Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 110-25-1-.09

Current through Rules and Regulations filed through October 29, 2024

Rule 110-25-1-.09 - Review of Applications

(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.

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.