Knowsley Foundation Community Transport Development Fund

1. Knowsley FoundationCommunity Transport Development Fund Workshop Thursday 4th July

2. Welcome • Introductions • What is the purpose of this workshop? • What agencies are involved in the Community Transport Development Fund process?

3. Outline for the session

4. Background • What does the Community Transport Fund set out to achieve? • What opportunities are available? - Adult Social Care opportunities - Home to School Transport opportunities - Home to School Transport SEN opportunities • Stage 1 £100k • Stage 2 £180k • Local Sustainable Transport Fund • Added Value

5. Timeline of Activities

6. Adult Social Care • Background Information • Outcomes • Objectives • Minimum requirements • Performance indicators

7. Home to School TransportMainstream & SEN • Background Information • Outcomes • Objectives • Minimum requirements • Performance indicators

8. Networking and Collaboration Rachael Jones KCVS

9. What does an Innovative Community Transport system look like? Rachael Jones KCVS

10. Overview of the application form and project outline James Proctor Community Foundation

11. The Monitoring and Evaluation Frame Ian Bancroft & Mott Macdonald

12. Bid Evaluation Framework - Overview • Three separate evaluation frameworks: Adult Social Care; HTST; and HTST SEN • Bids will be scored separately against each Lot • Five stage process: • Initial Gateway Assessment (Y/N decision); • Quality Assessment (initial Y/N decision then scored); • Value for Money (VfM) Assessment (ratio of quality score to total funding amount); • Overall Assessment (rankings of total quality scores and VfM scores); • Determination of the Successful Applicant(s) • Evaluation and scoring by commissioners, the Knowsley Foundation and Mott MacDonald

13. Bid Evaluation Framework: Initial Gateway Assessment

14. Bid Evaluation Framework – Quality Assessment • Low Priority Objectives: • Alignment with wider Council objectives & societal goals e.g. LSTF • Y/N decision – bids that do not score a Y will not be taken forward • Medium Priority Objectives: • Delivery of added value • Scored (maximum 8) and weighted (x3) = maximum score of 24 • High Priority Objectives: • Robustness of the proposed methodology, delivery against the core objectives, performance indicators and required outcomes • Scored (maximum 68) and weighted (x4) = maximum score of 272 • Maximum total score for Quality of 296

15. Bid Evaluation Framework – Value for Money and Overall Assessment • Value for Money Assessment: • Ratio of Quality Assessment Score / Total Funding Amount • Overall Assessment: • Two lists of ranked submissions: • Total quality score; and • Value for Money score. • Banded into green, amber and red categories to identify the bidder that performs best across both quality and VfM

16. Bid Evaluation Framework – Determination of the Successful Applicant(s) • Bob’s Taxis – funded • Everywhere CT – possibly funded as an additional option • Working Together & Access for All – may be useful additional options if funding amount is small • A to B Taxis rejected due to poor quality score • Community Health and Wellbeing rejected due to poor VfM

17. Bid Evaluation Framework – Submissions Against Multiple Lots / Linked Bids • Submissions against multiple Lots: • Scored separately using the appropriate evaluation framework • Bidders need to be explicit in how their application meets the criteria for each individual Lot • A decision will be made on scheme deliverability where bidders are successful in one Lot but not others • Linked bids: • Assessors will consider if individual bids can be linked together (within one Lot or across Lots) to deliver additional value • This may be the case if there is no obvious solution or if the same solution can be delivered across multiple Lots

18. Wrap Up (1) When do we monitor and evaluate and how do we do it(2) Opportunities for collaboration (3) Final clarifications Rachael Jones KCVS