[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-323676-105":59,"doc-detail-323676-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","appendix-3-value-for-money-evaluation-process-and-criteria","Appendix 3 - Value for Money Evaluation Process and Criteria","","Appendix 3 outlines the Value for Money evaluation approach for Public Housing New Supply (“Gateway 2”) applications. Projects are assessed using a comprehensive framework covering ability to deliver (20%), fit for purpose (30%), financial viability (30%), and price (20%), with main criteria and weighted sub-criteria scored on a 1–10 scale. Thresholds define pass, clarification, rejection, and potential grounds related to services suitability. The evaluation team scores projects, presents results to an Evaluation Panel, and a final funding decision is made.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/appendix-3-value-for-money-evaluation-process-and-criteria/323676/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/appendix-3-value-for-money-evaluation-process-and-criteria/323676.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Mason","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What are the main criteria and weightings used to evaluate Gateway 2 applications?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Applications are assessed on Ability to Deliver (20%), Fit for Purpose (30%), Financial Viability (30%), and Price (20%). These main criteria are weighted and combined into an overall score.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the rating scale work and what scores are considered a pass?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The evaluation uses a 1–10 scale. A score of 5 or above is a pass for each main criterion, 3–4 triggers further clarification before final assessment, and 0–2 leads to rejection.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What happens after the evaluation team scores each project?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The evaluation team presents results to an Evaluation Panel, which reviews the application and scores, then makes the final funding decision for the project.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},323676,1790640708,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},5909887256941,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Appendix 3: Value for Money Evaluation Process and Criteria  \nApplications for Public Housing New Supply funding (“Gateway 2” applications) will be evaluated according to a comprehensive “Value for Money” framework. The analysis will be based on the main criteria and weightings below. Details on the Value for Money framework are provided below.  \n\n| Main Criteria Weighting |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Ability to Deliver | 20% |\n| Fit for Purpose | 30% |\n| Financial Viability | 30% |\n| Price | 20% |\n\nProcess Overview  \nA Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) evaluation team will evaluate each project according to the main criteria above as well as detailed sub-criteria, which will each be scored on a scale of 1-10 and will also be weighted (details below) . For most categories, the team will apply minimum thresholds that must be met or exceeded in order for projects to obtain funding (see below) . The team will also confirm that the relevant pre-conditions (listed on page 1 of the Application for Funding) are in place. At the end of the process, the team will assign each project a preliminary “Value for Money” score.  \nThe evaluation team will present its results to an Evaluation Panel, which will review the application and score, and will make a final funding decision on the project.  \nRating Scale  \nThe evaluation team will use the following scoring scale to evaluate Applications against the criterion:  \n\n| Description | Rating |\n| --- | --- |\n| EXCELLENT\u003Cbr>Significantly exceeds the criterion | 9-10 |\n| GOOD\u003Cbr>Exceeds the criterion in some aspects | 7-8 |\n| ACCEPTABLE\u003Cbr>Meets the criterion in full, but at a minimal level | 5-6 |\n| MINOR RESERVATIONS\u003Cbr>Marginally deficient | 3-4 |\n| SERIOUS RESERVATIONS\u003Cbr>Significant issues that need to be addressed | 1-2 |\n| UNACCEPTABLE\u003Cbr>Significant issues not capable of being resolved | 0 |\n\n• A score of 5 and above will be considered a ‘Pass’ for each of the main evaluation criterion. A score of 3 or 4 will result in HUD seeking further clarification before final assessment of the Application (which may result in the Application being re-assessed) . A main criterion score of 0-2 will result in the Application being rejected.  \n• The weighted scores for each main criterion will be added producing an overall weighted score (out of 100) .  \n• The minimum scores indicated above will be applied to each of the main criteria, not to individual sub-criteria. However, a sub-criterion score of 0-2 may also be grounds for a proposal not being suitable for a Services Agreement (depending on the circumstances) .  \nAbility to Deliver  \n\n| Ability to Deliver (Capacity and Capability) | Rating | 20% |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Organisational Delivery | 0-10 | 35% |\n| Asset Delivery | 0-10 | 35% |\n| Property Management, Maintenance & |  |  |\n| Tenancy Management | 0-10 | 15% |\n| Capacity and Capability | 0-10 | 15% |\n\nOrganisational Delivery: HUD is seeking to fund providers who can deliver what they say and by when. The evaluation team will analyse providers’ track records on previous projects (if available) . A key element of the analysis will be whether counter party risk is clear, the roles and responsibilities of all of the main partners are clear and that all relevant delivery risks are mitigated. The team will also evaluate any internal governance structures that are unique to the proposed project.  \nAsset Delivery: HUD is seeking to support developers who have the experience and capability to deliver the specific proposal/asset. For new builds, this will include consideration of the master plan , including how the locations were selected,, the programme plans identifying the timing, key milestones, and ensuring that all key parties are properly identified. HUD will also be evaluating the degree of project readiness.  \nProperty Management, Maintenance and Tenancy Management: The team will carry out a high level review of any cyclical and life-cycle maintenance plans that are unique to the proje","cbCainHFvPGhR2Ai","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainHFvPGhR2Ai","pdf",117518,"English","# Value for Money Evaluation Process and Criteria\n## Process overview\n## Rating scale and pass thresholds\n## Ability to Deliver\n### Organisational Delivery\n### Asset Delivery\n### Property Management, Maintenance & Tenancy Management\n### Capacity and Capability\n## Fit for Purpose\n### Site & Building Design\n### Social/Community\n### Natural/Environmental\n### Affordable/Durable","[{\"question\":\"What are the main criteria and weightings used to evaluate Gateway 2 applications?\",\"answer\":\"Applications are assessed on Ability to Deliver (20%), Fit for Purpose (30%), Financial Viability (30%), and Price (20%). These main criteria are weighted and combined into an overall score.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the rating scale work and what scores are considered a pass?\",\"answer\":\"The evaluation uses a 1–10 scale. A score of 5 or above is a pass for each main criterion, 3–4 triggers further clarification before final assessment, and 0–2 leads to rejection.\"},{\"question\":\"What happens after the evaluation team scores each project?\",\"answer\":\"The evaluation team presents results to an Evaluation Panel, which reviews the application and scores, then makes the final funding decision for the project.\"}]","Appendix 3 - Value for Money Evaluation Process and Criteria | PDF",1789965850,13]