Amendments To The Cabinet Of Ministers On October 28 2008. Regulations No. 899 On "rules" Of The Operational Programme Infrastructure And Services "appendix 3.4.1.5.1. Apakšaktivitāt" Meadow And Jēkabpils City Flood Threat Reduction ""

Original Language Title: Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2008.gada 28.oktobra noteikumos Nr.899 "Noteikumi par darbības programmas "Infrastruktūra un pakalpojumi" papildinājuma 3.4.1.5.1.apakšaktivitāti "Pļaviņu un Jēkabpils pilsētu plūdu draudu samazināšana""

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 510, Riga, June 2, 2009 (Mon. No 37 42) amendments to the Cabinet of Ministers on October 28 2008. Regulations No. 899 on "rules" of the operational programme infrastructure and services "Appendix 3.4.1.5.1. apakšaktivitāt" Meadow and Jēkabpils city flood threat reduction "issued under the European Union's structural funds and the cohesion fund management law, article 18, paragraph 10 do Cabinet of 28 October 2008 rules No 899" rules for the operational programme ' infrastructure and services ' at the bottom of the. 3.4.1.5.1 activity Appendix "Meadow and Jēkabpils city flood threat reduction" (Latvian journal 2008, 186 No.) the following amendments: 1. Make the following paragraph 8.: "11.8. project management personnel involved in project management fees and administrative expenses, the beneficiary's current maintenance costs, as well as publicity costs if they exceed the minimum requirements set by the laws and regulations of the European Union fund co-financed project publicity and visual identity requirements."
2. To express 17 as follows: "the application of the project 17 the responsible authority within two months of the invitation is sent, the provisions referred to in paragraph 13, project applicants. The competent authority may extend the application of the project for a period of time up to two months, a letter informing potential applicants for the project the project submission deadline extension: 17.1. where the European Union fund Monitoring Committee decided on changes to the project evaluation criteria applications;
17.2. If after sending the invitation made to amend these regulations in you. "
3. Replace paragraph 20 in number and the word "20 percent" with a number and the word "10 percent".
4. Make the following paragraph 21: ' 21. applicant shall prepare Draft project submissions under this provision 3.28., 29., 30, 31 and 32, 33. or 34, 35, 36 in this criterion. "
5. Delete the 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27.
6. To express the 28 the following: "28. the responsible authority shall establish a restricted application of the selection of projects under the European regional development fund project submission Evaluation Commission (hereinafter the Commission assessment) and approved its Statute. The Evaluation Commission is made up of responsible authorities, Ministry of the environment and local government representatives of the Union of Latvia, as well as representatives of associations and foundations whose operational objective related to environmental issues. Representatives of the managing authority, the Commission shall take part in the evaluation observer. "
7. Make 30 points by the following: "30. project submissions valued under the administrative, compliance, quality and funding criteria (annex 3): 30.1. compliance with the administrative, compliance and funding criteria assessed with" Yes "or" no "(" Yes "," no "– meets does not meet). If the administrative application or eligibility criteria is not applicable to a specific project, applicant project application concerning these criteria not assessed;
30.2. compliance with quality criteria assessed by giving a certain number of points: project application rated 30.2.1. According to annex 3 of these rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. the above criteria should receive at least one point.
30.2.2. on submission of the project's compliance with the provisions of annex 3, paragraph 5 this criterion may receive additional points. "
8. Delete paragraph 31.
9. Make 33., 34, 35 and 36, as follows: "33. evaluation the Commission shall assess the project submissions in the following order: 33.1. scored the first application project compliance with this provision in annex 3 administrative, compliance and the application of the project the project the applicant eligibility criteria. If the assessment is in one of the following criteria is "no", the application is rejected and the project evaluation do not continue. If the application of these criteria the project evaluated with "Yes", the application is assessed according to the quality criteria;
33.2. If for each of these provisions, annex 3 1., 2., 3., 4. and 5. criteria referred to in points received at least one point, project submissions valued under the provisions of paragraph 39 of annex 3 of this criterion. If any of the provisions of annex 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 of the criteria referred to in paragraph is not received at least one point, the application is rejected and the project evaluation do not continue;
33.3. If a project planned in the application of the European regional development fund co-financing does not exceed this provision in annex 1 the maximum set by the European regional development fund co-financing, assess whether the project application selection round application sufficient funding of the project. If the project planned in the application of the European regional development fund co-financing rate exceeding 1. the maximum laid down in the annex of the European regional development fund co-financing project submission is rejected.
34. If two or more project applications have received the same number of points, they are ranked in the following order: 34.1. the project application with the highest rating this provision 3. criteria referred to in paragraph 1;
34.2. a project application with the highest rating this provision 3. criteria referred to in paragraph 2;
21.3. the project application with the highest rating this provision 3. criteria referred to in paragraph 6.
35. the head of the responsible authority shall take a decision on the application for approval of a project if: 21.8 it meets this rule. 3. administrative, referred to in the annex to the project eligibility, eligibility of the applicant and the project quality criteria;
35.2. it complies with the provisions of annex 3, paragraph 39 of the funding criteria.
36. The decision on the application of the project approval may include conditions that the project applicant must meet the deadline set in the decision, so that it could conclude an agreement on the implementation of the project: 36.1. specify information about the project the applicant (contact information and properties) (annex 2);
36.2. to clarify the documents presented under this provision paragraph 38 of annex 3 of this criterion;
22.6. to clarify the documents presented under this provision in annex 3, paragraph 32 and 33 this criterion;
22.6. to clarify changes in the total amount of eligible costs and eligible costs according to the provisions of paragraph 8 and 12;
22.7. to clarify the changes in total amount of eligible costs and not eligible under this provision, paragraph 10;
22.7. to clarify the project time schedule according to the planned project activities;
22.8. to clarify the cash flow forecast (3.19;)
22.9. to clarify the implementation of the planned projects and planned human resources funding requested feature (3.20;)
22.9. to clarify the planned publicity and information dissemination actions (annex 3, paragraph 21). "
10. Put the following in paragraph 39:39 ". If the applicant conditions laid down in the decision is not complied with or is not complied with within the time limit set, the opinion of the responsible authority is negative and the project application is considered to have been rejected. "
11. Make 44 "by the following: 44. If the beneficiary does not comply with the regulations governing the procurement requirements, the costs arising from the conclusion of contracts, are considered non-eligible costs of the project. "
12. Express 53 by the following: "53. The beneficiary is responsible for the implementation and results of the project is maintained for at least five years following the last payment on the project."
13. To make 55 as follows: "for the first time in 55 of these rules in the form set out in annex 4 to the beneficiary shall provide the responsible authority during the year after the last payment is received for the project, and every year the conditions of the agreement."
14. Make the new version of annex 2 (annex 1).
15. Make the new version of annex 3 (annex 2).
The Prime Minister, the children, family and integration Affairs v. dombrovsky Environment Minister r. vējonis Editorial Note: the entry into force of the provisions to 18 June 2009.
1. Annex PDF300kb Ministry of environment filed version of annex 1 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 June 2009. Regulations No 510 "annex 2 Cabinet on October 28 2008. Regulations No 899 Environment Minister r. vējonis annex 2 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 2 June 2009. Regulations No 510" annex 3 Cabinet of Ministers on October 28 2008. Regulations No 899 Project submission evaluation form no PO box
Assessment criteria 1. Quality criteria for rating points 1.
The project planned for the launch of preparedness activities: must obtain at least 1 point 1.1.
the project is ready to start (a list of the works to be carried out is not prepared or not prepared qualitatively) 0 1.2.
the project is ready for the launch of the Earth (is prepared and based on the list of the works to be carried out, the purchase documentation not prepared) 1 1.3.
the project is ready for the launch of the medium (is ready and reasonable list of works to prepare the purchase documentation projects development) 1.4 2.

the project has a high readiness to start (the accepted technical projects in the works, prepared for the technical specifications of the procurement) 3 2.
The planned duration of the project: to obtain at least 1 paragraph 2.1.
is greater than 4 years 0 2.2.
is 3 to 4 years 1 2.3.
It is from 2 to 3 years (not including) 1.5 2.
is less than 2 years 3 3.
The risk assessment of the implementation of the project, including the estimated potential cost increase: at least 1 must be obtained in point 3.1.
the project submission does not assess potential risks 0 3.2.
project risk assessment in the application are incomplete, the action plan identified risks are not developed or not developed completely 1 3.3.
project risk assessment in the application of qualitative, action plan identified for the elimination or reduction of risk developed in incomplete 2 3.4.
project risk assessment in the application of high quality, developed reasonable action plan identified for the elimination or reduction of risk 3 4.
Project submission is analyzed for possible alternatives (financial, technical solution): obtain at least 1 paragraph 4.1.
alternative analysis has not been carried out 0 4.2.
analysis of alternatives performed only one parameter 1 4.3.
an alternative analysis is carried out based on numeric calculations and justify the proposed alternatives 2 4.4.
an alternative analysis is carried out based on numeric calculations and justify the proposed alternatives, the selected alternative is for lowest cost 3 5.
The cost of return indicators (infrastructure planned lifetime (years) relative to the initial project total costs): note. The average project application selection round of cost indicators of return calculates the project submissions that meet the administrative and eligibility criteria – cost of return indicators in relation to the amount of selection round of project submissions, the number of criteria gives extra points 5.1.
project cost estimate of return is less than the project application selection round of cost indicators of return, and the difference is more than 10 percent 1 5.2.
project cost estimate of return is equal to the average of the project application selection round of cost indicators of return, is about 10 percent less than or about 10 percent of their more than 2 5.3.
project cost estimate of return is greater than the average project application selection round of cost indicators of return, and the difference is more than 10 percent of the 3 criteria 1.1 priorities horizontal rating points 6.
The project will reduce the threat of flooding in flood-threatened areas (sustainable development): obtain at least 1 paragraph 6.1.
the expected impact of project activities on flood endangered areas not rated 0 6.2.
realizing the project will be achieved that the flood threatened area flooded once in 20 years 1 3.9.
realizing the project will be achieved that the flood threatened area flooded more frequently than once every 50 years 2 6.4.
realizing the project will be achieved that the flood threatened area flooded more frequently than once every 100 years, 3 2. eligibility criteria 2.1. project eligibility criteria Yes/No/NA 7.
The project is intended to prevent the flood risk caused by difficult ice melt and unpredictable phenomena.
Note the. According to flood risk assessment and management national program 2008-2015 N 8.
The project submission complies with the purpose of the activity N 9.
The project submission complies with activities eligible activities N 10.
The project submission complies with activities eligible costs P 11.
The project submission complies with activities not eligible costs P 12.
Project project description in the application provides the information you need about action to be taken: N 12.1.
given the technical characteristics of the activities to 12.2.
planned monitoring indicators are clearly defined and measurable, they meet the purpose of the activity 12.3.
indicates the position of the action to be taken in the territory of the project 13.
Time schedule of the project comply with the planned project activities P 14.
The information provided in the submissions demonstrate that the project will provide the applicant the sustainability of project results: N 14.1.
are appropriate to the planned project would result in the cost of maintaining the value of 14.2.
is or will be available for staff to ensure the project results in the maintenance of the value of 15.
The project specified in the project application to the actual figures (for example, aizsargdambj, pārgāzn reconstructed) meet the project schedule N 16.
Requested by the European regional development fund co-financing aid intensity does not exceed 85 percent of the project's eligible costs N 17.
The requested State budget financing of aid intensity laid down in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers of 28 October 2008 the Regulation No. 899 on "rules" of the operational programme infrastructure and services "Appendix 3.4.1.5.1. apakšaktivitāt" Meadow and Jēkabpils city flood threat reduction "" N 18.
The project budget includes cost: N 18.1.
include all project costs required for the positions of 18.2.
is under construction for the 18.3.
meet the projected market prices 19.
Project cash flow forecast: 19.1 P.
displays both the demand and the cost of funding forecast 19.2.
meet the planned time schedule, 19.3.
meet the project's financial plan 20.
The project planned in the application project implementation and human resources ensure planned legislation in certain functions of the beneficiaries: P 20.1.
the administrative management of the project (including procurement, contract administration, record keeping) 20.2.
financial management (including accounting, verification and payment, financial planning) 20.3.
technical management (including the reconciliation of design and construction, work progress reports, and report preparation) 21.
The project planned in the publicity and information dissemination activities comply with the laws and regulations on the European Regional Development Fund funded project publicity and information dissemination measures P 2.2. Project eligibility criteria of the applicant Yes/No/NA 22.
The project applicant is municipality or public authority who, on the basis of the Republic of Latvia regulatory enactments, provides flood measures N 23.
Project applicant has stated that compensated infrastructure is owned by the applicant for the project N 24.
The project applicant is not tax debt on the application of the first working day of the month N 25.
Project applicant has stated that it has the right to carry out the works concerned, which project they are for N 3. Administrative criteria yes/no/NA 26.
The project proposal is submitted to the responsible authorities within the specified N 27.
The project applicant is invited to submit a project application N 28.
Project submission has been prepared according to the activity the project submission form for N 29.
Project submission prepared for the Latvian language N 30.
Project submission prepared into N 31.
Project submission signed by the authorised person N 32.
Filed one project submission of an original and three copies without attachments (if the application is submitted in the form of a paper document) P 33.
Both the project the original and the copy of the application submitted to the caurauklot, of the attached document pages numbered (if the application is submitted in the form of a paper document), P 34.
The project application and attachments are presented according to the electronic movement of documents regulatory requirements in laws (where the application is filed in electronic form of a document) N 35.
Project application signed with a secure electronic signature (if the application is filed in electronic form of a document) N 36.
The project application and attachments are designed in DOC, xls, PDF or JPG file format (if the application is filed in electronic form of a document) N 37.
Project application form completed in all of its sections, N 38.
The project attached to the application for all specified attachments: 38.1 P.
the project's cartographic material is appropriate, which provide information about the location of project activities in the project area and their impact on the natural attractions in the surrounding area 38.2.
expertise opinion on construction technical condition of and compliance with the requirements of the laws and 23.8.
construction estimate 23.9.
the municipal decision on the co-financing of the project provision of 38.5.
local government (in which make the works) a statement that the project complies with the applicable municipal planning or detailed to 24.0.
Environmental monitoring national Office opinion on the environmental impact assessment of the final report or the decision on the environmental impact assessment procedure, the non-application of 24.0.
project cash flow forecast 4. Funding criteria Yes/No 39.

The project planned in the application of the European regional development fund co-financing shall not exceed the Cabinet of Ministers of 28 October 2008 No. 899 rules '' rules on "operational programme infrastructure and services" Appendix 3.4.1.5.1. apakšaktivitāt "Meadow and Jēkabpils flood threat reduction" "1. maximum laid down in the annex of the European regional development fund co-financing for the project N legend.
N – If a negative rating, the application is rejected.
P – a decision on project approval with conditions (project applicant must ensure compliance with the criteria, specifying the project submission within the time limit laid down in that decision).
NA (not applicable) the specified criteria is not applicable to a specific project, applicant's project is not assessed on this criterion. "
Minister for the environment r. vējonis

Related Laws