Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Linkage Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007
8Selection and approval process
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 8
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Linkage Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007.
8.1.1 All LIEF Proposals which meet the eligibility criteria will be assessed and merit ranked using the following criteria:
Investigators and significance of research to be undertaken with the proposed infrastructure, equipment and facilities: (40%)
track record relative to opportunity;
nature of the research, including aims and significance;
relevance of the proposed infrastructure, equipment or facility to research needs;
capacity to use and manage the proposed infrastructure, equipment and facilities for the proposed research;
enhancement of support for areas of existing or potential research strength.
b. 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 or national level;
national benefit of the research infrastructure, equipment or facility;
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;
c. Strength and benefits of collaboration between researchers and/or across Eligible Organisations and/or other organisations: (30%)
commitment of each participating organisation. The Proposal must provide clear evidence of the extent of financial and other support from the Administering Organisation and, where applicable, Collaborating Organisations and Partner Organisations, and must be consistent with the organisations’ research management plans;
effectiveness of cooperative arrangements between researchers and/or organisations, including access and resource sharing;
past collaborative performance.
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 decisions and recommendations solely on the basis of its expertise, and which may:
determine if a Proposal satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in these Funding Rules;
identify and determine any other matters that these Funding Rules state may result in the ARC’s not recommending a Proposal for approval;
assign assessors to review Proposals;
seek comments on assessors’ reports from the parties involved in the Proposal;
rank each Proposal relative to the others on the basis of the Proposal, any assessors’ reports, and any response to those assessment reports;
assess and recommend the amount of funding to be made available for a Proposal; and/or
prepare funding recommendations for the Minister.
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 members, 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:
if the ARC considers that the Proposal seeks funding for any of the items listed in subsection 3.4.1 and the ARC considers no other part of the proposed project remains worthy of support (subsection 3.4.2);
if the Proposal was not submitted by an Eligible Organisation (Section 4.1);
if the Proposal does not meet the requirement for contributions from the Administering Organisation, Collaborating Organisation(s) and/or Partner Organisation(s) (Sections 4.2, 4.3 and Appendix 3);
if the ARC considers that a person nominated in the Proposal as CI or PI does not meet the eligibility criteria as specified in Section 5 for the role which that person is to perform (subsection 5.1.7); and/or
if the Proposal has not been submitted through the appropriate Research Office/Chief Executive Officer for certification (subsection 7.3.2).
8.2.2.2 The ARC may in its absolute discretion decide not to recommend for approval a Proposal if:
a. 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);
b. the limits on the number of Proposals and projects permissible are exceeded (subsection 3.6.1);
c. the ARC considers that the project described in the 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);
d. in the opinion of the ARC, a Proposal duplicates or is likely to duplicate research already being funded by the Commonwealth (subsection 6.1.1);
e. where required the Proposal does not include details of other funding or funding requests (subsection 6.2.1);
f. the ARC considers that 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, inaccurate or misleading information in relation to the reporting of progress of a funded project (subsections 6.2.1 and 11.5.2);
g. the Proposal is submitted after the closing time (subsection 7.4.5); and/or
h. the Proposal fails to meet any format and 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 selection 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 assessments or solely on the assessment of the ARC.
8.2.3.3 Administering Organisations may name any person or persons whom they do not wish to assess a Proposal. Detailed written justification must be submitted through the Administering Organisation’s Research Office in a separate letter which must not accompany the Proposal. The letter must be received by the ARC by the closing time for submission of Proposals and be sent to:
LIEF Coordinator
Australian Research Council
GPO Box 2702
CANBERRA ACT 2601
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 to the Minister for Education, Science and Training (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 projects.
8.2.4.2 Under the ARC Act, the Minister may 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 An Administering Organisation which has Proposal(s) 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 the draft Funding Agreement for signing.
Section 8 - Australian Research Council Act 2001 - Linkage Infrastructure Equipment and Facilities - Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2007 - Selection and approval process | Zoe