The most common reason recorded for not recommending an application

      ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 121  12 applicants 26 per cent were not recommended for funding and a grant was not approved 140 ; and  10 applicants 21 per cent were not successful due to the closure of the programs. 141 Conclusion

5.26 A

feature of the programs was the high proportion 74 per cent of applications that proceeded to the merit assessment stage being recommended and approved for funding. In this context, there were a number of shortcomings in the advice provided to inform funding decisions:  the records supporting the IA committee assessments did not demonstrate that each application was assessed against each of the merit criteria. ANAO analysis of the CTIC and CTFFIC meeting notes showed that merit criterion one indicators were only explicitly discussed in less than half of the applications considered. Further, for the 60 per cent of recommendations made by these IA committees, the overall merit score was calculated using an average of the committee members’ scores, rather than an agreed score against each criterion;  the advice provided to the program delegate did not demonstrate that recommended applications rated highly against each of the merit criteria; and  the advice to the delegate for some applications did not identify the expected outcomes from funding recommended projects.

5.27 Nevertheless,

the program delegate accepted all of the recommendations. 140 One applicant submitted four applications for a similar project. The first two applications were withdrawn and the other two applications were not recommended. 141 There were two applicants that submitted three applications for a similar project. The programs were closed after the third application was submitted. ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program 122 Recommendation No.4

5.28 To

promote a stronger outcomes orientation in the administration of future grant programs, the ANAO recommends that the Department of Industry: a clearly identifies, in advice provided to decision‐makers, the extent to which assessed projects are expected to deliver outcomes that are consistent with the overall program objective and related performance targets; and b include, as a requirement in respective funding agreements, the expected outcomes that informed decisions to award funding. Department of Industry’s response:

5.29 Part

a: Agreed.

5.30 Part

b: Agree in‐principle. The Department notes that it would not always be appropriate to include programme level outcomes as a contractual obligation for individual grant recipients.