Text update 9 March 2021: we have added a question to ask applicants about the location of their project partners.
Answers to these questions will be scored by the assessors. You will need to pass a minimum quality threshold for all questions in order to receive funding. Written feedback will be provided.
Applications are assessed by up to 5 assessors. The assessors are experts from business, academia and/or the public sector. Applications are assessed against the same set of scoring criteria. All applications are assessed on individual merit.
After assessment, a proposed list of projects for funding will be reviewed by both BEIS-led and Innovate UK-led panels. The panels will submit a list of recommendations to BEIS ministers for a final decision. It is possible that an application that received lower assessors’ scores may be recommended for funding over others in order to achieve a more balanced project portfolio. The decision will be based on your assessment score and the portfolio approach.
Do not include any website addresses (URLs) in your answers.
Question 1: Equality, diversity and inclusion (not scored)
We collect and report on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) data to address under-representation in business innovation and ensure equality, diversity and inclusion across all our activities.
You must complete this EDI survey and type ‘EDI survey completed’ within your answer. The survey will ask you questions on your gender, age, ethnicity and disability status. You will always have the option to ‘prefer not to say’ if you do not feel comfortable sharing this information.
Question 2. Study overview
What is the objective of this study? What are the resourcing requirements and delivery plan?
Describe or explain:
- the aims of the study and the study delivery plan
- the details of any partners and sub-contractors who you will need to work with to carry out the study successfully
- the project work packages
- the roles, skills and experience of key members of the team (company staff and contractors)
- study risks and corresponding mitigation actions
Your answer to this question can be up to 800 words long. This question is worth 20 marks.
To support your answer you must submit, in a single appendix:
- a project plan (Gantt chart)
- a risk register
The appendix must be a PDF, no larger than 10MB in size and can be up to 3 A4 pages long. The font must be legible at 100% zoom.
Question 3. Technical feasibility
What potential solution to improve the energy efficiency or reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of your industrial process has been identified?
Describe or explain:
- the overview of the technology (or technologies) to be explored
- justification for choosing this technology (or technologies)
- evidence of the concept being scientifically or technically feasible
- current development status of the technology
- the nature of the outputs you expect from the study, such as a feasibility study report, an engineering design (for example, front-end engineering design), a report producing engineering plans (for example, approved for design standard)
- how you will deploy the technology
Your answer to this question can be up to 600 words long.
This question is worth 20 marks.
You can submit an appendix demonstrating where the chosen technology has been deployed in a similar or comparable operational environment. It must be a PDF, no larger than 10MB in size and can up to 2 A4 pages long. The font must be legible at 100% zoom.
Question 4. Potential for carbon and/or energy savings
Describe and justify the anticipated benefits of the project or projects explored through the study, including predicted carbon savings and/or energy savings.
Please describe and explain the following:
- What potential is there that realistic carbon savings and/or energy savings will be achieved by implementing the project explored through this study?
- why this technology solution or solutions were chosen and why other options were discounted
- how the solution or solutions are aligned with the government’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050 and your own decarbonisation plans
- how this project goes above and beyond your existing energy and carbon reduction commitments (such as Climate Change Agreements)
You must provide predicted carbon savings in tCO2e, and expected changes to energy use in MWh. If the project would save energy, please also include the predicted fuel bill savings in £. Estimates must be in relation to a counterfactual scenario (e.g. what would happen if the identified project were not deployed). If your level of output would change as a result of the project, please also provide details of this and how it has informed the estimates.
We understand that until the study is complete there will be uncertainty around these estimates. If possible, please include a range around a central estimate and identify any key assumptions or data sources.
Your answer to this question can be up to 600 words long. The question is worth 25 marks.
You can submit one appendix to provide a case study of a similar project and evidence of carbon and/or energy savings at another site. It must be a PDF, no larger than 10MB in size and can be 1 A4 page long. The font must be legible at 100% zoom.
Question 5. Study cost and value for money
How much will the study cost and how have you minimised this to ensure that it provides the best possible value for money for the taxpayer?
In terms of the study goals, describe or explain:
- the total eligible study costs and the grant you are requesting
- how each partner will finance their contributions to the study
- the steps you have taken to minimise these costs to ensure that this study represents value for money for the government
- the balance of costs and grant across the partners
- any sub-contractor costs and why they are critical to the study
Your answer to this question can be up to 600 words long. This question is worth 10 marks.
Question 6. Added value
What would have happened to the project without IETF funding?
Describe or explain:
- the extent to which any of the study would have still occurred (e.g. would it not have gone ahead at all, or would it still have gone ahead but at a smaller scale?)
- why some or none of the study would have gone ahead without public funding
- why you are not able to wholly fund the study from your own resources or other forms of private-sector funding (such as loans)
Your answer can be up to 400 words long. The question is worth 15 marks.
Question 7. Replicability for the sector
Describe the extent to which the technology to be explored though this study could be adopted by others in the sector or wider sectors.
Describe or explain:
- how the study could be replicated by others in the sector
- how the technology could be adopted in other sectors
- any measures you intend to take to encourage the project to be replicated outside your organisation.
The answer can be up to 400 words long. This question is worth 10 marks.
Question 8. Location of project partners (not scored)
Your answer can be up to 400 words long.
Please state the name of each organisation along with its full registered address.
If you are working with an academic institution this doesn’t need to be included.