of-government arrangements, Environment was using another department’s server. Initially,
the system was not generating the automatic ‘application received’ receipt, which led to applicants pressing the ‘submit’ button multiple times. Ultimately, this overloaded the system causing it to crash.
‐
‐ ‐
‐
ANAO Report No.10 2014–15 Administration of the Biodiversity Fund Program
61
however, around 300 duplicates submitted via the online system and by other
means, creating a significant workload for Environment after the closing date.
Late applications
4.8 The
grant guidelines for each round stated that late submissions would only
be considered due to extenuating circumstances.
84
In each round, Environment
considered such requests and granted them only if extenuating circumstances
could be demonstrated by the applicant. Environment also sought
probity advice in relation to the proposed approach for handling requests
for extensions.
Assessing merit
Initial merit assessment by internal and external assessors
4.9 In
each funding round, the merit assessments undertaken by the internal
and external assessors were based on four criteria of equal weighting
85
, which
had been outlined in the grant guidelines.
86
4.10 The
four criteria were each broken down into sub‐criteria, against which
assessors were required to provide a score from one lowest to 10
highest. The average of these scores was calculated by the department, to provide
a score for each criterion. The four high‐level criteria scores were then averaged,
to provide an overall score for the application. Written justification for scores awarded
4.11 In
Round 1, assessors were also required to provide: a written comment against
each of the four criteria; an additional ‘overall’ comment; and comments
for the consideration by the Moderation Group and to inform feedback
to the applicant. In the subsequent rounds, assessors were only required
to provide one ‘overall’ comment per application.
84 The guidelines for Round 2 and the Investing in Tasmania’s Native Forests round were more
prescriptive, stating that the maximum period of extension would be 10 business days. The internal review of the administration of Round 1 identified that there was scope to develop clearer internal
procedures on acceptable reasons and timeframes for granting extensions. 85
In the EOI processes for the NATI and Round 2 funding rounds, Criterion 1 had a higher weighting than the other criteria. The four assessment criteria were equally weighted in the full application stage
in each round. This was outlined in the grant guidelines. 86
Across each of the four rounds, the four merit assessment criteria were broadly the same although wording changed slightly from round to round. They were: 1. Benefits to investment themes;
2. Capacity of applicant to deliver; 3. Ongoing risk management; 4. Value for money.
