Office of Regional Development
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES GRANT SCHEME 2016
Please refer to the Guidelines for Regional Incentives Grants when completing this application.
The applications must be signed by the appropriate staff before being scanned and sent to
Natalie.Edwards@utas.edu.au and Margaret.Mcmahon@utas.edu.au
If you have any questions, please contact Natalie.Edwards@utas.edu.au
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES GRANT SCHEME 2016
Application Form
Title of Project
Total Amount of Funding Sought
$
Applicant Details:
Lead Applicant:
Academic Level (A, B, C):
School/Institute:
Contract end date:
Email:
Phone:
Applicant Details: Please insert a new section for each member of the team
Applicant:
Academic Level (A, B, C):
School/Institute:
Contract end date:
Email:
Phone:
Project Details (one page maximum for each of the four sections):
1.
Proposal
The proposal page must include the following sections:




2.
Capacity

3.
Demonstrate the applicant or team’s capacity to deliver the project.
Deliverables

4.
Project Title
Objectives
Approach (i.e. methods/methodologies)
Timelines.
List specific key deliverables and associated KPIs.
Budget and Justification

A budget and budget justification must be submitted on the template provided.
Authorisation:
I confirm that the details in this application are correct and complete, and that the applicant/s will fulfil the obligations of
recipients described in the Guidelines. I certify that all persons listed have agreed to take part in the proposed activities and the team will
conform to the agreed timeline and budget.
Lead Applicant :
Date:
Dean of Faculty
Director of
Institute/Division:
Date:
FACULTY/INSTITUTE RANKING
If the Faculty/Institute is submitting more than one proposal, please indicate here the ranking for this
proposal.
Submission: Please submit your proposal in PDF format to Natalie.Edwards@utas.edu.au and
Margaret.Mcmahon@utas.edu.au by 9.00am, Thursday 21 April 2015.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Assessment:
Criterion:
Score (A-E):
1. Proposal (40%)
A: Outstanding – Of the highest quality
2. Capacity (10%)
B: Excellent – High quality, strongly competitive proposal
3. Deliverables (40%)
C: Very good – A sound and compelling Proposal
4. Alignment (10%)
Overall
D: Good – A sound Proposal, but lacks a compelling element
E: Uncompetitive