(1) All applications that meet the Threshold
Requirements outlined in Section
110-25-1-.08 will be reviewed to
determine the merit of the applications and the proposed use of funds.
Applicants and potential borrowers should follow the detailed guidelines set
forth in the application package, paying special attention to the requirements
for supporting documentation and the narrative description. Applications will
be rated according to a point system with the maximum number of points
available to an application being set at 500. In order to be funded, an
application must receive a minimum score of 300 points. For all applications,
the rating criteria may award up to 100 bonus points for projects that meet the
bonus criteria outlined in Section
110-25-1-.09(5).
Applications will be reviewed based upon enhancement of economic development
opportunities and the project's contribution to the development of the State's
life-sciences industry, including job creation, private investment and the
creation of marketable products. The rating criteria are outlined
below.
(2)
Project
Feasibility (
160 Points Maximum)
Applications will be awarded "feasibility" points according
to the following scale: poor: 0.0 points; below average: 40.0 points; average:
80.0 points; good: 120.0 points; excellent: 160 points. In order to determine
where on the feasibility scale a project ranks the following criteria, at a
minimum, will be analyzed:
A) The
proposed project and activities are clearly described and documented, and the
responsibilities for carrying out each activity are clearly ascribed to a
participating entity and each entity has firmly committed in writing to carry
out its part. Project narrative (or some other document such as a business plan
to be included with the application) should describe:
i) the company's background, history and
mission, including how long the principals have been involved, how the work has
been funded thus far, and what has been accomplished in the last twelve months;
ii) qualifications of key
management and scientific personnel;
iii) the need or problem that the company's
product addresses and the current state of available options to meet that need
or problem (i.e., the market for the company's product including competition);
iv) the company's proposed
technology or product;
v) the
competitive advantage of the company's technology or product;
vi) the technical, scientific and commercial
milestones for the company, at least through commercialization of a product;
vii) the status of the company's
intellectual property and whether the company has an established
intellectual-property policy;
viii)
any regulatory approvals that the company must obtain; and ix) the proposed
costs for the project and the status of all funding sources.
B) Underwriting analysis has
determined that:
i) the company's
capitalization plan is sound and access to capital to sustain operations
appears to be available;
ii) the
near-term commercialization potential is good and reasonably estimated;
iii) the company's performance and
standing is secure in the following areas: capital management, debt capacity,
management character/experience, economic and market conditions;
iv) the company's proposed development or
business plan uses reasonable assumptions;
v) the company's development team
(principals, officers, production and scientific leaders, developers,
contractors, etc.) is committed and has a successful record in the proposed or
a similar industry;
vi) for
real-estate projects, does the proposed development team have a successful
record of accomplishment? The team may include the following: developer,
contractor, architect, leasing agent, property manager, syndicator,
construction manager, interim and permanent lenders;
vii) the proposed business plan, marketing
strategy and proforma are realistic; and
viii) the company will be able to repay the
loan.
C) When requested
by the Department or the Georgia Department of Economic Development, Scientific
vetting, as supported by a report from the Board of Regents, the Georgia
Research Alliance or a similarly capable entity, has determined that:
i) the company has a sound scientific and
technical base;
ii) the company's
product or service can reasonably be expected to develop a competitive position
in the marketplace;
iii) the
company's regulatory strategy is sound;
iv) the intellectual property of the company
is strong;
v) the company has a
reasonable timeline for research and development, raising capital, applicable
regulatory approvals, commercialization of products, etc.;
vi) the company has plans for manufacturing
and marketing its product, whether in-house or with a partner; and
vii) the company has a reasonable likelihood
of obtaining regulatory approval (e.g., FDA, USDA) of its products (as
applicable).
D) Project
costs are verified through original source documents, architectural and
engineering reports, or certified appraisals.
E) Project readiness concerns are addressed
(as applicable):
i)
engineering/architectural/environmental reports are complete;
ii) infrastructure/utility access issues;
iii) specific job and investment
commitments have been made;
iv)
commitments to fund operations/maintenance, etc.;
v) other public and private sector investors
are committed and ready to invest;
vi) all needed real property is acquired or
under option;
vii) environmental,
regulatory and liability concerns addressed (phase 1, government permits,
etc.);
viii) administrative
capacity is adequate.
F)
Applicant certifies that project complies (or will comply) with all applicable
federal, state, and local law and regulations.
(3)
Program Strategy
(
120 Points Maximum )
Applications will be awarded "Strategy" points according to
the following scale: poor: 0.0 points; below average: 30 points; average: 60
points; good: 90 points; excellent: 120 points. In order to determine where on
the strategy scale a project ranks the following criteria, at a minimum, will
be analyzed:
A) The proposed project
will result in the enhancement of Georgia's life-sciences industry and the
State's innovation economy;
B) The
proposed project will benefit from and/or enhance the state's research
institutions;
C) The proposed
project is likely to lead to indirect local, regional or statewide impact by:
i) attracting related
development/investment;
ii)
supporting/enhancing local or regional development strategies and priorities;
and
iii) fostering partnerships
between the private sub-recipient and Georgia's research universities, state
colleges, or other Georgia businesses;
D) Financial and programmatic alternatives
have been considered for the proposed project and eliminated;
E) The project represents an innovative
approach to the development and retention of employment opportunities in
Georgia's life-sciences industry;
F) The project has local support as evidenced
by resolutions from the local government (City or County) and the local
development authority that will be the conduit for the loan funds, if
applicable.
(4)
Project Impact (
120 Points Maximum)
Applications will be awarded "Impact" points according to the
following scale: poor: 0.0 points; below average: 30.0 points; average: 60.0
points; good: 90 points; excellent: 120 points. In order to determine where on
the impact scale a project ranks the following criteria, at a minimum, will be
analyzed:
A) The number and quality of
jobs to be created or retained including workforce enhancement through
higher-than-average wages, job training, skill upgrades, education,
etc.;
B) The amount of DCA and
other state assistance per job created or retained;
C) Amount of private leverage represents at
least a 3-to-1 match of the Facilities Fund loan amount (any investments made
in the company more than six months prior to submission of the Facilities Fund
application, or issuance of pre-agreement cost approval, may not be counted
toward the 3-to-1 match requirement);
D) The amount of public leverage;
E) New/retained taxes;
F) Improved regional or state
competitiveness;
G) Potential
secondary benefits; and
H) The
diversification of local, regional or state economies through support of the
life-sciences industry.
(5)
Bonus Points (
100
Points Maximum) Applications may be awarded bonus points based upon a
project's demonstration of exceptional benefits or partnerships such as:
a) Significant job-creation
committed;
b) An active partnership
with a State research institution or success in a Georgia incubator;
c) Serious potential for significant future
investment in Georgia such as the location of a future manufacturing facility;
and
d) Significant and quantifiable
regional cooperation or impact as evidenced by multi-jurisdictional cooperation
through project ownership or a revenue- and cost-sharing agreement or other
intergovernmental agreement that evidences significant cooperation between two
or more counties.
(6)
Proprietary information:
Georgia Law requires that "All public records of an agency as
defined in subsection (a) of this Code section, except those which by order of
a court of this state or by law are prohibited or specifically exempted from
being open to inspection by the general public, shall be open for a personal
inspection by any citizen of this state at a reasonable time and place; and
those in charge of such records shall not refuse this privilege to any citizen"
(O.C.G.A. §
50-18-70(b)).
This means that past and current records on Facilities Fund projects and
applications are required to be open for public inspection.
However, certain proprietary information which is required to
be included in an application and must be supplied by a business or developer
in order to receive funds and which by law are prohibited or specifically
exempted from being open to inspection by the general public (for example,
information that constitutes a "trade secret" (O.C.G.A. §
10-1-740et seq.;
16-8-13(a)(4)) is exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. section
50-18-70. Any information an
applicant or sub-recipient business believes is exempt from disclosure must be
clearly identified as such.
(7) The criteria in this rule (110-25-1) are
designed to assist the Department in making a decision and only constitute
minimum standards. Additional factors may be considered depending on the nature
of particular projects and their relative merit compared to competing proposals
and depending on the availability of funding at the time of application.
Furthermore, in its review of applications, the Department may, at its
discretion, consult with other individuals or agencies, such as the Georgia
Department of Economic Development, the Georgia Research Alliance or the Board
of Regents and related institutions, as appropriate for receiving advice. The
decisions made by the Department shall be final and conclusive.
Notes
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs.
R. 110-25-1-.09
O.C.G.A. Secs.
50-8-8,
50-18-70 to
50-18-77.
Original Rule entitled
"Review of Applications" adopted. F. Dec. 16,
2005; eff. Jan. 5,
2006.
Grant Chapter 110-25-1
originally submitted on December 16,
2005, as rules. Error discovered and corrected in Nov.
2007.
Original grant
description entitled "Review of Applications" submitted
December 16, 2005.
Submitted:
Nov. 7,
2007.
