The Rules On The Structural Funds Of The European Union Project Submission Procedures And Evaluation Criteria

Original Language Title: Noteikumi par Eiropas Savienības struktūrfondu projektu iesniegumu vērtēšanas kārtību un kritērijiem

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: https://www.vestnesis.lv/ta/id/139266

Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 549 in Riga, July 4, 2006 (pr. 35.3 §) rules for the structural funds of the European Union project submission procedures and evaluation criteria Issued under Cabinet installations of article 14 of the law in the first part of paragraph 3 of rule 1 defines the European Union's structural funds (hereinafter funds) project application procedures and criteria for evaluation.
2. The structural funds project submissions will be evaluated according to these rules, certain administrative, quality and specific evaluation criteria (1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23).
3. evaluation of the structural funds the project application procedures determined by these rules and other regulatory activities co-financed by the structural funds regulations.
Prime Minister a. Halloween Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš Editorial Note: rules shall enter into force on July 7, 2006.
 
The Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 1 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union open design contest 1. priority "sustainable development", "environmental measures 1.1 improvement of infrastructure and tourism promotion activities of" 1.1.2. "separate waste collection point" project submission evaluation criteria 1. Administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria Yes No 1.
The application of and compliance with the project 1.1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set in 1.2.
Project submissions are project submissions in electronic version 1.3.
A required project is submitted a copy of the application (copy) 0.9.
The submitted application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) 1.5.
Application of the project completed and Latvian language into 1.6.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form of 1.7.
The project implementation period does not exceed the maximum allowed period of time (until 31 august 2008) 1.8.
Requested by the European regional development fund co-financing is calculated the arithmetic correctly, the European regional development fund co-financing amount corresponds to the limits laid down by the guidelines and the European regional development fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum volume 1.9.
The project the applicant complies with the requirements of the guidelines 1.10.
The applicant, partner (s) comply with the guidelines of the applicant's partner requirements 1.11.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the person in charge and the project application is postmarked 1.12.
The project application is accompanied by all the required accompanying documents annex and 1.13.
Project budget estimate has been drawn up in application of the project in the specified format, 1.14.
The project budget is calculated in Latvian lats (LVL) and all costs indicated in LVL 1.15.
The cost of the project is properly calculated 1.16.
Cost of the project for the attributable 2. quality evaluation criteria: 2.1 General eligibility criteria: no PO box
The overall criteria meets does not meet 1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of the activity 2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, sustainable development, promotion of the information society) 3.
The project application of and compliance with the region's municipal waste management plan 2.2. If the project meets all of the general eligibility criteria, the application of the project evaluated the quality evaluation criteria.
2.3. quality evaluation criteria: No.
The benchmark Cost of clay scored a number of points you scored% total weight of you valued you Z = X • Y-100 project cold ׃ gum types section of the page X Y Z quality criteria 1 project justification project submission 25 30 1.1 justified the chosen target group needs and/or project is defined and justified in the application problem of the project submission 5 1.2 shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 1.3 project activity is clearly defined , with the planned implementation of a reasonable time schedule and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the potential project risks/conditions) 5 1.4.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities are complementary 5 1.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are the effect multiplikatīv and displayed their sustainability), etc.
project implementation capacity of 5 2 20 20 2.1.
In the application are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 2.2.
The application is reflected in the project administering staff competence, experience and professional qualifications 5 2.3.
The application must clearly indicate how the project will be carried out monitoring (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 2.4 5.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient and relevant 5 3.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 3.1 10 20.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 10 3.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (investment cost-result), etc.
5 10 total 70 2.4. for each quality evaluation criteria is assigned a certain number of points from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 = very poor; 2 = weak; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = good; 5 = very good. Priority shall be given to those submissions, which got the largest number of points.
2.5. supported are projects whose evaluation quality and specific evaluation criteria the evaluation results as a whole has exceeded 40 points threshold.
2.6. In case there are several projects that exceed the threshold of 40 points, but available funds within the framework of the competition is not sufficient, supported are those projects which receive more points according to the specific criteria for the table.
2.7. The same amount of points in the event of receipt of multiple projects, they prioritized by total rating, which is calculated taking into account the weight of the assessment.
3. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criterion points (0-5) weight 1.
Sorted waste disposal (recycling) nodrošinājums1 80 2.
The project intended to raise awareness of waste sorting does not pieciešamību2 20 total 100 Note: 1 processing is not known whom – 1; processing contractor known but not for marketing contracts concluded – 2; agreements concluded for marketing/processing performer known for processing planned outside the State borders – 3; agreements concluded for marketing/processing performer known to promote the development of recycling within the territory of the country – 4; agreements concluded for marketing/processing performer known to promote the development of recycling certain waste management region-5.2 information measures not provided for in, 0; for general measures on waste collection in distributed-2; designed to raise awareness of the need for waste sorting – 4; for awareness of waste sorting needs the involvement of educational institutions-5 Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of the annex 2 to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union open design contest 1. priority "sustainable development" 1.2. Availability and event transportation system development "1.2.2. activity" improving the effectiveness of the Transport system in populated areas "apakšaktivitāt 1.2.2.1." the organisation of the Transport system optimization and traffic safety improvements on the populated areas "project submission evaluation criteria 1. Administrative evaluation criteria : no PO box
Criteria Yes No 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application?


3. is filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) count?


4. is the project application is cauršūt (caurauklot)?


5. is the application of the project completed and Latvian language text?


6. application of the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form?


7. the implementation of the project shall not exceed the maximum allowed period of time (up to august 31, 2008)?


8.

Or requested by the European regional development fund co-financing and national budget allocations to municipalities is the arithmetic mean calculated properly, the European regional development fund co-financing amount corresponds to the limits laid down by the guidelines and the European regional development fund co-financing% does not exceed the maximum amount?


9. Is the project the applicant complies with the requirements of the guidelines?


10. will the project submission (receipt) is signed by the person in charge and the project application is postmarked?


11. Does the project submission is accompanied by all required attachments and supporting documents?


12. does the project budget estimate has been drawn up in application of the project in the specified format?


13. the estimate for the project is calculated in Latvian lats (LVL) and all costs indicated in LVL?


14. is the cost of the project is properly calculated?


15. does the cost of the project is eligible?


2. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria Yes No 1.
1.1 compliance of the project.
The project submission complies with the single programming document and In Appendix 1 of the priority "sustainable development" event "accessibility and transport systems development" activities "improving the efficiency of the Transport system in populated areas" apakšaktivitāt "for the organisation of the Transport system optimization and traffic safety improvements on the populated areas" 2.
Sustainability of the project 2.1.
The project the applicant certifies the ability to ensure the maintenance of the object after construction completion 3.
Project implementation capacity 3.1.
In the application are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms and the degree of readiness of the project 3.2.
The application is a project of the personnel administering the appropriate competence, experience and professional qualifications (the same staff or contractual agents) 3.3.
The application must clearly indicate how the project will be carried out monitoring of 3.4.
Submission of required activities for public information and publicity for the 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market price level 4.2.
The project is technically feasible and appropriate calculations added 3 specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criterion rating points weight 1.
The need for improvements in road safety in a given place (take into account the number of accidents, fatalities, infrastructure condition (depreciation), etc., conditions that characterize the level of road safety) or the need for optimization of the transport system (traffic, congestion, lack of current traffic organization) 1.1.
The need for the optimization of the transport system;
0-5 2 1.2.
The need for improvements in road safety;
0-5 5 1.3.
The need for traffic safety improvements and optimization of the transport system.
0-5 8 2.
The proposed solutions efficiency (the extent to which the proposed solution will improve traffic safety in the particular case – the impact on the number of accidents, the severity, or as a transport system will improve throughput, decrease traffic congestion, the transport system maintenance costs, what will the user benefit as cost reduction, reduction of transport time, etc.)


2.1. the effectiveness of the proposed solution to the optimization of the transport system;
0-5 6 2.2.
The proposed solutions efficiency improvements in road safety;
0-5 9 2.3.
The effectiveness of the proposed solution to the optimization of the transport system and road safety improvements.
0-5 15 3.
Transport the negative environmental impact reduction 0-6 5 4.
Requested by the European regional development fund co-financing up to 100 000 Ls to 5 points;
100001-$ 150-4 points;
150001-200 000 Ls-3 points;
-250 000 Ls-200001 2 points;
300 000 Ls-250001 – 1 point;
over 300 001 Ls-0 point.
0-5 30 5.
National co-financing: over 45%-5 points;
41-45%-4 points 36-40%-3 points;
31-35%-2 points;
26-30%,-1 point;
25%-0 points 0-5 10 6.
The degree of ripeness of the project: • designed for construction and procurement documentation – 5 points.
• developed a construction-3 points;
• conducted technical economic analysis and developed a sketch project-1 point;
• has none of the above documents – 0 point.
0-5 1-3 10 4. specific assessment criteria is assigned a certain number of points according to the following ratings: 1-very weak; 2-poor; 3-satisfactory; 4-OK; 5-very good.
5. Priority shall be given to those submissions, which got the largest number of points.
Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of the annex 3 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grant schemes 1. priority "sustainable development" UR1.4.pas "contributes to education, health care and social infrastructure development" activities "social 1.4.6. infrastructure improvement and development of alternative social services" apakšaktivitāt "alternative 1.4.6.2. social care and social rehabilitation services" project submission evaluation criteria 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme of the project tender submissions under the social services administration (SRA) published the announcement and grant schemes approved project application to the contest rules.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the approved IPO "policy application progress of projects".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant project scheme application to tender shall within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes and grants call for proposals of the scheme rules. Administrative screening is carried out to determine: 5.1 the draft SRA eligibility of the applicant;
5.2. project submissions.
6. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question requesting clarification, and supplementary or project met this criteria assessed. If the requested additional information is not provided on time or in the case of repeated checks compliance with this criterion assessed with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further prosecution does not move.
7. project submissions that meet the criteria of eligibility of the applicant, driven by further submission of the draft assessment of conformity.
8. submission of project conformity to judged by the "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question require the addition or correction, and project application of compliance with this criterion is assessed. If retesting in case the criterion assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further consideration does not move.
9. If the application is recognized as the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, SPP shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
10. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the SPP project applicant sends a motivated refusal, indicating the specific grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
11. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
12. application of the quality of the project and the specific evaluation of the Ministry of welfare, performing the first level intermediate – created the Commission for the purpose of evaluation to assess whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European regional development fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
13. the quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
14. quality evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and quality assessment criteria of maximum rating points share a common scoring system make up 70%.
15. each quality evaluation criteria the evaluation point range is from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".

16. Each project submission evaluation criteria a quality group is a certain minimum number of points, which make up 75% of the maximum number of points in the evaluation.
17. If the submission of the project quality evaluation results in one of the assessment criteria for the quality of the project groups do not reach the minimum number of points (75% of the maximum rating points), project submission further evaluated and recommended for rejection.
18. Specific evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and specific evaluation criteria maximum rating points share a common evaluation system contribute 30%.
19. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
20. the list of projects to be supported by prioritising the project submissions, which got the highest number of points. Project submissions for approval if the project moves the application's final assessment is equal or exceeding the 75% share of the total system of criteria.
21. If the application does not meet the quality of the project and the specific evaluation criteria, send a motivated refusal to SRA grant schemes the project applicant, indicating the specific quality or specific evaluation criteria.
22. the decision on refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme may challenge the administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 23. Administrative evaluation criteria: 23.1. the project applicant eligibility: criteria Supporting documents NPK 10.1.2.1.
The project applicant is a legal person (project applicant is established in the regulations of the Republic of Latvia in accordance with the procedure laid down in the legislation) the company registry certificate/company register certificate copy 10.1.2.2.
The project applicant is registered in Latvia company register certificate/company register certificate copy 10.1.2.3.
The project applicant is an appropriate way of operating the project the applicant's articles of Association/statutes or business register certificate copy 10.1.2.4.
The project applicant is not tax and/or the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt the State revenue service issued certificate (issued not earlier than 30 days prior to the application of the project) 10.1.2.5.
The project applicant is solvent 1) annual report for the previous year (with mark about registration in the commercial register, if applicable), which include the balance sheet, the profit and loss account/cash flow statement and a sworn auditor's report (if applicable) 2) in the case where the applicant is planning to take a loan in the bank – bank certificate of readiness to lend the project applicant, the loan amount $.
10.1.2.6. economic activity of the applicant, the project is not stopped, the applicant is not in the process of liquidation, bankruptcy, the administration of Justice in transfer business register certificate 10.1.2.7.
Project applicant submits an extract from the land registry for the title to real estate or real property lease agreement for the land register excerpt from ownership or lease for a minimum of 7 years, which is registered in the land registry.
10.1.2.8. Project partner of the applicant/applicant's ri guidelines meet the requirements of the partner of the applicant's partner's legal status certificate; previous experience; written proof that the partner participates or not participate with co-financing, a description of the tasks of the partner in the project specific 10.1.2.9.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the responsible person with authority to sign the assurance of the authorising officer 23.2. project submissions: NPK criterion 10.1.3.1.
the project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application, the standard form 10.1.3.2.
the project application is filled into 10.1.3.3.
project application filled in Latvian language 10.1.3.4.
the project application has been added to the original project submission in electronic version 10.1.3.5.
the original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and stamped 10.1.3.6.
filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number 10.1.3.7.
the project application is accompanied by all the required supporting documents 10.1.3.8.
the project application is accompanied by all the guidelines listed in annex 10.1.3.9.
the project budget is calculated in Latvian lats (LVL) and all costs indicated in LVL 10.1.3.10.
the project financing plan has been designed according to the guidelines for the model 10.1.3.11.
project cost calculation is detailed in the 10.1.3.12 project budget conforms to the guidelines set out the eligible costs 10.1.3.13.
the requested amount of co-financing of the European Union shall not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing 10.1.3.14.
project funding amount requested in the application complies with the guidelines for the minimum/maximum level of funding 10.1.3.15.
the project is scheduled to be completed by July 31, 2008 to 10.1.3.16.
the applicant has submitted a project approved by the construction of the Būvvald application to add architectural design tasks, if the need for the implementation of the project is determined by law 10.1.3.17.
project applicant submits a job/supply technical specifications 10.1.3.18.
the applicant submits the project cost calculations supporting the estimates developed by the//i have qualified specialist/i 10.1.3.19.
the applicant has submitted the draft local government co-financing of supporting documents – a copy of the decision of the Council/Council statement approved the decision on co-financing (if the applicant is a local project or social service provider that is not a State institution) 10.1.3.20.
project applicant submits a written certification that the project of the municipality the operation will ensure at least another 5 years after the project end (where the applicant is a Government or social service provider that is not a State institution) 10.1.3.21.
project applicant submits a planning region Development Council letter of support for the project 24. quality evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points 1. project eligibility 1.1.
The project submission complies with the single programming document and the programme complement the priority measure activity.
5 1.2.
The project is important for the region's special needs and challenges.
5 1.3.
The project submission complies with the structural policy horizontal objective of regional development and contribute to regional development.
5 total: 15 2. Rationale of the project 2.1.
The project's target group is clearly defined and strategically correctly selected.
5 2.2.
Project application based on the chosen target group needs and shows the practical solution to the problem of target groups.
5 2.3.
Project activities are necessary and appropriate to the goals and outcomes.
5 2.4.
The project includes the application objectively verifiable indicators of the outcome of the project.
5 total: 20 3. Implementation of the project capacity 3.1.
Project applicant has experience in project management.
5 3.2.
The project is reflected in its administration and implementation mechanisms (management capacity – timely personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget).
5 3.3.
Application of the project reflect the end of the project internal control mechanism and it is adequate.
5 3.4.
The results of the project is sustainable financially and institutionally.
5 3.5.
The involvement of the project involved partners, their choices are reasonable. (if applicable) 5 total: 25 4. Project budget, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1.
The project budget is detailed.
10 4.2.
Project budget conforms to the guidelines set out in the tender of projects eligible costs.
10 4.3.
Project expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the project.
10 4.4.
How much of the estimated costs is required for the implementation of the project.
10 total: 40 total maximum score: 100 25. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
The Service complements the existing service system and develop services for the target group to which before services are not available Yes/No 2.
A similar service, travelling by public transport from the place of residence declared one hour in one direction, not available 30 3.
Improved infrastructure facilitates customer employment 30 4.
Improved infrastructure is the Foundation of the European Social Fund supports fundraising 30 5.
The project has been accepted construction 10 total: 100 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted in annex 4 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union open competition priority 2 "entrepreneurship and innovation" UR2.5.pas "support this measure of applied science development national scientific institutions" 2.5.1. activity "support applied research national research institutions" project submission evaluation criteria 1. Administrative evaluation criteria : No.

Criteria Yes No 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form 3.
Application of the project completed and Latvian language into 4.
The project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application 5.
The submitted application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) 6.
A required project is submitted a copy of the application (copy) number 7.
The project the applicant complies with the requirements of the guidelines 8.
The applicant, partner (s) comply with the guidelines for requesting partner requirements 9.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the person in charge and the project application is postmarked 10.
The project application is accompanied by all the required supporting documents and annex 11.
Project budget estimate has been drawn up in application of the project in the specified format 12.
The project budget is calculated in Latvian lats (LVL) and all costs indicated in LVL 13.
The required co-financing is calculated correctly, the mean amount of co-financing guidelines meet the constraints and the proportion of co-financing shall not exceed the maximum volume of 14.
The project implementation period does not exceed the maximum allowed period 2. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria the maximum number of points acquired, the ratio of total division points 1.
1.1 compliance of the project the project application to the single programming document and the compliance programs of priority measures to supplement and activity 1.2 project submission 10 1 10 compliance with structural policy horizontal objectives such as regional development, gender equality policies, etc.
5 1 5 2.
Rationale of the project 2.1.
The project is defined in the application-based problem 2.2 10 1 10.
Application of the project shows that reaching the goal (direct project), the problem will be solved 10 1 10 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned time schedule and ensure the promised results, (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks to the project and prerequisites) 2.4 10 2 20.
Between the project identify the problem, define the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a mutual-10 2 20 2.5 next year.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and contribute to the competitiveness of the host 10 3 30 2.6.
The project involves the necessary partners, their choices are reasonable (if applicable)-3.
Project implementation capacity 3.1.
The application is displayed in project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 10 1 10 3.2.
The application displays the project administering staff competence, experience and professional qualifications 10 3 30 3.3.
The application must clearly indicate how the project will be carried out monitoring (self-evaluation and adjustment of the project introduction) 3.4 10 1 10.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 1 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 10 1 10 4.2.
Objectives have been selected for the cost-effective options/solutions (cost-result) 10 1 10 maximum overall rating * 120 17 180. point 2.6 is evaluated with 2.3 points and there is no separate assessment.
3. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria the maximum number of points acquired, the ratio of total division points 1.
The project's innovative level and compliance with the strategic axes of 12.5 10 1 2 technology.
The planned performance and potential contribution to the economy of Latvia, 10 2 22.5 3.
Researchers involved in the project in the scientific experience 10 3 4 32.5.
Materials of the scientific equipment and technical support 10 1 12.5 maximum overall rating 40 7 80 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 5 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.1. "event" promotion of employment activity 3.1.2. "active employment measures for the unemployed" 3.1.2.2. "working practices apakšaktivitāt site for young people providing unemployed" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria of the project submission I evaluation criteria 1. evaluation of the application of the project implemented in two stages: 1. making the application of the project management;
1.2. when assessing the project application, the quality and relevance of the specific evaluation criteria.
2. the application of the administrative project check out State employment agency – second level intermediate (further – the Agency). Administrative purpose is to assess whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the guidelines of the open competition (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines).
3. the application of the administrative Project check apply administrative evaluation criteria. Project submission compliance or non-compliance with these criteria evaluated by "Yes" or "no".
4. If the application is missing information or it is ambiguous, as a result, the Agency can not accurately determine compliance with 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 17 administrative evaluation criteria, the Agency, in writing, request the project applicant supplemental information or explanation. Project applicant supplemental information or explanation must be submitted within three working days after submission of the project compliance with this criterion assessed.
5. the project application, which following an does not match one of those laid down in paragraph 4, the administrative evaluation criteria, not further assessed.
6. project submissions that meet all defined in paragraph 4, the administrative evaluation criteria, the Agency shall make available to the Ministry of Welfare-tier intermediary institution (hereinafter the Ministry) for further evaluation.
7. On the outcome of the project shall be informed in writing of the Agency.
8. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment shall be carried out by the Ministry created the Commission of evaluation with a view to determining whether and to what extent the project submission content comply with the structural policy objectives, will provide adequate investment in the implementation of employment policies, as well as provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
9. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment and quality applied to specific evaluation criteria. Quality and specific evaluation criteria system and application methodology (criteria and applicable detail the maximum number of points of the assessment) is determined by the Ministry.
10. the quality evaluation criteria in some cases are detailed in apakškritērijo and grouped into four sections. Compliance with criterion/apakškritērij evaluates to the number of points from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".
11. If, following the assessment of the conformity of the application of the project title 1 "project budget, cost justification and effectiveness", the quality evaluation criteria overall rating of this section's score is less than 15 points (or the maximum 75% of the total assessment score), project submissions not evaluated further.
12. application of the quality of the project evaluation criteria maximum total assessment score may reach 100 points in the common criteria represents 70% of the property you weight.
13. project application-specific evaluation criteria maximum total assessment score may also reach 100 points, and the common criteria in the system they represent 30% of the share.
14. the final evaluation of the application of the project consists of the quality evaluation criteria the total proportion of points (up to 70%) and project-specific evaluation criteria overall assessment points (up to 30%) the proportion of the amount, according to which the project submissions ranked in order of priority, starting with the highest point of the assessment.
15. The project approval Guide, if the common criteria in the overall rating system is equal or exceeding the 75% point of the evaluation and its financing is possible for the implementation of the open competition within the available funding.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 16. Administrative evaluation criteria: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. do the guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and they have appropriate references?


3.

The project application submitted original is cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design?


4. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application and have the appropriate references?


5. is the project submission prepared text?


6. is the project submission prepared for the Latvian language?


7. submissions or the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form and a copy of the application the project content is relevant to the original application for the project?


8. do all project submissions page is numbered and a copy of the application page of the project numbering corresponds to the original submission of the project?


9. application of the project includes all of the guidelines set out in the annex?


10. Does the project financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly designed?


11. do the eligible project expenditure items correspond to the guidelines set out the eligible costs?


12. the requested total eligible cost does not exceed the maximum amount of the projects and the co-financing of the European Union shall not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing?


13. the deadline for implementation of the project comply with the guidelines specified in project implementation period and it does not go beyond 30 June 2008?


Requesting administrative project evaluation criteria No.
Criteria Yes No 14.
Or the project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor?


15. do the guidelines are linked to certain (they) partner (s) and other partners have planned accordingly (if applicable)?


16. Does the project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (it is not a tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt and it participates in the co-financing of measures by the State to make social security payments for work unemployed involved in practice)?


17. is the project application and receipt of the Declaration is signed by the responsible person with signature rights?


17. quality evaluation criteria No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 20 1.1.
Project expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the 10 project 1.1.1.
Project expenditure (by cost categories) is reasonable and necessary to the project's objectives and results 5 1.1.2.
The project budget is real (corresponding to the average market cost) and appropriate for the intended period of time 5 1.2.
The project planned spending and expected results of cross compliance 10 1.2.1.
The project's financial capacity is proportional to/commensurate with the expected results of the project 5 1.2.2.
Project costs are planned according to the audited value generated 5 2.
2.1 compliance with the 20 projects.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document (SPD) and the programme complement (PP) 3., 3.1. priority measures and 3.1.2.2. for 5 apakšaktivitāt 2.2.
The project application of and compliance with the structural policy objectives 15 horizontal 2.2.1.
The project will promote the implementation of gender equality – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect on gender equality 5 2.2.2.
The project will contribute to regional development – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field regional development 5 2.2.3.
The project will contribute to the formation of the information society – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field of the information society 5 3.
Project justification 40 3.1.
Project application based on the chosen target group needs and shows the practical problems of the target groups of 10 3.1.1.
The project provides an analysis of the situation of the industry (in the system), including the rationale for the particular target group selection 5 3.1.2.
The project has identified the selected target group problems, identify potential risks and conditions, as well as the type and action appears selected target groups needs 5 3.2.
Benefits planned in the application of the project, the expected results and indicators are defined precisely, measurable and provides target groups needs 15 3.2.1.
The project contains the selected target groups (the person to whom directed project activity) total number and, where possible, their age, sex and educational level 5 3.2.2.
The project is expected to be tested for the evaluation of the results indicators (qualitative/quantitative indicators) 5 3.2.3.
The project will demonstrate the sustainability of the results expected (the project implementer has the necessary structures and personālresurs, as well as financial resources, to continue to provide support to a selected target group after completion of the project) 5 3.3.
Project activities is proportionate with the expected timetable for their implementation and ensure high-quality results 10 3.3.1.
Project contains detailed work plan (activities to be performed are structured sets, follow each other in a logical sequence, t.sk. is dedicated to project management activities), which takes into account the potential risks, and provides sufficient prerequisites for successful project implementation time of 5 3.3.2.
Project activities provided for in the exchange of experience and dissemination of information and contribute to the expected results of the propagation and expansion of 5 3.4.
The project involves the necessary partners and their choices are reasonable (described in the planned cooperation model of the selected target group fundraising and/or implementation of activities defined by the partners; a role and responsibility in the implementation of specific activities of the project the applicant attached; and partner cooperation agreements or arrangements for the implementation of a project) 5 4.
Project implementation capacity 20 4.1.
The project is reflected in its implementation and 4.1.1 the administration mechanisms 10.
Project implementation and administration are available the necessary specialists (specialists, professional qualifications and obligations during project implementation) 5 4.1.2.
The project is described in the materials for the use of the technical base model and planned material technical support are appropriate for the chosen target group needs 5 4.2.
Project quality assessment system is sufficient and adequate (described in internal control techniques and methods for the evaluation of quality) 5 4.3.
The project planned in the publicity and information dissemination activities are sufficiently and suitably (described in the planned publicity and information dissemination activities of the project and the results achieved within it; how will be applied according to the visibility of the European Social Fund marks) 5 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The project employed a young unemployed skaits1 30 2.
The project seeks to ensure a certain number of permanent jobs for the young people involved in the project for the unemployed by project beigām2 40 3.
The reach of the proposed work, coming by public transport from the unemployed young people living vietas3 declared 30 total: 100 notes: 1 10 and over-30; from 5 up to 10-20; up to 5-10% or more of the project 2 60. workers-40; from 30% to 60% of the project workers-30; up to 30% of the project workers-20.3, not more than 1 hour in one direction-30; up to 1.5 hour in one direction – 20; up to 2 hours in one direction-10. Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of annex 6 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.1. Employment promotion event "3.1.5. promoting Research activities" ". apakšaktivitāt" working 3.1.5.2 market research project "application evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedures 1 submission evaluation project implemented in two stages 1.1. the project: application for administrative review;
1.2. when assessing the project application, the quality and relevance of the specific evaluation criteria.
2. the application of the administrative project check out State employment agency – second level intermediate (further – the Agency). Administrative purpose is to assess whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the guidelines of the open competition (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines).
3. the application of the administrative Project check apply administrative evaluation criteria. Project submission compliance or non-compliance with these criteria evaluated by "Yes" or "no".

4. If the application is missing information or it is ambiguous, as a result, the Agency can not accurately determine compliance with 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 17 administrative evaluation criteria, the Agency, in writing, request the project applicant supplemental information or explanation. Project applicant supplemental information or explanation must be submitted within three working days after submission of the project compliance with this criterion assessed.
5. the project application, which following an does not match one of the specified in paragraph 4, the administrative evaluation criteria, not further assessed.
6. project submissions that meet all defined in paragraph 4, the administrative evaluation criteria, the Agency shall make available to the Ministry of Welfare-tier intermediary institution (hereinafter the Ministry) for further evaluation.
7. On the outcome of the project shall be informed in writing of the Agency.
8. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment shall be carried out by the Ministry created the Commission of evaluation with a view to determining whether and to what extent the project submission content comply with the structural policy objectives, will provide adequate investment in the implementation of employment policies, as well as provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
9. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment and quality applied to specific evaluation criteria. Quality and specific evaluation criteria system and application methodology (criteria and applicable detail the maximum number of points of the assessment) is determined by the Ministry.
10. the quality evaluation criteria in some cases are detailed in apakškritērijo and grouped into four sections. Compliance with criterion/apakškritērij evaluates to the number of points from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".
11. If, following the assessment of the conformity of the application of the project title 1 "project budget, cost justification and effectiveness", the quality evaluation criteria overall rating of this section's score is less than 15 points (or the maximum 75% of the total assessment score), project submissions not evaluated further.
12. application of the quality of the project evaluation criteria maximum total assessment score may reach 100 points in the common criteria 70%.
13. submission of project-specific assessment criteria the assessment total maximum score can also reach 100 points, and the common criteria in the system they represent 30% of the share.
14. the final evaluation of the application of the project consists of the quality evaluation criteria the total proportion of points (up to 70%) and project-specific evaluation criteria overall assessment points (up to 30%) the proportion of the amount, according to which the project submissions ranked in order of priority, starting with the highest point of the assessment.
15. project submissions for approval, if the total driven criteria system in its overall rating is equal to or greater than 75% the proportion of evaluation points and its financing is possible for the implementation of the open competition within the available funding.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 16. Administrative evaluation criteria: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. do the guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and they have appropriate references?


3. the application of the project or to submit the original is cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design?


4. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application and have the appropriate references?


5. submission of completed projects into?


6. is the project the application filled in the Latvian language?


7. submissions or the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form and a copy of the application the project content is relevant to the original application for the project?


8. do all project submissions page is numbered and a copy of the application page of the project numbering corresponds to the original submission of the project?


9. application of the project includes all of the guidelines set out in the annex?


10. Does the project financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly designed?


11 or the eligible project expenditure items correspond to the guidelines set out the eligible costs?


12. the requested total eligible cost does not exceed the maximum amount of the projects and the co-financing of the European Union shall not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing?


13. the implementation of the project in time to meet the guidelines specified in project implementation period and it does not go beyond 30 June 2008?


Requesting administrative project evaluation criteria No.
Criteria Yes No 14.
Or the applicant's public administration, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor?


15. do the guidelines are linked to certain (they) partner (s) and other partners have planned accordingly (if applicable)?


16. Does the project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (it is not a tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt)?


17. is the project application and receipt of the Declaration is signed by the responsible person with signature rights?


17. quality evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 20 1.1.
Project expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the 10 project 1.1.1.
Project expenditure (by cost categories) is reasonable and necessary to the project's objectives and results 5 1.1.2.
The project budget is real (corresponding to the average market cost) and appropriate for the intended period of time 5 1.2.
The project planned spending and expected results of cross compliance 10 1.2.1.
The project's financial capacity is proportional to/commensurate with the expected results of the project 5 1.2.2.
Project costs are planned according to the audited value generated 5 2.
Compliance of the project 20 2.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document (SPD) and the programme complement (PPS) priority 3, measure 3.1 and apakšaktivitāt to 5 2.2 3.1.5.2.
The project application of and compliance with the structural policy objectives 15 horizontal 2.2.1.
The project will promote the implementation of gender equality – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect on gender equality 5 2.2.2.
The project will contribute to regional development – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field regional development 5 2.2.3.
The project will contribute to the formation of the information society – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field of the information society 5 3.
Project justification 40 3.1.
Project application based on the chosen research topic and the relevance of the method used 10 3.1.1.
The project provides an analysis of the situation of the industry (in the system), including the rationale for the particular research subject selection 5 3.1.2.
The project chosen research methods are scientifically based and optimal study objective 5 3.2.
Benefits planned in the application of the project, the expected results and indicators are defined and precisely measurable 15 3.2.1.
The project is quantified in the performed activities in the course of the study (step) benefits 5 3.2.2.
The project is expected to be tested for the evaluation of the results indicators (qualitative/quantitative indicators) 5 3.2.3.
The project will demonstrate the sustainability of the results expected (the project implementer has the necessary structures and personālresurs of the use of the results of the study) 5 3.3.
Project activities is proportionate with the expected timetable for their implementation and ensure high-quality results 10 3.3.1.
Project contains detailed work plan (activities to be performed are structured sets, follow each other in a logical sequence, t.sk. is dedicated to project management activities), which takes into account the potential risks, and provides sufficient prerequisites for successful project implementation time of 5 3.3.2.
Project activities provided for in the exchange of experience and dissemination of information and contribute to the expected results of the propagation and expansion of 5 3.4.
The project involves the necessary partners and their choices are reasonable (described in the planned cooperation model; define partner roles and responsibilities in the implementation of specific activities of the project the applicant attached; and partner cooperation agreements or arrangements for the implementation of a project) (if attiecināms1) 5 4.
Project implementation capacity 20 4.1.
The project is reflected in its implementation and 4.1.1 the administration mechanisms 10.

Project implementation and administration are available the necessary specialists (specialists, professional qualifications and obligations during project implementation) 5 4.1.2.
The project is described in the materials for the use of the technical base model and planned material technical support are appropriate for the chosen target group needs 5 4.2.
Project quality assessment system is sufficient and adequate (described in internal control techniques and methods for the evaluation of quality) 5 4.3.
The project planned in the publicity and information dissemination activities are sufficiently and suitably (described in the planned publicity and information dissemination activities of the study and the results achieved within it; how will be applied according to the visibility of the European Social Fund marks) 5 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The study is to be used for employment policy development and implementation at the local level 40 2.
The results of the study of usability rādītāji2 30 notes: 1 If the involvement of the partners in the project are not eligible, eligibility criteria for assessment the assessment to be granted for the maximum number of points (5 points).
2 results in a specific sector only applied within the company/institution which is the client of the study – 10; the results are also applicable to other businesses/institutions-20; the results are applicable to any businesses/institutions-30.3.
The study is scheduled for a theme that does not have an analogue study 15 4.
Added statement of work developed for the conduct of the study 15 total: 100 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš Ministry of finance presented in annex 7 versions of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.1. Employment promotion event "3.1.5. promoting Research activities" ". apakšaktivitāt" study 3.1.5.3 promotion for socially excluded groups in the labour market situation "project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme of the project tender submissions in accordance with the society integration Fund (hereinafter Fund) approved guidelines.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the procedure approved by the Fund "arrangements for the European Social Fund grant scheme application for evaluation of projects".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant guidelines of the scheme (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines) within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes the rules and guidelines. Administrative screening carried out by establishing the Fund: project submission 5.1 compliance;
5.2. project eligibility of the applicant.
6. submission of compliance of the project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with criterion 1 evaluates to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13. criterion assessed with "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall be not less than two working days, request additions or corrections, and project submissions valued conformity. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further evaluations will not move.
7. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the 1, 2, or 3. criteria evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with criterion 4. evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall not be less than two business days requesting additions or clarification, and eligibility of the applicant for the project evaluated. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further evaluation do not move.
8. If the application is recognized as the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
9. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific application of the project grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
10. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
11. project quality and specific application evaluation carried out Welfare-Ministry of first level intermediate – created the Commission for the purpose of evaluation to assess whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
12. quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
13. quality evaluation criteria are divided into chapters, all of which form the hundred point system. Each quality criterion of evaluation scores from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "very poor"; 2 or "weak"; 3 or "satisfactory"; 4 or "OK"; 5 or "very good".
14. project submissions assessed three rounds: 14.1. financial and management capacity assessments, project submissions that this round has not got at least 12 point or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move;
14.2. the significance of the evaluation-project submissions that this round has not got at least 24 points or "good", further evaluations will not move;
14.3. the evaluation according to the other criteria, the methodology section of the sustainability, budget and cost effectiveness. Project submissions that the budget and cost effectiveness the evaluation has not got at least 6 points or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move.
15. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
16. the assessment of the application of the project's total score for the 80% overall quality of evaluation criteria score and 20% of the specific evaluation criteria the evaluation score. The list of projects to be approved the application, the project of prioritising submissions, which got the largest overall number of rating points.
17. If the application does not meet the quality and specific evaluation criteria, the Fund sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality of the discrepancy and specific evaluation criteria.
18. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 19. Administrative evaluation criteria: Project application 19.1. compliance: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set by the guidelines 2.
The guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and the relevant indicator 3.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design 4.
Project submissions are completed project submission form electronic version 5.
Project submission prepared text 6.
Project submission prepared for the Latvian language 7.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form for 8.
Application of the project includes all of the guidelines specify attachments: • a project Charter or statute of the applicant;
• partner/s of the statute or Charter, copy (if applicable);
• project registration certificate of the applicant's copy (if applicable);
• partner/u copy of the registration certificate (if applicable);
• the applicant's latest project annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);
• the youngest partner/s annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);
• the project the applicant taxpayer registry certificate;
• partner/u taxpayer registry in certificate (if applicable);
• project implementation and administration of the project applicant and partner/u (if applicable) the employee resume

• the applicant and the project partner/u is signed declaration of partnership (if applicable) 9.
Project application form of the financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats and it accurately and correctly arithmetic developed 10.
Project application form of the expenditure items corresponds to a schema description for gravel in the 11.
The requested total eligible cost does not exceed the maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing, 75% 12.
The period of project implementation meet specified guidelines for implementation and does not go beyond 30 June 2008 13.
Planned activities will be implemented in the Republic of Latvia, 19.2. Project: No eligibility of the applicant.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, LR registered legal person or sole proprietor 2.
The partners involved in the project is the national regulatory authority, municipality, local authority, LR registered legal person or sole proprietor (if applicable) 3.
The project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt) 4.
The project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights 20. quality evaluation criteria: maximum assessment section, points 1. and Financial management capacity (project submissions for these criteria is evaluated, only if the applicant is a project of the study) or the applicant 20 1.1 and partner/s (if applicable) has sufficient experience in project management?
5 1.2 How is the project the applicant sufficient technical expertise (i.e., knowledge of the issues that will be addressed)?
2 x 51 1.3 How sufficient is the applicant's current project management capacity (including personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget)?
the importance of the project 30 5 2.2.1 extent to which the project submission complies with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures for the activity?
5 2.2 the importance of national or regional project/u special needs and problem solving (t.sk. ensure no overlap and interaction with other EC initiatives)?
10 2.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen is subject or object of the study?
5 2.4 how important is the project for the selected target group (which meant the results) needs?
application of 2.5 or 5 projects comply with the structural policy horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society)?
25 5 3. Methodology 3.1 the extent to which the proposed activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results?
5 3.2 How logical is a common project structure (see the analysis of the problems to be solved, including the context with a single programming document, the programme complement and other planning and policy documents)?
5 3.3 How sufficient is partner/u (if applicable) the involvement and the degree of activity?
Note: if not, then the partner/s will be the number of points 3.
5 3.4 or project submission shows the monitoring mechanism of the project and how is it adequate?
5 3.5 extent to project involves the application objectively verifiable project results and impact indicators?
15 5 4. Sustainability 4.1 to what extent the project will affect the target group?
5 4.2 the extent to which the proposed submission includes options multiplikatīv effects (including the reproduction of the results of the project and the dissemination and distribution of information)?
5 4.3 the extent to which the results of the project are sustainable:-policy level (where applicable) (what will be the impact of the structural project, i.e., whether the project will improve the law, codes of conduct, methods, etc.?)
5 5. Budget and cost effectiveness 5.1 How satisfactory are 10 relationship between costs and results of the project?
5 5.2 extent to which the expected costs are necessary for the implementation of the project?
5 the maximum total score 100 Note: compliance with quality evaluation criterion no. 1.2. evaluate to determine the number of points (up to 5 points), which in addition to the weighted ratio is adjusted (i.e. multiplied by 2).
21. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
The study is the basis of the employment and social inclusion policy formation and implementation at the local level 30 2.
The results of the study of usability rādītāji2 30 3.
The study builds on existing research analysis and exclude duplication of research 20 4.
The study is scheduled for a theme that does not have an analogue study 10 5.
Added statement of work developed for the conduct of the study 10 total: 100 Note: 2 results only in a specific sector applicable company/institution which is the client of the study – 10; the results are also applicable to other businesses/institutions-20; the results are applicable to any businesses/institutions-30. The Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of Annex 8 of the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" "education and further education development" 3.2.1. activity "education improvement in initial vocational education of important economic sectors" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. the procedure for the evaluation of the structural funds project 1 submission (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds According to the project application: 1.1 the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 of the administrative assessment required criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed between the first level of evaluation niekinstitūcij according to the project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of the criteria for assigning a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application:

9.1. for each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than four points and 9.2. has won no less than 52 (fifty two) or 80% (eighty percent) of the total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to range from 1 to 13.30 submission of the project quality and the specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. The project application to the list, which is directed by a Management Committee for coordination, include project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is directed by a Management Committee for harmonization in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 16. Administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is State and local vocational training institutions, which are registered in educational institutions of the Republic of Latvia in the register 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria Yes No 1.
Expected program involved (times) the number of students not less than 24 (or 16 in the case of the art programme). (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored)


No PO box
The criterion score rating 2.
Expected program involved (times) the number of students the maximum number of points-10 2.1.
48 and over 10 2.2.
Less than 48 5 3.
The project concerned the applicant's experience in the implementation of the programme of vocational training, the maximum number of points-30 3.1.
Accredited program and accredited educational institution in the relevant thematic group of the 30 programs 3.2.
Accredited program in the relevant thematic group of 20 programme 3.3.
Licensed program in the relevant thematic group program 10 total 40 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 9. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" "education and further education development" 3.2.3. activity "of higher education study of the improvement of science and technology-intensive Sciences" apakšaktivitāt "Studio 3.2.3.2. programmes and improving the quality of the study process and technological science intensive programmes" project submission evaluation procedures and criteria for assessment
I. Project application procedures for the evaluation of the structural funds project 1 submission (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds: 1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.

5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed to the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than four points and 9.2. has won no less than 52 (fifty two) or 80% (eighty percent) of the total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to the range 1 to 20.13. project quality and application specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. The project application to the list, which is directed by a Management Committee for coordination, include project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is directed by a Management Committee for harmonization in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is legal registered higher education institution 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The criterion score rating 1.
The intended program involved (times) the number of students in a group is not less than 25 (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) Yes/No 2.
The planned study program, the number of students enrolled in the maximum number of points-10 2.1.
50 and over 10 2.2.
Less than 50 5 3.
Experience relevant to the implementation of the programme of study of the maximum number of points-20 3.1.
Accredited courses and accredited higher education institution 20 3.2.
Accredited courses 15 3.3.
Licensed courses 5 4.
Student involvement in research so the maximum number of points-10 4.1.
Have a system of student involvement in research projects are publications;
10 4.2.
Individual students have participated in research projects 5 the maximum total score 40 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 10. attachment Cabinet

July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" "education and further education development" 3.2.4. Continuing education activities "development of cooperation networks and capacity building, training courses and the development and implementation of modules and the development of the lifelong learning policy" apakšaktivitāt "Training 3.2.4.2. opportunities for important sectors of the economy" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. the procedure for the evaluation of the structural funds project 1 submission (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds According to the project application: 1.1 the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds, the project applicant or grant schemes the project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed between the first level of evaluation niekinstitūcij according to the project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than four points and 9.2. has won no less than 52 (fifty two) or 80% (eighty percent) of the total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to range from 1 to 13.30 submission of the project quality and the specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project promoter is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, in the Republic of Latvia registered legal or natural person 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project submission match 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Application of justification of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.

Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Criteria scoring assessment 1.
Program implementation phase of approval for the number of trainees in a group of not less than 12 (information technology groups-not less than 10) (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) Yes/No 2.
The project the applicant's experience in the implementation of the educational program the maximum number of points-30 2.1.
Have experience in implementation of the accredited program (or programs) during the education thematic group and educational institution is accredited 30 2.2.
Have experience in implementing a programme of accredited education program concerned the thematic group 20 2.3.
Have experience in the implementation of the programme of the relevant licensed education thematic group 10 2.4.
Have experience in implementing non-formal adult education programs 10 3.
The project's compliance with economic development needs maximum points-20 3.1.
Develop and implement the training program is focused on new technologies and the improvement of technological competencies of employees in 20 3.2.
Develop and implement the training program is focused on the competence or the competitiveness of the economic sector concerned 10 3.3.
Develop and implement the training program is focused on the general population or in the information society the necessary competency promotion 10 maximum total score 50 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 11 of the Cabinet's July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" "education and further education development" 3.2.5. activity "support for further training of teachers" 3.2.5.2. activity "support for academic staff and teacher training" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria. Project submission procedures for evaluation of structural funds project 1 submission (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds: 1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed between the first level of evaluation niekinstitūcij according to the project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than four points and 9.2. has won no less than 52 (fifty two) or 80% (eighty percent) of the total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific test, evaluating compliance with the submission of the draft of this annex paragraph 18 project application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to the range 1 to 20.13. project quality and application specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.

The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is an educational institution, the institution of education support professional association, municipality, State, municipal and other authorities responsible for the educator or academic staff training 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The application must clearly indicate how the project will be carried out monitoring (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The criterion score rating 1.
Educators involved in the project (the beneficiary) working in the educational institution and is accredited or licensed involved in the implementation of the programme of education or informal adult education programmes (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) (yes/no) 1.2.
In the case of projects-internship internship corresponds to learn course profile (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) Yes/No 1.3.
In the case of the training project group is not less than 12 educators (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) Yes/No 2.
The teachers involved in the project, vocational education teacher or academic staff teaching experience (estimated for each person involved in the project and summarized project): the maximum number of points-20 2.1.
The person is at least three years of teaching experience 20 2.2.
The person has at least one year of teaching experience 10 2.3.
Person pedagogical experience is shorter than a year 5 3.
The teachers involved in the project, vocational education teacher or academic staff internship or training expected efficiency (estimated for each person involved in the project and summarized project): the maximum number of points-20 3.1.
Internship or training contributes to enhancing the competence of teachers in the teaching/learning study course profile or teaching a bilingual 20 3.2.
Internship or training contributes to the improvement of competence of foreign language teaching or information technology (IT) 10 the maximum total score 40 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 12. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" education and training "development" activity 3.2.6. "strengthening cooperation between the social partners and educational institutions and the quality of training in the" apakšaktivitāt "of the profession 3.2.6.2. standards and examination content development" project application the evaluation procedures and criteria for assessment of project submissions I evaluation order 1. Structural design application (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds: 1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed between the first level of evaluation niekinstitūcij according to the project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.

9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than three points and 9.2. has won no less than 46 points out of a total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to the range from 1 to 25.13. project quality and application specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project promoter is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, in the Republic of Latvia registered legal or natural person 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching a goal, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
The criterion score rating 1.
In the case where a project is designed for the professional standard or approved the content of the examination, the standard or examining renewable content must be approved by at least one year before the filing date of the application for the project (if criteria are not met, the projects below are not scored) Yes/No 2.
The standard of the profession or the examination content development actuality of the maximum number of points-25 2.1.
A new standard or examining content industry, which has been in the industry before the study 25 2.2.
Standard or examining the content updated sector study of the sector is carried out 20 2.3.
A new standard or examining content industry where exploration has not been carried out 10 2.4.
Accepted standard restoration industry where exploration has not been carried out 5 3.
Applicant project experience in the development of the standards of the profession and/or professional learning in evaluation (professional qualification exams) the maximum number of points-10 3.1.
Have the experience (the industry standard in the research, development and test) 10 3.2.
Have experience (research or industry standard drafting or examining) 3.3 5.
No experience (not participated in industry research, development and assessment of standards) 0 4.
Cooperation (project), the organizations involved, the maximum number of points-10 4.1.
Are involved in professional organisations of the sector, at least one educational institution, which implement the relevant profile education programme, and the social partners 10 4.2.
The project applicant is an industry professional organization and is involved in the educational institution or vice versa 5 4.3.
The project involved partners from professional organisations or social partners to 0 the maximum total score 45 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 13. attachment Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" education and training "development" activity 3.2.6. "strengthening cooperation between the social partners and educational institutions and the quality of training in the" apakšaktivitāt "support 3.2.6.3. teaching practice on vocational education and higher education students"
project submission procedures and criteria for the evaluation of project applications I evaluation order 1. Structural design application (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds:

1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed to the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). The project application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than three points and 9.2. has won no less than 46 points out of a total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to the range from 1 to 25.13. project quality and application specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is an educational institution that implements an accredited vocational education, secondary education, vocational training or vocational higher education programs, and professional association 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.

The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
The criterion score rating 1.
Practice of and compliance with the relevant content of vocational education, secondary education, vocational training or vocational higher education program (education programs, which result in the learner acquire professional qualifications) the maximum number of points-15 1.1.
Meet the full 15 1.2.
Meet not less than 70% (if the content is relevant to practice less than 70%, the project does not evaluate) 10 2.
Project experience of the applicant and methodical preparedness: the maximum number of points-20 2.1.
Project applicant has developed the practice of methodological materials 20 2.2.
The project applicant is not fully developed teaching materials and practice for the development of these materials to complete the project within 10 2.3.
The project applicant is not in practice teaching materials and provides these materials to develop the project 5 3.
Practice of the company/organisation providing the maximum number of points-25 3.1.
Accommodating trainees to full 3 months or longer 25 3.2.
Take the trainee to practice from 1 to 3 months 15 3.3.
Take on the period shorter than 1 month 5 4.
Project (in practice) number of persons engaged the maximum number of points-10 4.1.
More than 20 persons 10 4.2.
Fewer than 20 people 5 maximum total score 70 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 14. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion measure 3.2" "education and further training measures in development" activity "career 3.2.7. educational and professional orientation of development measures in education". apakšaktivitāt "Professional 3.2.7.2 orientation and counselling measures in education" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure
1. submission of the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds: 1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed to the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than four points and 9.2. has won no less than 52 (fifty two) or 80% (eighty percent) of the total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific test, evaluating project applications with this paragraph 18 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to the range 1 to 20.13. project quality and application specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing



11. the project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project promoter is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, in the Republic of Latvia registered legal or natural person 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
The criterion score rating 1.
Project applicant's experience in vocational guidance and counselling measures education the maximum number of points-15 1.1.
Experienced 15 1.2.
Has organised events are 1 2 5 1.3.
The partners involved in the project, the maximum number of points-15 2.1.
The project has involved one (or more) educational institutions, Government, and professional organizations and/or employers 15 2.2.
The project involves one partner 10 2.3.
The project is not a partner 1 3.
Projected number of beneficiary the maximum number of points-20 3.1.
More than 150 20 3.2.
100-150 15 3.3.
50-100 10 3.4.
Less than 50 5 maximum total score 50 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 15. Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.1. "the provision of training activities for socially excluded groups, including ICT support for the disabled" apakšaktivitāt "3.3.1.1. Motivation for participation in the training program" project for the evaluation of the application and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme project the application of the tendering procedure, in accordance with the society integration Fund (hereinafter Fund) approved guidelines.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the Fund's approved "to the agenda of the European Social Fund grant scheme application for evaluation of projects".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant guidelines of the scheme (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines) within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes the rules and guidelines. Administrative screening carried out by establishing the Fund: project submission 5.1 compliance;
5.2. project eligibility of the applicant.
6. submission of compliance of the project valued at "Yes" and "no". If the criterion of conformity No 1 evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with any of the criteria no 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13 evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall be not less than two working days, request additions or corrections, and project submissions valued conformity. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further evaluations will not move.
7. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with any of the criteria no. 1; 2; 3 evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with criterion no. 4 evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall not be less than two business days requesting additions or clarification, and eligibility of the applicant for the project evaluated. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further evaluation do not move.
8. If the application is recognized as the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
9. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific application of the project grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
10. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
11. project quality and specific application evaluation carried out Welfare-Ministry of first level intermediate – created the Commission for the purpose of evaluation to assess whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
12. quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
13. quality evaluation criteria are divided into chapters, all of which form the hundred point system. Each quality criterion of evaluation scores from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "very poor"; 2 or "weak"; 3 or "satisfactory"; 4 or "OK"; 5 or "very good".
14. project submissions assessed three rounds: 14.1. financial and management capacity assessments, project submissions that this round has not got at least 12 point or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move;
14.2. the significance of the evaluation-project submissions that this round has not got at least 20 points, or "good", further evaluations will not move;
14.3. the evaluation according to the other criteria sections-methodology, sustainability, budget and cost effectiveness. Project submissions that the budget and cost effectiveness the evaluation has not got at least 6 points or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move.
15. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.

16. the assessment of the application of the project's total score for the 80% overall quality of evaluation criteria score and 20% of the specific evaluation criteria the evaluation score. The list of projects to be approved the application, the project of prioritising submissions, which got the largest overall number of rating points.
17. If the application does not meet the quality and specific evaluation criteria, the Fund sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality of the discrepancy and specific evaluation criteria.
18. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 19. Administrative evaluation criteria: Project application 19.1. compliance: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set by the guidelines 2.
The guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and the relevant indicator 3.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design 4.
Project submissions are completed project submission form electronic version 5.
Project submission prepared text 6.
Project submission prepared for the Latvian language 7.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form for 8.
Application of the project includes all of the guidelines specify attachments: • a draft statute of the applicant and/or a copy of the Statute;


• partner/u and/or rules of the Statute of the copy (if applicable);


• project registration certificate of the applicant's copy (if applicable);


• partner/u copy of the registration certificate (if applicable);


• the applicant's latest project annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the youngest partner/s annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the project the applicant taxpayer registry certificate;


• partner/u taxpayer registry in certificate (if applicable);


• project implementation and administration of the project applicant and partner/u (if applicable) the employee resume;


• the applicant and the project partner/u signed declaration of partnership (if applicable) 9.
Project submission form financial statement is done in dollars, and this is precisely the correct arithmetic and developed 10.
Project application form of the expenditure items corresponds to a schema description for gravel in the 11.
Total eligible costs claimed meet the grant scheme set out in the description of the minimum and maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing-80% 12.
The period of project implementation meet specified guidelines for implementation and does not go beyond 30 June 2008 13.
Planned activities will be implemented in the Republic of Latvia, 19.2. Project: No eligibility of the applicant.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor 2.
The partners involved in the project is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, the municipal authority, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor (if applicable) 3.
The project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt) 4.
The project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights 20. quality evaluation criteria: section the maximum number of points 1. Financial and management capacity 20 1.1 Or to the applicant and the project partner/s (if applicable) has sufficient experience in project management?
5 1.2 How is the project the applicant sufficient technical expertise (i.e., knowledge of the issues that will be addressed)?
2 x 51 1.3 How sufficient is the applicant's current project management capacity (including personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget)?
significance of project 25 5 2 2.1 extent to which the project submission complies with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures for the activity?
5 2.2 the importance of national or regional project/u special needs and problem solving (URt.sk., do not overlap and interaction with other initiatives of the European Community)?
5 2.3 as clearly defined and how strategic is selected correctly in the target group?
5 2.4 how important is the project for the selected target group needs?
application of 2.5 or 5 projects comply with the structural policy horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society)?
30 5 3. Methodology 3.1 the extent to which the proposed activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results?
5 3.2 How logical is a common project structure (URt.sk., the analysis of the problems to be solved include the context with a single programming document, the programme complement and other planning and policy documents)?
5 3.3 How sufficient is the partner/s involvement and activity level?
Note: if not, then the partner/s will be the number of points 3.
5 3.4 How satisfactory are the target group participation in project activities?
5 3.5 or the application shows the monitoring mechanism of the project and how is it adequate?
5 2.2 to what extent the application of the project include the project objectively verifiable results and impact indicators?
15 5 4. Sustainability 4.1 to what extent the project will affect the target group?
5 4.2 the extent to which the proposed submission includes options multiplikatīv effects (including the reproduction of the results of the project and the dissemination and distribution of information)?
5 4.3 the extent to which the results of the project are sustainable:-financially (How the activity will be funded after the end of project funding?)-institutional (or activity requires structures have been established to give the project end? Or the results of the project will belong to the local organization?)
-at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the impact of the structural project, i.e., whether the project will improve the law, codes of conduct, methods, etc.?)
5 5. Budget and cost effectiveness 5.1 How satisfactory are 10 relationship between costs and results of the project?
5 5.2 extent to which the expected costs are necessary for the implementation of the project?
5 the maximum total score 100 Note: 1 compliance with quality criteria for vßērtēšan No 1.2. evaluate to determine the number of points (up to 5 points), which in addition to the weighted ratio is adjusted (i.e. multiplied by 2).
21. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
For a complex approach in solving customer problems, including the various sectors and institutions cooperation between professionals in the provision of services to sequential 40 2.
Project submission contains good practices and new approaches to motivation program nodrošināšanā2 30 Note: 2 application project contains good practice transfer motivation program delivery-15; the application contains new approaches in providing motivation program – 15; the application contains both the good practices and new approaches of motivation program delivery-30.3.
The service is provided to customers in the territory of residence of the 30 total: 100 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 16. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.2. activities "subsidised jobs" project submission evaluation criteria Project application. the procedure for the evaluation of the submission evaluation Project 1 is implemented in two steps 1.1. the project: application for administrative review;
1.2. when assessing the project application, the quality and relevance of the specific evaluation criteria.
2. the application of the administrative project check out State employment agency as a second-level intermediate (further – the Agency). Administrative purpose is to assess whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the guidelines of the open competition (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines).
3. the application of the administrative Project check apply administrative evaluation criteria. Project submission compliance or non-compliance with these criteria evaluated by "Yes" or "no".

4. If the application is missing information or it is ambiguous, as a result, the Agency could not accurately assess compliance with the criteria for the evaluation, the administrative agency shall request in writing to the project the applicant supplemental information or explanation. Project applicant supplemental information or explanation must be submitted within three working days after submission of the compliance of the project administrative evaluation criteria evaluated repeatedly.
5. the project application, which following an does not match one of the assessment criteria for administrative, not further assessed.
6. project submissions that meet all of the criteria for the evaluation, the administrative agency shall transfer to the Ministry of Welfare as a first level intermediate (hereinafter the Ministry) for further evaluation.
7. On the outcome of the project shall be informed in writing of the Agency.
8. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment shall be carried out by the Ministry created the Commission of evaluation with a view to determining whether and to what extent the project submission content comply with the structural policy objectives, will provide adequate investment in the implementation of employment policies, as well as provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
9. application of the quality of the project and the specific conformity assessment and quality applied to specific evaluation criteria. Quality and specific evaluation criteria system and application methodology (criteria and applicable detail the maximum number of points of the assessment) is determined by the Ministry.
10. the quality evaluation criteria in some cases are detailed in apakškritērijo and grouped into four sections. Compliance with criterion/apakškritērij evaluates to the number of points from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".
11. If, following the assessment of the conformity of the application of the project title 1 "project budget, cost justification and effectiveness", the quality evaluation criteria overall rating of this section's score is less than 15 points (or the maximum 75% of the total assessment score), project submissions not evaluated further.
12. application of the quality of the project evaluation criteria maximum total assessment score may reach 100 points in the common criteria 70%.
13. submission of project-specific assessment criteria the assessment total maximum score can also reach 100 points, and the common criteria in the system they represent 30% of the share.
14. the final evaluation of the application of the project consists of the quality evaluation criteria the total proportion of points (up to 70%) and project-specific evaluation criteria overall assessment points (up to 30%) the proportion of the amount, according to which the project submissions ranked in order of priority, starting with the highest point of the assessment.
15. project submissions for approval, if the total driven criteria system in its overall rating is equal to or greater than 75% the proportion of evaluation points and its financing is possible for the implementation of the open competition within the available funding.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 16. Administrative evaluation criteria: No.
Criteria Yes No 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. the submission or the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form?


3. is the project application filled in text?


4. is the project the application filled in the Latvian language?


5. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application?


6. the application of the project or to submit the original is cauršūt (caurauklot)?


7. is filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) count?


8. the project application Or add all accompanying documents?


9. project application is accompanied by all the guidelines specified in the annex?


10. does the project budget is calculated in Latvian lats (LVL)?


11. is the project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified format?


12. project cost calculation is detailed?


13. project budget conforms to the requirements of the guidelines/eligible costs eligible?


14. do the requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing?


15. do not exceed the project implementation period of the program end date (31 December 2008)?


Applicant No.
Criteria Yes No 16.
Or the applicant is a legal person?


17. Does the project applicant is registered in Latvia?


18. Is the project the applicant has sufficient financial resources for the implementation of the project?


19. the applicant Or partner/i meet the guidelines project applicant partner requirements? 1 20.
Or project submission (receipt) is signed by the responsible person with signature rights?


Note: 1 apply to projects whose implementation is for partnership 17. Quality evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 20 1.1.
The project scheduled tasks is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the 10 project 1.1.1.
Project expenditure (by cost categories) is reasonable and necessary to the project's objectives and results 5 1.1.2.
The project budget is real (corresponding to the average market cost) and appropriate for the intended period of time 5 1.2.
The project planned spending and expected results of cross compliance 10 1.2.1.
The project's financial capacity is proportional to/commensurate with the expected results of the project 5 1.2.2.
Project costs are planned according to the audited value generated 5 2.
2.1 compliance with the 20 projects.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the application of Appendix 3. priority measures and 3.3 3.3.2. activity 5 2.2.
The project application of and compliance with the structural policy objectives 15 horizontal 2.2.1.
The project will promote the implementation of gender equality – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect on gender equality 5 2.2.2.
The project will contribute to regional development – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field regional development 5 2.2.3.
The project will contribute to the formation of the information society – will eliminate existing barriers, improve the situation and will produce a positive effect in the field of the information society 5 3.
Project justification 40 3.1.
Project application based on the chosen target group needs and shows the practical problems of the target groups of 10 3.1.1.
The project provides an analysis of the situation of the industry (in the system), including the rationale for the particular target group selection 5 3.1.2.
The project has identified the selected target group problems, identify potential risks and conditions, as well as the type and action appears selected target groups needs 5 3.2.
Benefits planned in the application of the project, the expected results and indicators are defined precisely, measurable and provides target groups needs 15 3.2.1.
The project contains the selected target groups (the person to whom directed project activity) total number and, where possible, their age, sex and educational level 5 3.2.2.
The project is expected to be tested for the evaluation of the results indicators (qualitative/quantitative indicators) 5 3.2.3.
The project will demonstrate the sustainability of the results expected (the project implementer has the necessary structures and personālresurs, as well as financial resources, to continue to provide support to a selected target group after completion of the project) 5 3.3.
Project activities is proportionate with the expected timetable for their implementation and ensure high-quality results 10 3.3.1.
Project contains detailed work plan (activities to be performed are structured sets, follow each other in a logical sequence, t.sk. is dedicated to project management activities), which takes into account the potential risks, and provides sufficient prerequisites for successful project implementation time of 5 3.3.2.
Project activities provided for in the exchange of experience and dissemination of information and contribute to the expected results of the propagation and expansion of 5 3.4.
The project involves the necessary partners and their choices are reasonable (described in the planned cooperation model of the selected target group fundraising and/or implementation of activities defined by the partners; the role and responsibility of a specific activity; projektaiesnieg the applicant and added partner agreement or cooperation agreement for the implementation of a project) 5 4.
Project implementation capacity 20 4.1.
The project is reflected in its implementation and 4.1.1 the administration mechanisms 10.
Project implementation and administration are available the necessary specialists (specialists, professional qualifications and obligations during project implementation) 5 4.1.2.

The project is described in the materials for the use of the technical base model and planned material technical support are appropriate for the chosen target group needs 5 4.2.
Project quality assessment system is sufficient and adequate (described in internal control techniques and methods for the evaluation of quality) 5 4.3.
The project planned in the publicity and information dissemination activities are sufficiently and suitably (described in the planned publicity and information dissemination activities of the project and the results achieved within it; how will be applied according to the visibility of the European Social Fund marks) 5 19. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The project employed unemployed skaits2 35 2.
The project involves a certain willingness to provide permanent jobs for the unemployed on a project by project beigām3 40 3.
The reach of the proposed work, coming by public transport from the unemployment of vietas4 declared 25 total: 100 comments: 2 10 and more-35; from 5 up to 10-20; up to 5-10.3 60% and more of the project workers – 40; from 30% to 60% of the project workers-30; up to 30% of the project workers-20.4, not more than 1 hour in one direction – 25; up to 1.5 hour in one direction – 15; up to 2 hours in one direction-10. Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of Annex 17. Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.3. activity "business and the development of self-employment, including information and communication support for people with disabilities" project submission evaluation criteria application evaluation of projects I order 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme of the project tender submissions in accordance with the society integration Fund (hereinafter Fund) approved guidelines.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the Fund's approved "to the agenda of the European Social Fund grant scheme application for evaluation of projects".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria 3.2. evaluating project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant guidelines of the scheme (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines) within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes the rules and guidelines. Administrative screening carried out by establishing the Fund: project submission 5.1 compliance;
5.2. project eligibility of the applicant.
6. submission of compliance of the project valued at "Yes" and "no". If the criterion of conformity No 1 evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with any of the criteria no 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13 evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall be not less than two working days, request additions or corrections, and project submissions valued conformity. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further evaluations will not move.
7. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with any of the criteria no. 1; 2; 3 evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with criterion no. 4 evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall not be less than two business days requesting additions or clarification, and eligibility of the applicant for the project evaluated. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further evaluation do not move.
8. If the application is recognized as the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
9. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific application of the project grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
10. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
11. Grant Scheme application quality and project specific evaluation carried out Welfare Ministry-first level intermediate – created the Commission for the purpose of evaluation to assess whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
12. quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
13. quality evaluation criteria are divided into chapters, all of which form the hundred point system. Each quality criterion of evaluation scores from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "very poor"; 2 or "weak"; 3 or "satisfactory"; 4 or "OK"; 5 or "very good".
14. project submissions assessed three rounds: 14.1. financial and management capacity assessments, project submissions that this round has not got at least 12 point or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move;
14.2. the significance of the evaluation-project submissions that this round has not got at least 20 points, or "good", further evaluations will not move;
14.3. the evaluation according to the other criteria sections-methodology, sustainability, budget and cost effectiveness. Project submissions that the budget and cost effectiveness the evaluation has not got at least 6 points or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move.
15. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
16. the assessment of the application of the project's total score for the 80% overall quality of evaluation criteria score and 20% of the specific evaluation criteria the evaluation score. The list of projects to be approved the application, the project of prioritising submissions, which got the largest overall number of rating points.
17. If the application does not meet the quality and specific evaluation criteria, the Fund sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality of the discrepancy and specific evaluation criteria.
18. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 19. Administrative evaluation criteria: Project application 19.1. compliance: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set by the guidelines 2.
The guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and the relevant indicator 3.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design 4.
Project submissions are completed project submission form electronic version 5.
Project submission prepared text 6.
Project submission prepared for the Latvian language 7.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form for 8.
Application of the project includes all of the guidelines specify attachments: • a project Charter or statute of the applicant;


• partner/s of the statute or Charter, copy (if applicable);


• project registration certificate of the applicant's copy (if applicable);


• partner/u copy of the registration certificate (if applicable);


• the applicant's latest project annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the youngest partner/s annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the project the applicant taxpayer registry certificate;


• partner/u taxpayer registry in certificate (if applicable);


• project implementation and administration of the project applicant and partner/u (if applicable) the employee resume;


• the applicant and the project partner/u signed declaration of partnership (if applicable) 9.
Project submission form financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 10.

Project application form of the expenditure items corresponds to a schema description for gravel in the 11.
Total eligible costs claimed meet the grant scheme set out in the description of the minimum and maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing – 80% 12.
The period of project implementation meet specified guidelines for implementation and does not go beyond 30 June 2008 13.
Planned activities will be implemented in the Republic of Latvia, 19.2. Project: No eligibility of the applicant.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor 2.
The partners involved in the project is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, the municipal authority, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor (if applicable) 3.
The project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt) 4.
The project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights 20. quality evaluation criteria: maximum assessment section, points 1. and Financial management capacity 20 1.1 Or the applicant and the project partner/s (if applicable) has sufficient experience in project management?
5 1.2 How is the project the applicant sufficient technical expertise (i.e., knowledge of the issues that will be addressed)?
2 x 51 1.3 How sufficient is the applicant's current project management capacity (including personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget)?
significance of project 25 5 2 2.1 extent to which the project submission complies with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures for the activity?
5 2.2 the importance of national or regional project/u special needs and problem solving (URt.sk., do not overlap and interaction with other initiatives of the European Community)?
5 2.3 as clearly defined and how strategic is selected correctly in the target group?
5 2.4 how important is the project for the selected target group needs?
application of 2.5 or 5 projects comply with the structural policy horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society)?
30 5 3. Methodology 3.1 the extent to which the proposed activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results?
5 3.2 How logical is a common project structure (URt.sk., the analysis of the problems to be solved, including the context with a single programming document, the programme complement and other planning and policy documents)?
5 3.3 How sufficient is the partner/s involvement and activity level?
Note: if not, then the partner/s will be the number of points 3.
5 3.4 How satisfactory are the target group participation in project activities?
5 3.5 or the application shows the monitoring mechanism of the project and how is it adequate?
5 2.2 to what extent the application of the project include the project objectively verifiable results and impact indicators?
15 5 4. Sustainability 4.1 to what extent the project will affect the target group?
5 4.2 the extent to which the proposed submission includes options multiplikatīv effects (including the reproduction of the results of the project and the dissemination and distribution of information)?
5 4.3 the extent to which the results of the project are sustainable:-financially (How the activity will be funded after the end of project funding?)-institutional (or activity requires structures have been established to give the project end? Or the results of the project will belong to the local organization?)
-at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the impact of the structural project, i.e., whether the project will improve the law, codes of conduct, methods, etc.?)
5 5. Budget and cost effectiveness 5.1 How satisfactory are 10 relationship between costs and results of the project?
5 5.2 extent to which the expected costs are necessary for the implementation of the project?
5 the maximum total score 100 Note: 1 compliance with quality evaluation criterion no. 1.2. evaluate to determine the number of points (up to 5 points), which in addition to the weighted ratio is adjusted (i.e. multiplied by 2).
21. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
For a complex approach to the training and organization of the consultation process, including the various sectors and institutions cooperation between professionals 35 2.
Practical skills for learning opportunities (internships, business simulation games, etc.)
40 3.
The service is provided to customers in the territory of residence of the 25 total: 100 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 18. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.4. activity "social work specialist training" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme of the project tender submissions under the administration of social services (hereinafter referred to as the Government) published the announcement and grant schemes approved project application to the contest rules.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the Government approved a "policy of the project application progress".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant project scheme application to tender shall within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes and grants call for proposals of the scheme rules. Take the administrative screening Board defining: 5.1. project eligibility of the applicant;
5.2. project submissions.
6. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question requesting clarification, and supplementary or project met this criteria assessed. If the requested additional information is not provided on time or in the case of repeated checks compliance with this criterion assessed with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further prosecution does not move.
7. project submissions that meet the criteria of eligibility of the applicant, driven by further submission of the draft assessment of conformity.
8. submission of project conformity to judged by the "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question require the addition or correction, and project application of compliance with this criterion is assessed. If retesting in case the criterion assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further consideration does not move.
9. If the application is declared pursuant to the assessment criteria, the administrative authority shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
10. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Board sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
11. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
12. application of the quality of the project and the specific evaluation carried out Welfare Ministry-first level intermediate-create Evaluation Commission with the aim of assessing whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
13. the quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
14. quality evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and quality assessment criteria of maximum rating points share a common scoring system make up 70%.
15. each quality evaluation criteria the evaluation point range is from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".

16. Each project submission evaluation criteria a quality group is a certain minimum number of points, which make up 75% of the maximum number of points.
17. If the submission of the project quality evaluation results in one of the assessment criteria for the quality of the project groups do not reach the minimum number of points (75% of the maximum rating points), project submission further evaluated and recommended for rejection.
18. Specific evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and specific evaluation criteria maximum rating points share a common evaluation system contribute 30%.
19. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
20. the list of projects to be supported by prioritising the project submissions, which got the highest number of points. Project submissions for approval if the project moves the application's final assessment is equal or exceeding the 75% share of the total system of criteria.
21. If the application does not meet the quality of the project and the specific evaluation criteria, the Board sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality or specific evaluation criteria.
22. the decision on refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme may challenge the administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 23. Administrative evaluation criteria: 23.1. the project applicant eligibility: No.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1 is the project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor?


2. is the project partner is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, the municipal authority, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor (if applicable)?


3. Does the project applicant, its partner or service provider is apakškontraktēt, which will implement the education program, provides education and vocational training in the law, the statutory requirements for the implementation of the curriculum?


4. Does the project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt)?


5. does the project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights?


23.2. the project application: no
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. grant scheme has been submitted to the application of the competition rules of the project in the project application, copy (copy) and they have appropriate references?


3. the application of the project or to submit the original is cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design?


4. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application and have the appropriate references?


5. is the project submission prepared text?


6. is the project submission prepared for the Latvian language?


7. submissions or the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form and a copy of the application the project content is relevant to the original application for the project?


8. do all project submissions page is numbered and a copy of the application, the project content and page numbering corresponds to the original submission of the project?


9 or the application is accompanied by all the recommendations and methodological guidance to project grants scheme application form to complete the specified attachments?


10. Does the project financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly designed?


11 does the project eligible expenditure items meet grants scheme set out in the description of eligible costs?


12. the requested total eligible cost does not exceed the maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of 80% co-financing?


13. the deadline for implementation of the project to meet the grant scheme set out in the description of the project and it does not exceed the period as at 30/06/2008?


24. quality evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points 1. project eligibility 1.1.
The project submission complies with the single programming document and the application of Appendix 3. priority UR3.3.pas based, 3.3.4. activity 5 1.2.
The project submission complies with the structural policy objectives — horizontal equal opportunities and the promotion of gender equality, information society development and contribute to the realization of these objectives 5 1.3.
Application of the project correlates with national, regional and local planning documents in the field of solving problems together: 5 15 2. Rationale of the project 2.1.
Project submissions is provided in the analysis of the situation, including the reasons for the choice of the specific activity 5 2.2.
Project application based direct and indirect target group needs and shows practical solutions to problems (have identified social work professionals and the specific population problems, identify potential risks and conditions, as well as the type and action appears selected needs) 5 2.3.
Project activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results (project contains detailed work plan for the activities to be carried out are structured sets, follow each other in a logical sequence, t.sk. is dedicated to project management activities), which takes into account the potential risks, and provides sufficient prerequisites for successful project implementation time of 5 2.4.
Benefits planned in the application of the project, the expected results and indicators (qualitative/quantitative) is precisely defined, measurable, and provide target group needs 5 total: 20 3. Implementation of the project capacity 3.1.
Project applicant has experience in project management for 5 3.2.
Project implementation and administration are available the necessary specialists (specialists, professional qualifications and obligations during project implementation) 5 3.3.
Application of the project project implementation reflect the quality evaluation system and it's sufficient and adequate (described in internal control techniques and methods for the evaluation of quality) 5 3.4.
The results of the project is sustainable financially and institutionally (project implementer has the necessary structures and personālresurs, as well as financial resources, to continue to provide support to a selected target group after completion of the project) 5 3.5.
Project partners involved in selection is justified (described the planned cooperation model; define partner roles and responsibilities in the implementation of specific activities of the project the applicant attached; and partner cooperation agreements or arrangements for the implementation of a project) or the applicant's competency is reasonable (if the project does not involve the cooperation partner) 5 total: 25 4. Project budget, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1.
The project budget is detailed and comply with the established types of eligible costs 5 4.2.
Project budget conforms to the grant scheme set out in the description of eligible costs and amounts 5 4.3.
The estimate for the project is real and relevant average market costs 5 4.4.
The project budget is proportional to the time period provided for 5 4.5.
Project expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the project 5 4.6.
The project's financial capacity is proportional to/commensurate with the planned project results 5 4.7.
Project expenditure planned project activities demonstrate the socio-economic effectiveness 5 4.8
Project costs are planned according to the audited value generated 5 total: 40 total maximum score: 100 25. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
The planned student selection process contributes to the employment of professionals trained specialty at the end of the project 30 2.
The planned training program is focused on working with specific socially excluded population groups, 20 3.
Established practice and evaluation mechanism 30 4.
For good practice and the use of new methods of social work specialist apmācībā1 20 total: 100 Note: 1 for good practice transfer social work specialist training-10; for the use of new methods of social work specialist training – 10; designed for both the good practices in the use of new methods in social work specialist training-20. The Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. submitted version of annex 19. Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" aktiviāt "social 3.3.5. rehabilitation programmes offer expansion, including support to ICT for disabled people"

3.3.5.1. apakšaktivitāt "the expansion of vocational rehabilitation programmes, including information and communication technology support to disabled persons" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant scheme application project tendering procedure, in accordance with the social services Board (hereinafter the Board) published the announcement and grant schemes approved project application to the contest rules.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the Government approved a "policy of the project application progress".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant project scheme application to tender shall within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes and grants call for proposals of the scheme rules. Take the administrative screening Board defining: 5.1. project eligibility of the applicant;
5.2. project submissions.
6. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question requesting clarification, and supplementary or project met this criteria assessed. If the requested additional information is not provided on time or in the case of repeated checks compliance with this criterion assessed with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further prosecution does not move.
7. project submissions that meet the criteria of eligibility of the applicant, driven by further submission of the draft assessment of conformity.
8. submission of project conformity to judged by the "Yes" and "no". If compliance with the criteria assessed by the "no", then on the uncertain question require the addition or correction, and project application of compliance with this criterion is assessed. If retesting in case the criterion assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further consideration does not move.
9. If the application is declared pursuant to the assessment criteria, the administrative authority shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
10. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Board sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
11. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
12. application of the quality of the project and the specific evaluation carried out Welfare Ministry-first level intermediate-create Evaluation Commission with the aim of assessing whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
13. the quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
14. quality evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and quality assessment criteria of maximum rating points share a common scoring system make up 70%.
15. each quality evaluation criteria the evaluation point range is from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "low compliance"; 2 or "low compliance"; 3 or "partial compliance"; 4 or "almost" complete compliance "; 5 or "full compliance".
16. Each project submission evaluation criteria a quality group is a certain minimum number of points, which make up 75% of the maximum number of points in the evaluation.
17. If the submission of the project quality evaluation results in one of the assessment criteria for the quality of the project groups do not reach the minimum number of points (75% of the maximum rating points), project submission further evaluated and recommended for rejection.
18. Specific evaluation criteria overall form a one hundred point system, and specific evaluation criteria maximum rating points share a common evaluation system contribute 30%.
19. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
20. the list of projects to be supported by prioritising the project submissions, which got the highest number of points. Project submissions for approval if the project moves the application's final assessment is equal or exceeding the 75% share of the total system of criteria.
21. If the application does not meet the quality of the project and the specific evaluation criteria, the Board sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality or specific evaluation criteria.
22. the decision on refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme may challenge the administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 23. Administrative evaluation criteria: 23.1. the project applicant eligibility: No.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Or the project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor?


2. is the project partner is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, the municipal authority, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor?


3. Does the project applicant, its partner or service provider is apakškontraktēt, which provides vocational rehabilitation services to meet the Cabinet in 2003, rules 27 May No. 274 "procedures by which a person receives vocational rehabilitation services and requirements for professional rehabilitation service providers ' requirements?


3. Does the project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt)?


4. does the project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights?


23.2. the project application: no
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Or the application is filed within the time limit set?


2. does the project application has been submitted to the competition rules set out in the project application, copy (copy) and they have appropriate references?


3. the application of the project or to submit the original is cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design?


4. If the project is added to the application project of the electronic version of the application and have the appropriate references?


5. is the project submission prepared text?


6. is the project submission prepared for the Latvian language?


7. submissions or the project is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form and a copy of the application the project content is relevant to the original application for the project?


8. do all project submissions page is numbered and a copy of the application, the project content and page numbering corresponds to the original submission of the project?


9 or the application is accompanied by all the recommendations and methodological instructions specified attachments?


10. Does the project financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly designed?


11 or the eligible project expenditure items meet grants scheme set out in the description of eligible costs?


12. the requested total eligible cost does not exceed the maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of 80% co-financing?


13. the deadline for implementation of the project to meet the grant scheme set out in the description of the project and it does not exceed the period as at 30/06/2008?


24. quality evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points 1. project eligibility 1.1.
The project submission complies with the single programming document and the application of Appendix 3. priority UR3.3.pas based, activity 5 1.2 3.3.5.1.
The project submission complies with the structural policy objectives — horizontal equal opportunities and the promotion of gender equality, information society development and contribute to the realization of these objectives 5 1.3.
Application of the project correlates with national, regional and local planning documents in the field of solving problems together: 5 15 2. Rationale of the project 2.1.
Project submissions is provided in the analysis of the situation, including the reasons for the particular target group selection and linking it to a particular project of the problems to be solved

5 2.2.
Project application based on the chosen target group needs and shows the practical problems of target groups (identified in the selected target group problems, identify potential risks and conditions, as well as the type and action appears selected target groups needs) 5 2.3.
Project activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results (project contains detailed work plan for the activities to be carried out are structured sets, follow each other in a logical sequence, t.sk. is dedicated to project management activities), which takes into account the potential risks, and provides sufficient prerequisites for successful project implementation time of 5 2.4.
Benefits planned in the application of the project, the expected results and indicators (qualitative/quantitative) is precisely defined, measurable, and provide target group needs 5 total: 20 3. Implementation of the project capacity 3.1.
Project applicant has experience in project management.
5 3.2.
Project implementation and administration are available the necessary specialists (specialists, professional qualifications and obligations during project implementation) 5 3.3.
Application of the project project implementation reflect the quality evaluation system and it's sufficient and adequate (described in internal control techniques and methods for the evaluation of quality) 5 3.4.
The results of the project is sustainable financially and institutionally (project implementer has the necessary structures and personālresurs, as well as financial resources, to continue to provide support to a selected target group after completion of the project) 5 3.5.
Project partners involved in selection is justified (described the planned cooperation model; define partner roles and responsibilities specific to the implementation of activities; added to the project the applicant and partners in cooperation agreements or arrangements for the implementation of a project) or the applicant's competency is reasonable (if the project does not involve the cooperation partner) 5 total: 25 4. Project budget, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1.
The project budget is detailed and comply with the established types of eligible costs 5 4.2.
Project budget conforms to the grant scheme set out in the description of eligible costs and amounts 5 4.3.
The estimate for the project is real and relevant average market costs 5 4.4.
The project budget is proportional to the time period provided for 5 4.5.
Project expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation of the project 5 4.6.
The project's financial capacity is proportional to/commensurate with the planned project results 5 4.7.
Project expenditure planned project activities demonstrate the socio-economic liederīgum 5 4.8
Project costs are planned according to the audited value generated 5 total: 40 total maximum score: 100 25. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The maximum assessment criteria point number 1.
Vocational rehabilitation program or implementation based on request of the evaluation profession, 20 2.
Designed for the professional suitability of individual client evaluation work in chosen field 20 3.
The introduction of vocational rehabilitation program provides new approaches in relation to the training process or providing content, methodological or technological support, and is based on the impact of rehabilitation improvement of results 15 4.
Cooperation with employers in the provision of practice 20 5.
For cooperation, incentive measures most effective rehabilitation and employment client results sasniegšanai1 25 total: 100 1 interinstitutional cooperation activities – 10; employer incentive measures to recruit people with disabilities – 10; other measures – 5. Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 20 Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grants schemes 3. priorities in the "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.5. activity "social rehabilitation programme for extension of the offer, including support to ICT for disabled people" apakšaktivitāt "social 3.3.5.2. rehabilitation programmes, including information and communication technology support to disabled persons" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Grant Scheme distributes grant schemes the project application to the tendering procedure, in accordance with the society integration Fund (hereinafter Fund) approved guidelines.
2. Grant schemes project application (hereinafter referred to as project submissions) evaluation and selection is carried out in accordance with the Fund's approved "to the agenda of the European Social Fund grant scheme application for evaluation of projects".
3. project submissions are evaluated in two stages: assessment of projects 3.1 conformity of administrative application evaluation criteria;
3.2. evaluation of project applications the quality and conformity of specific evaluation criteria.
4. the conformity assessment shall be carried out for those project submissions submitted to the grant guidelines of the scheme (hereinafter referred to as the guidelines) within the prescribed period.
5. the project of the administrative screening application seeks to establish whether the project proposal is technically complete and prepared according to the grant schemes describes the rules and guidelines. Administrative screening carried out by establishing the Fund: project submission 5.1 compliance;
5.2. project eligibility of the applicant.
6. submission of compliance of the project valued at "Yes" and "no". If the criterion of conformity No 1 evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with any of the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. criterion assessed with "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall be not less than two working days, request additions or corrections, and project submissions valued conformity. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the application evaluates as inappropriate and further evaluations will not move.
7. the eligibility of the applicant for a project valued at "Yes" and "no". If compliance with 1, 2 or 4. criteria evaluate to "no", then the application of the project assessed as non-compliant and further evaluations will not move. If compliance with criterion 3 or 5 evaluate to "no", then on the uncertain issue of the Fund, which shall be not less than two working days, request additions or clarification, and eligibility of the applicant for the project evaluated. If retesting in case this criteria assessed compliance with "no", the project applicant is assessed as inadequate, and project submissions for further evaluation do not move.
8. If the application is recognized as the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund shall inform the applicant of the project the project application progress for future evaluation of the quality and specific evaluation criteria.
9. If the application is recognized as inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the Fund sends the applicant a reasoned refusal of the project, indicating the specific application of the project grant scheme of non-compliance administrative evaluation criteria.
10. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
11. project quality and specific application evaluation carried out Welfare-Ministry of first level intermediate – created the Commission for the purpose of evaluation to assess whether and to what extent the application of the project content are consistent with the European Social Fund policy, provides the appropriate contribution to reducing social exclusion, as well as to provide a reasonable financial management, in particular value for money and cost effectiveness.
12. quality and specific period is not for project submissions, clarification or correction of the supplement.
13. quality evaluation criteria are divided into chapters, all of which form the hundred point system. Each quality criterion of evaluation scores from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1 or "very poor"; 2 or "weak"; 3 or "satisfactory"; 4 or "OK"; 5 or "very good".
14. project submissions assessed three rounds: 14.1. financial and management capacity assessments, project submissions that this round has not got at least 12 point or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move;
14.2. the significance of the evaluation-project submissions that this round has not got at least 20 points, or "good", further evaluations will not move;
14.3. the evaluation according to the other criteria sections-methodology, sustainability, budget and cost effectiveness. Project submissions that the budget and cost effectiveness the evaluation has not got at least 6 points or "satisfactorily", further evaluations will not move.

15. In assessing the application, the it meets the project for each of the assessment criteria specific to the assessment of the maximum number of points.
16. the assessment of the application of the project's total score for the 80% overall quality of evaluation criteria score and 20% of the specific evaluation criteria the evaluation score. The list of projects to be approved the application, the project of prioritising submissions, which got the largest overall number of rating points.
17. If the application does not meet the quality and specific evaluation criteria, the Fund sends a motivated refusal to grant the applicant the draft scheme, stating the specific quality of the discrepancy and specific evaluation criteria.
18. the decision on the refusal of the applicant to challenge the draft administrative procedure law.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 19. Administrative evaluation criteria: Project application 19.1. compliance: No.
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set by the guidelines 2.
The guidelines set has been submitted to the project application, copy (copy) and the relevant indicator 3.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and the appropriate design 4.
Project submissions are completed project submission form electronic version 5.
Project submission prepared text 6.
Project submission prepared for the Latvian language 7.
The project application is fully completed and drawn up according to the project application form for 8.
Application of the project includes all of the guidelines specify attachments: • a project Charter or statute of the applicant;


• partner/s of the statute or Charter, copy (if applicable);


• project registration certificate of the applicant's copy (if applicable);


• partner/u copy of the registration certificate (if applicable);


• the applicant's latest project annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the youngest partner/s annual report (profit and loss statement and balance sheet) (if applicable);


• the project the applicant taxpayer registry certificate;


• partner/u taxpayer registry in certificate (if applicable);


• project implementation and administration of the project applicant and partner/u (if applicable) the employee resume;


• the applicant and the project partner/u signed declaration of partnership (if applicable) 9.
Project submission form financial statement is done in dollars, and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 10.
Project application form of the expenditure items corresponds to a schema description for gravel in the 11.
Total eligible costs claimed meet the grant scheme set out in the description of the minimum and maximum amount of the projects and the European Social Fund co-financing does not exceed the maximum amount of co-financing – 80% 12.
The period of project implementation meet specified guidelines for implementation and does not go beyond 30 June 2008 13.
Planned activities will be implemented in the Republic of Latvia, 19.2. Project: No eligibility of the applicant.
Criteria yes no Project requesting administrative evaluation criteria 1.
The project applicant is a State authority, local government, local authorities, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor 2.
The partners involved in the project is the national regulatory authority, the municipality, the municipal authority, the Republic of Latvia registered legal person or sole proprietor (if applicable) 3.
The project applicant or partner/s (if applicable), as well as the apakškontraktēt of the service provider is registered in a registry of social service providers.


4. the project applicant is solvent and comply with the financial discipline (not tax and the State social insurance compulsory contribution to the debt) 5.
The project application is signed by the responsible person with signature rights 20. quality evaluation criteria: maximum assessment section, points 1. and Financial management capacity 20 1.1 Or to the applicant and the project partner/s (if applicable) has sufficient experience in project management?
5 1.2 How is the project the applicant sufficient technical expertise (i.e., knowledge of the issues that will be addressed)?
2 x 51 1.3 How sufficient is the applicant's current project management capacity (including personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget)?
significance of project 25 5 2 2.1 extent to which the project submission complies with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures for the activity?
5 2.2 the importance of national or regional project/u special needs and problem solving (URt.sk., do not overlap and interaction with other initiatives of the European Community)?
5 2.3 as clearly defined and how strategic is selected correctly in the target group?
5 2.4 how important is the project for the selected target group needs?
application of 2.5 or 5 projects comply with the structural policy horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society)?
30 5 3. Methodology 3.1 the extent to which the proposed activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results?
5 3.2 How logical is a common project structure (URt.sk., the analysis of the problems to be solved include the context with the SPD and programme complement, other planning and policy documents)?
5 3.3 How sufficient is the partner/s involvement and activity level?
Note: if not, then the partner/s will be the number of points 3.
5 3.4 How satisfactory are the target group participation in project activities?
5 3.5 or the application shows the monitoring mechanism of the project and how is it adequate?
5 2.2 to what extent the application of the project include the project objectively verifiable results and impact indicators?
15 5 4. Sustainability 4.1 to what extent the project will affect the target group?
5 4.2 the extent to which the proposed submission includes options multiplikatīv effects (including the reproduction of the results of the project and the dissemination and distribution of information)?
5 4.3 the extent to which the results of the project are sustainable:-financially (How the activity will be funded after the end of project funding?)-institutional (or activity requires structures have been established to give the project end? Or the results of the project will belong to the local organization?)
-at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the impact of the structural project, i.e., whether the project will improve the law, codes of conduct, methods, etc.?)
5 5. Budget and cost effectiveness 5.1 How satisfactory are 10 relationship between costs and results of the project?
5 5.2 extent to which the expected costs are necessary for the implementation of the project?
5 the maximum total score 100 Note: 1 compliance with quality evaluation criterion no. 1.2. evaluate to determine the number of points (up to 5 points), which in addition to the weighted ratio is adjusted (i.e. multiplied by 2).
21. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Assessment criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
For a complex approach in solving customer problems, including the various sectors and institutions cooperation between professionals and consecutive services 30 2.
Designed for diverse social work methods 20 3.
Social rehabilitation has resulted in expanded client opportunities to enter the labour market, 20 4.
The service is provided on the territory of residence of the customer 15 5.
For the good practices and new approaches to social rehabilitation nodrošināšanā2 15 total: 100 Note: 2 for the good practices in the provision of social rehabilitation-7; for new approaches in the provision of social rehabilitation-8; designed for both the good practices and new approaches in the provision of social rehabilitation-15. the Minister of finance, Ministry of finance Spurdziņš o. presented the 21. attachment Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.6. activity "pedagogical correction program development and implementation" apakšaktivitāt "pedagogical 3.3.6.1 adjustment program development and implementation" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. the procedure for the evaluation of the structural funds project 1 submission ( hereinafter referred to as the application) of the project assessed three rounds: 1.1 according to the project application, the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.

2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed to the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than three points and 9.2. has won no less than 46 points out of a total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific compliance check project submissions valued at compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to a scale of 1 to 10.13. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria project submission, 16 administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is established in the Republic of Latvia of any legal person 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.
Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
Criterion

Points rating 1.
Partners involved in the project, the maximum number of points 10 1.1.
The project applicant is involved in a project without a number of educational institutions and one or more municipalities 10 1.2.
The project without the project applicant is involved in one partner-educational institution or local government or authority/organisation, addressing groups of young people in questions 5 1.3.
The project involved partners 0 2.
The intended beneficiaries in the project number of the maximum number of points 10 2.1.
More than 20 10 2.2.
From 10 to 20 5 2.3.
Less than 10 0 total 20 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance submitted version of annex 22. Cabinet 4 July 2006 regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union unveiled proposals for priorities 3. "human resources development and employment promotion" 3.3. "the measure reducing social exclusion" 3.3.7. activity "of young people with special needs into the education system," project for the evaluation of the application and evaluation criteria Project application. the procedure for the evaluation of the structural funds project 1 submission (hereinafter referred to as the project application) assessed three rounds According to the project application: 1.1 the administrative evaluation criteria, according to the project application 1.2 quality evaluation criteria, and 1.3. According to the project application, specific evaluation criteria.
2. submission of the project administrative compliance checks aim to assess whether the project proposal is prepared and submitted to the appropriate project open tender application guidelines (hereinafter the guidelines). Through the application of administrative compliance project, valued project submission and requesting the draft structural funds (hereinafter referred to as project applicant) compliance with this paragraph 16 of the annex to the draft application laid down in the administrative evaluation criteria.
3. If the application fulfils the administrative application of the project evaluation criteria for project submission is passed the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
4. If the submitted draft structural funds the application does not comply with the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria, the second intermediate level writing requires a (one time) to the structural funds project applicant provides additional information to clarify the application of the project.
5. Fine-tuning or missing information in accordance with paragraph 6 of this annex, the second level intermediate is not required for this annex 16, paragraph 1, 12 and 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria. If the project is found, the application does not match the paragraph 16 of this annex 1, 12 or 13 in the intended administrative evaluation criteria, the second level intermediate application project administrative compliance evaluation stops and takes a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
6. Where the applicant within ten working days of this Annex provided for in paragraph 5 of the second-level intermediate bodies request clarification of the application of the project requires additional information, the second level intermediate re-evaluate the project application to the submission of the project administrative evaluation criteria. In this case, is it part of the application, the project identified or associated with the fine-tuning of the additional information.
7. If the administrative compliance checks in the second level intermediate results of the project the application of the appropriate administrative evaluation criteria, it is passed to the first level of the intermediate evaluation of the application of the project quality and the specific evaluation criteria.
8. If the administrative examination of second-level intermediate project application is considered inappropriate administrative evaluation criteria, the decision is taken on the draft submission rejection.
9. the submission of the project quality verification, valued project application compliance with this annex, paragraph 17 of the draft application laid down in the quality assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a particular point on a scale of 1 to 5 (1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5-very good). Project application approved for the application of quality evaluation criteria, if the project application: 9.1, each of this annex and paragraph 17.4.1.17.4.2. project application laid down in the quality evaluation criteria has won no less than three points and 9.2. has won no less than 46 points out of a total number of points that must be obtained.
10. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project application is considered not appropriate quality evaluation criteria, the first level of the intermediate body shall take a decision on the rejection of the application for the project.
11. If the application of the project quality compliance checks in the first level of the intermediate results of the project the application of appropriate quality evaluation criteria, it is directed to the evaluation of the application of the project specific evaluation criteria.
12. the application of the project-specific test, evaluated project application compliance with paragraph 18 of this annex the draft application laid down in the specific assessment criteria for each of these criteria when granting a certain number of points in accordance with paragraph 18 of the annex to a scale of 1 to 10.13. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results the project application is assigned a certain number of points, which is calculated by adding the application to the quality of the project and the specific evaluation results in final points.
14. application of the quality of the project and the specific test results of projects submitted in the application are ranked according to the total number of points obtained. Project application list that is geared to the Steering Committee for the coordination of project submissions, taking into account the respective activity or apakšaktivitāt total funding available.
15. If the application is recognized as an appropriate project quality and the application of specific evaluation criteria, but is not included in the project application in the list, which is geared to the harmonisation of the Management Committee in accordance with paragraph 14 of the annex to the application, project, subject to the application of the project in the allotted number of points can be confirmed if the open design competition for the implementation of the project is available for additional financial resources.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 16. Administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application 1.
The project application is filed within the time limit set 2.
The project application is fully completed, prepared according to the project application form and project financing plan has been designed in accordance with the guidelines specified in format 3.
Project submission form filled into 4.
Project application filled in Latvian language 5.
Filed the requested a copy of the project submission (copy) the number t.sk. project submissions in electronic version 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) and presented in accordance with the instructions of the guidelines 7.
The project application is accompanied by all the documents listed in the annex and 8.
Project financial calculation is performed in Latvian lats (LVL) and arithmetic to exactly and correctly developed 9.
The project's eligible expenditure items correspond to the eligible costs 10.
The requested funding amount does not exceed the guidelines set the maximum amount of the projects requested European Union co-financing does not exceed the maximum possible co-financing for 11.
The project implementation period does not exceed the guidelines specified in the project end date is not more than the 20 august 2008 project applicant 12.
The project applicant is established in the Republic of Latvia of any legal person 13.
The project applicant is solvent 14.
Project submission (receipt) is signed by the applicant's project officer 17. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Evaluation criteria limits (0-5) rating 1.
Project compliance with 10 1.1.
The project application of and compliance with the single programming document and the programme complement and the priority measures of activity 5 1.2.
The project application of structural policy in conformity with the horizontal objectives (promotion of gender equality, for regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 2.
Rationale of the project 25 2.1.
Project application based on the selected target group needs or project is defined and justified in the application problem 5 2.2.
Application of the project shows that reaching the target, the problem will be solved 5 2.3.
Project activities are clearly defined, proportionate with the planned implementation timetable and ensure quality results (URt.sk., take into account the possible risks/project implementation prerequisites) 2.4 5.

Among the problems identified in the project, defined the objectives and planned activities are clearly shown on a reciprocal linking, problem, purpose, and activities complementary 5 2.5.
Application of the project results, the planned indicators and impact results are clearly defined, measurable and provides the target audience needs (URt.sk., the results are displayed in the multiplikatīv effect and sustainability) 5 3.
Project implementation capacity 20 3.1.
Project submissions are reflected in the project implementation mechanisms (URt.sk., is available/required material and technical base) and the degree of readiness of the project 5 3.2.
Project submissions must demonstrate sufficient technical expertise (knowledge of specific issues to be addressed) and experience in project management for 5 3.3.
The project is clearly indicated in the application, and will be monitoring the implementation of the project (t.sk. the quality and satisfaction of the selected target system adequacy evaluation/compliance) 5 3.4.
Planned activities the project publicity and dissemination of information are sufficient/appropriate 5 4.
The estimate for the project, cost justification and effectiveness 4.1 10.
The project budget includes expenditure is reasonable and appropriate to the current market prices 5 4.2.
Objective is the chosen option/cost-effective solution (value for money-the cost-result) 5 the maximum total score 65 18. Specific evaluation criteria: No.
The criterion score rating 1.
Partners involved in the project, the maximum number of points 10 1.1.
The project applicant is involved in a project without a number of educational institutions that implement special education programmes or activities and one or more municipalities 10 1.2.
The project without the project applicant is engaged by one partner-• educational institution that implements special educational programs or activities, or • municipality or authority/organization • addressing special education issues.
5 1.3.
The project involved partners 0 2.
The intended beneficiaries in the project number of the maximum number of points 10 2.1.
More than 10 10 2.1.
From 5 to 10 5 2.3.
Less than 5 0 total 20 Finance Minister o. Spurdziņš the Ministry of finance proposed wording 23. Annex to the Cabinet on July 4, 2006, regulations No 549 of the structural funds of the European Union grant scheme, priority 5 "technical assistance" 5.3 measure "support to the management of the programme (ESF)" project submission evaluation procedures and evaluation criteria Project application. evaluation procedure 1. Project total number of points obtained by summing the general quality criteria points earned in specific evaluation criteria and the number of points earned. The list of projects to be supported, taking into account the financial resources available to tender and project them in prioritising applications, which got the largest number of total points.
2. quality evaluation criteria divided into wards, all of which form the hundred point system. Each criterion is given a number of points from 1 to 5 according to the following ratings: 1-very weak, 2-poor, 3-satisfactory, 4-good, 5 – very good.
3. the project application to the quality evaluation criteria evaluated by doing: project submission 3.1. financial and management capacity assessments. Project submissions that this chapter hasn't got at least 6 points (satisfactory), are rejected;
3.2. application of the importance of the project evaluation. Project submissions that this chapter hasn't got at least 24 points, are rejected;
3.3. application of the project budget and cost effectiveness evaluation. Project submissions that this chapter hasn't got at least 12 points, are rejected.
4. the projects under quality evaluation criteria have not got together at least 70 points, are rejected.
II. Project submission evaluation criteria 5. Administrative evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria yes no project application administrative evaluation criteria 1.
Project application filed up to the expiration of the 2.
Project submission is prepared in the correct form, completed in full and 3.
Project submission is filed into 4.
The project proposal is submitted to the Latvian language 5.
The project application has been added to the electronic version of the 6.
The original application is the project cauršūt (caurauklot) 7.
The project application is filed the original and 4 copies of the 8.
The project is signed by the applicant, the applicant's Declaration of the project 9.
Budget and funding sources are indicated in the application form provided for in the project, the form is filled out completely. The budget is prepared and precise arithmetic in the 10.
All the projects planned in the eligible expenditure corresponds to the guidelines of the project included in the eligible expenses applicant list 11.
The requested grant is below the guidelines set by the applicant of the project 12.
The requested grant is not greater than the guidelines established for the applicant of the project 13.
Requested grant exceeds the guidelines project the applicant the maximum percentage of the project's total eligible expenditure planned 14.
The project's scheduled start and end dates are the guidelines the project limits the applicant 15.
Logical framework matrix is filled and added 16.
The project applicant is attached to the registration certificate (if applicable) 17.
The applicant's statutes or draft regulations have added 18.
The draft annual report of the applicant for the previous reporting year (profit and loss statement and balance sheet for the previous reporting year) is added (if applicable) 19.
The staff involved in the project CVS is added 20.
The required documents are submitted to add original or copy, which confirmed the conformity of the original Project, the head of the applicant's administrative evaluation criteria 21.
The project applicant is municipality or planning region development agency, or non-governmental organization 22.
The project applicant is registered in Latvia, 23.
The project application is signed by an authorised person 6. quality evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criteria the maximum number of points assessment 1.
Financial and management capacity is sufficient for 10 1.1 How project management group experience analog scale project management?
5 1.2 How is sufficient in the current applicant, project management capacity (including personnel, equipment and ability to manage the project budget)?
5 2.
The importance of the project 30 2.1.
How important is the project application for the attainment of the objectives of the competition?
2x5 2.2 the importance of national or regional project (s) in special needs and problem solving (avoiding t.sk. overlap and interaction with other EC initiatives)?
5 2.3.
How clearly defined and strategically correctly selected target groups (the final recipient of the benefit)?
5 2.4 how important is the project for the selected target group needs?
5 2.5 compliance with the application of the project structural policy horizontal objectives (for the promotion of equal opportunities, sustainable development, regional development, the promotion of the information society) 5 3.
25 methodology 3.1 the extent to which the proposed activities are necessary and appropriate for the objectives and results?
2x5 3.2 How logical is a common project structure? (Including an analysis of the problems to be solved include the context with the development plan of the programme complement and other planning and policy documents) 5 3.4 application project Or project monitoring mechanisms appears and how is it adequate?
5 3.5 extent to project involves the application objectively verifiable indicators of the outcome of the project?
5 4.
Sustainability 15 4.1.
Extent to which the project might actually influence its target groups?
5 4.2.
The extent to which the project application include multiplikatīv effects? (Including the outcome of the project and the dissemination and propagation of information distribution capabilities.)
5 4.3.
The extent to which the results of the project are sustainable?
5 5.
Budget and cost effectiveness 5.1 How satisfactory are 20 relationship between costs and results of the project?
2x5 5.2 extent to which the expected costs are necessary for the implementation of the project?
2x5 the maximum total score 100 7. Specific evaluation criteria: no PO box
Criterion rating 1 points.
The extent to which the project's target group include also other non-governmental organizations or local government employees?
0-4 2.
The extent to which the activities proposed provides complex approach to the target group needs?
0-4 maximum overall rating 8 Minister of finance Spurdziņš o.