Scottish Industrial Energy Transformation Fund - competition 2: feasibility and front-end engineering design studies - form and guidance

Scottish Industrial Energy Transformation Fund (SIETF) funding invitation for the Feasibility and Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) studies competition which must aim to improve the energy efficiency and decarbonisation of industrial processes.

This document is part of a collection

Application and assessment process

Applicants for study funding are invited to submit an application form for assessment which covers the key eligibility criteria. In addition, copies of the following documents should also be submitted with the studies application form (attached) at the time of submission:

  • documentation evidencing the project partnership and planned delivery vehicle
  • confirmation of match funding
  • documentation relating to the confirmation of project site location
  • a detailed delivery programme for anticipated activity
  • detail of delivery team including identified Project Manager and CV’s of key personnel
  • confirmation of the Procurement Route selected and associated timelines
  • a risk register identifying the risks to delivery of the programme
  • proposed Monitoring and Evaluation approach – i.e. how outcomes/benefits will be captured and recorded
  • any additional information available that supports the project proposal

Evaluation criteria

The SIETF Assessment Panel, will assess and evaluate all applications received against the eligibility criteria. Independent Technical and Financial experts may be appointed to support the evaluation process as appropriate.

Quality of evidence provided

Scoring methodology for quality criteria


Inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement.


Response is generally poor. The response addresses some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled.


Response is relevant and acceptable. The response addresses a broad understanding of the requirement but may lack details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas.


Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirements will be fulfilled.


Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and provides details of how the requirement will be met in full.

The application must achieve a minimum score of 50% at evaluation panel to be considered for support. Feedback will be provided to all applicants and an appeal process can be started whereby indication of an appeal request is received in writing within 7 days from written receipt of outcome. The SIETF team reserve the right to recommend alternative, more appropriate, sources of public funding support to projects as part of this feedback.



Back to top