General Assessment Guidance – Energy Catalyst Round 6 competition

Ftp site will contain:

 Instructions of how to use the site;
 Applications for your review plus an individual score sheet for each;
 Assessor scoring guide – pages 2 to 4 of this document
(Please refer to this during your assessment to ensure fair & equitable scoring);
 Assessor briefing
 Competition briefing
Guidance for Applicants

Scoring:
 Please refer to the scoring guide for mark bandings. Use the full range of marks and do not be afraid of the
extremes if you believe that the application warrants the score.
 Please do not mark zero.
 Please ensure that you read the whole application and any appendices thoroughly, and that you spend sufficient
time trying to understand the proposal, before completing your score sheet so that information is not missed.
 Please be mindful of the appendices that applicants attach to the application. You should not assess any more
than the maximum number of pages allowed as it could potentially give an unfair advantage over applicants that
have complied with the rules stated. The application form itself should be viewed in Print view and anything that
does not fit within the boxes provided should not be assessed. The appendices should only contain supporting
information and not substantive elements of the application form criteria answers
o Appendices are allowed for Scope (DFID) 1 A4 page for Scope and 4 A4 pages for A and B plus
 Questions 2, 7 and 8 - 2 A4 pages;
 Question 3 - 4 A4 pages
o The JeS form submission will be provided to assessors for any academic partners in a consortium.
Assessors with an academic background should focus more on the JeS form while assessors with a
business background should focus more on the other appendices.

Feedback:
 Please provide constructive feedback comments for every question on the score sheet. Feedback comments
provided by assessors will be provided to applicants and is aimed at helping applicants with their proposal and
future activities. Applicants should, therefore, gain value from engaging with Innovate UK irrespective of grant
funding.
 Comments should reflect the scores given. Please provide two or three sentences of comments to support your
score.
 Please provide justification for the comments provided. For example if you believe the project is not innovative,
please state why. Feedback must be based on fact rather than personal opinion.
 Do not compare one application with another in your commentary.
 Do not use (rhetorical) questions and if possible avoid the use of “I….”. Please check your spelling.
 Do not refer to specific companies/people/ projects not relating to the application unless already in the public
domain.
 Do not refer to anything which might identify you or other projects.
 All comments recorded on the score sheets may be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Assessor Expertise:
 If you receive any applications that you do not feel qualified to assess based on your expertise please notify us as
soon as possible by emailing james.danek@innovateuk.gov.uk. We will then reallocate the application to another
assessor. In the interest of fairness it is important that the assessments are undertaken by those with the
appropriate skills and knowledge relevant to the project.

Conflicts:

1|P a g e
  If you are aware of a conflict of interest of which you have not made us aware, then please let us know ASAP.
 You are considered to have a conflict of interest if you:
o have been directly involved in the writing of the proposal.
o work for or have an interest in a company / HEI involved in the application.
o currently acting as Monitoring Officer for a project with one of the consortia partners.
o feel in any way that you are not able to independently and objectively assess an application.
o feel you could in any way benefit (directly or indirectly) from either scoring the application well or scoring
it poorly (for example as a direct competitor)
 If you receive an application that you feel unable to assess please contact us as soon as possible so that we can
reallocate accordingly. Please declare any conflicts to James Danek (James.Danek@innovateuk.gov.uk)

Confidentiality:
 Please remember that you have been selected as an assessor because of your recognised technical and/or
business knowledge in this area.
 You are acting as an individual, independent assessor, not a representative of your Company.
 Your scores should therefore reflect your personal expert views against the criteria laid down in the guidance
notes.
 You should not share this, or any other information with others and your scoring must be done independently.
 Please take care to ensure data security at all times. Do not email application forms.
 NOTE: Please be aware that we have received information that researching companies/applicants on the
Networking site “LinkedIn” can reveal your identity to those applicants who are familiar with using the site. We
would therefore advise against using LinkedIn for this purpose.

Housekeeping:
 Please take note that if you have assessed for us previously you may have ‘old’ folders on your ftp site. Do not
confuse these folders with the new assessments that you need to undertake. Please ensure that the folder you
access is for the correct competition.
 Please download your applications as soon as possible to ensure that any difficulties you experience or any
Conflicts of Interests you identify can be dealt with in a timely manner.
 Please return all completed score sheets by Noon 2 January 2019. If you think you will not be able to return them
by this date please let us know immediately.

Assessing Matrix – Energy Catalyst Round 6 competition

Gateway question – is the application in scope for this competition?

YES The application contains the following:
 Is the project UK business led (or UK SME/RTO led in Early stage applications)?
 Are there two or more partners to the collaboration (or single SME applicant led for Early stage
applications)?
 Does it meet the need to tackle all three areas of the energy trilemma?

Please note, you do not need to assess if this hits the needs of the Transforming Energy Access Programme.
This will be carried out by the Carbon Trust post assessment.
NO One or more of the above requirements have not been satisfied.

Gateway question – How is your project helping to address and encourage gender equality and social inclusion?
Assessors do not need to mark this question, this will be accessed by the Carbon Trust post assessment.

Using the information provided, as well as the logic model in appendix B what degree of confidence do you have that
the project will be able to address the following in the life of their project:
 who is expected to benefit from the project (eg. end users, policy makers) and how.
 How the project will address issues of gender and other social inclusion issues including poorer
consumers, disabled and older people
 If there is a sufficient strategy to address the leave no one behind policy.

2|P a g e
  That the project can address the actions, outputs, outcomes and impacts of gender equality and social
inclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa and/or South Asia.
5 Applicant provides enough information to give you a high degree of confidence
4 Applicant provides enough information to give you a good degree of confidence
3 Applicant provides enough information to give you a satisfactory degree of confidence
2 Applicant provides enough information to give you a poor degree of confidence
1 Applicant provides enough information to give you a no degree confidence

Research category (refer to definitions in Guidance for Applicants)

TECHNICAL  Does the selected research category of the proposed project align with the predominant
FEASIBILITY activity of the project?
STUDIES  Is the research category defined for each work package, and is this appropriate given the risk
and outcome of the work package?
INDUSTRIAL If you do not feel that the correct research categories have been selected, mark the application as if it
RESEARCH
was correct and flag this up in the final comments.
EXPERIMENTAL
DEVELOPMENT

1. What is the business need, technological challenge or market opportunity driving your innovation?
9-10 The applicant has clearly described a compelling motivation of the project from the perspective of the
businesses involved and has a clear understanding of the nearest state-of-the-art available. The applicant
has shown how the project will build upon previous work of relevance (if this applies). Any relevant wider
factors influencing this opportunity are identified.
7-8 The applicants present a good motivation for the project and are aware of the nearest state-of-the-art and
wider factors influencing the opportunity.
5-6 The motivation is given but the applicant displays only basic awareness of the nearest state-of-the-art or
wider factors influencing this opportunity.
3-4 The motivation is poorly defined or not relevant to the applicant or team. References to the current state-
of-the-art are not offered or are not relevant.
1-2 There is little or no business drive to the project. References to the current state-of-the-art are not offered
or are not relevant.

2. What approach will you take and where will the focus of the innovation be?
9-10 The applicant has clearly outlined a relevant/appropriate approach to addressing the need, challenge or
opportunity identified in Q1. The main innovation(s) and risk(s) are identified. The applicants show how
the innovation(s) and project outputs will differentiate their proposed offering (referencing the fit with
their current offerings if appropriate) from those of competitors. The proposed development is
significantly innovative either commercially or technically and will make a substantial contribution to the
field. Solid evidence is presented to substantiate the level of innovation and freedom to operate.
7-8 The approach outlined addresses the need or challenge and the main innovation(s) and risk(s) are
highlighted. Evidence provided indicates that the proposed development is innovative and that the
applicant has the freedom to operate. The applicant indicates how the project outputs will differentiate
their proposed offering from those of competitors.
5-6 The approach outlined may address the need or challenge identified in Q1 and the innovation(s) are
highlighted. The level of innovation or freedom to operate is not strongly backed up with evidence. The
main risks are not identified or identified in brief or are defined or stated at a level not really relevant for
the project. Innovation focus is plausible and shows a link to improvements in competitiveness and/or
productivity.
3-4 The approach is poorly defined with a tenuous or unconvincing link to the need or challenge identified in
Q1. Link to improvement in competiveness and/or productivity is mentioned but this is not very
convincing.
1-2 The approach is not well defined or inconsistent with need or challenge identified in Q1. There is no
identification of how this will improve competitiveness.

3|P a g e
3. Who is in the project team and what are their roles?
9-10 The applicant or consortium is well placed to undertake the project and exploit the results. The applicant
presents a clear plan for obtaining all the resources, equipment and facilities they will need. There is strong
evidence that the consortium will work well.
7-8 The applicant or consortium makes sense given the approach described in Q2. The applicant indicates how
access will be obtained to all the resources, equipment and facilities they will need. The consortium is likely
to work well.
5-6 The applicant or consortium has most of the required skills and experience required but there are a few gaps
with only partial indication of how these will be filled. It is unclear whether or not the consortium will work
well together – little evidence is offered.
3-4 The applicant or consortium is not well placed to undertake the project as there are significant gaps in the
consortium with little or no information about how these will be filled. There may be some partners with
little relevance to the project activities.
1-2 The applicant or consortium will not be capable of either carrying out the project or exploiting the results.

4. What does the market you are targeting look like?

9-10 Where the market exists already, the outline of the target market shows the applicant fully understands its
drivers and dynamics and the addressable market is quantified with strong evidence. Where the market is
new or unexplored, the applicant has described the possible route(s) to market based on relevant
precedents and has estimated the market size based on compelling evidence. Relevant secondary markets
are substantiated and described in brief.
7-8 The applicant has described the target market and displays good awareness of its drivers and dynamics, with
the addressable market size quantified with some evidence. For a new market, a good attempt is made at
describing the possible route(s) to market and estimating the market size. Relevant secondary markets are
described showing good awareness.
5-6 The general market size and dynamics are outlined but the addressable market less clear. These are not
related back to the addressable market for the project. Secondary markets are mentioned but little
information is offered.
3-4 Some information about the general market is offered but the extent of the addressable market for the
project is not described. Secondary markets are barely mentioned.
1-2 The market is poorly defined or is irrelevant to the motivations of the project.

5. How do you propose to grow your business and increase your productivity into the long term as a result of the
project?
9-10 The applicant clearly identifies specific target customers and the value proposition to them is well
articulated. The applicant specifies the route(s) to market and how profit, productivity and growth will
increase in the long- and/or short-term, with compelling evidence. The applicant describes how the main
project outputs will be exploited and/or disseminated. The Projected Growth table is completed and
projections look realistic given the approach proposed.
7-8 The applicant describes target customers and the value proposition to them. The applicant describes the
route(s) to market and provides some information about how profit, productivity and growth will increase
with some evidence. The applicant describes how the main project outputs will be exploited and/or
disseminated. The Projected Growth table is completed and projections look sound given the approach
proposed.
5-6 The applicant describes some potential target customer types but the value proposition is less clear. The
applicant offers some information about how profit, productivity or growth increases may be achieved at
some point. The Projected Growth table is completed but there is little evidence to justify the projections.
3-4 The applicant provides a little information about the target customer types but there is little about the value
proposition or how profit, productivity or growth will be affected. The Projected Growth table is
incomplete.

4|P a g e
1-2 The applicant provides little or no information about the target customers or projected growth.

6. What impact might this project have outside the project team?
9-10 The applicant shows a clear understanding of how the project will impact others outside of the team e.g.
supply chain partners, customers, broader industry and there are likely to be significant positive impacts.
Social and/or environmental impacts are considered as well as economic ones. Expected regional impacts
are described with compelling evidence to justify claims. Any possible negative impacts are fully mitigated
where appropriate.
7-8 The applicant shows good awareness of how the project may impact others outside of the team and there
may be some positive impacts. Expected regional impacts are described. Any possible negative impacts are
partially mitigated where appropriate.
5-6 The applicant shows basic awareness of how the project could impact some others outside the project but
some relevant stakeholders are not considered. Little mitigation is offered where there may be negative
impacts.
3-4 The applicant provides some information about possible impacts but significant gaps remain.
1-2 The applicant offers no information about how the project might impact others or the project would clearly
be detrimental to other UK interests.

7. How will you manage the project effectively?

9-10 The project work packages are outlined with the research category, lead partner and total cost provided for
each one. The approach to project management is stated. The plan is looks realistic and is designed to meet
the objectives of the project in the most efficient way possible. Any links or dependencies between work
packages or milestones are identified.
7-8 The project work packages are outlined with the research category, lead partner and total cost provided for
each one. The approach to project management is stated. The plan seems appropriate to the project
objectives. Any links or dependencies between work packages or milestones are identified.
5-6 The project work packages are outlined but there are some detail missing e.g. links and dependencies. The
plan seems reasonable but not tailored to the objectives of the project.
3-4 The plan has serious deficiencies or major missing aspects. The plan has little chance of meeting the
objectives of the project.
1-2 The plan is totally unrealistic or fails to meet the objectives of the project.

8. What are the main risks for this project?

9-10 The applicant has carefully considered the key risks and uncertainties of the project and has indicated how
these will be mitigated. Critical inputs to the project are identified. Relevant constraints or conditions on
the project outputs (regulatory requirements, certification or ethical issues) are identified. The risk analysis
appropriate and professional.
7-8 The applicant has identified the key risks and uncertainties of the project and the analysis is reasonable.
Mitigations seem appropriate. Relevant constraints or conditions on the project outputs (regulatory
requirements, certification or ethical issues) are identified.
5-6 Most major risks have been identified but there are some gaps or the mitigation and management is
insufficient to properly control the risks.
3-4 The risk analysis is poor or misses major areas of risk. The mitigation and management is poor.
1-2 The risk analysis is superficial with minimal mitigation or management suggested.

9. Describe the impact that an injection of public funding would have on this project.
9-10 The additionality arguments are compelling with a case made for the significant positive difference the grant
funding will make. Alternatives sources of support are described with an explanation of why there are
discounted or used in conjunction with the grant funding. The project will significantly increase the
industrial partners’ R&D spend during the project and afterwards.
7-8 The additionality arguments are good and justified. The project significantly will increase the industrial
partners’ commitment to R&D.

5|P a g e
5-6 The additionality arguments are acceptable but the difference made by the grant will be modest. The project
will improve the industrial partners’ commitment to R&D.
3-4 The additionality arguments are poor or not sufficiently justified. There is not likely to be any improvement
to the industrial partner’s commitment to R&D.
1-2 There is no justification for public funding and no reason why the applicant should not fund the work.

10. How much will the project cost and how does it represent value for money for the team and the taxpayer?
9-10 The project costs are entirely appropriate given its aims. The partners have a clear idea of how they will
finance their contribution. The project represents excellent value for money for both the applicants and the
taxpayer, compared to alternative approaches (including doing nothing), which are outlined. The balance of
costs and grants between partners, and use of subcontractors is justified and reasonable for the proposed
project.
7-8 The project costs are appropriate and should be sufficient to successfully complete the project. The balance
of costs and grants between partners, and use of subcontractors is seems reasonable for the proposed
project. The project represents good value for money for both the applicants and the taxpayer, compared
to alternative approaches (including doing nothing), which are outlined in brief.
5-6 The project costs seem ok but the justifications are not clear. The balance of costs and grants between
partners is acceptable (within the bounds set). Little information is offered about alternative approaches
and the value for money this project offers.
3-4 The project costs seem too high or too low given the proposed project. The split of costs and grants between
partners is unbalanced, or inappropriate use is being made of subcontractors.
1-2 The costs are not appropriate or justified. The balance between partners and subcontractors is not justified.

Do you believe this application is suitable for funding?

YES If you believe overall the proposed project is a good business proposition, is innovative, will be successfully
delivered, will be effectively exploited, is value for money and public funding is justified.
NO If there is a reason why the proposed project is a poor business proposition, is not innovative, would not be
successfully delivered or exploited, is poor value for money or public funding is not justified.

6|P a g e