Notice

Research and Innovation Organisations Infrastructure Fund scoring matrix

Updated 5 December 2023

This scoring matrix aims to help applicants understand how their questions will be assessed by the science and governance panels. If applicants have any questions about this process, please contact the RIO Infrastructure team at: rioinfrastructurefund@dsit.gov.uk.

Q B2. What is the research and innovation case for this investment?

Proposed investment needs to be clear how this affects either research or innovation – it is not for operational equipment.

Score	Reason
1	It is not clear how this bid links to the organisation’s science and technology objectives. The bid has not considered the application guidance sufficiently.
2	There is some reference to the organisation’s science and technology objectives. Potential impacts and outcomes of the investment are outlined but scientific benefits may be too difficult to measure in a short timeframe.
3	The bid links to the organisation’s science and technology objectives. Consequences for a “do nothing” approach have been outlined. A case has been made for potential impacts and outcomes of the investment, but this bid is not seen to be the organisation’s research and innovation priority.
4	The bid sets out the scientific case for investment, linking to the organisation’s science and technology objectives. Potential measurable impacts and outcomes in a short timeframe have been included, but it is unclear if the bid has the potential to support multiple research partners.
5	The bid clearly sets out the scientific case for investment, strongly linking to the organisation’s science and technology objectives. It clearly outlines potential measurable impacts and outcomes in a short timeframe and has the potential to support multiple research partners.

Q B3. How does the proposal align with government’s science and technology (S&T) strategies including the UK S&T Framework and departmental areas of research interest (ARIs)?

We expect applicants to set out a clearly focused approach to the sector, technology or disciplines involved to support and deliver against government S&T strategies including those outlined in the S&T framework, and departmental area of research interest (ARIs). The DSIT Research Infrastructure team has identified the following areas as strategic government priorities.

Score	Reason
1	It is not clear how this bid will deliver HMG’s areas of research interests. This bid does not have the support of the sponsor/parent department, or another government department/agency. The bid has not considered the application guidance sufficiently.
2	There is a delivery link between this bid and HMG’s areas of research interests. This bid does not have the support of the sponsor/parent department, or another government department/agency.
3	The bid delivers against one key HMG area of research interests. This bid is supported by the sponsor/parent department, or another government department/agency but no letter of support has been provided.
4	The bid delivers against multiple HMG areas of research interests. This bid is supported by the sponsor/parent department, or another government department/agency and has provided letters of support.
5	The bid clearly delivers against multiple HMG areas of research interests and can demonstrate benefits within a measurable timeframe. This bid is supported by the sponsor/parent department, or another government department/agency and has provided letters of support.

Q C4. Please provide the justification/evidence that you can spend the grant you are seeking by the end of this financial year (by 31 March 2024).    

Evidence should refer to timelines, supplier relationship, procurement etc. Those able to demonstrate simple procurement/single tender actions/sole possible supplier routes will score higher than those with: complex procurements, multiple dependencies that may jeopardise commitment in year, or if bidders cannot commit to spend in financial year 2023 to 2024.

Score	Reason
1	It is not clear how this bid will be spent this financial year. There is no timeline or supporting details regarding delivery of the item. The bid has not considered the application guidance sufficiently.
2	The bid has a timeline for spending and delivery with milestones, but there is no evidence to back up the applicant’s confidence for delivery. The plan may have multiple dependencies or a long procurement process to follow with tight/shortened  deadlines.
3	The bid has a clear timeline for spending and delivery with milestones, but the supporting information about the procurement route/supplier to be selected could be stronger/more robust.
4	The bid has a clear timeline for spending and delivery with milestones, supporting information about the supplier they have chosen, and strong evidence that the procurement route is direct and robust (such as single tender action, use of existing call off contract, or work on a more involved procurement is already substantially complete/near to completion. However, the bid has not made clear if there are risks to delivery.
5	The bid has a clear timeline for spending and delivery with milestones, supporting information about the supplier they have chosen, and evidence that the groundwork for procurement has commenced. Risks have been outlined and mitigated for.