Finance & Record Keeping for ERDF Projects

1. Finance & Record Keeping for ERDF Projects Alison Ogilvie Michelle Depper-Westwood University of Wolverhampton

2. Introductions • Alison Ogilvie – Project Support Team Leader - ERDF queries, project support, monitoring compliance • Michelle Depper-Westwood – Project Accountant - Claims, finance queries, monitoring compliance

3. Funding Guidance Notes • Not definitive – a working document. • First point of call for queries. • Especially helpful for the claim, consult it each time to minimise queries and delays processing at UoW. • Version control.

4. Belt and Braces – Be Audit Ready • The public Match Funder/Lead Applicant (UoW) - Monitoring Visits • AWM (PEV/Article 13 PAV/Article 16) – All projects will receive. • KPMG – annual and independent • Potentially – ODPM / Brussels Remember – if AWM themselves are audited and your project is selected for sample you will also be audited at this point.

5. Article 13 PAV (Article 4) • All projects will receive at least once • Considered a ‘Monitoring’ visit • Check systems are in place • Sample paperwork and records • File structures and finance systems • Problems can be rectified after visit – a light touch cKTP received our PAV on June 7th 2010. No partner actions due to a non-output claim being selected as sample.

6. Evidence • All hard copies must be originals – copies not accepted for audit purposes (originals with partners – copies to us with claim). Certified copies are accepted in exceptional circumstances • Timesheets – originals, genuinely signed, genuine figures and dates – accurate hourly rates • Full, clear audit trail up to the point of defrayal from University bank account • Electronic records backed up regularly • Procurement – ensure regulations are followed as per guidelines issued.

7. Files & Archives • Clear file structure & signposting • Easy access for future audits – ideally one file per claim submitted as well as general project files. • Ensure all files clearly state not to be destroyed until after 2025 at the earliest – subject to change. • Archiving – responsibility of partner & UoW • Project’s responsibility while running

8. Marketing • Keep all press releases and cuttings. • Remember to keep copies of any adverts and job descriptions (Manpower plan) • Website info must be kept, old pages archived • Logos – don’t get caught out! • An audit can include any invoice which may mean a marketing purchase (e.g. promotional items), therefore, ensure a sample is available.

9. Outputs and Results • KTP – TSB vs ERDF needs • Use the Tasking Output Definitions issued by AWM for ERDF alongside the evidence table (both included in Guidance Notes) • Output = KTP – all paperwork needs to be accurate and compliant • Extra paperwork has been minimised but we will be checking your systems and methods of keeping the evidence required for all outputs and results.

10. Corrective Action • Document any errors you may notice, do not try to cover them – tell us! • Show what you have done to address any such errors • Keep file-notes, revisit at set times • Keep risk register up to date

11. Classic KTP – Programme Funding Overview • £24.3m to deliver 210 Classic KTP’s • Funding profile: • £12.2m ERDF • £3.5m AWM Single Pot • £6.0m TSB • £2.6m University match

12. TSB Funded KTP’s – Background Information • Core funded KTP’s via TSB are based on the ‘standard’ KTP budget of £86,500 plus overheads. • The funding model for standard KTP’s: • Generally – 60% TSB, 40% SME contribution. • Quarterly electronic claims, via KTP Portal.

13. TSB Standard Funding model

14. ERDF Funded KTP’s • Core funded Classic KTP’s via TSB and ERDF. • Based around the ERDF eligible costs of the ‘standard’ KTP model of £86,500 – although this may vary, particularly for those based on FEC costing • Not all TSB eligible costs are ERDF eligible. (e.g. – Overheads 46% on staff costs)

15. ERDF Funded KTP’s ERDF TSB Non ERDF eligible costs: 46% overheads, £21k notional academic cost TSB & ERDF eligible costs: Associate employment cost, Associate non-employment costs

16. ERDF Funded KTP’s

17. ERDF Funded KTP’s ERDF TSB ERDF only eligible costs: Timesheeted Academic costs, Timesheeted support staff costs, AWM audited overheads Non ERDF eligible costs: 46% overheads, £21k notional academic cost TSB & ERDF eligible costs: Associate employment cost, Associate non-employment costs

18. ERDF Funded KTP’s

19. Partner Budgets • Eligible costs for ERDF programme, are split into two budgets: • Project Management budget. • Project Delivery budget. • Opportunity to reprofile coming up but is dependant upon overheads

20. Project Management Budget • The Local Management budget covers the local costs of administering the ERDF KTP’s. • The budget is split into two areas: • Staff costs • Other costs • Funded via ERDF, university allocated HEIF, & own university resources

21. Project Delivery Budget • The Delivery budget covers expenditure incurred for the delivery of each KTP, the budget is split into two areas: • Staffing costs – Associates • Other costs – attributable to delivery • A third possible area is that of Overheads, up to max 20% (subject to ERDF methodology and audit)

22. Claim structure - TSB • TSB claims – via TSB portal, for TSB eligible elements of spend • TSB claims – no claim is made to TSB for management expenditure, only expenditure based on the budget headings in your contract with TSB. • TSB funding = Cash contribution to the ERDF project, but does not have to be reported to ERDF

23. Claim structure - ERDF • ERDF Partner claims – monthly claims, based on ERDF eligible, defrayed expenditure. • Fully supported claims – copies of evidence required for all items of expenditure claimed. Supported by bank statements and BACs schedules where necessary. • 5 working days from month end to submit the claim.

24. ERDF Claims • Expenditure and evidence examples: • Download from payroll system: • Name, Basic pay, eer’s NI, eer’s Pension, Total • Copy invoice, print out from finance system, showing date paid and payment method. • Copy bank statement and BACs schedule for each item claimed.

25. Overheads • Max 20% of direct costs • Methodology for determining project-related indirect costs – must be audited by AWM • Overhead rate unique for each university on a project by project basis • Time consuming and rates coming out low • Need to retain all supporting documentation until 2025! • Replace overheads with academic timesheets?

26. Useful Links • www.advantagewm.co.uk • www.innovateuk.org • www.ktponline.org

27. Key Contacts Marc Fleetham 01902 824128 (KTP) Clare Mackinnon 01902 824004 (KTP) Alison Ogilvie 01902 323774 (ERDF queries) Michelle Depper-Westwood 01902 323791 (Finance)