Weaknesses in Grant
Applications
Malcolm Ross
November 2014
21/11/2014
company presentation 2012
Page 1
Formal Documentation
Practical Guide (PRAG 2014) and Annexes available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/prag/document.do?chapte
rId=2.&id=141
EU Guide to visibility
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/visibility/
GIZ advice on making an EU Grant Application
http://egypt-urban.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/Making-an-Application-for-EUFunding;
Guidelines for Applicants for the relevant call.
21/11/2014
Page 2
Objective of this Session
1. To provide practical advice on how to
design projects that meet the qualitative
criteria applied in grant evaluation.
2. To improve quality of project proposals
and increase the rate of grant absorption
21/11/2014
Page 3
The advice follows the standard evaluation chart that
assessors have to follow to check the quality of
proposals after the preliminary verification of
administrative compliance.
The five criteria applied in assessing applications are:
1. APPLICANT CAPACITY,
2. RELEVANCE OF THE IDEA,
3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY,
4. EXPECTED IMPACT
5. VALUE FOR MONEY.
21/11/2014
Page 4
The Capacity of the Applicant
21/11/2014
Page 5
The Capacity of the Applicant/Coapplicants
•
21/11/2014
Page 6
1. The Capacity of the Main
Applicant/Co-applicants
21/11/2014
Page 7
Comments from Concept Note
• Given the size of the project a strong management
team must be put in place;
• The overall design and management of the project is
very poor;
• Strong management skills will be required given
complexity of the project;
• Renovation of more schools should have been
targeted given finance requested.
21/11/2014
Page 8
Applicant and Co-applicant Finance
Capacity
The proposal is seriously weak if:
• There are inconsistencies between the size of the
requested funding and the experience shown in
managing funds over previous years.
• If an applicant requests an amount considerably higher
than the ones usually managed, their ability to properly
manage such an amount will be in question.
21/11/2014
Page 9
Applicant and Co-applicant Finance
Capacity
Concept note weaknesses:
Project too ambitious in relation to available finance
Project budget too small in relation to planned activities
and could risk implementation;
The need for external financial support not guaranteed;
Funding requested is very high in relation to the
proposed project
21/11/2014
Page 10
Relevance of the Project Idea
21/11/2014
Page 11
Relevance of the Project Idea
Note: This was scored from information given in
concept so cannot be improved upon at this stage!
However, you can make insignificant changes to
proposals contained in Concept note!
21/11/2014
Page 12
Relevance of the Project Idea
21/11/2014
Page 13
Relevance of the Project Idea
The proposal appears seriously weak if:
• The target group is very generally described and the analysis is not based on
objective information and statistical data;
• The size of the defined target group is too great in relation to the proposed
project’s time-frame and resources;
• The information and data on the problem identified are too general and not
clearly based on the target group’s defined needs;
• The proposed project is not relevant to the real needs of the target group, which
has not been involved in the project design.
21/11/2014
Page 14
Relevance of the Project Idea
Concept note comments:
The only weak point is that the target group is large and project may not
be capable of meeting the needs of the group;
Final beneficiaries from the target group not identified;
The proposal does not include a credible analysis of the stated problems;
Cross-cutting issues such as gender equality not addressed;
Stakeholder identification and involvement in the design of the action is
not clear.
21/11/2014
Page 15
3. Project methodology
2
The action
2.1 of the Action
2.2.Affiliated entity(ies) experience (if applicable)
21/11/2014
Page 16
3. Project methodology
•
•
•
•
•
21/11/2014
Page 17
3. Project methodology
• The activities are not logically sequenced;
• The activities are not feasible;
• There is an unrealistic distribution of activities over the period of the
project implementation;
• The responsibilities of the partners are not clearly stated;
• Too many activities planned over a relatively short period, with
insufficient resources.
•
21/11/2014
Page 18
3. Project methodology
Comments on the concept notes:
No consideration of children with learning difficulties and the need for
specialized programmes;
The action is only partially feasible to the objectives and expected results;
No visibility actions planned;
A compilation of a myriad of actions that are not well connected to form a
coherent strategy;
The proposal dos not provide a clear description of the method that will
guarantee project sustainability.
21/11/2014
Page 19
4. Project Impact
Project impact on the target group is not well defined, or the probability that
the project will have a substantial impact on the target group is very
marginal;
There are serious weaknesses / incoherencies in the project’s vertical
logic;
The assumptions / external factors are not well assessed;
The planned activities are inconsistent with the stated results;
Too many assumptions are made, which may hamper the achievement of
the expected results, and the impact on the target groups will be limited;
Impact is stated as an activity, rather than as an effect or change.
21/11/2014
Page 20
4. Project Impact
Multiplier effects
(replication and pilot value of the project:
Serious weaknesses in the proposal include:
• The project does not include a model / practice that can
be multiplied;
• The parties that would potentially be interested in
multiplying the project results are not identified;
• The applicant and partner lack the capacity to multiply the
effect / results.
•
21/11/2014
Page 21
4. Project Impact
•
Sustainability
(at all levels: financial, institutional, environmental, social,
etc)
21/11/2014
Page 22
4. Project Impact 
• Comments on the concept notes:
Project does not explain a credible plan for sustainability;
The issue of sustainability is not addressed;
Feasibility conditions (institutional /legal/financial) as well
as project sustainability not addressed;
Doubts relate to cost effectiveness and sustainability.
21/11/2014
Page 23
4. Project Impact
•
5. Value for Money
Serious value for money shortcomings in the proposal include:
Excessive quantities (working days, circulation of publications,
transportation, trips, etc)
The budget includes ineligible costs.
There is unrealistic costing, especially for salaries, per diems,
equipment
The max/min thresholds are not respected.
there is inconsistency between costs given in the breakdown of costs
and partner declarations;
There are subcontracting costs with no added value for the project.
21/11/2014
Page 24