Permalink
Browse files

And so bid writing begins proper. See also http://joss.blogs.lincoln.…

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 6a61426 commit 434fe593d354eddfbe50417cc6f80c5817b77d4d @josswinn josswinn committed Mar 12, 2012
Showing with 26 additions and 1 deletion.
  1. BIN Cover Sheet.doc
  2. +1 −1 README.md
  3. +25 −0 evaluation criteria.md
View
Binary file not shown.
View
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
# README
-## PROJECT TITLE GOES HERE.
+## Linkey
This project will provide a detailed case study of the use of OAuth as an authorisation protocol at the University of Lincoln. Working closely with the university Library, we will examine how the OAuth 2.0 specification can be integrated into a single sign on environment alongside Microsoft's Unified Access Gateway.
View
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Proposals MUST:
+
+Include a completed bid cover sheet (the template at Appendix G must be used) which is included in the 10 page (Ariel 11 point) limit for the proposal;
+Include a completed FOI Withheld Information Form (see Appendix F) – this is not included in the page limit.
+Be accompanied by a letter(s) of support from an authorised senior manager at the lead institution and from any partner institutions (only one letter per institution) – this is not included in the page limit.
+
+## EMAIL
+
+AIM-BIDS@JISC.AC.UK
+
+# Evaluation Criteria
+Proposals in all areas except Research Information Management (Appendix C) will be evaluated according to the criteria in the table below:
+## Questions Evaluators will be Considering
+Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to JISC Community – the extent to which the proposal addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the HE and research communities (25%)* Is the proposal in scope and addresses the terms of reference in the call? If not, you should score the bid poorly under this criterion and NOT recommend the bid for funding.* Is the proposal a good idea?* Does the proposal clearly articulate its intentions?* Does the proposal demonstrate that the project outputs meet a need and will result in benefits to the community?* If appropriate, is the proposal technologically innovative and sound (i.e. has not been repeated elsewhere)?* Is there evidence that the proposal has been developed in the context of institutional learning, research and/or information management strategies to ensure that project outputs can be embedded and sustained beyond the JISC funding period? Where appropriate, does the proposal take a service-oriented and/or resource-oriented approach and adopt open standards to ensure that developments can be more easily taken up and reused elsewhere?* If appropriate, does the proposal discuss sustainability beyond project funding?Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan – the quality of the proposal will be assessed on the basis of the deliverables identified, and the evidence provided of how these will be achieved, including an assessment of the risks (25%).
+* Are there clear deliverables?* Is the IPR position clear and appropriate with regard to project outputs?* Is the methodology for meeting the deliverables sound and achievable?* Is there active engagement throughout the project to ensure a sustainable and embedded end-product, where applicable?* Is the workplan robust in terms of project management arrangements?* How will the success of the project be measured?* Does the proposal include a well-thought-through initial assessment of risks, which considers the project‟s failure to deliver, and predictable consequences that are not necessarily positive?
+Engagement with the Community – the degree to which the proposal demonstrates an openness and willingness to work with and share findings with the JISC community and to work in partnership with JISC in forward planning, dissemination and evaluation, and to continue to make available the findings beyond the project period (20%).
+* Does the proposal include engagement with project stakeholders and practitioners (if appropriate) throughout the life of the project?* Is a stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis provided? Does the proposal include an appropriate dissemination approach?* Does it have an appropriate evaluation approach, e.g. talking to stakeholders?* Does the proposal demonstrate willingness to work in partnership with JISC in the dissemination and evaluation activities and to make available outputs beyond the funding period?
+Value for Money – the value of the expected project outcomes, vis-à-vis the level of funding requested, institutional contributions; taking into account the level of innovation, chance of success and relevance to the target communities (15%).
+* When considering value for money, evaluators will refer to their assessment under the above evaluation criteria and compare this with the cost requested from JISC.* Does the proposal discuss the quantitative and qualitative benefits to the project partners of undertaking the work?* Given the benefits, are institutional contributions appropriate?
+Previous experience of the project team – evidence of the project team's understanding of the technical and/or management issues involved, and of its ability to manage and deliver a successful project, for example through work done to date in the area or in related fields (15%).* Does the proposal demonstrate a realistic understanding of the scale of the task, both in terms of technical and management issues?* Does the proposal demonstrate previous successful delivery and management of projects?* Does the proposal link the expertise of the team with the roles to be undertaken and the staffing budget?* If the proposal is from a consortium:i) have the partners provided evidence of their commitment in the form of supporting letters?ii) have the partners demonstrated how the work aligns with their objectives and priorities?iii) is it clear what the role of each partner is and how the actual or planned management structure, governance, decision-making and funding arrangements will function?## Structure of Proposals1. The content of the proposal should reflect the evaluation criteria as set out above.2. To assist in the assessment of all proposals against a common baseline, proposals in all areas except Research Information Management (Appendix C) should be structured as follows:Bid Cover Sheet – all proposals must include a completed bid cover sheet (using the template at Appendix I) which is included in the proposal as part of the overall maximum page limit.Appropriateness and Fit to Programme Objectives and Overall Value to the JISC Community – this section should demonstrate how the bid addresses the issues and demands outlined in the call, and shows innovation as appropriate; and the extent to which the project outcomes will be of overall value to the JISC community.Quality of Proposal and Robustness of Workplan – a description of the intended project plan, timetable and deliverables, project management arrangements, risks, IPR position, and sustainability issues. (NB: Any further/specific requirements to a particular programme will be outlined in the call).Recruitment should be properly addressed in the bid. Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to set up and establish a project and undertake any necessary staff recruitment.Engagement with the Community – a description of how project stakeholders and practitioners (if appropriate) will be engaged throughout the project and an overview of the dissemination and evaluation mechanisms that are envisaged for the project. Any stakeholder mapping and/or user needs analysis will strengthen this section of the bid. Proposals should also ensure there is scope for working in partnership with JISC in dissemination and evaluation activities, and in making available the outputs of the project beyond the JISC funding period. Further guidance on JISC‟s expectations with regard to stakeholder engagement, evaluation and dissemination can be found in Section III of JISC‟s Project Management Guidelines (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/proj_manguide).Budget – a summary of the proposed budget, which in broad outline identifies how funds will be spent over the life of the project. The budget should be broken down across financial years (August–July) or parts thereof and should include itemised staff costs, any equipment and consumables, travel and subsistence, dissemination, evaluation, and any other direct costs required, e.g. rights clearance if required. All costs must be justified. Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) methodology must be used to calculate costs in bids from UK HE institutions. An Example Budget and guidance on the budgetary terms used can be found in Appendix H to this document. Bidders should provide a summary of the qualitative, and any quantitative, benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project in order to inform the funding to be requested from JISC and the costs being borne by the host institution and any project partners. Institutional contributions should be determined by taking into account the benefits to the lead institution and any project partners.Previous Experience of the Project Team – names and brief career details of staff expected to contribute to/be seconded to the project, including qualifications and experience in the area of work proposed, linking the expertise to the roles required within the project, and evidence of any projects of similar nature successfully completed. Clearly indicate when posts will need to be advertised. Do not underestimate the problems in recruiting suitable staff to work on the project. Staff with suitable qualifications in areas where the JISC is interested can be in short supply or expensive. You should provide contingency plans in the event that you experience problems with recruitment.FOI Tick List – all proposals must include a FOI Withheld Information Form, indicating which sections of the bid you would like JISC to consider withholding in response to a freedom of information request or if your bid is successful and your project proposal is made available on JISC‟s website. This can be found in Appendix F of this document. The FOI form will not count towards the page limit and should be included in a separate PDF file to the main bid sections described in a-f above, alongside the supporting letters.Supporting Letter(s) – a copy of the letter(s) of support from a senior representative of the institution and any project partners. Only one supporting letter per project partner should be submitted. The supporting letter(s) will not count towards the page limit and should be included in a separate PDF file to the main bid sections described in a-f above, alongside the FOI tick list. The address to include on letters should be JISC, Northavon House, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QD. It is not necessary to address the letter to a particular contact within the JISC Executive.
+# Checklist for Bid SubmissionWhen submitting your bid, we recommend you check the following points:
+i. Have you completed the bid cover sheet (see relevant appendix for the templatewhich must be used)?ii. Have you followed the bid format outlined?iii. Have you paragraph- and section-numbered your proposal?iv. Have you read JISC‟s Generic Terms and Conditions of Grant (see relevantappendix)?v. Are you clear about the evaluation criteria on which your bid will be judged?vi. Have you looked at the Example Budget and guidance (see relevant appendix) to help you present your costings?
+vii. Have you provided a summary of the qualitative and quantitative benefits the lead institution and any project partners as a whole expect to receive from the project and clarified the nature of the institutional contributions?viii. Have you kept within the page limit for the main body of the proposal (do NOT include any appendices to your bid unless specifically requested in the call)?ix. Is your bid in a PDF format with no additional security settings switched on?x. Have you completed the FOI Withheld Information Form (see relevantappendix)?xi. Have you included a letter(s) of support from the lead site and each projectpartner?xii. Is your bid in a zipped folder? If it exceeds 10Mb it is likely to be returned by themail server.xiii. Are you aware of the email address to which you need to submit your bid and theneed to include the name of the lead institution in the subject line of the email?xiv. Are you aware of the deadline for submitting bids? (12:00 noon UK time, Friday 16 March 2012).
+To summarise, a bid will be automatically rejected if:
+i. It is received after the stated deadline;ii. A bid cover sheet (completed according to the template attached) is not included;iii. The bid exceeds the page limit outlined in the call;iv. An additional appendix/appendices is/are provided (as these will be considered to count towards the page limit outlined in the call).

0 comments on commit 434fe59

Please sign in to comment.