Transparency data

Freeports programme: Annex A - Freeport bid assessment and moderation

Updated 30 October 2024

Bid assessment

18 bids were received by the Department. A two-stage assessment was carried out. The 18 bids were first assessed against a number of pass/ fail criteria. The outcome of this assessment, moderated by the Freeports Programme board saw 4 bids fail one or more of the pass/ fail criteria. These bids were Furthereast, Heathrow Airport Associated Freeport, MEND Freeports, and Royal Ramsgate and Manston Freeport.

The 14 remaining bids were assessed against the 5 qualitative criteria (trade and investment, regeneration, innovation, deliverability and private investment). Detailed marking guidance was prepared in advance with assessors to ensure consistency of approach. The marking guidance took its lead from what was set out in the Prospectus to ensure we did not inadvertently introduce new considerations. The assessments were then carefully moderated (see below). As with pass/fail, the Freeports Programme board again reviewed the outcome of the assessment and moderation.

The outcome of the moderated assessment concluded that 13 of the 14 bids met the appointable list, on the basis that they demonstrated:

• at least a Medium on criterion B (Regeneration)
• no more than one Low across the five criteria
• and a High on at least one criterion

The bid that did not meet the appointable list was Gatwick which scored 4 lows, and 1 medium.

Moderation

Building on the approach and lessons from the moderation of Future High Street Fund business case assessments, Freeports followed a similar two stage moderation (see below). The purpose of moderation was to ensure consistency in how marking guidance had been applied so that we could be confident both in the individual scores awarded to specific questions and the overall score reached for each bid.

Initial light touch, intra-team moderation

After the question responses for each bid were marked, Lead Assessor teams met to briefly check that the marking guidance had been applied consistently and bids assessed to equal standards by different individuals. Teams were advised to spend 1-2 hours on this and cover the following points:

• randomly select and review two High, two Medium and two Low scoring answers (marked by a range of individuals)
• confirm that there was a clear gap between the High and Medium as well as the Medium and Low bids (in line with marking guidance) and, if so, that this was evident from the rationales recorded in the marking templates for audit purposes
• confirm that the two High bids were of a comparable standard (in relation to the making guidance), and repeat for the Medium and Low bids
• discuss any points flagged in the rationales assessors have recorded (e.g. borderline marks, points of disagreement with Secondary Assessors or quantitative assessments)
• any changes or adjustments made to scores or rationales in this moderation session were carefully recorded and sent to [email protected] along with the note taken of the moderation discussion

Any key points were discussed at the next stage of moderation.

Full, inter-team moderation 

Between 17 and 19 February 2021, Lead Assessors were invited to attend one of a series of moderation sessions organised by the central Freeports Teams at Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Housing (formerly Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government), chaired by the Senior Responsible Officer. These sessions again served to ensure that bids were marked to a consistent standard (across as well as within questions) and that marking guidance had been appropriately applied.

A session was run with each Lead Assessor team covering the question(s) they were responsible for. These sessions covered the following points:

• ensure that all marks were supported by a clear and defensible rationale
• discuss any questions that came up in the intra-team moderation
• discuss any points flagged in the rationales assessors had recorded (e.g. borderline marks, points of disagreement with Secondary Assessors or quantitative assessments)
• review each answer, ensuring that all High bids were of a comparable standard (in relation to the marking guidance) and that the rationales recorded in the marking templates reflected this for audit purposes, repeating for Medium and Low
• review each answer, confirming that there was a clear gap between the High and Medium as well as the Medium and Low bids and that the rationales recorded in the marking templates reflected this for audit purposes
• any changes or adjustments made to scores or rationales in this moderation session were carefully recorded, along with a wider note of the meeting