8Selection and approval process

8                                Selection and approval process

8.1                         Selection criteria

8.1.1                     All LIEF Proposals which meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and merit ranked using the following criteria:

1. Investigator(s):  (20%)

• track record relative to opportunities;
• capacity to use and manage the proposed infrastructure, equipment and facilities for the proposed research.

2. Significance of research to be supported with the proposed infrastructure, equipment and facilities:                (20%)

• nature of the research, including aims and significance;
• relevance of the proposed infrastructure, equipment or facility to research needs; and
• enhancement of support for areas of existing or potential research strength.

 

c.             Need for excellent Australian researchers to access the proposed infrastructure, equipment or facility:                (30%)

• availability of and access to similar infrastructure, equipment or facility at organisational, regional or national level;
• national benefit of the research infrastructure, equipment or facility; and
• value for money and budget justification, including where appropriate any cash or in-kind financial contributions to be made from non-ARC sources, and the expected rate of use.

 

d.            Strength and benefits of collaboration between researchers and/or across Eligible Organisations and/or other organisations:                (30%)

• commitment of the Administering Organisation and, where applicable, Collaborating Organisations and Partner Organisations. The Proposal must provide clear justification for the extent of financial and other support of these organisations, and must be consistent with the organisations’ research management plans; and
• effectiveness of cooperative arrangements between researchers and/or organisations, including access and resource sharing;
• past collaborative performance.

(Note: If the Proposal is a Single-Organisation Proposal, justification must be provided why broader collaboration is not appropriate.)

8.2                         Assessment and selection procedure

8.2.1                     Assessment and selection process

8.2.1.1              Assessment of Proposals is undertaken by the ARC, which has the right to make recommendations solely on the basis of its expertise, and which may:

1. consider if a Proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules;
2. identify and consider any other matters that these Funding Rules state may result in the ARC’s not recommending a Proposal for approval;
3. assign assessors to review Proposals;
4. seek comments on assessors’ reports from the parties involved in the Proposal;
5. rank each Proposal relative to the others on the basis of the Proposal, any assessors’ reports, and any response to those assessment reports;
6. assess and recommend the amount of funding to be made available for a Proposal; and/or
7. prepare funding recommendations for the Minister as required by the ARC Act.

8.2.1.2              The ARC College of Experts assists with the assessment of Proposals. The ARC has procedures for managing organisational and personal conflicts of interest experienced by members of the College of Experts, members of other ARC committees, ARC staff, and other assessors, and for enabling individuals to withdraw from the assessment process for particular Proposals where any actual or perceived conflict may exist.

8.2.2                     Exclusion of Proposals

8.2.2.1              The ARC will not recommend for approval, and the Minister will not approve for funding, any Proposal that fails to satisfy the “eligibility criteria” set out in these Funding Rules, including:

1. if the ARC considers that the Proposal seeks funding for any of the items not permitted under Sections 3.4 and 3.5 and the ARC considers no other part of the proposed project remains worthy of support (subsection 3.4.2);
2. if the Proposal was not submitted by an Eligible Organisation (Section 4.1);
3. if the Proposal did not nominate at least one CI candidate (subsection 5.1.2);
4. if the Proposal does not meet the requirement for contributions from the Administering Organisation, Collaborating Organisation(s) and/or Partner Organisation(s) (Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and Appendix 2);
5. if the ARC considers that a researcher nominated in the Proposal as CI or PI does not meet the eligibility criteria as specified in Sections 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3 for the role which that researcher is to perform (subsection 5.1.3);
6. if, in the opinion of the ARC,  the equipment, infrastructure or facilities is to be used predominantly for Medical and Dental Research (subsection 3.4.1.a and Section 6.3);
7. if a Proposal has not been submitted through the appropriate Research Office/Chief Executive Officer for certification (subsection 7.3.2); and
8. if the Proposal is not for a program of research, or a program that supports the conduct of a program of research.

8.2.2.2              The ARC may in its absolute discretion decide not to recommend for approval a Proposal if:

1. in the opinion of the ARC, any researcher nominated in the Proposal as a CI or PI has caused or has significantly contributed to the failure of an organisation to meet its obligations under any current or previous funding agreement with the ARC (subsection 1.1.5);
2. in the opinion of the ARC, any party involved in or associated with the Proposal has failed to disclose to the ARC, or any of the parties involved in the Proposal, any conflict of interest which has the potential to influence, or appear to influence, the research and activities, publications and media reports, or requests for funding related to the Proposal (subsection 1.4.3.2);
3. if the amount of funding requested from the ARC is greater than 75% of the total direct cost of the purchase, upgrading, construction, transportation and installation of and/or accessing the infrastructure, equipment or facility for which funding is being requested (subsection 3.1.3).
4. the Proposal requests funding for a number of small items and, taking into account any justification provided in the Proposal, the ARC is not satisfied that the items form part of an integrated facility and are necessary to support research activities (subsection 3.3.2.1).
5. the limits on the number of Proposals and projects permissible are exceeded (subsection 3.6.1);
6. the ARC considers that the project described in a Proposal is the same as or similar (in whole or in part) to a project described in another Proposal that is submitted in the same funding round (subsection 3.6.2.1);
7. in the opinion of the ARC, a Proposal duplicates or is likely to duplicate research/items already being funded, or which is likely to be funded, by the Commonwealth (subsections 1.4.2 and Sections 6.1 and 6.2);
8. where required, the Proposal does not include details of other funding or funding requests (subsection 6.2.1);
9. the ARC considers that incomplete, inaccurate, false, or misleading material has been provided in relation to the Proposal or if the Administering Organisation and/or researchers nominated in the Proposal as a CI or PI have provided the ARC with incomplete, unsatisfactory, inaccurate or misleading information in relation to the provision of advice relating to, or in the reporting of progress of, a funded project (subsections 6.2.1 and Section 11.5);
10. the Proposal is required to address any of the matters specified in subsections 3.7.2 or 3.7.3 and it has failed to do so (subsection 3.7.4);
11. the Proposal is required to address any of the matters specified in subsections 4.1.2 - 4.1.5 and it has failed to do so (subsection 4.1.6);
12. the Proposal is required to demonstrate the matters specified in subsection 4.2.3 and it has failed to do so (subsection 4.2.3);
13. the on-line Proposal is submitted, or the paper version is received by the ARC, after the closing time (subsection 7.4.5); or

n.            the Proposal fails to meet any format or other submission requirements (Section 7.4).

8.2.3                     Assessment

8.2.3.1              In addition to assessment by the ARC, a Proposal may at the ARC’s absolute discretion be assessed by external assessors. Assessors may be drawn from a range of organisations to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest. Proposals will be assessed against the criteria set out in these Funding Rules.

8.2.3.2              The ARC reserves the right to make recommendations for funding to the Minister based on any number of external assessments or solely on the assessment of the ARC.

8.2.3.3              Administering Organisations may provide written notification to the ARC naming any person or persons whom they do not wish to assess a Proposal. A “Request not to Assess” form is available from the ARC’s Web Site for this purpose. Such notifications must contain detailed justification and be submitted using the “Request not to Assess” form through the Administering Organisation’s Research Office. This notification must not accompany the Proposal. The notification must be received by the ARC by the closing time for submission of Proposals, 5:00 pm (AEST) Friday 18 May 2007 and be sent:

 

 

8.2.3.4              The ARC will consider the justification put forward to exclude any person as an assessor, but may choose not to give effect to such a request.

8.2.4                     Recommendations

8.2.4.1              The ARC’s recommendations will be submitted in accordance with the ARC Act to the Minister for consideration. The Minister determines which Proposals will be approved and the amount and timing of financial assistance to be paid to Administering Organisations for approved Proposals.

8.2.4.2              Under the ARC Act, the Minister must not approve for funding any Proposal that fails to meet the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules.

8.3                         Offer of funding

8.3.1                     Administering Organisations whose Proposals are approved will be:

a. notified in a letter of offer that will indicate the financial assistance to be offered; and

b. provided with a copy of a Funding Agreement for signing.