aldp, page-20

Somewhere someone today mentioned the DPI silencing of applicants and the belief that companies cannot disclose the deals that are a pre-requisite to qualifying for ALDP funding.

This is wrong IMO

I have stated many times that the only silencing from ALDP is discussion on the process, with no silencing re external funding, offtakers, partners etc...

This is from DPI criteria, read it carefully and you will see that silencing only applies to the application and negotiation process of applying for funding -


"7. Confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy and publicity

Respondents must keep confidential any confidential information concerning the Department or the State received as a result of, or in connection with, it submitting an EOI Response and any negotiations between itself and the Department during the EOI Process. Respondents must not disclose such information to a third party except as may be required by law.

Respondents agree that the Department may disclose their Responses, along with any other information disclosed by the Respondent to the Department during the EOI Process to the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments, its departments, its management, its consultants and its advisers or otherwise and if required by law to do so.

Respondents license the Department to reproduce, adapt or modify the whole or any portion of their EOI Responses for the purpose of the EOI Process and, if the Respondent is successful, for use in connection with the Project or the funding of the Project, notwithstanding any Intellectual Property rights that may subsist in their EOI Response.
Any personal information collected as part of the EOI Process will be handled in accordance with the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic).

Respondents must not make any public statements or communications, or publish any media releases, in relation to this EOI Process, other than disclosures that the Respondent is required to make under the rules of any applicable stock exchange, without first providing a copy of the statement, communication or media release to the Department and obtaining the prior written approval of the Department.

Respondents must not, in connection with the EOI Process, do or omit to do anything which may:
damage, bring into disrepute or ridicule the Department’s or the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments name, messages or reputation; or
attract public or media attention which may be prejudicial or otherwise detrimental to the Department’s or the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments name, messages or reputation.

Failure to abide with the above requirements by Respondents may be considered grounds for the rejection of their EOI Response."


again -


"Respondents must not make any public statements or communications, or publish any media releases, in relation to this EOI Process, other than disclosures that the Respondent is required to make under the rules of any applicable stock exchange, without first providing a copy of the statement, communication or media release to the Department and obtaining the prior written approval of the Department."



So, not only are they allowed to announce all deals etc... but they don't even have to ask permission unless it relates to the ALDP EOI process.




Given the above, it should be easy to ascertain whether certain Co's qualify for this part of criteria -



"2.2 THE CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY OF THE RESPONDENT AND ITS PARTNERS TO DELIVER THE PROJECT

Criteria Assessment

2.2.1 The Project Delivery strategy and timeline is well articulated, sensible and realistic
Merit Criteria to be covered under this assessment category:
Respondents are to:

Identify the commencement date for the Project and why it will be ready to commence on that date.

Provide a brief description of the Project delivery strategy and a list of the key milestones, deliverables and associated timelines for the Project. Note: Milestones are not the Project’s objectives, strategies, or the delivery of progress reports.

Identify any issues that could delay the commencement and / or conduct of the Project (e.g. governance, government approvals, access to IP, personnel recruitment, equipment ordering and delivery).

Have an understanding and knowledge of government approval processes and a high degree of certainty that these will be satisfied; as well as identification of environmental and other approvals required for the Project, and the estimated time frame for obtaining them.

Criteria Assessment

2.2.2 The financial, technical and project management strength and capacity of the Respondent and its partners (including a demonstrated track record) to ensure progression of the Project to the next stage towards commercialisation.

Merit Criteria to be covered under this assessment category:
Respondents are to:

Provide evidence of current and future business operations which are directly relevant to the Project.

Provide a list of any similar projects completed and how this experience will contribute to delivering in time and on budget.

Demonstrate the capability of the organisation(s) to support meeting the objectives and tasks of the Project
Demonstrate the capability of the organisation(s) to achieve commercialisation of the results of this Project.

Where relevant, provide an outline of the roles of consortia members and the status of any relevant agreements.

Demonstrate the ability to secure funding from other sources over the life of a project. Include evidence from previous projects where private-sector financing or any other public co-contributions were able to be secured over the life of the Project.

current audited financial statements and prior financial statements (at least 1 year and preferably 3 years prior).
Operating capital expenditure and financing cashflow
Project Cashflow statement projecting over the term of the project"




The independent assessment panel is made up of forensic accountants and the like from KPMG and others experienced in auditing big corporations and working out their capability to deliver state making infrastructure projects.

I believe Exergen could satisfy the above and could honestly report to their shareholders that they have submitted a comprehensive application and are confident that they tick all the boxes through their CSI's, Tata, Theiss, Itochu, Sedgman and Elphinstone (none of whom's auditors are worried about their ability to continue as a going concern)

Could the same honestly be said about all applicants?

We will soon find out IMO.

The criteria is quite straight forward. Company executives would know 100% whether they have ticked all the boxes or not in regards to above criteria.

Will we see a plethora of until now secret deals announced by listed competing tech's soon?

Very interesting times ahead!

B Rubes