Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 670, Riga 2007 (2 October. No 55 23) amendment of the Cabinet of Ministers of 21 august 2007 rules No 566 "procedures for granting, mērķdotācij and monitors used in municipal infrastructure to organize and development 2008-2010" issued under the regional development law in paragraph 2 of article 14 to make the Cabinet august 21 2007 the rules No 566 "procedures for granting, mērķdotācij and monitors used in municipal infrastructure to organize and development 2008-2010" (Latvian journal , 2007, no. 142) 5. amendments and express attachment as follows: "annex 5 the Cabinet august 21, 2007, regulations No 566 municipal investment project application to the quality evaluation criteria and the specific evaluation criteria and methodology for determining (I). quality evaluation criteria a quality evaluation criteria to the evaluation completed in table 1, according to the evaluation criteria for indicating ratings points from 0 to 5, the calculation of the total amount of the assessment and providing the basis for the estimates. table 1 no PO box criteria rating points (from-to) the assessment of the amount of weight Rating (%)
Overall rating (E) = (C x D)/100 rating rationale A B C D E F 1. Project schedule information provided is clear and complementary and not contradictory to 0-5.5 2 project expenditure entered in the budget is reasonable and corresponds to current market prices, 0-5 in the 3 this objective corresponds to national, regional and local development planning documents 0-5 10 4. Project challenges the immediacy and the degree of the problem after a 0-5 project implementation 5. Invested funds in the construction of the object in relation to the project the necessary cost of 0-5 20 6 according to the planned in the project. funding the implementation of project activities will be completed 0-7.5 project is multiplikatīv effect (impact on adjacent municipal areas), and it is a sustainable 25 8 0-5. The project is important to society, addressed the social problems existing in the society. Its introduction will provide significant socio-economic benefits of the 0-5 total 60 II. Quality evaluation criteria methodology table 2 no PO box criteria evaluation criteria conditions 1. Project schedule information provided is clear and complementary and not contradictory to the 1.1. Checks the information provided in the presentation and justification of, including accompanying documents accompanying the information (facts and figures) and the fulfilment of mutual obligations. 1.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating 5 points in the project description information is expanded and justified by the facts, is unambiguous and complementary 4 points the information provided in the project is expanded and justified by the facts, but there are little conflict between 3 points the information provided in the project is expanded and justified by the facts, but it is the contradictions between 2 points the project is not sufficiently advanced as well as not justified by the facts, and there are significant contradictions between paragraph 1 the information provided in the project is not complete, is not justified by the facts and a controversial 0 point project, the information provided is insufficient for its appraisal 2. Project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and corresponds to current market prices on the basis of the project 2.1 application 3. sadaļā1, as well as the information provided in the accompanying documents, shall assess the extent to which the project contained in a reasonable, detailed, and consistent with the results to be achieved. 2.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics 5 points contained in the project are detailed in a decrypted by year and amount, is reasonable and corresponds to the present situation on 4 points contained in the draft is a decrypted by year and amount, which is partly justified and corresponds to the present situation on the 3 points contained in the draft is a decrypted through the main positions that is reasonable and possible to ensure compliance with the existing situation 2 points contained in the draft partially decrypted, is justified, but it is not possible to fully ascertain their relevance to the present situation on the 1 paragraph contained in the project are not decrypted and rightly so, it is not possible to ascertain their relevance to the present situation on the 0 point of the project, the information provided is insufficient to assess the application of the project 3 this objective meets the national , regional and local development planning documents 3.1. Checks whether the project activities meet certain objective and ensure its achievement, as well as to check whether the project application and point 2.4 2.2 and the planning region in the opinion are: 3.1.1 compliance with national objectives of specified documents, regional and local development planning documents and the priorities set out therein; 3.1.2. provide a detailed justification for the target compliance priorities. 3.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics of the 5 points in the specified target comply with both national and regional and local planning documents, provides a detailed justification for the purpose of compliance with the priorities listed below, as well as the activities provided for in the project fully supports the goals of 4 points in the specified target, meet at least two planning documents (national or regional , or local), provides a detailed justification for the compliance of the objectives of the programming documents specified priorities, the project activities will ensure full achievement of the objectives of the 3 points in the specified target meets at least one planning document (national or regional or local) are priorities, provides a detailed justification for the purpose of compliance with the specific priorities, the project activities will ensure full achievement of the objectives of the project the 2 points the objective specified in the application corresponds to at least one planning document (national or regional or local) are priorities, but does not provide a detailed justification for the purpose of compliance with the specific priorities, the project activities will ensure full achievement of the objectives in paragraph 1 shall correspond to the target specified in national or regional or local planning documents, are not priorities, detailed justification is not provided for the purpose of compliance with the specific priorities, as well as the activities provided for in part, to attain the objectives of the 0 point the information provided does not reflect the purpose of compliance with the national , regional and local planning documents and their priorities, as well as the proposed activities will not provide goals 4. Project challenges the immediacy and the degree of the problem after the implementation of the project based on the project 4.1 application 2.1. and in paragraph 2.5., as well as the information provided in the accompanying documents, shall assess: 4.1.1 the extent to which the proposed objectives set out in the application are achievable; 4.1.2. to what extent the project will help the problem: 4.1.2.1. the project will contribute to the immediate solution to the problem (including will provide the statutory requirements); 4.1.2.2. the project will contribute to the improvement of the situation described in the longer term; 4.1.2.3. the project is focused on a complete settlement of the problem and the improvement of the situation. 4.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics of the 5 points of the project stems from the problems identified, and project implementation provides an instant and complete solution to the problem of the 4 points of the project stems from the problems identified, and project implementation provides problems (situations) full solutions, but over a period of 3 points of the project stems from the problems identified, and project implementation provides problems (situations) partial settlement of 2 points of the project partly stems from the problems identified and to facilitate the solution to 1 point in the project purpose not associated with the identified problem, and it does not contribute to the improvement of the situation in question 0 point project, the information provided is insufficient for its appraisal 5. funds Invested in the construction of the object in relation to project costs 5.1 required based on the application of project 2.3., 3.1. and 3.2., as well as the information provided in the accompanying documents, to the application of the project referred to in point 1.1 year assessed in total funding invested to total object for full completion of the required funding. 5.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description:


Rating characteristics 5 points project implemented more than 80% of the total project required to complete the full costs 4 points the project implemented in the 65-80% of the total project for completion of the full cost of the required 3 points the project implemented in 50-65% of the total project required to complete the full costs 2 points the project implemented a 35-50% of total project required to complete the full costs 1 point project implemented in the 20-35% of total project required to complete the full cost 0 point implemented the project in less than 20% of the total project total costs required to complete 6. According to the project planned to finance the implementation of project activities will be completed based on the project 6.1 application 2.3., 3.1. and 3.2., as well as the information provided in the accompanying documents, estimate how long period (receiving public funding to the extent required): 6.1.1. designed to complete the new object construction, renovation of existing objects, reconstruction, restoration or cosmetic repairs to premises (hereinafter-the works); 6.1.2. designed to provide fully functional objects (for example, purchase of equipment). 6.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics of the 5 points you receive public funding to the extent requested, the time of the calendar year provides fully completed works, as well as a fully equipped, ensuring the functioning of objects according to objective 4 points receiving State funding to the extent required for the calendar year for fully completed works, but fully equipped object for the next calendar year 3 points you receive public funding to the extent required two calendar years for fully completed works, as well as a fully equipped object 2 points Get State funding to the extent required for two calendar years for fully completed works, but the object fully to equip future years 1 point Project planned within the object of financing the construction works will be completed, but for the complete equipping of objects not intended for 0 points in the project planned within the object of the financing the construction works will not be completed and it will not be fully equipped. Not intended for further funding for the project has 7 multiplikatīv effect (impact on adjacent municipal areas), and it is sustainable on the basis of projects 7.1 applications 2.1., 2.2., 2.5., 2.7., 2.8., 3.3 and 3.4 above, as well as the information provided in the accompanying documents, shall assess: 7.1.1. If the project is local or multiplikatīv effect and how areas will contribute to the development of the project; 7.1.2. how precisely defined project objectives planned indicators, or they are measurable, and to what extent will ensure project objectives referred to in point 2.2; 7.1.3. the municipalities planned activities related to the maintenance of the object under construction and further development after project implementation; 7.1.4. the sustainability of the project results and impacts according to the following aspects: 7.1.4.1. how the results will be used by the end of the implementation of the project; 7.1.4.2. is there a cost object for further maintenance and development, from which financial resources are provided for further progress; 7.1.4.3. as the results of the project provides the target audience needs. 7.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics of the 5 points is multiplikatīv effect, they affect the whole planning of regional development in General. The results of the project fully supports the needs of the target audience, the effects have been provided. Detailed analysis of the sustainability of the project results is 4 points multiplikatīv effect, they affect more than three municipal development in General. The results of the project fully supports the needs of the target audience, the effects have been provided. The analysis of the sustainability of the project is 3 points is multiplikatīv effect, they will affect at least another one closer to the development of the municipality. The results of the project to ensure the needs of the target audience, the effects have been provided. Provide information about the sustainability of the project results is 2 points for local nature. The results of the project to ensure the needs of the target audience are assessed its impact, but the impact of the results is not measurable. Provides information about project sustainability 1 point is not targeting needs, the results are not sustainable, multiplikatīv effect is not supported, but are defined in the results 0 point are not the target audience, the results are not sustainable, multiplikatīv effect is not provided, no information on results to be achieved 8. Project is important to society, addressed the social problems existing in the society. Its introduction will provide significant socio-economic benefits on the basis of draft 8.1 application 2.1, as well as in the accompanying information provided on the accompanying documents, shall assess: 8.1.1. whether the project will improve the quality and accessibility of services; 8.1.2. the project will address the community or existing social problem; 8.1.3. or the project will bring significant socio-economic benefits. 8.2. This criterion is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points corresponding to the rating description Description: 5 points the project is important to society, addressed the social problems existing in the society. Its introduction will provide significant socio-economic benefits 4 points the project is important to society, addressing the social problems existing in the society, but the implementation of a project does not provide significant socio-economic benefits of 3 points the project is important to the public, it will improve the quality and accessibility of services 2 points the project is important to the public, this will ensure the availability of quality services and the maintenance of the current level, preventing its deterioration 1 point project are marginal to society It will affect a very narrow circle of persons 0 point project, the information provided is not sufficient to evaluate the note. 1 references to the project application form point is indicative and does not preclude the use of appropriate information in other sections of the application form for the project or additional documents submitted. III. Specific evaluation criteria specific evaluation criteria for evaluation of the completed table 3, according to the evaluation criteria for indicating ratings points from 0 to 5, the calculation of the total amount of the assessment and providing the basis for the estimates. table 3 no PO box criteria rating points (from-to) the assessment of the weight (%)
Overall rating (D) = (B x C)/100 rating of A B C D E justification 1. relevance to the objectives of the project sector development priorities 0-5 40 total 40 IV. Specific evaluation criterion for the determination of the methodology table 4 no criterion of valuation p.k. condition 1. relevance to the objectives of the project sector development priorities 1.1. based on the information provided in the tender, assessed: 1.1.1., or the specified project meet the development priorities of the sector; 1.1.2. If the project will provide the industry the main objectives put forward. 1.2. Criteria is assessed with a score from 0 to 5 points, according to the description: rating characteristics of the 5 points in the specified target corresponds to the industry's development priorities, and the implementation of the project will provide the industry the main objectives set for the 3 points in the specified target partly meet the development priorities of the sector and the partial implementation of the project will provide one of the industry's task to achieve 0 points in the target you specified does not meet the development priorities of the sector and the project will ensure the industry raised the achievement of the tasks or project information provided is not sufficient, it v. results for assessment evaluation results fill in table 5, arranging project applications in order of priority according to the points obtained by the quality and specific evaluation criteria. table 5 no BC municipality project name amount (LVL) Mērķdotācij overall rating according to quality criteria overall rating according to the specific criteria for total points 1 2 ... skaits1.




Note the. 1 if two or more projects have the same number of points, priority project, presented by the municipality with the lowest development index (corresponding to the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 March 2004, regulations No 124 "rules on the criteria the national budget to grant local authorities the European Union structural funds co-financed projects ')."
Prime Minister a. Halloween regional development and Municipal Affairs-cultural Minister h. demakova