1 / 23

SIF II Points of Clarification

SIF II Points of Clarification . Submission . Q. The objectives in paragraph 3.1 do not include “to

gerard
Download Presentation

SIF II Points of Clarification

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIF II Points of Clarification

  2. Submission • Q. The objectives in paragraph 3.1 do not include “to • support enabling measures to prepare for the expansion and the development of postgraduate education…” as was stated in the call for funding under SIF 1. Are proposals related to graduate education eligible for funding in this round? • Q. Can you please confirm that GREPS are NOT included in the call for SIF2?

  3. Graduate Education • The SIF will support proposals to enhance graduate education. The aim of the SIF in so doing is to enhance the institutional infrastructure for the education of graduate students. • GREPS are not included in the SIF Cycle II Call for proposals.

  4. Submission cont. • Q. Would it be acceptable if a sector bid comprised 2 or 3 projects that are not in themselves related, but which do involve all institutions in that sector? • Institutions should have regard to the fact that bids will be considered under 4 criteria, one of which is strategy. Bids that do not demonstrate a strategic approach are unlikely to do well under this criterion. • Q. Will the HEA accept proposals under the Strategic Innovation Fund Cycle II from a group comprising of all the Institutes of Technology listed in Appendix 1. • A. Yes.

  5. Submission cont. • Q. Is a proposal to implement federated access services to allow students to transparently work across Universities with full access to eLearning and eContent resources eligible for funding? The proposal does not involve infrastructure.A. Yes.

  6. Template • Q. Proposals are restricted to 5,000 words. Is it expected that the report on institutional activities (paragraph 5.7) will be extra to, or included in, this word count? • A. Report on institutional activities is included in the word count.

  7. Collaboration • Q. Where a project is generally collaborative and consists of different parts, should all constituent parts be collaborative or can some elements be exclusive to a specific institution? • A. Some elements can be exclusive, but institutions should have regard to the criteria in regard to strategy and collaboration. • Q. Can I confirm that an individual institution include a combination of institute specific and collaborative projects within the maximum funding envelope that can be applied for. If not, how will such a combination of elements affect the maximum allocation to an institute? • A. There is an upper limit of €30 million for any single proposal and for non collaborative proposals the upper limit is €5 million.

  8. Collaboration cont. • Q. Would a project involving partnership between • Higher Education Institutions (as lead partners) and the FE (Further Education) sector be deemed eligible? • A. Yes, however, funding can only be allocated to eligible institutions as listed in Appendix 1 in the Call for Proposals

  9. Collaboration cont. • Q. How would an institutional proposal including collaboration with a Northern Ireland HEI be treated under the collaboration criterion? • A.The SIF Call directs institutions to consider collaboration with institutions named in Appendix 1. While consideration will be given to collaboration with other partners, the priority will be towards collaboration with Institutions named in Appendix 1.

  10. Matched Funding • Q. Can individuals/organisations external to the applicant/eligible institutions, who will participate in terms of a time commitment to program initiatives, be included as matching funding? • A. Yes, subject to institutions being able to demonstrate the value of such time, and that it was committed to the project. • Q. Would time spent by external parties (e.g. industry) and committed in advance count as matching funding? • A.It is essential that time be allocated over the course of the project rather than in advance of project commencing or after project has ceased.

  11. Matched Funding cont. • Q. Is it possible to for an institution to provide matched funding after the period for which SIF funding was received? For example, if funding was received for three years, would it be possible for an institution to start providing matched funding at the end of that period? • A. Institutions will have some flexibility in the generation of matched funding over the cycle of the bid i.e. matching funding may be lower in initial years, subject to the 50% average being achieved over the full cycle.

  12. Matched Funding cont. • Q. Is capital funding received from a donor allowed as matched funding? • A. Yes, provided funding is applied to the SIF project in question.

  13. Discipline Specific • Q.Can we get a more accurate description of discipline specific initiatives? • Q. Would jointly developed taught masters programmes, within the current discipline portfolio of collaborating institutions, fall within the remit of discipline-specific proposals? • Institutions, as part of their feedback to SIF I have noted that in some cases SIF objectives can only be achieved through certain discipline specific interventions. In this context, discipline specific proposals will be considered where institutions can demonstrate the value being added to higher level SIF proposals. Proposals that aim only at improvements in a discipline area will not be considered.

  14. Multi Annual • Q. What is the maximum duration of projects and period of funding allocation under Cycle 2? Is it 3 yrs, or 5yrs. • Institutions may propose projects which have multi annual requirements and can set out appropriate timeframes. Institutions should demonstrate an appropriate rationale and outcomes. • Q. If expenditure on a specific component part of the application • is delayed, through for example recruitment timescales etc, can the funding be run over the full period of the project as applied for or is it constrained within the time period of the SIF Cycle 2 • A. Reporting will take account of work completed. Final projects will be reviewed against the original outcomes and timelines in the initial project plan.

  15. Lead Institutions • Q. 1. In SIF 1 the HEA clarified that there was no specific requirement for a 'lead institution' and that this was a matter for the HEIs to determine. In SIF II there is specific reference to the ‘lead institution' for funding purposes (appendix 3). Please clarify the intention here. • The call requires that effective procedures are put in place for the governance, leadership, management and functioning of a collaboration. • This may involve a lead, or not, as the collaborating institutions decide, and as was the case with SIF I. However, in such instances, it is even more critical that there be clarity and accountability in respect of the funding being sought and any funding allocated. • In addition, and arising out of inconsistencies arising from SIF I applications, for administrative purposes, must identify a contact institution and this institution is required to complete the financial templates as detailed in Appendix 3.

  16. Lead Institutions • Q .Does each submission or strand need to identify a leader or can there be joint leaders? • A. All activities must be presented within a framework demonstrating clear accountability, and governance structures. • There is in addition a requirement for administrative purposes for a contact institution that provides details of the funding being sought. • The question of operational leadership of the programme is a matter for the institutions within those parameters.

  17. Lead Institutions – Example, see next page

  18. Lead Institutions example • An ‘administrative lead’ is the institution chosen by the group • of collaborating institutions, who takes responsibility for the • submission the detailed financial information relevant to the • project on which the institutions are collaborating. This is a • technical advice to assist the panel in being certain of the • costs and funding requests associated with the project. • It has no implications for the overall funding limits • attached to individual submissions. • In this example Institution B is the administrative lead for the • Teaching & Learning Proposal and will take responsibility for • returning the financial information as per Appendix 3 in the • Call for Proposals. • In the case of the Research proposal, Institution A is the

  19. Lead Institutions example • administrative lead and as above will return the financial • information in relation to this collaboration in the institution • overall proposal. • Finally, in relation to the Access proposal, Institution C is the • administrative lead and as above will return the financial • information. • It will be up to the institutions as to how they present the • proposal but each must refer to the detailed financial data • which will be included in the administrative lead proposal.

  20. Overheads • Q. Can a percentage overhead be applied, if supported by, for instance, workings for SFI?  Or will a  specific percentage be set for SIF?  Would overheads qualify as match funding? • A. The HEA recognises that overheads may be incurred in completing a SIF project. It is important that institutions would recognise and plan for overheads that may be incurred so as not to create detrimental effects on other aspects of institutional activity. Overheads can be included in the total cost of the project up to a rate of 25%. Overhead expenditure will be subject to appropriate auditing and monitoring by the HEA. • Institution(s) applying for SIF funding must provide matching funding in respect of the amount to be drawn down. Matching funding can take the form of privately raised funding, institutional reallocation of resources, but may not take the form of borrowing.

  21. Capital • Q. Will the HEA SIF fund refurbishment and rental of space associated with the proposed developments in the applications under cycle 2 as was allowed under Cycle 1. • A. The call provides that “The Fund will not be utilized to fund ongoing operations, the creation of physical capacity or proposals that could reasonably be expected to be funded from other public funding sources, e.g. research funding agencies.” However, minor refurbishment/reconfiguration undertaken as a necessary consequence of a proposal will be eligible for funding.

  22. Capital cont. • Q. Is there a maximum amount which can be used as minor works? • A. In the past individual capital minor work projects have amounted in the region of €70k-€80k. In the case of SIF, it is a key criterion that no additional capacity will be created.

  23. Miscellaneous • Q. Can you please let me know where I can access copies of the successful proposals submitted in the 1st call. • Project Overviews circulated and lead institute contact person identified. • Q. In SIF Cycle 1 there were a list of points of clarification made available on HEA web-site will there be a similar document available shortly for Cycle 2? • A. All clarifications will be made available on HEA web-site

More Related