Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
Incubator Support Initiative – Disclosure of Interest
CSM to complete
Project no:
<Project No>
Applicant name:
<Company Name>
Project title:
<Project Title>
Project summary (from application)
:
<Project Description>BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Grant amount sought:
<Grant Amount Sought>
Brief applicant description (including related organisations)
:
Collaborative partner/s:
Director/s:
Shareholder/s:
Project/Key personnel:
Other parties involved in, or to benefit from, the project proceeding or not proceeding
Disclose details of relationship e.g. Advisory Board, shareholder, project partner, contractor/potential contractor,
customer/potential customer, competitor, supplier, etc.
Name of entity/individual
Relationship to applicant
List all other parties named in the application
See examples above.
To the best of my knowledge, I have no disclosure of interest with the application to be considered.
Signed:
Name:
Date:
I have a disclosure of interest with the application to be considered, as follows:
Signed:
Name:
Date:
Page 1 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
A copy of this disclosure of interest must go on the applicant’s file.
Please send the disclosure of interest form only by email to xxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx by the relevant due
date for the Committee meeting.
Page 2 of 32
New and Existing Incubator draft applic
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
ation checklist
(Internal use only)
Name:
New/Existing:
Grant sought: $
Regional: Y/N
Project Timeframe:
Eligibility Check
To be eligible, applicants must:
be an existing incubator or establishing a new incubator that can foster and facilitate the development of
innovative start-ups focused on international trade
have an Australian Business Number (ABN)
and be one of the following entities:
an entity incorporated in Australia
an incorporated trustee on behalf of a trust
an incorporated not for profit organisation
a publicly funded research organisation (PFRO) as defined in Appendix A
a local government agency or body as defined in Appendix A.
Joint applications are acceptable and encouraged, provided you have a lead applicant who is the main driver of the
project and is eligible to apply. For further information on joint applications, refer to section
Error! Reference source
not found..
Check that the application:
Yes
No -
Feedback
required
Is an eligible entity?
Is a second application for funding? If so, please note the advice highlighted in the example feedback.
Merit and completeness assessment
Overal / General
The application should include enough detail to provide the Committee, who will be assessing the application, with a thorough
understanding of all aspects of the project including:
applicant information should be clear and application information complete;
the track record and time commitment to the project for key personnel/team/mentors;
linkages and networks in the innovation ecosystem/international;
the particular gap in the market or opportunities the incubator will be aiming to address, and evidence of demand for the
services;
details of the services that will be delivered to Australian start-ups to help them to build their capabilities in overseas
markets;
project details including activities planned under each milestone, key dates (project plan);
costs associated with the project activities (detailed project budget)/why you need govt funding and value for money.
Mandatory information
Check that the application:
Included Feedback
required
Includes evidence from the governing or managing board (or support from the owner or Chief
Executive Officer if there is no board) that the project is supported, and that they can complete the
project and meet the costs of the project not covered by grant funding.
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
1 of 7
Page 3 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
Check that the application:
Included Feedback
required
Includes an accountant’s declaration if the grant request is over $50,000.
Includes all project activities that are eligible as per appendix B and C of the program guidelines.
Includes a project plan that outlines the Incubator Support project and the services that will be
delivered to start-ups? The project plan should also detail the key milestones, associated activities and
expenditure, and how they will be achieved.
Includes a detailed project budget, outlining costs of each project activity and how they will be funded.
Includes a timeframe (ie. start date) that provides enough lead time for the decision process to occur
before the project is due to start (ie. 3 months from draft submission and taking into account which the
EPC meeting it will go to).
Where the applicant entity is a trustee applying on behalf of a trust, have they attached documents
showing the relationship of the incorporated trustee to the trust are provided?
Merit criterion one
Does the application:
Included Feedback
required
Provide detailed resumes/biographies of the key people and details of their proposed time
commitment to the project?
Note: If the key people leading the incubator project, or those delivering services to start-ups do not
have specific expertise in these areas, the applicant should look to partnering with other organisations
or engaging individuals to bring in that expertise.
Provide letters of support or CVs of the mentors identified?
Have they attached a business plan, outlining the incubator’s business structure and operating model,
including core business, current services provided, customer base and financial plan?
Have they attached evidence of support from key partners? e.g. letters of support/ demand for
services?
Have they clearly described and attached evidence of the international linkages? e.g. memoranda of
understanding or letters of support from their international partners, mentors, networks other players
in the innovation ecosystem?
(For existing incubators) have they attached letters of support from their previous start-up participants
and/or other evidence to demonstrate the incubator’s track record in helping start-ups to achieve
commercial success?
(For new incubators) have they included information and evidence of key personnel’s skills and
experience in assisting start-ups to achieve commercial success, relevant to the proposed incubator
project?
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
2 of 7
Page 4 of 32
Merit criterion two
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
Feedback
Does the application:
Included required
Clearly describe how the project will address a gap in the market in terms of two or more of the five
outcomes outlined in the program guidelines? Have they attached evidence to support the gap and/or
demand for the incubator services? e.g, industry gap/opportunity analysis.
OR, has the applicant identified particular opportunities in the region/sector that the incubator aims to
leverage/take advantage of?
Note: Applicants should be precise on deliverables. Projecting unrealistic, or for example, a huge range
in numbers of start-up participants being involved in a project (eg. between 250-800), demonstrates a
lack of rigour around projecting a realistic market gap. In such a case funding can only be considered at
the lowest given projection.
Although it is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that all applicants MUST provide letters of
support.
For existing incubators, letters of support should be supplied from start-ups that have been
through their program
For new incubators, letters of support should be supplied from relevant players in the local
ecosystem that indicate capability to address a market gap
For all, NOT (cynical) campaign style letters. Sincere effort is required.
Demonstrating support across the space – NOT just a state/fed government echo chamber
Clearly demonstrate how their project will improve the prospects of Australian start-ups achieving
commercial success internationally?
If the applicant plans to work with start-ups working with data sets, has the applicant considered or
addressed how it might make use of the Incubator Support initiative’s new data set facility?
(For existing incubators) Have they clearly demonstrated how they will:
expand the scale of their existing services and how funds will be used to enhance current services
beyond what is already being provided?
develop the innovation ecosystem?
(For new incubators) Have they clearly demonstrated how their proposal is focused on a region or
sector with high potential for success in international trade?
Merit criterion three
Feedback
Question
Check
required
Have you clearly demonstrated:
why the project has a need for government funding, and is not ‘business as usual’ activity for the
incubator?
how the project provides value for money?
Note: Projects that look a little unproven/undeveloped have a much better chance of funding if they
seek an appropriate (lesser) funding amount. In such case, a pilot may be more suitable to prove value
for money, capability and market gap for subsequent applications. The EPC is much more likely to fund
a pilot program, and would favourably view a further application drawing on the success of the first
cohort, particularly for new incubator programs. Applicants are much better advised to apply for $150k
- $200k to prove their project will work and roll it out in stages.
Included a justification as to how the in-kind contribution was calculated?
If a regional application, has the applicant correctly calculated the 65% grant?
--------------------------SEE NEXT PAGE FOR EXAMPLE FEEDBACK--------------------------
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
3 of 7
Page 5 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
Dear Name
Thank you for providing your draft Incubator Support application. Our team has now reviewed the draft and we
provide the below feedback/ we have now added feedback through the online Smartform.
The feedback is also copied – in its entirety – below for your convenience.
Please note that
Feedback is provided to assist you with developing your Incubator Support initiative application, and
does not constitute a determination of eligibility or merit. Eligibility is determined upon formal submission
of the application, and the merit of eligible applications is assessed by the Entrepreneurs’ Programme
Committee and provided to the Minister for decision.
Feedback is focused on areas that could be improved or need further clarification rather than
highlighting strengths.
While applicants are only entitled to feedback once on an application, if you are unclear on any of our
suggestions please feel free to contact us directly by return email or calling number.
For any further general questions you might have about the Incubator Support initiative please call the contact
centre on 13 28 46 or email the Incubator Support team.
Feedback from the Incubator Support Programme Management team:
EXAMPLES OF FEEDBACK:
Overal /General
Application form: you state that this is a joint application, however, it doesn’t look as though the details for
‘Lead Applicant’ and ‘Project Partner’ has been completed at the ‘Applicant Information’ part of the
application – please provide information here.
If this is a joint application, the applicant should provide a letter of support from the key project partner
(refer 11.2 of the Programme Guidelines).
The applicant will need to attach evidence in the form of CVs, letters of support (from previously assisted
start-ups, mentors, partners, stakeholders etc.), MOUs, reports, evidence of demand from start-ups and
anything else that is relevant to substantiate your claims.
The focus and associated project expenditure of the applicant’s overall proposal must be on actually
delivering clearly described, relevant services to start-ups.
Milestone dates will need to be adjusted to allow more time for the application, assessment and decision
process – we suggest late [June] or early [July] is a more likely proposed project start date – we suggest a
start date at a minimum of 3 months from the applications final submission date. Project expenditure cannot
be incurred until a signed funding agreement has been executed with the Commonwealth.
You should keep in mind the key aspects of the initiative which are that projects must deliver services to
Australian start-ups that will help them to develop their capabilities to successfully commercialise in
international markets. We note that in the draft application form it mentions that services will be targeting
start-ups as well as SME’s. As per the Programme Guidelines, the Committee will be considering how
projects demonstrate their ability to deliver services directly to start-ups, and will expect the majority of
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
4 of 7
Page 6 of 32
services to be delivered to start-ups. If you intend to deliver serv
Released under the FOI ACT - DISERices to existing SMEs, medium or multi-
national businesses as part of your project, you should be aware that this may impact the competitiveness of
your application, when compared to projects that service start-up businesses exclusively. You should
therefore clearly outline the number or percentage of start-ups you intend to support in the project.
Is this a second application
If the applicant is applying for a second grant (either EIR or N&E, which is still running), you should advise the
applicant to provide a short summary/update of how they have progressed with the first project against project
milestones, and report on any outcomes they have achieved to date.
Mandatory information
As the applicant entity is a trustee applying on behalf of a trust you will need to ensure that the trust
documents showing the relationship of the incorporated trustee to the trust are provided.
The applicant is required to provide [Other mandatory attachments]
Merit Criteria One
Noted – the applicant is providing detailed CVs for key people.
Noted – detailed biographies provided.
Noted – the applicant is providing evidence of broad support from local government, other key stakeholders.
Noted – letters of support from start-ups that have benefited from the applicant’s program provided.
The applicant should attach detailed resumes of key project personnel, highlighting relevant skills and
expertise.
The applicant should detail the time commitment of key people to the up scaled incubator, as opposed to
their current commitments. The labour costs should reflect this.
CVs for experts who will be delivering the master classes or mentors who will be involved in the project,
should be attached as evidence to support this criterion. If these individuals have not yet been identified,
you will need to outline how this will occur and what skills and experience in particular they will bring.
We note that you have outlined some of the staff who will be involved in the incubator and their experience.
You should ensure that all key personnel involved in the project are outlined and that you include the time
commitment to the project for each. In addition, you need to attach the key project personnel resumes or
their detailed capabilities in directly assisting start-ups with the application.
The application would be strengthened by providing more information around how specifically the team
assisted [previously assisted start-ups – may be named in application] in commercialisation, as noted.
It is unclear how the full time engagement of a Corporate Partnership Manager will assist start-ups directly
to achieve success in international markets. This will need to be explained further to justify the role in
meeting Incubator Support program’s objectives.
It would be useful to provide some letters of support from start-ups that key project personnel have
previously assisted to demonstrate the track record of the team.
The applicant should attach a comprehensive Business Plan [where the incubator has not been sufficiently
described].
The applicant should clearly describe its network of international links that inducted start-ups will benefit
from, and evidence those links through letters of support and MOUs; in particular, links with [example
partners] in [overseas countries eg].
The applicant should provide evidence (ie. letters of support/MOUs/Agreements) from their global firm
partners or international linkages to the project and the start-ups.
The provision of evidence in the form of letters or memorandum of understanding with international
partners, in addition to local partners, is important in demonstrating and verifying links to international
innovation networks.
The applicant should provide details of how the US sponsorship component will be structured and
implemented.
The applicant should provide evidence (ie. letters of support/MOUs/Agreements) from their global firm
partners such as [partners named].
You should attach evidence to demonstrate international connections such as letters of support from
international partners or international mentors or networks.
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
5 of 7
Page 7 of 32
Merit Criteria Two
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
Noted – the applicant clearly describes a market gap in [location] for [if sector specified] start-ups.
The applicant should attach evidence to support the gap or demand for the incubator’s services.
The applicant should detail its knowledge and evidence of a market gap and the pipeline of prospective
start-ups that would be interested in incubator services; the applicant should provide a business model with
reasonable projections of the number of the start-ups that will form the incubator’s throughput and how
this will build to a sustainable business model.
The applicant should provide more detail around how a cohort of suitable start-ups will be identified for the
incubator.
The applicant has comprehensively outlined what services the accelerator will be offering to start-ups in a
regional setting, however, the applicant should detail its knowledge and evidence of a particular market gap
this project is seeking to fil .
We note that in the draft application you have described the distinct value proposition of the incubator well.
However, it was difficult to determine the gap in the market the incubator seeks to fill and how it would
address this gap. Some of this information appears to be in the letter from [xxx] however it would be useful
to clearly articulate the market gap and include any evidence available in the merit criterion response.
The Committee will look for information to be articulated in a way that directly responds to the prompts in
each merit criterion and clearly demonstrates how the project meets the requirements of the programme
and you should ensure that the project outcomes are in line with the Incubator Support Initiative’s
objectives (available in the programme guidelines), and you must clearly describe what services your
Incubator will be delivering directly to start-ups to achieve this.
The relationship between [incubator] and [example] is unclear. The applicant is only eligible to seek funding
for the proposed incubator, and the focus of that grant expenditure is delivering services to start-ups.
The applicant should attach evidence (ie. letters of support; MOUs) to demonstrate the international
connections the University has, in particular in [eg. India, China and Vietnam], as outlined in the application.
The applicant should provide more evidence of the international linkages that the incubator will use to help
start-ups achieve commercial success in international markets; suitable evidence includes MOUs and letters
of support from key international partners.
While the creation of new global partnerships and investor networks is essential incubator core business, the
application must focus on demonstrating how existing networks will be utilised.
The applicant should provide information detailing the pipeline of prospective start-ups that would be
interested in incubator services; through letters of support expressing interest and showing demand.
The applicant should evidence through letters and MOUs that other investors (including examples) will
invest in incubatees, as claimed in the application.
Optional - having described how it is establishing links to data sets for start-up use, the applicant may
consider addressing how it might make use of the Incubator Support initiative’s new data set facility.
The applicant should explain how it will source start-ups that may “utilise Public Data in their service
offerings” if this is to be part of the project.
The applicant should provide a business model with reasonable projections of the number of the start-ups
that will form the incubator’s throughput and potential funding sustainability beyond the grant project.
The use of volunteers to assist in delivering the Bootcamp program should be clearly planned in such a way
that failure to engage volunteers will not impact project delivery.
The application would benefit from including details on how you will improve the prospects of Australian
start-ups internationally and further information addressing two of the four outcomes under this criteria in
the Programme Guidelines. It is beneficial to articulate information for the Committee in a way that directly
responds to the merit criteria prompts and clearly demonstrates how the project meets the requirements.
As part of this merit criterion you need to include a detailed project plan which clearly outlines key
milestones and their activities and associated expenditure including achievement measurements.
From the draft application it was unclear how the project would improve the prospects of Australian start-
ups internationally. It would be useful to include further information regarding this aspect.
Targeting a niche sector/market gap is a good thing however, that niche needs to be very carefully described
and demand should be demonstrated. Knowledge should not be presumed.
Merit Criteria Three
Noted – the applicant has outlined why the project is unlikely to proceed without Australian Government
funding.
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
6 of 7
Page 8 of 32
Noted – without government funding, the applicant will continue
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER to deliver the project in a potentially
reduced form.
Noted – the applicant is currently supporting 2-4 start-ups per year; grant funding will expand this to
approximately 10 start-ups per year, demonstrating additionality.
It would be useful for the applicant to clearly state (perhaps in a table) how many start-ups will be drawn
into future cohorts with and without government funding. This would highlight the additionality Australian
Government funds will bring and demonstrate taxpayer value for money.
The applicant should clearly evidence the project’s value for money, including by clearly stating the number
of start-ups currently supported and the number of start-ups that would be supported through Australian
Government funding.
While health is an Australian Government growth sector, the applicant’s citation of Australian Government
health expenditure statistics to substantiate the need for the project does not meet the requirement to
evidence the market gap the project will meet, the pipeline of start-ups that are likely to be incubated, or
the value the project will provide to the Australian innovation ecosystem.
The benefits that may accrue to the [incubator] do not necessarily evidence value for money in regard to the
initiative’s primary goals; further, it would seem unlikely that all companies [the incubator] will invest in will
become high growth businesses.
Connections that “build partnerships and lever the Government assets to connect GPs to hospitals and at the
same time create an environment where Corporates can see the State’s competitive advantage” are not fully
explained or substantiated.
The bulk of project funding should be allocated directly and clearly to the delivery of actual services to start-
ups, such as through the new Bootcamp program.
We note that you have outlined that the project will not go ahead without grant funding. It would be useful
to provide some additional commentary around what specific components of the project the grant will
support and the impact of the grant on the project in terms of timing, reach and scale.
You have outlined the in-kind contributions to the project, however, you need to articulate all contributions
to the project and how these have been calculated (for example based on current market rates, existing
salary scales).
Budget/Funding
You are required to include a detailed project budget with the application. It is recommended that the
project budget breaks down the heads of expenditure into specific line items and outlines the costs for each
activity and how they will be funded.
As part of your application under the New and Existing component you are required to include a detailed
project budget that outlines the costs of each project activity and how they will be funded. Your budget plan
should also outline any in-kind contributions required to undertake the project and how you calculated their
value.
More detail is required on the [overseas] trips associated with the “Global Networks Development” allocated
expenditure and what the purpose of the trips are. It is unclear whether start-ups will be travelling overseas
to make direct international linkages or not. If start-ups are not involved in these trips it will need to be
justified how these trips will be assisting Australian start-ups directly.
More detail should be provided about the travel component in the first milestone to confirm who will be
travelling (ie. start-ups or staff).
The applicant selected ‘new incubator’ but appears to be an established incubator with a small cohort. If
this is an existing incubator, then promotion and marketing costs would not be eligible.
The applicant should provide further detail around the $100,000 overseas travel component, and confirm
this expenditure is solely for start-ups engaging with international partners.
The programme is unable to accept forward expected revenues as evidence to meet the matched funding
requirements. This could be addressed by providing a commitment from another source under-writing the
matched amount. We will also accept bank statements and, letters from partner’s detailing their funding
commitment or an accountant’s declaration.
Other
If you have not already, I recommend that you refer to the Application Checklist and view the two short
videos on submitting a competitive application under the initiative – these can be found here: Application
Checklist, Submitting a competitive application and Addressing the merit criteria.
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
7 of 7
Page 9 of 32
It is also recommended that you review Appendix 2-4 of the Prog
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER ramme Guidelines to ensure you are aware
of what project activities and expenditure you can claim under the programme. For example rent,
marketing, insurance and legal costs are not eligible expenditure under Incubator Support.
We note that there are character limits on the merit criterion responses in the application form, however if
you run out of space additional information can be included in the attachments to the application. In
addition, multiple documents can be merged into a single attachment if required.
We note that there are character limits on the merit criterion responses in the application form, and there is
also a limit on the attachments that can be uploaded - to a total of 20 megabites per application. If the
applicant has met this limit, or they have trouble uploading documents, they are welcome to email them
through to the xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx inbox – ensuring they clearly identify which application
they are to be attached to.
Incubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklistIncubator Support - New and Existing Incubators application checklist
AUGUST 2018
8 of 8
Page 10 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
New and Existing Incubators – RIF Applicant Summary
Applicant name:
[CSM to complete highlighted fields on this page] Entity Name
Project title:
Project Title
Grant amount sought:
$
Regional applicant?
Yes/No.
If is a regional applicant and regional funding ratio not sought, why?
Regional Incubator Facilitator:
RIF name
Formal Draft Feedback given?
Yes / No
Project summary
Paste summary from application
RIF Feedback/Interaction Summary
- RIFS – Please delete al red instructions and type or sign this form
- Briefly describe your interaction with the applicant; did you provide any formal or informal feedback?
- If you gave formal or informal draft feedback, what were the key points?
- Did the applicant address this draft feedback in their final application?
- If formal draft feedback was not requested, did you work with the applicant at all on their project concept?
RIF comments on the submitted application
- Are there any particular comments or points you would like to bring to the EPC’s attention?
- What do you know about the applicant or their project concept that would be useful for the EPC to know?
RIF statement on the application
Choose one:
The applicant has addressed the feedback I provided and I support this application
The applicant has not completely addressed the feedback I provided; however, I support this application
The applicant has not addressed the feedback I provided and I do not support this application
The applicant did not seek feedback but I support this application
The applicant did not seek feedback and I do not support this application
Signed:
Date:
Page 11 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
RIF comments on the applicant (where not addressed on the previous page)
Are you aware of the entity applying for Incubator Support
Yes
No
funding?
Have you ever worked directly or indirectly with this entity?
Yes
No
Please provide an overview of the capacity in which you worked
Comment:
with the entity and what your experience was.
Are you aware if this entity has applied for, or received, funding
Yes
No
assistance from AusIndustry, the Department or other
government sources previously?
If yes, please provide further details including funding source,
Comment:
programme, grant amount, project and outcomes.
What is your understanding of what the core business of the
Comment:
entity is? Are you aware of what services the entity provides to
start-up businesses?
Are you aware of the entities’ key personnel and can you
Comment:
comment on the management experience of an incubator?
How long has the entity been active in the innovation
Comment:
ecosystem and what do they offer in terms of services to local
start-ups?
Are you aware of this incubator’s particular business model?
Comment:
And if so, do you believe it is successful and sustainable?
Are you aware of their reputation in the local incubator space?
Comment:
Please comment on your knowledge of reputation.
Has the entity had any significant outcomes you are aware of?
Comment:
Are you aware of any key local/international sector linkages,
Comment:
partnerships or affiliations this incubator has with key
stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem?
Do you think the services they are providing meet a particular
Comment:
demand and are there further opportunities for this incubator
in the local innovation ecosystem?
Please add any other comments:
Comment:
Page 12 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
RIF summary of Regional Manager / Commercialisation Adviser consultation
Have you contacted relevant Regional
Yes
No
Managers?
Provide
Regional Manager comments
Regional Manager name:
Comment:
Have you contacted relevant
Yes
No
Commercialisation Advisers?
Provide
Commercialisation Adviser
Commercialisation Adviser name:
comments
Comment:
Page 13 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Incubator Support Initiative
Eligibility and Completeness Checklist
New & Existing
Application/Project Number
Organisation
Project title
Applicant Eligibility
Not
No
Requirements
Yes
No
Unknown applicable
a. Is the applicant an existing incubator or establishing a
NEW
new incubator that can foster and facilitate the
development of innovative start-ups focused on
international trade?
[Page 6 of Application Form]
EXISTING
N.B.
New =
in the process of being established and yet to accept
a cohort of start-ups (0 cohorts); Existing =
already operational
and are currently supporting or have previously supported a cohort
of start-ups (1 or more cohorts).
b. Have you been able to confirm/substantiate the
applicant’s claims of incubator business experience,
1.
operations and activities being undertaken through:
provision of appropriate/quality information and
evidence;
reviewing the information provided on the applicant’s
website;
reviewing other information gained through internet
or other search methods?
Note: For the purposes of the Incubator Support initiative, we
define Incubator as: a business support organisation that fosters
innovative start-ups focussed on international trade, through
providing offerings such as seed funding, colocation, mentoring,
professional services and access to networks. It can include
accelerators and germinators.
Does the applicant have an Australian Business Number
(ABN)?
Have you checked the ABN recorded is consistent with the
2.
applicant name provided?
[Page 4 and 7 of Application Form]
www.abr.business.gov.au (ABN Lookup)
Hint: You can also use the Corporate Scorecard Historical Extract
Report or Express Check report which details ACN, ABN &
Organisation type http://corporatescorecard.com.au
Incubator Support Initiative – New & Existing – Application Eligibility Checklist
V2 Sept17
1 of 5
Page 14 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Not
No
Requirements
Yes
No
Unknown applicable
Is the applicant one of the following:
an entity incorporated in Australia;
an incorporated trustee on behalf of a trust;
a not for profit organisation;
a publically funded research organisation (PFRO)
(see Appendix A); or
3.
local government agency or body (see Appendix A).
[Page 4 of Application Form]
www.abr.business.gov.au (ABN Lookup)
Hint: You can also use
the Corporate Scorecard Historical Extract or Express Check
Report to find organisation type, CAN & ABN details
http://corporatescorecard.com.au
Can you confirm that the applicant is not an:
an individual, partnership or trust (however, a trading
corporation that is a corporate trustee may apply on
behalf of a trust);
4.
a Commonwealth or state government agency or
body (including PFROs and government business
enterprises).
Hint: the ABN Lookup at www.abr.business.gov.au
will note the
“Entity type”.
Can you confirm that the applicant is not named by the
Workplace Gender Equality Agency as an organisation that
5.
has not complied with the
Workplace Gender Equality Act
2012 (Cth)?
Hint: Review the List on Non-Compliant Organisations.
If this is a joint application from consortia, does the lead
6.
applicant meet the eligibility criteria?
[Page 6 of Application Form]
Can you confirm that the applicant does not already have
more than one existing Incubator Support project or
application being assessed?
Hint: Check on eSGMS and CRM systems. An applicant can only
7.
have 2 current applications or existing projects under Incubator
Support at a given time. If an applicant looks to apply for another
application and they have not submitted a Final Report for a
previous project, the application should not be assessed until the
Final Report is received.
Incubator Support Initiative – New & Existing – Application Eligibility Checklist
V2 Sept17
2 of 5
Page 15 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Project Eligibility
Not
N
Ye
N
Unknow
Requirements
Applicabl
o
s
o
n
e
Does the project include eligible activities and expenditure?
8.
[Page 4 and 5 of Application Form]
a. Is the applicant applying for the regional grant ratio?
b. Is at least 80% of project activities being undertaken in a
regional area?
9.
c. What is the classification based on the Regional Locator tool?
Note: CSMs must check the addresses provided by the applicant using the
Regional Locator tool available at
https://forms.business.gov.au/smartforms/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=
regional-locator-too
Is the applicant eligible for up to 65 per cent matched funding based
on the project activities being located in a regional area?
Note: CSMs must determine the eligibility of the applicant accessing the
10.
regional ratio taking into consideration the Regional Locator tool and project
activites. Where the applicant has applied for regional access, but the
department has deemed the application not to be regional, the application is
ineligible.
What grant percentage is the applicant seeking?
%
11.
a. For metro
applicants, is the total project value at least $52,000?
[Page 4 and 5 of Application Form]
12.
b. For regional applicants, is the total project value at least
$40,000?
c. What is the grant amount sought?
$
a. For metro incubators is the Applicant claiming 50% or less of
total eligible project expenditure?
13.
b. For regional incubators is the applicant claiming 65% or less
of total eligible project expenditure?
[Page 12 and 13 of Application Form]
Are the ‘Other sources’ of project funding within the maximum
14.
amounts allowed under the initiative?
[Page 12 and 13 of Application Form]
Incubator Support Initiative – New & Existing – Application Eligibility Checklist
V2 Sept17
3 of 5
Page 16 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Not
N
Ye
N
Unknow
Requirements
Applicabl
o
s
o
n
e
Will the project be completed within the maximum timeframe allowed
15.
under the initiative?
[Page 11 and 12 of Application Form]
Completeness requirements - attachments
Not
No Requirements
Yes
No
Unknown Applicable
Is the applicant an incorporated trustee on behalf of a
trust?
1.
If yes, have they attached a Trust Deed showing the
relationship of the incorporated trustee to the trust?
Is the application from a consortium?
2.
If yes, has the lead entity attached satisfactory letters of
support from each of the other organisations involved in
the proposal?
Has the applicant provided a detailed project plan?
3.
[Page 10 of Application Form]
Has the applicant provided a detailed project budget?
4.
[Page 6 of Application Form]
5.
Has the applicant addressed each of the Merit Criteria?
Has the applicant provided evidence from their Board (or
support from the CEO or Director, if there is no Board)
that the project is supported and that the applicant can
complete the project and meet the costs of the project
6.
not covered by grant funding?
Has the applicant provided an accountant’s declaration if
7.
the grant requested if $50,000 or above?
Has the applicant provided a complete application form
8.
and checked all boxes as part of the Applicant
Declaration?
What is the applicant’s electorate according to the
Electorate:
Australian Electoral Commission?
9.
Hint: Check http://electorate.aec.gov.au/ to find the electorate.
If you can not determine the electorate based on the boundary
maps call the AEC.
Incubator Support Initiative – New & Existing – Application Eligibility Checklist
V2 Sept17
4 of 5
Page 17 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
CSM Comments
Provide any further comments in relation to the eligibility and completeness of the application.
CSM recommendation
CSM Name
<CSM name>
This application is eligible
Yes
No
This application is complete
Yes
No
Signed ......................................................................
Date .....................................................
Authorised officer’s decision
Authorised officer name <EL1 or EL2 Name>
(Select the appropriate decision)
This application is eligible and complete and will proceed to merit assessment [EL1].
OR
The application is not eligible and will not proceed to merit assessment [EL2].
OR
The application is not complete and will not proceed to merit assessment [EL1].
OR
The application is not eligible/not complete and will not proceed to merit assessment [EL2].
OR
The application is not eligible for the regional funding ratio and will not proceed to merit assessment. [EL2]
Signed ......................................................................
Date .....................................................
Date applicant notified whether their application has been accepted or not: ______/______/______
CSM
<CSM name>
Incubator Support Initiative – New & Existing – Application Eligibility Checklist
V2 Sept17
5 of 5
Page 18 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Incubator Support Initiative
Assessment and Completeness Report -
New & Existing
Application/Project Number
Organisation Name
Type of Organisation (ie.
New or Existing
Incorporated entity, incorporated
Incubator?
trustee, NFP, PFRO, local Govt.)
Project Title
Project Start Date
Project End Date
A: Total Expenditure
[All eligible and
B: Total Eligible
[All costs deemed to be
ineligible costs]
Project Expenditure eligible, incl. in-kind]
C: Identified ineligible project
[All ineligible costs,
D: Grant Amount
[Dollar value up to 50%
expenditure
incl. in-kind ie. ‘A’-‘B’]
for metro or 65% for
regional of ‘B’, OR up
to a max of $500k]
Funding Ratio (%)
CSM Name and Phone Number
Applicant Details
Summarise the applicant’s details using the template below.
<Applicant name> is a <insert description of business> that was founded in <insert year>. The
applicant <is an existing incubator which targets <insert details> that is planning on expanding its
services and capacity>.
OR <is planning to open a new incubator focused on <insert details>.
[delete that which is not relevant]
This application is a collaborative project with <insert joint applicant details and description of
business>.
[delete if not relevant]
The applicant has received support from AusIndustry under <insert programme and funding
details>. The applicant currently has <no> or <insert number> other <applications> and/or
<grants> under the Incubator Support Initiative for <insert funding details>.
OR The applicant
received funding under the Incubator Support Initiative for <insert funding amount> and the project
was successfully completed <insert date>.
[delete that which is not relevant]
Project Description
Summarise the planned project activities and intended outcomes outlined in the application. For example:
-
describe the planned expansion of the scale of incubator operations and/or the development of a new
incubator that will focus on innovative Australian start-ups with an international market focus;
-
outline the project activities, timeframe, value and intended outcomes;
-
has sufficient information been provided? Is the project in line with ISI objectives?
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
1 of 12
Page 19 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
<Applicant name>’s project involves <summarise project activities and outcomes>. The project will
run from <insert start date> to <insert end date>. The applicant has provided
<sufficient/insufficient> information regarding the project.
The described project appears <to be/to not be> in line with the Incubator Support Initiative
objectives.
Project Value
Total eligible expenditure
$ [‘B’]
Total grant amount
$ [‘D’]
Grant ratio
[‘D’÷‘B’] %
*Note: this cannot exceed 50%
for metropolitan applicants or
65% for regional applicants.
Issues with activities or expenditure
If applicable, identify any ineligible activities or expenditure, the basis of ineligibility and any recommended
reductions in the grant amount or changes to activities and milestones if the grant is funded.
The applicant has included ineligible expenditure totalling <insert amount> related to <insert
ineligible activity description>. The CSM has removed this expenditure and the total eligible
expenditure has reduced to <insert amount>. As a result the total grant amount has been reduced
to <insert amount>.
OR
However, the CSM does not recommend a reduction in the total grant amount as <insert reasons>.
[Delete that which does not apply]
Applicant contributions
State the type of evidence provided for each funding type. Do the ‘In-kind’ and ‘Other Government’
contributions meet the maximum percentage amounts allowable as contributions towards total project
expenditure? (refer to Programme Guidelines)
Funding Type
A$
Percentage
Type of evidence provided
of Total
Cost (%)
Cash flow
Loans
Equity
In-kind
Other Government contributions
Other
Total
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
2 of 12
Page 20 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Merit Criterion 1
Management and Business Capability.
Score:
/40
CSM comments
Comment briefly on:
a) The extent to which the applicant has addressed their capability to support innovative, Australian start-ups to
achieve success in international markets. Assess, through the information and evidence provided, whether
the applicant has clearly identified the skills and expertise necessary to manage and undertake the project
based on the information provided on their:
key personnel
time commitment to Incubator
evidence of global entrepreneurship and commercialisation experience
evidence of linkages to international innovation ecosystems
community management skills
evidence of investment attraction into start-ups.
b) The Incubator’s track record – have they provided examples of start-ups previously supported, including
evidence that these are bringing new-to-market or new-to-world innovative products and services to markets
outside Australia. Have they demonstrated (through information and evidence provided) a track record in
implementing similar projects? Do they have personnel with appropriate management, technical and financial
skills (or access to them) to undertake the project? You should also contact the appropriate AusIndustry
Regional Manager as part of your due diligence to gather any available intelligence on the organisation.
c) The operating model of the Incubator – have they provided information or a Business Plan which outlines how
they plan to foster the development of internationally-focussed start-ups. For example:
Have they described how they will leverage their networks to deliver services and opportunities to
start-ups – have they given evidence of linkages, agreements, support from other players in the
innovation ecosystem.
Have they described the services that they plan to provide, which could include:
seed funding
co-location
structured programme
mentoring
cohort-based entry and exit
professional services
networking events.
Has the applicant provided information/evidence as to how they plan to ensure the ongoing (long-
term) financial viability and sustainability of the business? Has the applicant provided any evidence
of existing or potential corporate or government sponsors or demand for the services?
If the financial information provided by the applicant in the Application Form raises concerns i.e. negative income,
contact the applicant to clarify.
Delete this box once you have completed your assessment.
Key Personnel
The applicant has advised that the key personnel involved in the project are:
<Insert Personnel Name> - <Insert Description of personnel’s experience>. <Insert personnel
name> will work on the project with a <insert time commitment>.
<Insert Personnel Name> - <Insert Description of personnel’s experience>. <Insert personnel
name> will work on the project with a <insert time commitment>.
[Repeat as required]
The applicant has indicated that they have previously delivered similar projects, including <insert details>.
OR
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
3 of 12
Page 21 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
The applicant has not provided any detail that they have previously delivered similar projects. However, the
CSM notes that the applicant has indicated that key personnel are experienced in delivery of similar
projects.
OR
The applicant has not provided any detail that they have previously delivered similar projects.
[Delete that
which is not required]
The CSM has no concerns regarding the capability of the key personnel to support Australian start-ups and
notes that the applicant appears to have the appropriate management, technical and financial skills to
undertake the project.
OR
The CSM notes that the applicant’s key personnel <insert area of concern specific to merit criterion
requirements>. However, the CSM considers that the applicant appears to have the appropriate
management, technical and financial skills to undertake the project <insert reasons>.
OR
The CSM notes that the applicant’s key personnel <insert area of concern specific to merit criterion
requirements>. As a result, the CSM considers that the applicant does not appear to have the appropriate
management, technical and financial skills to undertake the project.
[Delete that which is not required]
Track Record
The applicant has advised that they have provided services to start-ups previously, including the following:
<insert details of services previously provided>
[Repeat as required]
The applicant has provided letters of support from previously assisted start-ups.
OR
The applicant has not provided letters of support from previously assisted start-ups, however has provided
<insert other evidence provided>.
OR
The applicant has not provided letters of support from previously assisted start-ups or other evidence to
support their claims.
[Delete that which is not required]
Operating Model
The applicant has outlined the operating model of the Incubator indicating that <describe model of
incubator>. The applicant has stated that it will deliver the following services:
<insert services>
[Repeat if required]
International Linkages
The applicant has indicated that they plan to utilise their networks in the following manner:
<insert how will utilise networks>
[Repeat if required]
The applicant has provided <insert details of evidence> to support its claims of international linkages.
OR
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
4 of 12
Page 22 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
The applicant has not provided evidence to support its claims of international linkages, however the CSM
notes that the key personnel are able to demonstrate sufficient international linkages.
OR
The applicant has not provided evidence to support its claims of international linkages.
[Delete that which
is not required]
Funding Model
The applicant advised that after the grant period ongoing operations will be funded through <insert details>.
The applicant has provided <insert evidence> which demonstrates <the demand for services>
AND/OR
<support from existing and potential corporate or government sponsors>.
OR
The applicant has not advised how ongoing operations will be funded after the grant period. However, has
provided letters of support from existing and potential corporate or government sponsors.
OR
The applicant has not advised how ongoing operations will be funded after the grant period and has not
provided any evidence of existing potential corporate or government sponsors
AND/OR the demand for
services.
[Delete that which is not required]
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
5 of 12
Page 23 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Merit Criterion 2
Benefit to your incubator, start-up and the broader innovation ecosystem.
Score:
/50
CSM comments
Comment briefly on:
a) Has the applicant identified the distinct value proposition of the incubator, the gap in the market that their
project will address and how their project will address this gap in terms of two or more of the following
outcomes:
improving the commercial prospects of innovative start-ups in international markets;
developing Australia’s innovation ecosystem so that innovative start-ups can thrive and flourish in
international markets;
developing the capability of Incubators to facilitate and foster innovative start-ups with the potential to
operate in international markets;
developing incubators’ capabilities in regional Australia, that support internationally focussed start-ups;
developing and collaborating with start-ups that use public data as a part of their business.
b) The project plan (activities, milestones, timeframe, value, intended outcomes).
Does the project plan include eligible activities that are consistent with the intent of ISI?
Has the applicant described how its activities will impact and improve the local innovation ecosystem?
Has the applicant described international market opportunities and route to market?
c) For applicants seeking to launch a sectoral Incubator, has the applicant provided a description of the sector,
its growth potential, evidence of new market opportunities, and the benefits the Incubator would bring to the
sector and local innovation ecosystem, including new entrepreneurial activity, encouraging research/industry
collaboration and providing connectivity? Are there particular competitive or comparative advantages of this
sectoral Incubator in assisting start-ups to reach international markets?
d) For applicants seeking to launch an Incubator in a new region, has the applicant provided a description of the
density of existing economic activity – concentration of businesses and supporting infrastructure? Have they
described the opportunities and benefits that a new incubator would bring to the region and local innovation
ecosystem, including stimulating entrepreneurial activity, encouraging research/industry collaboration and
providing connectivity? What are the competitive or comparative advantages of this regional Incubator in
assisting start-ups to reach international markets?
e) Where a project is for the purchase of new equipment or facilities, has the applicant demonstrated how this
will impact start-ups and what additional benefits it will bring to both start-ups, the Incubator and local
innovation ecosystem?
f)
Has the Incubator provided evidence of relevant industry, stakeholder and community support in the new
region/sector? Has it described how it will leverage from these networks? Does the applicant have letters of
support from the community?
g) Summarise how the applicant claims the project will continue to benefit the community once it is completed.
Delete this box once you have completed your assessment.
Value Proposition
The applicant has indicated that the incubator’s distinct value proposition is <insert details>.
OR
The applicant has not directly outlined the incubator’s distinct value proposition, however the CSM
considers that the distinct value proposition is <insert details>.
OR
The applicant has not outlined the incubator’s distinct value proposition and the CSM has been unable to
determine the value proposition based on the information provided.
[Delete that which is not required]
Market Gap
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
6 of 12
Page 24 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
The applicant has advised that the market gap its project will address is <insert details>. The applicant has
provided <describe evidence> which demonstrates this market gap.
OR
The applicant has not directly outlined the market gap its project will address, however the CSM considers
that the project is addressing the market gap of <insert details> as the applicant has provided <describe
evidence> which demonstrates this gap.
OR
The applicant has not outlined the market gap its project will address and the CSM has been unable to
determine the market gap based on the information provided.
[Delete that which is not required]
The applicant has advised that its project addresses the market gap in terms of <insert number of
outcomes> intended outcomes from the programme guidelines. The applicant has advised that its project
will address the following intended outcomes:
<insert intended outcome name> - <insert details of how addressed>
[Repeat if required]
OR
The applicant has not directly addressed how its project fills the market gap, however based on the
information provided, the CSM considers that the project addresses this market gap in terms of the following
intended outcomes:
<insert intended outcome name> - <insert details of how addressed>
[Repeat if required]
OR
The applicant has not addressed how its project fills the market gap in terms of the intended outcomes in
the programme guidelines and the CSM has been unable to determine this based on the information
provided.
[Delete that which is not required]
Project Plan
The applicant has provided a satisfactory project plan which outlines the project <activities, milestones,
timeframe, value and intended outcomes>. The project plan includes eligible activities that are consistent
with the intent of the Incubator Support Initiative.
OR
The applicant has provided a project plan, however it fails to outline the project <activities, milestones,
timeframe, value and intended outcomes>. However, the CSM notes that the project plan includes eligible
activities that are consistent with the intent of the Incubator Support Initiative.
OR
The applicant has provided a project plan, however it fails to outline the project <activities, milestones,
timeframe, value and intended outcomes> and it appears that the activities are not consistent with the intent
of the Incubator Support Initiative.
[Delete that which is not required]
Sectoral Incubators
The applicant is seeking to launch an incubator in the <insert sector name> and has described the sector
as:
<insert sector description>
The applicant has indicated that the sector has growth potential in terms of <insert details> and the following
new market opportunities:
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
7 of 12
Page 25 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
<insert details>
[Repeat as required]
The applicant states that the incubator will bring the following benefits to the sector and local innovation
ecosystems:
<insert details>
[Repeat as required]
OR
The applicant is seeking to launch an incubator in the <insert sector name> and has not described the
sector. The applicant has indicated that the sector has not indicated the sector’s growth potential or new
market opportunities. The applicant has not outlined the benefits the incubator will bring to the sector and
local innovation ecosystems.
[Delete that which is not required]
Note to CSM: If required the options can be combined to fit with the specifics of the application.
Regional Incubators
The applicant is seeking to launch an incubator in the <insert region details> and has provided the following
information regarding existing economic activity:
<insert details>
The applicant states that the incubator will bring the following benefits to the region and local innovation
ecosystems:
<insert details>
[Repeat as required]
OR
The applicant is seeking to launch an incubator in the <insert region details > and has not provided
information regarding existing economic activity. The applicant has not outlined the benefits the incubator
will bring to the region and local innovation ecosystems.
[Delete that which is not required]
Note to CSM: If required the options can be combined to fit with the specifics of the application.
Evidence of Support
The applicant has provided <insert details of evidence> from <insert details of organisation supporting>
which demonstrates community support from the <region/sector>.
OR
The applicant has not provided evidence of support from the community for the incubator in <insert
region/sector details>.
[Delete that which is not required]
Purchase of new Equipment of Facilities
The project includes the purchase of new <equipment and facilities> including <insert details>. The
applicant has stated that this will impact start-ups in the following ways:
<insert details>
[Repeat as required]
The applicant has also indicated that the <equipment and facilities> will bring the following benefits to start-
ups, the incubator and local innovation ecosystem:
<insert details>
[Repeat as required]
OR
The project includes the purchase of new <equipment and facilities> including <insert details>. The
applicant has not indicated how this will impact start-ups or the benefits to start-ups, the incubator and local
innovation ecosystem.
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
8 of 12
Page 26 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Merit Criterion 3
The value for money offered by the project.
Score:
/10
CSM comments
Comment briefly on:
a) What is the total level of the applicant’s contributions to the project? Include all cash and in-kind
contributions. Has the applicant provided evidence of these contributions and ability to fund its share of
project costs?
b) Has the applicant explained clearly why any in-kind contributions are integral to achieving project outcomes?
Have they fully justified how they calculated the dollar value of any in-kind contributions?
c) What is the value of private investment invested in the project? Has this been evidenced by supporting
documentation? Is there other ‘buy-in’ leveraged from the project?
d) Comment on the amount of potential total investment leveraged if there is ineligible expenditure included.
e) Has the applicant demonstrated that the anticipated project outcomes and benefits are commensurate with
the grant size (impact)?
f)
What are the applicant’s reasons for needing the grant (availability of other finance sources, internal hurdle
rates for return on investment, payback period, how the grant will impact the project in terms of size, timing
and reach).
g) Does the grant provide additionality towards the incubator’s ‘business as usual’ activities?
Delete this box once you have completed your assessment.
Applicant Contributions
The applicant will be contributing <insert amount> to the project. This is made up of <insert amount> cash
and <insert amount> in-kind. The applicant has provided <insert evidence details> to evidence these
contributions and its ability to fund its share of project costs.
OR
The applicant will be contributing <insert amount> to the project. This is made up of <insert amount> cash
and <insert amount> in-kind. The applicant has not provided evidence of these contributions and its ability
to fund its share of project costs.
In-Kind Contributions
The applicant has included <insert value> of in-kind contributions for the project and has advised that these
are required to complete the project because <insert reasons>. The applicant has advised that the in-kind
contributions were calculated through the following method:
<insert method details>
Private Investment/Other Government Funding
The applicant has indicated that <insert amount> will come from private investment in the project. The
applicant has provided <insert evidence details> to evidence these contributions.
OR
The applicant has indicated that <insert amount> will come from private investment in the project. The
applicant has not provided evidence of these contributions.
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
9 of 12
Page 27 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
The applicant has indicated that <insert amount> will be funded from <insert other government source>.
This amount is in line with the 10% cap on other government funding. The applicant has provided <insert
evidence details> to evidence these contributions.
OR
The applicant has indicated that <insert amount> will be funded from <insert other government source>.
This amount is not in line with the 10% cap on other government funding. The applicant has provided
<insert evidence details> to evidence these contributions.
OR
The applicant has indicated that <insert amount> will be funded from <insert other government source>.
This amount is in line with the 10% cap on other government funding. The applicant has not provided
evidence of these contributions.
Need for Funding
The applicant has indicated that the project will not go ahead without the grant for the following reasons:
<insert details>
[Repeat if required]
The applicant states that the following activities will be funded using the grant funds:
<insert details>
[Repeat if required]
OR
The applicant has indicated that the project will go ahead with a reduced scope without the grant for the
following reasons:
<insert details>
[Repeat if required]
The applicant indicates that the following activities will not go ahead without grant funding:
<insert details>
[Repeat if required]
OR
The applicant has stated that the project will go ahead in its current form without grant funding.
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
10 of 12
Page 28 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Recommendation (CSM to complete)
Strengths and weaknesses of application
Provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of claims against the merit criteria relative to the project
size, complexity and grant amount requested.
Assess whether the applicant has:
provided a complete application that adequately outlines how their project will aim to support innovative,
Australian start-ups to achieve success in international markets;
adequately addressed each merit criteria and outlined relevant eligible project activities, budget and
outcomes;
substantiated their claims in the project application with relevant information and quality supporting
evidence.
Delete this box once you have completed your assessment.
Strengths:
<insert strengths>
<insert strengths>
<insert strengths>
<insert strengths>
Weaknesses:
<insert weaknesses>
<insert weaknesses>
<insert weaknesses>
<insert weaknesses>
Recommendation Summary
Provide a brief statement of rationale for the recommendation.
If recommending
Supported with Conditions, formally list and number all conditions ie
1. provision of evidence of international linkages in the form of letters from international business partners,
memoranda of understanding etc
2. provision of evidence of ……
Delete this box once you have completed your assessment.
The CSM supports this application, as <insert reasons>.
OR
The CSM supports this application with conditions, as <insert reasons for support>. The following conditions
are recommended:
1. <Insert suggested condition to a maximum of three>
OR
The CSM does not support this application, for the following reasons:
<insert reasons>.
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
11 of 12
Page 29 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Total Score:
/100
Supported
Supported with Conditions
Not Supported
Financial Year Split (based on the recommended grant)
Provide the financial year split, taking into account project duration and payment matrix provided, and when
required to reflect comments on ineligible expenditure above.
Year
Amount by Year
2017-18
<allocation 2017/18>
2018-19
<allocation 2018/19>
2019-20
<allocation 2019/20>
Total
<Total allocation>
***Amounts must match the budget plan in SGMS***
Assessor Details – CSM and Manager to Complete
CSM Name
<CSM name>
Phone no
<CSM phone number>
Email
<CSM email>
As CSM, I have completed and endorse this assessment.
Signed......................................................................
Date .....................................................
Manager Name
<Manager name>
Phone no
<Manager phone number>
Email
<Manager email>
I endorse the assessment and confirm that the financial year splits outlined above match the budget plan in
SGMS.
Signed......................................................................
Date .....................................................
NOTE: Ensure the application has been allocated to the next EP Committee meeting for a decision in SGMS
by the deck due date.
Approval of application to go to:
1. EP Committee
Next Scheduled Meeting: _____________
2. Minister
Next Scheduled Meeting: _____________
3. DOI Statement prepared?
Incubator Support Initiative - MTP Assessment Report
V3 September 2017
12 of 12
Page 30 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Error! Unknown document property name.
Deck checklist New & Existing Incubators
Application Number
Applicant Name
Project Title
Grant Amount Sought
CSM Name
CSM Phone Number
Assessment & SGMS Completeness
Yes
No
1. Have you checked that the tracking sheet has the correct application
details (including the ISI number, applicant name, proposed start and
end dates and grant value)?
2. Does the tracking sheet include the project title and project summary?
3. Have you completed the applicant and project descriptions?
4. Have all merit criteria been addressed in the tracking sheet?
5. Have the financial year splits been calculated and entered into the
tracking sheet and SGMS?
6. Do all scores add up on the tracking sheet?
Note: If recommending that an application is supported the applicant
pass all merit criteria and the total score.
7. Has the tracking sheet been signed by the assessing CSM and the
relevant EL line manager?
8. Has all data been entered into SGMS and the application allocated to
the next EPC meeting?
Documentation
Provided Checked
Please collate the Application Deck in the number order below.
by CSM
Manager
Mandatory
1. RIF Summary
2. CSM Assessment Report/Tracking Sheet
Incubator Support Initiative Deck Checklist
v2 September 2017
1 of 2
Page 31 of 32
Released under the FOI ACT - DISER
For Official Use Only
Error! Unknown document property name.
3. Application Form
4. Project Plan
5. Project Budget
6. Letter from Board or CEO supporting the project
7. Accountant’s Declaration (for grants $50,000 and above)
Optional Supporting Attachments
8. Detailed project description and key activities
9. Merit Criterion 1 evidence such as:
a. Resumes of key personnel
b. Business plan
c. Evidence of support from key partners
d. Evidence of international linkages
e. Evidence to demonstrate the incubator’s track record in
assisting start-ups
10. Merit Criterion 2 evidence such as:
a. Evidence of the market gap or demand for the incubator
b. Third party research
c. Opportunity analysis
d. Competitor analysis
11. Merit Criterion 3 evidence such as:
a. Evidence to support in-kind calculations
12. Other:
Deck Prepared By <CSM name>
Signed .......................................................................
Date .....................................................
Deck Checked By <Manager name>
Signed .......................................................................
Date .....................................................
Incubator Support Initiative Deck Checklist
v2 September 2017
2 of 2
Page 32 of 32
