The following is a step-by-step illustration of the scoring process:
Step 1:
The Case Officer will use the table below to score the Option, or group of Options, selected under each regional priority in turn against the Group 1 criteria, using 'High' or 'Low'. In the example, the regional priority has scored high for quality, collaboration, integration and multiple outcomes, low for quantity and innovation.
Examples of 'Low' and 'High' ratings can be found in the assessment criteria guidance.
The Case Officer will focus primarily on the evidence you have provided in your online Regional Priority supporting statement and any additional evidence you provided in Section 3 of your Outcome Plan.
NB. If your Proposal scores a high in Quantity, Quality and National target then your Proposal will be assessed as 'Good Fit' for Group 1.
Group 1: Scale of Contribution to Regional Priority
| Criteria | Rating | Applicant's Evidence | Case Officer's Comments |
|---|
| Quality | High | | |
| Quantity | Low | | |
| Collaboration | High | | |
| Integration | High | | |
| Multiple Outcomes | High | | |
| Innovation | Low | | |
| National Targets | Low | | |
| Rating | Qualifying Range | Total No. of 'Highs' | Rating for Group 1 |
|---|
| Good Fit | 5 or more 'Highs' | | |
| Partial Fit | 3 or 4 'Highs' | 4 | Partial Fit |
| Poor Fit | 0-2 'Highs' | | |
Step 2:
The total number of 'High' ratings then determine whether the Group is rated as 'Good Fit', 'Partial Fit' or 'Poor Fit'.
- Good Fit - 5 or more 'Highs'
- Partial Fit - 3 or 4 'Highs'
- Poor Fit - 0-2 'Highs'
The example above scores four highs which equates to a Partial Fit, for Group 1.
Step 3:
The Case Officer then completes the Group 2 scoring by rating the Regional Priority as 'High' or 'Low' against each of the Group 2 scoring criteria.
Group 2: Value for Money
| Criteria | Rating | Applicant's Evidence | Case Officer's Comments |
|---|
| Additionality | High | | |
| Added Value | High | | |
| Long-term Benefit | High | | |
| Leverage Potential | Low | | |
| Rating | Qualifying Range | Total No. of 'Highs' | Rating for Group 2 |
|---|
| Good Fit | 3 or more 'Highs' | 3 | Good Fit |
| Partial Fit | 2 'Highs' | | |
| Poor Fit | 0 or 1 'Highs' | | |
Step 4:
The total number of 'High' ratings then determines the overall Group rating.
In the example highlighted above, the regional priority scores three 'Highs' and so is rated as 'Good Fit' for the Group 2 - value for money criteria.
Step 5:
The Case Officer then completes the ' Group 3 - Management of Risk Rating Table', assigning a 'High' or 'L ow' rating to each criterion.
Group 3: Management of Risk
| Criteria | Rating | Applicant's Evidence | Case Officer's Comments |
|---|
| Meeting Demand | Low | | |
| Minimising Impact | High | | |
| Demonstrating Feasibility | High | | |
| Rating | Qualifying Range | Total No. of 'Highs' | Rating for Group 3 |
|---|
| Good Fit | 3 'Highs' | | |
| Partial Fit | 2 'Highs' | 2 | Partial Fit |
| Poor Fit | 0 or 1 'Highs' | | |
Step 6:
The total number of 'High' ratings then determines the overall Group rating.
In the example highlighted, the regional priority scores two 'Highs' and so is rated as 'Partial Fit'' for the Group 3 - Management of Risk Criteria.
Step 7:
The Case Officer then uses the ' Assessment Scoring Table' below by selecting and adding up the scores for each category according to whether they were a 'Good', 'Partial' or 'Poor Fit'.
| Assessment Scoring Table | | | |
|---|
| Good Fit | Partial Fit | Poor Fit |
|---|
| Contribution to Regional Priority | 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Value for Money | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Management of Risk | 4 | 2 | 0 |
In this case the regional priority was scored as follows:
| Group | Score |
|---|
| Contribution to Regional Priority | 6 |
| Value for Money | 4 |
| Management of Risk | 2 |
| Total Score | 12 |
Step 8:
The Case Officer will repeat the assessment and rating process for each Regional Priority within your Proposal as per steps 1 - 7.
Step 9:
The Case Officer will then enter the final scores for each regional priority into the online screens and add their comments.
| Priority 1 | Priority 2 | Priority 3 | Priority 4 | Priority 5 | Priority 6 | Priority 7 |
|---|
| Assessment Score | 12 | | | | | | |
| Comment | | | | | | | |