2.2.2 Targeted grant rounds Funding will also be made available through targeted or restricted funding processes. The department may approach a particular, potential applicant or applicants and invite them to submit a proposal for funding. Targeted grant rounds may be open to existing funding recipients as well as other entities. The targeted entities will be selected based on the specialised requirements of the activity under consideration. Targeted funding may include support for those services providing community aged care to people in the special needs groups. 2.2.3 Direct grant allocation processes A direct allocation process is a non-competitive process. The department may directly approach an existing funding recipient to expand their current service delivery activities or deliver a new activity. In these cases, the department may assess the funding recipient’s current performance and capacity to deliver an expanded service, or capability to deliver a new service. 2.2.4 Expressions of Interest (EOI) processes The department may call for EOIs to test the market to ascertain the extent of potential applicants. An EOI will be advertised as the first in a two stage process. The second stage involves applicants selected through the EOI process applying in either a targeted or direct process. 2.3 Procurements Funds appropriated for the purpose of the Commonwealth HACC Program may also be used for the procurement of work directly related to the purpose of the program, for example some service system development activities such as some research projects. Such procurements will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and will be for purposes that are consistent with the objectives and priorities of the Commonwealth HACC Program. Procurement processes will be conducted independently of any funding process. 2.4 How to apply 2.4.1 Advertisement of a funding process The department may advertise any funding process: in major national newspapers and other selected newspapers on the website on the website
Depending on the activity and type of funding process, a reduced set of assessment criteria may be set by the appropriate departmental delegate exercising their ability to waive certain criteria. The waivers that can be made in respect of each activity are limited and are set out in detail in the attachments. The final set of assessment criteria will be identified in the application kit. CRITERION ONE Appropriateness of the proposal to the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC Program Sub-criterion 1.1 – Proposal is clearly defined and described, and is The applicant’s proposal is clearly defined and described, and is evidence-informed and outcomes focused, setting out: a clear and adequate description of the proposal a clear and adequate description of the purpose of the proposal evidence for the proposal if the proposal is an extension of an existing contractual arrangement, how the extension will extend or add to the existing contractual arrangement. Sub-criterion 1.2 – Community affected by the proposal is addressed The applicant’s proposal clearly identifies the community that the proposal will affect (e.g., a Commonwealth HACC region, target group, special needs group or a particular geographic location), addressing: a description of the community that is the focus of the proposal how the proposal will affect that community the estimated number of clients (e.g., older people and their carers, other service providers) that the proposal will affect in that community. Sub-criterion 1.3 – Outcomes are clearly described and include ongoing assessment of the outcomes. The applicant’s proposal clearly defines the outcomes that the applicant is seeking to achieve with the proposal, addressing: a description of the proposed outcomes how the proposal will establish, maintain or extend the range of similar services available in the identified community the consequent diversity of choice for current and future clients and carers how the outcomes are linked to the achievement of the objectives of the Commonwealth HACC Program how the applicant will provide ongoing assessment to ensure it meets the outcomes (e.g., through key performance indicators and reporting).
CRITERION FIVE The applicant’s proven track record in meeting the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC Program and/or other relevant programs Sub-criterion 5.1 – Departmental assessment of the applicant’s proven track record in meeting the objectives of the activity under the Commonwealth HACC Program and/or other relevant programs. The department will use available information to rate the applicant's past conduct in the delivery of a proposal under the program or, where relevant, under other community care or aged care programs. The rating will take into account available information on compliance with responsibilities under existing contractual arrangements or other responsibilities, including compliance in relation to the following: reporting (e.g., financial accountability reporting, minimum data set reporting, output variation reporting, and other reports and plans) quality review processes complaints records police checks notification of incidents appropriate use of funding under-performance and other performance or other relevant information. Table 2. Rating scale for Criterion 5 Rating Definition H(5) No compliance action for the last three years, with consideration to the factors set out below. MH (4) Current or history of minimal non-compliance with responsibilities in the last three years, with consideration to the factors set out below. M (3) Current or history of major non-compliance with responsibilities in the last three years, with consideration to the factors set out below. ML (2) Current or history of significant and substantial non-compliance with responsibilities in the last three years, with consideration to the factors set out below. L (1) Current or history of significant and substantial non-compliance with responsibilities where a notice or notices relating to non-compliance, default/breach, variation, suspension or termination have been issued within the last three years, with consideration to the factors set out below. Not assessable (0) Unable to assess new applicants that have not been funded under the Commonwealth HACC Program or other community care or aged care program. Weightings will be adjusted so as not to disadvantage new applicants, see section 5.5.2.2.
Consideration Notes Scoring The relative merit of each application. This is an assessment of whether the applicant scored highly against the assessment criteria. If the score is seen to be high, score a 1 for this consideration. The overall objective/s to be achieved in providing the funding. This is an assessment of the desirability and preferability of the outcomes the proposal will achieve. If desirable and/or preferable, score a 1. If the overall assessment score is low, but the outcomes are desirable and/or preferable, still score a 1. Then note the risks and propose treatments (such as imposing specific or additional conditions) so that the applicant will achieve the outcomes proposed. The relative cost of the proposal, or of elements of the proposal. This is a typical assessment of value for money, conducted by weighing up the outcome versus the total expenditure required to achieve it. It may also look at the appropriateness of the funding amount sought. There are three methods proposed: Where the value for money is to be based on “Better Return on Investment”, the total cost of each proposal is divided by the total weighted scores of the assessment criteria and a score of 1 is given to the ones with the lower price per unit of quality. Where the application is for a service type, the unit price for the service type is compared to other available data on unit price to determine whether it is an appropriate unit price (not too high, not too low). If it is appropriate, score a 1. Where the proposal is similar to other proposals funded under the program, the cost will be compared with those similar proposals. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a lack of capacity to fund the proposal taking into consideration all possible sources of finance, including debt finance. This is an assessment of whether the applicant could fund more of the proposal through other sources. If lack of capacity to fund has been demonstrated, score a 1. If a lower amount of funding could be recommended, still score a 1 and make the comment that a lower amount would be recommended (stating the size of funding recommended and why). The geographic location of the proposal. This would be employed where geographic locations of need are known to the department or have been specified in the application kit. If the geographic location is one specified or otherwise known as an area of need, score a 1.