Question 1: "Issues for applicants to address in their full application" paragraph 3.2 asks EEDA 04 applicants to consider whether the structure of their project might lead to a potential conflict of interest. Does this mean that the EEDA 04 applicant organisation cannot provide training to beneficiary individuals and firms?

Answer 1: No, EEDA is not debarring applicant organisations from providing training to beneficiaries. However, applicants must consider how potential conflicts of interest are to be handled. EEDA wants to ensure that beneficiary firms/individuals are receiving the training they want and need and not the training that a self-interested training provider wants to sell. Three further points are made below:

1. The section "Issues for applicants to address in their full application" sets out areas for improvement in the 'demand-led' model. EEDA is asking for applicants to explain how their version of the demand-led model addresses the issues that have been raised by external evaluation. EEDA is looking for improvement in how the demand-led model is delivered and we expect incremental improvement (in response to external evaluation) of the model over time.

2. The project could be structured to reduce the potential for conflicts of interest. Careful structuring of how (i) decisions about choosing beneficiary firms, and (ii) choosing training providers are made, and who makes them, could reduce potential conflicts of interest. The context of decision making and information available to decision makers is also important.

3. Consideration about whether the 'potential' conflict of interest is likely to produce unsatisfactory outcomes is material. Carefully designed and robust reporting on who is selected as a beneficiary and who provides training would enable the applicant to demonstrate that decisions are unbiased by a potential conflict of interest. A careful explanation of a robust and monitorable reporting structure in the application would indicate an intention to produce unbiased outcomes and would help alleviate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Question 2: Is a copy of the full evaluation of the demand-led model available to applicants?

Answer 2: As the 'Issues for applicants to address' makes clear, the evaluation is currently in draft form. The information sent to applicants sets out the issues from the evaluation that EEDA wants applicants to address in the full application form. These issues fall within the project specification (i.e. EEDA is not asking to to consider new issues) and they are neutral with respect to their relative effects on the delivery models proposed by applicants in their initial applications.

Criteria for selecting the organisation to deliver EEDA 04 are set out in the information previously supplied to you. No other criteria - whether originating from the evaluation or from elsewhere - will be used to select the winning bid.

We do not intend to publish the detail of the evaluation of the demand-led model until the final version is available and it has been seen by the organisations that ran the projects that were evaluated. This process will take place after the closing date of the full application for EEDA 04.

A summary of the evaluation has been published on pages 6 and 7 of the "East of England Economy and Labour Market Background Paper" prepared for the SFSG meeting on 26 January 2005 and this can be obtained from:

http://www.eastofenglandobservatory.org.uk/viewResource.asp?resourceType=5&rt=Information&resourceSubTypeIDs=2&SubTypeNames=EEDA%20Analysis&uri=http://eastofenglandobservatory.org.uk/resources/?id=12219

Question 3: Can EEDA describe to us the transparent and objective measurement process it will use to assess the applications at full application stage?

Answer 3: EEDA’s Executive Management Team discussed an internal report on co-financing on 7 Feb 05. This report included a series of recommendations, focused mainly on future co-financing rounds, e.g. re-tendered activities. Where relevant and agreed by EMT, some changes may be introduced for the assessment of EEDA04. A formal letter detailing any “new” process requirements applicable to EEDA04 will be sent to applicants by the end of February.

Question 4: What is the position on other projects tendered through the recent co-financing round, particularly in relation to EEDA 08?

Answer 4: Results of other EEDA projects tendered through the recent co-financing round are not yet public knowledge. ..... We expect to be able to post the Table on both the EEDA and GO-East website in the near future. We will notify EEDA 04 applicants when the table is published .....

The timetable for re-tendering projects has not yet been formally established. EEDA will notify applicants as soon as the timetable is available.

Question 5: When does EEDA expect the EEDA 04 project to start?

Answer 5: EEDA expects to inform applicants of the outcome of the tender by 6th April 2005. Any delay to this timetable will be communicated to applicants. If contract negotiation proceeds smoothly then the project could start in the 3rd or 4th week in April; if there are difficulties then the start date is more likely to be around mid-May at the earliest. Applicants should set out the proposed key stages of their delivery plan in the full application.

Question 6: The “issues for applicants to address” section of the feedback to applicants on the initial application stage of EEDA 04 mentions (paragraph 3.4) that some beneficiary firms/individuals may need advice and guidance in selecting the most effective training provision. There will be costs associated with providing this advice and guidance that may deter some companies from applying for support. Can the project help either by:-

(1) A line item within the financial costings;

(2) Reimbursement of these costs within the training grant that the company receives.

If (2) is acceptable how do we avoid potential conflict with ESF additionality requirements?

Answer 6: Including a line in the costings to provide this advice and guidance would be acceptable as would reimbursing the costs within the training grant the company receives. Applicants might also consider whether beneficiary firms/individuals should contribute to the cost of the training package as a means of reducing the deadweight loss (Section 2 of “issues for applicants to address” raises deadweight loss as an issue to be addressed).

It is for applicants to work out the detail of how they propose to run the project while addressing the specification and feed-back.

We do not see that using (2) produces additionality problems. EEDA 04 focuses on engaging smaller employers in skills development and financial support of ESF is being deployed to this end.

Question 7: Does EEDA have reason to believe that the Regional Skills Competiveness Partnership might call for changes in the key sectors to be targeted? On what basis of evidence or change in the RES would this be done?

Answer 7: EEDA does not know what RSCP might do. EEDA staff would defend the principle of the demand-led project and argue the case for the targets chosen. However, RSCP may take another view.

The project specification as set out in the prospectus requires that the project: “operates in a flexible framework that allows adjustment of targeting as the understanding of skills development needs and regional priorities change”. This is an important criteria. EEDA will use this criteria amongst the other criteria set out in the information previously supplied to applicants to assess your bid.

Question 8: The training aids exemption allows up to 70% of the cost of training of individuals to be funded by the State (for individuals in SMEs). Can the balance of the 30% be funded ‘in-kind’ by the cost of the individual’s employees time, or does it have to be funded in cash?

Answer 8: The match funding, either private or public, could be in-kind but needs to be evidenced at the company level. Only actual staff salary costs can be used to calculate the match funding. The costs must be supported by timesheets showing the amount of time each individual staff has spent on the project and signed by participants and line manager (if relevant).

Question 9: Are there specific programmes that EEDA would like tenderers to acknowledge and signpost in their proposal, such as ETPs as mentioned in Section 5.1 of “issues for applicants to address”?

Answer 9: No. EEDA does not expect specific programmes to be acknowledged but expects the best use to be made of all provision available to the beneficiary firm/individual. EEDA 04 should complement existing provision and not displace any provision. Where provision could be funded by another specialist/mainstream funding stream it should be funded from that source - EEDA 04 can then fund provision that other streams cannot fund. This would ensure that the public purse is used efficiently as possible and deadweight is reduced. These comments relate to provision available now and new provision that may become available during the life of EEDA 04.

At the same time EEDA 04 is all about delivering what the beneficiary wants, when they want it and where they want it, i.e. it is very beneficiary focussed. If there is provision available but not at the right time or place then there is a case for EEDA 04 funding it.

The applicant’s project design needs to devise methods to decide between competing provision (e.g. a college can provide what the beneficiary wants but not exactly when they want it) in a principled, consistent and rational way. We will examine the project design carefully against the criteria provided to you previously when assessing your application.

Question 10: Are EEDA prepared to nominate personnel to take an active membership role within the ‘Towards 2010’ Steering group?

Answer 10: Yes. EEDA would expect to sit on the steering group.

Question 11: Your feedback to applicants includes the statement that EEDA 04 would have to pay full costs (including a proper proportion of overhead costs) for any service provided by Business Links. If EEDA 04 were to pay Business Links for an idb service wouldn't EEDA be double funding Business Links?

Answer 11: Please note that this answer corrects the statement in the feedback provided to applicants which states that any BL service to EEDA 04 would have to charged at full cost.

Where BL does not recruit staff to support levered in funded activity then an idb service provided to EEDA 04 can be provided free of charge. BL core funding will pay for the BL support in that case. However, where BL has to recruit staff to support levered in activity then the levered in activity must fully fund the idb service that is provided.

In the free service case, applicants must avoid double counting of outputs. If an idb output is 'claimed' by BL then it cannot also be claimed by EEDA 04. Where additional staff are employed to support levered in activity then outputs generated belong entirely to the levered in funding and not to BL.

Question 12: In providing detailed information about project selection and scoring at the full application stage EEDA sent a letter and detailed scoring system directly to the two applicants.

Answer 12: In providing detailed information about project selection and scoring at the full application stage EEDA sent a letter and detailed scoring system directly to the two applicants.

Question 13 : Is it acceptable to send the full application in as a PDF as it is difficult to put some information into the application form supplied by EEDA?

Answer 13: Yes. EEDA is happy to receive your application in PDF format.