Guidance

ESF Scoring Framework

Updated 21 March 2022

2014-2020 European Social Fund Scoring Framework – minimum requirements and score rationale

Overview

This document sets out the scoring framework for use on all Full Applications received by the Managing Authority. The numerical scoring approaches described in this document apply to ESF Full Applications received in response to:

• Open calls published prior to 29th October 2018 under the previous two-stage application process;
• Open calls published before or after 29th October 2018 under the single-stage application process.

The exceptions to this is where a Full Application is non-competitive, these include applications relating to Co-Financing activity, Technical Assistance and Community Led Local Development (CLLD). In these cases, the applicant is still required to meet the same minimum standards presented in this document to progress but no individual score or overall score will apply.

This version of the ESF Scoring Framework reflects that the ESF programme in England moved to a single-stage Full Application process across the whole programme from 29th October 2018 and that all prior outline applications/assessments are now complete.

The scoring for dual-stage applications received by the ESF Managing Authority in response to calls published prior to 29th October 2018 can be found in Versions 6 & 7 of the ESF Scoring Framework document.

Copies of previous versions of the ESF Scoring Framework can be requested from the Managing Authority by sending an email to ESF2014-2020@dwp.gov.uk.

Devolved Intermediate Bodies

In some Core Cities and other administrative areas within England, the Managing Authority has agreed to designate specific appraisal responsibilities to a small number of ‘Devolved Intermediate Bodies’.

Where an agreed Devolved Intermediate Body is in place, in line with the standard Devolved Intermediate Body Memorandum of Understanding, they will be responsible for appraising each ESF Project Application against 2 specific elements of the Strategic Fit Core Selection Criteria:

1. The proposed operation contributes to the needs/opportunities identified in the Call for Proposals to which it is responding;

2. The proposed operation is aligned to the local growth needs set out in the local ESIF Strategy and contributes to the specific objectives, outputs.

In carrying out their delegated role in appraising an ESF application against these specific Core Selection Criteria, the Devolved Intermediate Body will apply the relevant numerical scoring approach set out in this ESF Scoring Framework and decide whether they wish to Approve, Approve with Conditions or Reject these aspects of each relevant application. The Devolved Intermediate Body will also be responsible for seeking advice from the local LEP Area ESIF Sub-Committee to inform their appraisal.

The ESF Managing Authority retains the responsibility for appraising and applying the relevant numerical scoring approach set out in this ESF Scoring Framework against all other aspects of the Core Selection Criteria.

In order to proceed to Funding Agreement, two decisions then need to be made:

A) The Devolved Intermediate Body needs to approve the application based on their appraisal of the 2 specific elements of the Strategic Fit Core Selection Criteria within their remit; and

B) The ESF Managing Authority needs to approve the application based on their appraisal of all of the other Core Selection Criteria (with the exception of the 2 specific elements covered by the Devolved Intermediate Body).

If either Decision A or Decision B is negative – the application will not proceed to the Funding Agreement stage.

Full Application

Where an ESF open call requires the applicant to submit a Full Application, the following scoring methodology will apply.

Where a Full Application has been submitted to the Managing Authority under the single-stage application process, either before or after 29th October 2018, the appraisal will first be subject to a Gateway Assessment.

The Gateway Assessment questions are not scored but if a Full Application fails to meet the Gateway Assessment requirements, the application will not go any further in the appraisal process.

Minimum scores

Applications must achieve a minimum score of 3 for each criteria by the end of the Full Application process to be successful. All criteria are deemed to be critical and a minimum overall score of 57 (42.8% of the total available) needs to be met. Failure to achieve this by the end of the full application process will result in the application being rejected. Where an application is successful and a Funding Agreement is issued, this will be conditional where the final score for any criteria remains at 3.

Score rationale

Where a call indicates that scoring will be used, the framework in this document will apply; all applications will be scored in line with the ESF scoring criteria. The methodology for scoring is described below with the key indicators. At Full Application stage, a maximum score of 133 is possible using the scale below.

Score where criteria is not applicable

Where a criterion is shown as not applicable in the call (questions 5.1 and 5.2) then a score of ‘5’ will be awarded. This is required to ensure no applicant is either advantaged or disadvantaged where a particular criterion does not apply. Awarding ‘5’ indicates that the requirement is met, thereby not disadvantaging the applicant.

2014-2020 ESF Full Application Scoring Scale

Score = 7 Meets the requirement with additional assurance

The evidence provided is comprehensive, demonstrating that they completely meet the requirement. They have supplied clear and detailed information. Additional assurance is also provided that the service offered significantly exceeds the minimum service requirement.

Score = 5 Meets the requirement

The evidence provided is comprehensive, demonstrating that they completely meet the requirement. They have supplied clear and detailed information.

Score = 3 Mostly meets the requirement with minor weaknesses in certain areas

The evidence provided demonstrates reasonable ability, mostly meeting the requirement with minor weaknesses in certain areas. The evidence is fairly clear and convincing with only minor reservations.

Score = 1 Mostly fails the requirement with major weaknesses in certain areas

The evidence provided is unclear and, unconvincing and mostly fails to meet the requirement. Some risk to the delivery of service is identified or insufficient information is provided to give assurance that the minimum requirement will be met.

Score = 0 Fails to meet the requirement

The evidence provided fails to satisfy the stated requirement.

Selection criteria	Score
1. Strategic Fit
1.1 The proposed operation contributes to the needs/opportunities identified in the Call for Proposals to which it is responding.	0 – 7
1.2 The proposed operation represents an appropriate means of delivering the relevant specific objectives, outputs and results of the relevant Priority Axis set out in the Operational Programme and fits the guiding principles for selection within each Priority Axis.	0 – 7
1.3 The proposed operation is aligned to the local growth needs set out in the local ESIF Strategies.	0– 7
1.4 The proposed operation must add value to and not duplicate existing national provision and must not conflict with national policy.	0 – 7
2. Deliverability
2.1 Is the operation deliverable within the requirements of the Operational Programme?	0 - 7
2.2 Is this an effective delivery model? Have the risks been identified and managed?	0 - 7
3. Value for Money
3.1 Has the applicant produced a very detailed granular budget breakdown with all eligible, appropriate and justified costs?	0 – 7
3.2 Comment on the status of the match funding from the project (deliverability core selection criteria)	0 – 7
3.3 Does the project represent reasonable value for money in terms of the amount of funding it is requesting when compared with the outputs and results it will achieve?	0 - 7
3.4 Does the application demonstrate a clear case that the investment will deliver activities and impacts that would not otherwise take place?	0 - 7
4. Management and Control
4.1 The appropriateness of the resources involved in the project in terms of capacity and capability (e.g. expertise, skills, responsibility, experience, structures and processes to deliver a compliant project)	0 – 7
4.2 The applicant’s description of how well they describe how they will ensure that delivery partner(s) will comply with the requirements of ESI funding and how they will monitor and manage the performance of delivery partners and / or sub-contractors	0 – 7
4.3 The applicant’s financial management and control procedures (e.g. are they already in place? How will claims be compiled and authorised? Are they aware of the cash flow requirements? Is the VAT response satisfactory?)	0 – 7
4.4 The applicant’s description of their document management system, understanding the importance of audit trails and accessibility of documents	0 - 7
5. Compliance
5.1 State Aid. Any state aid would be lawful and the applicant is eligible to receive grant aid at the requested level within the State Aid regulations, if applicable. Any aid granted through the project to third parties is permissible under State Aid regulations and would be managed in accordance with them. If not applicable, award 5.	0 – 7
5.2 Procurement. Any procurement already undertaken as part of the operation is compliant with the European Structural and Investment Funds procurement requirements. Any frameworks that they intend to use must be identified and compliant. If not applicable, award 5.	0 – 7
5.3 Publicity. Publicity activities undertaken as part of the operation are compliant with the European Structural and Investment Funds publicity requirements. Any publicity already undertaken must be compliant if the applicant wishes to claim that as eligible expenditure.	0 – 7
6.Cross Cutting Themes
6.1 Sustainable Development. The project takes account of and contributes to the Cross Cutting theme (horizontal principle) of sustainable development and meets the relevant legal obligations.	0 – 7
6.2 Gender equality and non-discrimination. The project takes account of and contributes to the Cross Cutting theme (horizontal principle) and meets the relevant legal obligations of Gender, Equality and non-discrimination.	0 – 7