ANAO Report No.11 2014–15 The Award of Grants under the Clean Technology Program
120
in relation to performance against the factors identified in the customer
guidelines.
These factors include:
performance
against both indicators: reduction in carbon emissions intensity
and total carbon savings;
quality of evidence provided to support estimated carbon and energy
savings;
total carbon savings in the context of value for money grant dollars per
tonne of carbon abated;
project
activities: projects that include activities which account for a significant
proportion of the total project cost but do not deliver a proportionate
contribution to total carbon savings are unlikely to be competitive;
and
carbon and energy savings outcomes for similar projects in the same
industry.
5.24 As
the feedback provided to unsuccessful applicants may refer to one or
more of five factors listed in the customer guidelines, there was a risk that the
advice was too general in nature to be useful to applicants should they have
sought to revise applications or prepare new applications for other projects.
In the context of feedback being provided to unsuccessful applicants, in
October 2014 the department advised ANAO that: At
a minimum the Customer Service Manager and Program Manager attended all
Committee meetings. They listened into the discussion and answered any questions
posed to them by the Committee. They could ask questions to clarify that
they understood the reasons for the decision. The decision reflected the merit
criterias where the application was not competitive and this was relayed
to the applicant by the Customer Service Manager.
5.25 Against
this background, after being advised by the department that their
initial application was not successful, or not likely to be successful, there were
47 applicants that submitted a revised application that was based on a similar
project. Of these applicants:
25 applicants 53 per cent were recommended and approved for funding;
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.
