Summary
The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) has collated the most frequently asked questions that have been raised for the National capability for R&D in screen and performance funding opportunity, also known as Convergent Screen Technologies And performance in Realtime (CoSTAR). These questions are from briefing events and the email inbox. They have been batched into categories.
You should take the time to review this page in full. You may find that your question has already been answered.
Please also note that this page will be updated regularly as new questions come in.
Bidders and partners
1. Can you define a core partner? In terms of core partners, is it 5 including the lead research organisation, or 5 in addition to the lead organisation?
You can have a maximum of 5 core partners in addition to the lead bidder.
The lead bidder must be a university, independent research organisation or research technology organisation.
In terms of core partners, you must have:
- an industry partner, which must be where you are co-siting the actual infrastructure (the studio or production venue or similar)
- one regional economic partner
The other core partners can be from any category (industry, research or economic).
Because CoSTAR is about building infrastructure, you will need core partners who are committed for the long term right at the heart of the project and be involved in the management of it for at least 6 years. They should not just have a passing interest in the research project.
2. Are the 5 ‘core partner statements’ the same as the 5 ‘letters of support from prospective users’?
No. Core partners contribute to the infrastructure and are expected to be part of the management structure of your research project. Each core partner must provide a 2-page statement setting out their role and resource contribution.
The letters of support are different. You can provide up to 5 separate letters from businesses or organisations that you have identified as potential users of the CoSTAR facilities you are submitting a bid for and what it would enable them to do.
3. Can we combine the different types of organisation statements into 1 core partner statement? For example, can we have 1 letter for all universities, and another letter for all local councils.
No. You must identify 5 core partners and submit a core partner statement for each one.
It is important that you distinguish between:
- core partners, who are committed in the long term to supporting, managing and developing the facility (including co-investment)
- users of the facility
Standard letters of support from potential users of the facility will show us that you have a wider community supporting your proposal.
4a. With a limit of 5 core partners the key differentiator will be industry relationships and the leverage that can be achieved from 1 or 2 big players. Can the industry partners hedge their bets by being named in multiple bids?
4b. You helpfully detailed how many bids research organisations could be involved with but did not cover industry partners.
The restrictions on bidding (acting as a core partner on up to 2 bids for the national lab and up to 3 bids for the network labs) apply to all organisations, including industry partners, not just research organisations.
5. Is the application process for lot 1 and 2 the same in terms of the attachments required?
Yes, however some of the attachments for the national lab application (lot 1) allow for slightly longer submissions. The funding opportunity outlines where longer submissions can be made under ‘How to apply’.
6. Can multiple higher education institutions work together to act as lead bidder for lot 1?
Only 1 higher education institution can be the lead bidder. Any other higher education institutions would need to be core partners.
Any bid must have an industry core partner and economic development core partner, so theoretically you could have one lead higher education institution and up to 3 core partner higher education institutions.
However, any such bid would have to make the case why this would be an appropriate structure for delivering on the requirements for the innovation infrastructure required by the funding opportunity. It would need to provide a convincing argument for efficiency, value for money, management, engagement with industry and co-investment.
7. Can a higher education institution be a lead bidder or higher education institution partner on 2 submissions to lot 1? The guidance states ‘Other organisations may partner with a maximum of 2 bids for lot 1 and 3 bids for lot 2.’ Do higher education institutions classify as an ‘other organisation’ in this context?
A higher education institution can only be the lead bidder on one submission for lot 1.
They can also be a core partner on a second bid, although we would ask that you consider carefully the management, co-investment, operational and geographic aspects if you were to be successful in multiple bids for the CoSTAR national lab.
8. Are there restrictions on institutions in terms of the bids that they can put in? The guidance states ’Bidders will not be awarded grants to operate both the national lab and any networked labs’. The national lab takes precedence if both are selected. Does ‘bidder’ refer to an individual principal investigator, applicant or the host institution?
There are restrictions on lead bidders, which are outlined in the funding opportunity.
This is an infrastructure programme so when we say bidder, we mean institution. This is not a conventional research grant. The principal investigator on the application is essentially the lead contact name for the bid. If a grant is awarded, that person may or may not become the director of the lab that is funded.
The relationship is an institutional one. Funding is not transportable should the principal investigator leave.
9. The bid document notes that an organisation cannot be awarded both lot 1 and 2. Can you be a core partner on the national lab and lead on a network lab, or vice versa?
Yes, you can do this in theory, but we would ask that you consider carefully distinguishing between what you would propose in each lot to avoid duplication. The 2 bids in this scenario would be assessed separately, but we will take a portfolio approach once bids have been shortlisted and interviewed.
10. Can any of the partners be from outside of the UK?
Yes, this is possible, although the activities this partner carries out for the project must take place in the UK.
If the organisation is headquartered outside the UK and acting as a core partner, it should act through a UK operating company wherever possible.
11a. Part of the leverage CoSTAR is going to need is the additional technology infrastructure partners, for example, Facebook, Unity, Unreal. Do you expect these to be part of what successful bidders bring forward, or will you bring those relationships as part of the support from your side?
11b. Any partners who already have established relationships with [technology] suppliers are going to be in a better position. Is that weighted in what your expectations will be?
Some if not all bidders will have existing relationships with technology partners. We did consider having a group of technology suppliers onboard but decided not to go down that route. As this funding opportunity assesses bidding partners, we expect you to leverage your partnerships and use them as part of your credentials.
We are, however, in the process of talking with a couple of strategic partners where there is a clear alignment between either:
- their strategic body function or funding function for the sectors
- their role in research and development (R&D)
We hope to be able to reveal at least some detail by late November. This will be done through the funding opportunity web page. Any strategic partners we do announce will take part in the assessment process and won’t be able to participate in individual bids, although you are free to talk to them about your application.
At this stage you should ask yourself if the companies you are thinking of are:
- partners that you need onboard to co-deliver from the start, or when you’re further down the line with establishing a network lab or the national lab
- organisations that you would hope to engage and collaborate with later for different reasons
12. Do partners have to be geographically in the same location, or can you have partners outside of your regional area?
We anticipate that the lead academic research partner would be in the same region where the lab is placed, but that isn’t prescribed.
For industry partners, there could be a case where a network lab is focused on one particular aspect, such as live performance, and has industry partners all over the country because they have a sector R&D focus, rather than have a geographic one.
We are trying to leave it as open as possible to get the best national network infrastructure we possibly can.
13. On local economic development partners, is there an expectation of the quantity of match funding from those?
To some extent. Because this is an infrastructure programme there is some expectation of significant co-investment from local economic development partners. We do not have a specific description of quantity or type of match funding because we know this will depend on local circumstances and priorities.
This is a chance to look at how CoSTAR could inform and reflect bigger picture agendas around cluster development and economic growth in your given geography, and map investment accordingly. Local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) for instance may have economic plans that to some degree match the longer-term timeframe of CoSTAR.
Or as an example with the national lab, we have particular economic development activities we ask you to meet, such as providing a knowledge exchange, commercialisation and enterprise function.
You may wish to develop an incubator function as part of this activity. While we are not able to directly fund an incubator, we can support the building of a space that might well later house an incubator if that met partnership goals, with the local economic development partner providing the additional cofunding.
14. If key industry partners are involved in an unsuccessful bid, but not initially partnering with the eventual winners, will AHRC do any matchmaking on a programme level?
In the situation that you outline, yes, we would look to work with these potential industry partners to explore how they could bring their expertise to the CoSTAR infrastructure. We would of course recognise the sensitivities around relationships formed in the bidding process.
Place and location of infrastructure
1. The national lab (lot 1) is mentioned in the funding opportunity document as needing to be accessible to all geographies. In the bid, how much do you need in terms of models, or do you just want intent? I assume this is about the ability to be open to all from the centre, so how much do you need to move that past concept?
This question picks up on the intent of accessibility. Please develop this in bids as far as you can. How people can use these facilities must be considered in terms of a nationally accessible infrastructure that can be accessed by people outside of your partnership or locale.
Think about how it will work now but also in the future, 4 or 6 years down the road. Consider how you are going to be seeding this development to grow over time and how you might accommodate industry or research projects from outside your area over a period of months.
This applies particularly to the national lab with its distinct focus on earlier technology readiness level (TRL) projects, but also to the network labs.
2. In terms of the question of location of the labs and accessibility – everywhere can be got to, but what does accessible really mean? It sounds like labs need to be located in a big city to get used in the way you envision.
We are location agnostic and genuinely open-minded about location.
Accessibility means more than transport. In your proposal please make clear how you will accommodate visiting projects or companies, organisationally and spatially, including what facilities you (or partners) will provide.
3. Thinking about accessibility, how much is levelling up part of what’s being assessed directly and part of the decision making? Can we draw on digital infrastructure to think about accessibility?
We will be interested to read proposals that consider how virtualisation of the network adds to accessibility.
During the latter stages of the selection process, we will look at the entire portfolio and how the network might operate in practice, when we will interrogate what each lab can contribute to accessibility and from this how we make up the best mix of projects.
We envisage that other existing facilities will want to work with the CoSTAR network. With this in mind it is important to think about your local funding agency and how your strategy matches and plays into their plans too.
4. What approach will you take to ensuring national distribution of this programme?
Through CoSTAR we are commissioning a national infrastructure that must provide access for all. Full details of this can be found in the briefing event slide deck that is included in the funding opportunity.
5. Are the nations included in this funding opportunity?
Yes, we welcome applications from anywhere in the UK.
6. If this is to have a wide geographical impact, do you anticipate large scale consortiums bidding for the networked bids and operating only one networked lab within the consortium?
We are intentionally not being prescriptive about the allocation of consortia to network labs.
In terms of eligibility the criteria are that an organisation can lead on:
- 1 bid for the national lab
- bids for 1, 2 or all 3 network labs
A lead organisation won’t be allowed to operate both national and network labs.
Alternatively, an organisation can partner on:
- 2 bids for the national lab
- 3 bids for network labs
We are not encouraging large-scale consortia bidding to provide all 3 network labs. There may be lead bidders who are uniquely able to provide more than 1 network lab in different geographical locations, although these will be few in number.
We envisage different, individual partnerships to be able to propose excellent bids for different, individual network labs. We would have to be convinced of any additional merits bestowed by a large multi-higher education institution partner consortium.
7. Can the network labs move around between consortium partners or does it have to be static for the duration of the programme?
We had imagined that network labs might operate in fixed locations, but if you have a mobile vision in mind, please make the case in your proposal.
You should do this in terms of the benefits it brings to delivering CoSTAR’s objectives, rather than those of your partners in the bid.
8. Will you take an active role in combining consortiums following the deadline to ensure a nationally distributed infrastructure or is the onus on the consortium partners to do this in advance?
The onus in on bidders to build consortia through their own partnerships to meet the requirements of the funding opportunity. During the final stages of the selection process we will look at the entire portfolio and how the network might operate as a whole.
9. Can an area apply if they do not have a commercially operational studio within the area, but they do have a studio within their higher education institutions and they do have good industry links?
All CoSTAR infrastructure must be co-sited with industry, not on a university campus.
10. Our nationwide consortium of higher education institutions with industry will be proposing the delivery of 3 network labs aggregating industry and applied researchers across the UK in priority areas. In order to diffuse knowledge exchange and strengthen the value of the pilots and demonstrators by aggregating best of breed industry and scholarly specialists, could the 3 labs also have 1-to-2 mobile fly away video production (VP) set ups that can be used where required to extend reach and involve as many VP and related talents as possible across the UK?
With regards to fly away components, please make clear any advantages of this approach to delivering CoSTAR’s objectives in your proposal. Take time to consider, identify and mitigate all implications and risks of these decisions.
Regarding knowledge exchange and pilots and demonstrator programmes, please bear in mind these will be coordinated by the national lab.
11. We are doing a lot of this type of development work on a local abandoned building. Is there any help available now as we build our bid, outside of this scheme?
We are not aware of any, and nothing on this scale. But where development is going on we would do what we can to connect you with an appropriate grants agency. We want to get people brought into the room who are aligned with what we are trying to achieve.
Co-siting
1. When you talk about co-siting do you mean literally on a site with a studio production facility performance company? It might not necessarily be that you have industry and facilities available in the same kind of site, so with this co-siting would it be part of a regional cluster, or would it have to be on a site with those organisations or collection of organisations?
Co-siting can include a broad list of potential venues and spaces.
A lab does need to be on the site of existing industry activity, being at a production studio, a venue, or an existing space, especially for the national lab. For the network labs, you might be looking at repurposing and renovation or redevelopment of existing locations and infrastructure to expand their function and what they deliver.
What it is not about is purely putting a research-only space onto an academic campus. It’s very much about being engaged with industry, sited with industry, and it is about that R&D collaboration that will create a more valuable kind of innovation.
2. There will be 1 physical lab: is there any flexibility in this? For example, 1 large VP stage with other multifunctional labs sited nearby (within the same city region, also hosted by industry).
As long as they are truly co-sited with industry and meet the overarching objectives of the CoSTAR funding opportunity, then this example is in principle acceptable. Please build your case through your proposal.
3. It will be co-located with an existing or developing facility rather than in a university setting: does this mean the proposed facility needs to sit on the site of a current VP facility (either in operation or in development)? Or could it be newly acquired land with no VP facility currently on site?
Either of these options are acceptable, as long as they are truly co-sited with industry and ongoing industrial activity.
4. Can you please clarify what is meant by ‘co-sited with a major studio or production’?
By co-siting we mean the infrastructure facilities need to be located within close proximity to, or on the site of, a significant studio or production facility for the screen or performance industries. To be clear, we refer to production facility, rather than production.
5. The funding opportunity mentions the national lab needs to be ‘Co-sited with a screen production facility, studio or performance company’. Later it mentions that ‘It will be co-located with an existing or developing facility rather than in a university setting’. Are these the same thing?
We see no contradiction between these 2 statements. Our responses to other questions on co-siting offer further details.
6. What stage of development would be acceptable as a developing facility? Could this be a commitment from a partner to develop a studio or facility in tandem with the CoSTAR lab?
This is potentially possible, but it presents a clear challenge should the (separately funded) commercial facility not transpire. You will need to provide comfort in your application of the solidity of any such partner commitment.
National lab, network labs and their relationship
1. What is the vision of the national lab and the activity that will take place in this? Can you provide some context and vision around this?
The national lab will have a significant amount of applied research activity, some directed by its own research strategy and staff, some determined by incoming projects. This will be carried out by transdisciplinary teams.
As outlined in the funding opportunity, we are more concerned with ongoing capabilities rather than technologies. For instance, asset creation in virtual worlds or the metaverse will be an ongoing challenge but will change over time. For example, if architects invent a model for virtual buildings, things come out of that such as intellectual property and standards.
So, think about an experimental production space with a series of flexible spaces and accommodate people in teams with expertise areas. These could include engineering tech teams seconded to the lab by partners.
There will also be the demonstrators and pilots fund, and a team working on knowledge exchange, commercialisation and enterprise, which may extend to provide some of the functions of an accelerator incubator.
2a. Can you clarify the connection between national and network labs that you want to see at this stage, in terms of intent or how these things might work together, or do you expect those bids to be entirely separate?
2b. What is the ideal relationship between the national lab and the network labs? Are you looking for the network labs to be focused to specific sectoral communities?
We want the facilities forming the CoSTAR infrastructure to operate in a coordinated and collaborative manner. However, at this stage we are not being overly prescriptive deliberately because we want to see what ideas come in.
There will be connectivity and interoperability between all 4 labs, but it is up to you to create that, and we would want to know your thoughts on how they would connect together. Obviously, the extent to which you can do that is limited given you will be developing bids independently, but we want to know what you think your proposal can contribute to the network.
We have deliberately designed the process so that bids for lots 1 and 2 will be assessed separately and there will be no single operator to avoid a winner takes all outcome. If you are a partner in bids for both lot 1 and 2, it is important, in trying to create some sense of coherence, that these bids do not depend on each other and are fully explained in their own right, as the people assessing the applications won’t necessarily see both.
In terms of the relationship between the national lab and network labs, we imagine that one element in the portfolio decision making will be complementarity, on grounds of:
- geography
- sector coverage
- both geography and sector coverage
We expect many aspects of the relationships across the network to emerge after preferred bidders are selected.
We can imagine network labs proposals that convincingly argue for a focus on sectoral communities within the overall screen and performance scope, but we have no predetermined preference for that model.
3. What are you doing to ensure that there is a cohesiveness about the approach shared between the national lab and the 3 network labs given that you are proposing a cherry-picking scenario where you might pick from 3 different solutions?
Our portfolio approach will involve AHRC selecting the best bids to build this national infrastructure. We assume that there will be work to be done on the coherence and working relationships between the individual facilities after preferred bidders are identified. This will extend through the final business case phase and beyond.
We imagine this as an interactive and iterative process between AHRC and the bidders. It will involve setting up of the proposed strategy board, which will bring the leaders of the CoSTAR components together. We also assume this will involve agility, flexibility and partnership working from all involved.
4. How much do you expect the national and network labs to be interoperable, considering there will be demands on digital infrastructure, for example, rendering demands and realtime processing?
We expect the national lab and network labs to work to a common strategy which will address interoperability between the facilities on a technical and operational level. The degree of interoperability is yet to be determined.
We would expect the CTOs (or similar) of the labs to consider the potential synergies and benefits of common standards and any shared functionalities, under the auspices of the strategy board.
There may even be subsequent proposals to enhance aspects of the infrastructure deriving from this. This is all to be worked out as CoSTAR develops beyond this initial funding opportunity.
5. Connectivity and cloud: will this be a collaborative activity between the network labs and the CoSTAR national lab? Can you confirm the costs of the 5G (plus whatever) will be paid for under lot 1? We have learned much over the last 2 years on connecting up 3 hubs over distance within a mixed community of higher education institutions, industry, and third sector. For example, it cost us £80,000 to do this across a shared geography and was an exceptionally difficult tendering and implementation process.
We expect inoperability between facilities on a technical and operational level, to an extent yet to be determined.
We imagine that connectivity and common, shared or interoperable solutions (including connectivity) will be identified by the selected bidders and the cost determined proportionate to their needs and funding. In that sense we do not imagine all costs will be borne by the national lab, but on the basis of proportionality it might be expected to bear the bulk of the costs. We do note your experience in the challenges of procurement.
Finance and costing
1. The cost of something like 5G will be split between the national lab and the network labs so what would that split of funding be?
Decisions on the funding of resources common across CoSTAR will be made after preferred bidders are appointed and so will be based on a common strategy agreed by those preferred bidders working together through the Strategy Board. We do not yet know what partners people might be able to bring in and that might be material. A proportionate approach to funding from the national lab and the network labs may be appropriate.
2. Is there an optimum ratio of full-time equivalent and infrastructure spend that’s anticipated through the programme, particularly for the main network lab? If there isn’t going to be, for example, a facility in universities then how are people and skills development going to be supported? Is there an optimum ratio of costs that may go towards people as opposed to infrastructure for example?
Is the infrastructure funding coming from your side primarily targeted at capital investment?
There are 2 types of infrastructure funding. One is to set up, build and test facilities the other is funding for their running costs. Both are included within CoSTAR and thus the current funding opportunity is not restricted to capital expenditure but also to the support of the staff needed to build and test the infrastructure in use. We do not have a desired ratio between capital expenditure, operational expenditure and equipment.
The key thing is for you to establish what resource (capex, opex, equipment) you think you will need to deliver the capability that we have specified and then how you propose to fund that from the infrastructure available from CoSTAR and any co-investment.
You may also want to explain to us how you think this will evolve over time towards a mixed funding model that will support your facilities beyond this 6-year build and test phase. A proportion of that future mixed funding model would be provided by UKRI’s World Class Labs scheme.
3. If you go above wanting to spend £115,000 on a piece of equipment do you need to provide 2 pages to justify that piece of equipment? With the 5G network this is something that is going to be a requirement so would we need to justify that (a big spend)?
No, you do not need to devote 2 pages to justifying the purchase of every individual piece of equipment over £115,000.
Please provide a single 2-page list of any equipment greater than £115,00 annotated with a brief description and supplier quotation for each item. You should refer to major items on this list within the justification of resources and use that document to provide the reasoning behind your equipment specification.
4. Is the 89 staff mentioned a fixed number?
This establishment figure was based on a model created for the national lab in the outline business case. Aside from giving a numerical indication of the order of the R&D and technical capability anticipated for the national lab (as well as to deliver the demonstrator and pilot programme and knowledge exchange, commercialisation and enterprise function) it places no obligation on you to propose staffing at this level. Your own proposals will rest on different assumptions and particular core partner relationships and thus your establishment levels may be higher or lower.
5. How movable are the budget lines? The network labs are likely to be up and running before the national lab so therefore pilots and demonstrators might be better situated in the network labs during year 1.
How flexible is infrastructure in the budget lines, both for the national lab and network labs?
Overall, the financial envelope imposed on us by the UKRI infrastructure fund is relatively inflexible. We have very limited ability to transfer funding between lots and even less in terms of transfer between fiscal years. Our current spending plan reflects that the team managing the pilot and demonstrator fund is based in the national lab. We do not expect them to be there in year 1, because the national lab will not yet be operational. Therefore, we cannot necessarily expect any funding for pilots and demonstrator to be made available for the network labs in that period.
6. You said that the funding wasn’t for skills, but the facilities could actually put some money towards the skills when we are thinking about the actual tender itself. Is it still worth talking about the skills within the bid as an output and an impact or are we completely taking that out?
Training activities are not funded but can the Capex be used to fund the space for this?
How might skills training, workflow development and dissemination take place within the final network plan?
Skill development is hugely important to delivering the objectives of CoSTAR but this infrastructure funding cannot be spent directly on the delivery of skills programmes.
The current CoSTAR funding will support the build and test of facilities, the acquisition of technology and equipment and will fund the technical and research staff required to operate and test those facilities; the facilities would be accessible for the use of a range of skills programmes that bidders and their partners may want to host and deliver. However, the infrastructure funding can not be used to directly support the costs of delivering those skills programmes. In your application we would encourage you to show how you and your core partners might make use of this opportunity and how this might engage co-investment
Any coordination of skills, training and wider collaboration across the network will come within the scope of the Strategy Board once we have preferred bidders.
7. There is £0 in year 1 in the lot 1 budget chart and £0 across all years in lot 2 for pilots and demonstrators. Is this negotiable?
The pilots and demonstrator programme will be delivered on behalf of the network by a team based in the national lab, thus all the funding for that programme is included in lot 1. Networked labs will have access to this funding for projects to use their facilities, but the funding as set out is constrained by the overall funding envelope and timeline.
8. Can funding for building the CoSTAR national infrastructure be taken from lot 1 and moved to lot 2 if evidenced and fully justified?
The funding distribution between lots 1 and 2 is fixed.
9. Is there a cap on the maximum value of any one bid [for lot 2]? Theoretically, could you go up to £12.6 million?
Funding for lot 2 is to fund up to a maximum of 3 network labs, any application for a single network lab could choose to evidence and justify a budget at any level within the £12.6 million available.
10. The funding opportunity says that demonstrator (and future responsive mode funding opportunities) will be subject to ‘assessment of applications by experts across the CoSTAR infrastructure’. Will this be tightly overseen by AHRC, or left to the lab administration (or combination of both)?
We anticipate that subject to meeting the overall objectives of CoSTAR this will be devolved to the network, meaning the national and network lab teams.
11. Will demonstrator projects be funded as per Innovate UK projects and sub-awards in funded SIPF or RPIF programmes? For example, with industry paying a % of project costs according to Innovate UK’s standard grant intensities, noting that the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022 is not yet in place?
That is one well proven model, but the AHRC Creative Industries Clusters Programme developed a range of others and Innovate UK has also recently explored fully funded models similar to the de minimus arrangements within the previous (EU) subsidy regime. Structuring of the scheme will be established in the final business case period prior to grant award subject to any further guidance on the emerging UK Subsidy Control regime. AHRC will work with preferred bidders on this.
12. World Class Labs funding: there is a line in the table, but no figures against it. Does this imply that this will come in at a later point, for example to provide continuity funding? It was implied that this could be used to fund some of the training elements later on down the line. Please confirm if possible.
CoSTAR facilities will be eligible for World Class Labs funding subsequent to the build and test phase that is funded under this current funding opportunity. World Class Labs is able to provide evergreen core funding for CoSTAR but is still infrastructure funding and subject to limitations that apply at the time.
13. Is the expectation that the lead higher education institutions partner would hold the majority of the budget, or should it be allocated to the commercial partner(s) where the R&D lab(s) and staff would be based?
All funding will initially be granted to the lead bidder which must be a research organisation, research technology organisation or independent research organisations. Division of budget line between partners should be on the basis of needs and the arrangements that you have within your partnership over the provision of resources, including staff. For clarity we require the labs to be co-sited with industry not run by industry partners.
14. Is the 100% full economic cost funding applicable to all costs categories, for example DI, DA, estates costs etc.? Is there a special rate for overheads for example? In other words, are all costs exceptions?
This is correct. All costs are exceptions. This is because this is not a research grant, but a grant for a national capability. Normal overhead rates apply.
15. The funding opportunity states staff funded at 100% full economic cost, which implies they would be university employees, however they may not be employed by a university if the funding is used to establish a new co to manage the facility. Do higher education institution full economic cost rates apply regardless?
Within the initial 6-year set-up phase for CoSTAR, we are asking grant-holding institutions to host capability for us, not to establish a new company. New staff employed under the programme would also be eligible for reimbursement at 100% full economic cost. Again, normal overhead rates apply. Staff may also be employed by other partners within the consortium.
Co-investment
1. Can you explain the co-funding in more detail?
Are there any rules about co-investment? Does it have to be cash or in-kind?
Would ‘in-kind’ contributions be appropriate for the co-investment?
Co-investment can be cash or in-kind. It could be a CapEx match from local economic development partners. It could be joint financing programmes. It could be attachment or secondment of staff. Other sources of public funding are eligible, including combined authority funding and equivalents.
In-kind investment should be clear and concrete enough to enable you to calculate a numerical value. This is perhaps easiest to do in terms of attached or seconded staff costs. These should be calculated as cost plus overhead not on a ‘charge out’ basis. Please support any in-kind costings with a clear rationale.
As set out in the briefings we will recognise 4 types of co-investment: pledged, additional, aligned and follow-on. These are defined as:
- pledged co-investment: the additional investment (in terms of eligible costs) the lead bidder and core partners intend to provide for the infrastructure and R&D activity part-funded through the AHRC CoSTAR grant. This pledged investment must be committed at the outset of the project and exceed the minimum figures set out in the funding opportunity
- additional co-investment: the extra public (but non-UKRI) and private investments in CoSTAR R&D activity over and above those pledged at the outset that the lead bidder and core partners may make to achieve the objectives of CoSTAR. These will necessarily be estimates or projections
- aligned co-investment: this is investment in projects or programmes thematically aligned to (and directly prompted by CoSTAR activity) but which drives other outcomes. Aligned investment might be in areas is coordinated industry or research need which are not supported by infrastructure funding. for example on skills programmes, talent development, economic impact studies or accelerator and incubator programmes. Aligned investment may also occur as a result of increased confidence in the area created by CoSTAR, for example having used the CoSTAR infrastructure, an organisation starting a second related research project with no grant from CoSTAR or AHRC
- follow-on co-investment: is investment to take to market, exploit, further develop or commercialise outcomes from CoSTAR R&D activity. This may involve combining CoSTAR outcomes with other intellectual property, technology or business inputs to achieve a commercial product or it may involve funding further R&D activities building on those developed through CoSTAR
We envisage that core partners will be sufficiently engaged with and contributing to the proposals that they will be willing to contribute to co-investment modelling at the bidding stage. What we want is a map of how co-investment would continue to grow over time and as well as evidence that you have the networks to create a ‘landing strip’ for other peoples’ money.
2. What will the match funding actually look like? Is it a cash contribution or is that some sort of benefit in kind? We’re looking particularly at the regional labs and whether the facilities contribution would equate to an industry partner’s contribution to the project.
In this particular case it is likely to be an in-kind investment. One thing to consider is how can you meaningfully count (enumerate) the value of the contribution because really it is about finding investment that is concrete and real, not vague or very hard to evaluate.
3. Are you saying that give or take there is about £3 of grant for every £1 of co-investment? Is the initial lot phased over 6 years because obviously if it’s primarily capital you will want to front-end as much as possible?
The initial pledged co-investment must be above the minimum levels for each lot as per the funding opportunity document. Yes that is approximately £3 grant for every £1 co-investment. On the second half of the question, the profiles are in the documentation so please see those.
4. In terms of co-investment, are other sources of public funding eligible for this, or does it need to be commercial or philanthropic etc.? We assume that combined authority funding is fine for this as they are cited as a mandatory in the consortium? Similarly, it was mentioned that we should look at other research council funding schemes (EPSRC I think were mentioned in the briefing). Can you confirm that this will count towards the plans for match?
Other sources of co-investment are eligible, including public investment. This can be capital (cash or assets) or in kind subject to that being quantifiable, reportable and trackable. We have set out minimum levels of co-investment that must be identified and committed at the outset.
We believe that research grants will be part of the future mixed revenue model for CoSTAR labs, complementing World Class Labs (infrastructure) and industry funding, all this subsequent to the current build and test phase. To include any such funding now you would have to provide evidence that the funding can be provided in a way that it is committed to deliver the objectives of CoSTAR, rather than for any other purpose. Otherwise, it should be considered aligned co-investment and while it cannot contribute to the initial co-investment targets that we have set out it contributes to the overall plans that we have requested.
5. The funding opportunity doesn’t show where the lines are drawn on what is creative industries and what is not. We know it is blurry as there is a crossover now because creative is becoming part of major industries that were not creative industries before. Where do you draw the barriers?
We are using the standard DCMS definitions of the creative industries. This captures the businesses, organisations and workforce that operate across nine clearly defined subsectors:
- advertising and marketing
- architecture
- crafts
- design (including fashion design)
- film, TV, radio and photography
- IT and software (including computer games)
- publishing
- museums, galleries and libraries
- music, performing and visual arts
Beyond this, creative practitioners and creative job roles exist within businesses which themselves are part of other industrial sectors. Taken together with those in creative industry businesses, this makes up the larger creative economy. However for this funding opportunity we are tightly focused on delivering an infrastructure to serve a clearly defined beneficiary group, the screen (film, TV, computer games) and performance sector.
Governance
1. What is required of the principal investigators is described in detail. But do all the attributes mentioned need to reside in 1 person or could they be spread across a team?
The CoSTAR labs are facilities forming an infrastructure, so this is very different from a conventional research grant with a principal investigator. This grant will certainly not be portable should any named principal investigator move institutions.
We want you to set out in your application the key leadership and management roles and the structure they will operate within. If you know some or all of the personnel that will fill those roles then please tell us more; however, we recognise you may be looking to recruit key roles in which case tell us about the role.
One of those roles may be the person that leads the application and is named as principal investigator. We will consider the person named as principal investigator to be leading the bid, but do not expect them necessarily to lead the delivery of the part of the infrastructure that you are applying for.
2. The funding opportunity says that “A new organisation formed by the private and public partners in the project consortia could be set-up to manage and operate the lab, subject to continuing eligibility for AHRC funding”. How do we ensure this is eligible for AHRC funding as a new co is unlikely to hold the right level of standard eligibility?
We need to differentiate between 2 things here. You may (but certainly do not have to) set up with your core partners an operational company to manage the facility. If you go down this route please set out your thinking on the benefits of doing so in the application.
In the longer term we imagine that CoSTAR’s delivery structure may evolve, subject to discussions between the partners delivering the infrastructure and with AHRC. These discussions would take place once the infrastructure is operational and may consider a number of options one of which might be looking to gain independent research organisation status. Should this route be chosen it will involve discussion with and facilitation by AHRC.
3. Will impact and performance monitoring be handled or imposed by AHRC, or will you work with the grant holder to co-design the evaluation framework?
An impact and performance framework will be developed by the AHRC CoSTAR team, based on the principles in the outline business case. This framework will be shared with preferred bidders once known and further developed with them prior to grant award.
Timescales
1. What do you think is the timescale for the national lab, considering how long it takes to get a building out of the ground, because this influences how the network labs work individually and work cohesively together?
When setting out your vision, think about how you start a narrative that tells that story of the different stages of the build, and how you would bring in additional partners or additional activity across the 6 years.
We are not putting a specific timer on the build process. We are expecting the national lab to be the last part to be operational (around 2025 to 2026), but it is not specified what is meant by operational so that is more open to interpretation.
Also, while new build is mentioned, we are also anticipating bidders who have buildings perhaps already being built without a designated use that may be able to house a lab.
Operating models
1. Following a successful bid for a lot 2 hub, would commercial hire of the facility be permitted (or indeed encouraged)? We recognise that R&D is to be the primary focus, but as the facility is to be co-located with a commercial studio facility could it also be used commercially?
Yes, this is possible. A facility can be used commercially as long as this is in line with the purposes and deliverables that the funding is designed for, and meets the core objectives of CoSTAR.
Communications
1a. Will there be any facility for networking for individual researchers to learn about prospective bid teams from large institutions? I think other past funding initiatives have had online profiles and connection tools available.
1b. Are there any networking opportunities AHRC provide to link up potential consortium partners?
We anticipate that potential applicants will use the briefing events as well as their own networks, connections and relationships to build partnerships and bidding consortia. We will not be hosting any specific events for networking.
Assessment and outcomes
1. What are your early thoughts on what success looks like and the sort of monitoring and evaluation in the framework and the kind of things you’re going to ask people to cover when they think about impact?
We do not yet have a full monitoring and evaluation framework, and this is something that we will be co-developing at the preferred bidder stage. There will be an external evaluation, and there will also be a need to for each lab to gather their own data on progress and activities. Given that we are asking you to demonstrate the long-term impact of your proposal, and also how it meets the objectives of CoSTAR, it would be helpful to see a benefits analysis or model, including the anticipated benefits, and the activities, outputs and outcomes that will lead to these benefits being realised.
Thinking broadly about success, we are impact focused and not process focused. As a funding opportunity this one breaks some conventions in that it is funding infrastructure, it is funding infrastructure not on campuses, and it is not a linear, beginning-middle-end conventional research programme but is instead ceding longer term vision. So what looks ‘good’ takes each of those things on in innovative ways. On partnerships, while who the core partners are is really important, what kind of relationships could come out of this in the longer term is also key, for example for regional economic agencies and organisations, how could a cluster genuinely fit into strategic economic plans and be a step change for local and regional creative industries, and how they fit into a national picture too?
2. How much pressure do you think the successful labs will have around things like quick wins, Research Excellence Framework reviews?
We are not expecting research outcomes as this is not the primary motivation for CoSTAR. The main motivation is industrial impact which runs to a different cycle to applied research programmes. We are developing a framework to understand the performance of CoSTAR and this will be focused on measuring genuine, long-term impact, and progress towards those long-term goals.
Miscellaneous
1. The announcements and the preamble to the funding opportunity documents mention the audience as being at the heart of the bid. But in the bid document there is no reference to the audience. How central are audiences?
Any successful bid will include outcomes that will have an impact on audiences.
R&D going through the labs could in theory involve audience research and audience testing. But the core of CoSTAR is the transformation of production, and respondents should focus on the requirements outlined in the funding opportunity document and what it prioritises.
2. You are planning an intervention that is a long-term investment and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within this sector are continuing to struggle while that convergence is occurring. What is your hope for users at this stage of the intervention?
SMEs are often more focused on planning in the shorter term, such as the next few months or the year ahead. Long term vision is not always the priority.
It is our ambition that CoSTAR might be able to inform and influence some SME’s long-term growth plans. We hope that the CoSTAR network will be accessible by businesses of all sizes and stages – that is the long-term view.
In terms of where SMEs fit, we have emphasised in the briefings that applicants must demonstrate that their partnership is for the long term and any of those partners bidding must prove they know their users. The best way to prove that is to talk about and name companies you think will use the infrastructure and describe how they would use it and fit into the vision.
3. How much is CoSTAR about arts and humanities?
CoSTAR is probably more about arts than humanities, but primarily it is about doing something that doesn’t easily fit into current models of research council funding.
It could as easily sit under a different council banner (not AHRC) as it’s not just arts and humanities but about the convergence that is taking place in this sector: CoSTAR is about developing the wider business-side ecosystem, including the collaboration between creative industries and universities.