Guidance

Muslim War Memorial: scoring framework

Published 27 May 2026

Applies to England

This guidance provides you with information on the criteria used when your application for the Muslim War Memorial is assessed. Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will assess all bids from eligible applicants against this common assessment framework.

Eligibility

To apply for this grant, your organisation must operate in England, deliver all funded activities within England and be one of the following:

a. An organisation registered as a charity with the Charity Commission
b. A Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered with Companies House and the Charity Commission
c. A company limited by guarantee registered with Companies House
d. A Community Interest Company registered with Companies House
e. A public sector organisation, such as a local authority

Please note that in the case of a joint or consortium application, the above requirements are applicable only to the Lead Applicant.

Location

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 20%.

We will ask you to:

Confirm the proposed location and explain how you plan to secure the memorial site and obtain planning permission.

Provide confidence that the proposed site will be secure, support accessibility and create opportunities for diverse communities to come together.

Outline how you have engaged, or plan to engage, with key stakeholders during the site selection process, including representatives of the Muslim community, the British Armed Forces, and local residents.

Securing the site

Weighted at 10%

Score	Descriptor
0	Site not identified and little or no explanation of plans for securing a site.
1	Site identified and some, albeit limited or vague evidence of how and when it will be secured and how and when planning permission will be obtained.
2	Site identified. Clear, specific evidence of plans for securing it and obtaining planning permission, with timings and responsibilities identified.
3	Site identified, and comprehensive, credible evidence demonstrates that all necessary plans are in place to secure the location and obtain the required permissions in line with the project timeline. Timelines and responsibilities are clearly defined, providing strong assurance that the memorial can be delivered as scheduled.

Site justification

Weighted at 10%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no justification given for site suitability.
1	Limited justification which may not adequately cover one or more of the four key considerations of safety, security, accessibility, and impact on stakeholders.
2	Justification for site suitability is clear and provides confidence that the memorial will likely be safe, secure, and accessible, with an explanation of how the needs of specific communities and demographic groups have or will be considered.
3	Comprehensive justification presented, showing that a range of factors, including, but not limited to, safety, security, and accessibility, have been thoroughly considered. Detailed explanation as to how the needs of specific communities and demographic groups have or will be considered.

Design

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 15%.

We will ask you to:

Explain how you will ensure public support for the memorial design.

Describe how you will select an appropriate artist to design the memorial.

Garnering support for the memorial design

Weighted at 7.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence of actual or planned consultation with stakeholders and the public on the design.
1	Some, albeit limited or vague evidence of actual or planned stakeholder consultation.
2	Good, clear evidence of plans for stakeholder consultation and garnering public support, including details of timings, roles and responsibilities and progress to date. Specific actions and target stakeholders identified, including ensuring that the Muslim and Armed Forces communities are consulted.
3	Strong and clearly evidenced plans are in place to secure broad support for the memorial design, including detailed information on completed and planned engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders. Timelines and responsibilities for delivering engagement activity are explicitly defined. Engagement activity prioritises tailored, targeted consultation with Muslim communities and the Armed Forces, while also extending beyond these groups to ensure an inclusive and representative process.

Artist selection

Weighted at 7.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence of plans for the selection of an artist to design the memorial.
1	Description of artist selection process lacks clarity and detail.
2	Overall, the artist selection process is clearly outlined, with indicative timelines and a description of roles and responsibilities. However, some aspects of the process lack sufficient detail or clarity.
3	The artist selection process is fully detailed, including credible timelines, clearly defined roles and responsibilities and adherence to best practice standards.

Stakeholder engagement and social outcomes

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 15%.

We will ask you to:

Explain how you will engage with the public and key stakeholders during the delivery of the memorial. This should cover engagement activities beyond those relating to the selection of the design and site, as these are addressed in earlier questions.

Explain how you will deliver the following social outcomes which are also listed in the Grant Objectives section of this prospectus:

• increase public awareness of the contributions made by Muslims to this country during the World Wars, while also highlighting the role of other faiths and ethnicities
• encourage reflection among people of all backgrounds, faiths, and ethnicities on the shared sacrifices made during the World Wars
• ensure recognition and honour for Muslim communities, including armed forces veterans, their families, and descendants, so they feel their sacrifices are acknowledged and valued

Stakeholder engagement

Weighted at 6%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence of plans for engagement with public and stakeholder groups.
1	Some evidence of public engagement planning, but lacking in detail and may not address all of the stakeholder groups identified in the application.
2	Good evidence of plans for engaging with the public, including details of specific actions for all of the stakeholders referenced in the application.
3	Strong evidence of well-developed plans for engaging with the public, including clear and specific actions for all stakeholder groups referenced in the application. The evidence may extend further by addressing subsets within key stakeholder groups, as well as additional or hard to reach groups or communities.

Delivery of social outcomes

Weighted at 6%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no explanation as to how the required outcomes referenced in the prospectus will be integrated into the delivery of the memorial.
1	Evidence of plans to achieve the required outcomes, but the level of detail is limited, may include significant gaps and the link between proposed activities and the intended outcomes may not be entirely clear.
2	Clear description of plans for achieving all required outcomes, including examples of specific planned activities and details on any planned collaborations. The link between the proposed activities and the intended outcomes is clear.
3	Detailed evidence of credible plans to achieve all outcomes specified in the prospectus, including details on any planned collaborations and potentially along with additional outcomes and enhanced impacts beyond those referenced in the prospectus. Evidence includes specific examples of a broad range of proposed activities.

Monitoring and reporting social outcomes

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence of how the social outcomes will be recorded, measured, and reported.
1	Evidence of plans is limited. The information provided is unclear and does not address all of the required social outcomes.
2	Clear evidence of deliverable plans which address all of the required social outcomes. Key timings and responsibilities set out.
3	Detailed evidence of effective systems for recording, measuring, and reporting social outcomes, with clear timings, methodologies, baselining processes, and defined responsibilities.

Delivery

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 15%.

We will ask you to:

Demonstrate your experience and capability to successfully deliver the memorial project.

Provide a project organogram, setting out key roles, responsibilities and reporting lines.

Provide a comprehensive plan for the delivery of the memorial, supported by a detailed explanation.

Provide assurance that robust provisions are in place to ensure the long-term security, preservation, and maintenance of the memorial.

Provide assurance that appropriate measures are in place to assess, manage, and mitigate the project’s environmental effects.

Demonstrate how you will ensure full compliance with the Equality Act 2010 throughout the development and delivery of the memorial.

Applicant capability

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no assurance that the necessary skills and experience will be in place to deliver the project.
1	Evidence provided but may be lacking in detail and specificity. Relevance to the delivery of the project may be unclear.
2	Assurance provided that the project will be delivered by a team with the appropriate skills and experience, supported by a clear breakdown of the core project members and their respective responsibilities. Any resourcing gaps have been identified, along with plans outlining how these will be addressed.
3	Strong assurance provided that the project will be delivered by a team with the necessary skills and experience. This includes a full breakdown of the proposed team, their respective responsibilities, and relevant examples of delivering comparable projects. All resourcing gaps have been identified, along with detailed plans and timescales for how these will be addressed.

Project plan

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	A completed project plan has not been provided.
1	Plan provided, but may be incomplete and does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the project plan template.
2	Plan meets minimum requirements set out in the project plan template and includes a good range of proposed milestones covering all phases of delivery.
3	Plan meets minimum requirements set out in the project plan template and is replete with a comprehensive list of milestones covering all phases of delivery.

Project plan - supporting explanation

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no explanation offered as to how the timeframes in the project plan will be met.
1	An explanation has been provided for how the stated milestones and timelines will be achieved. However, there may be some gaps or inconsistencies (when compared to the project plan) which raise significant concerns around achievability.
2	Clear explanation provides a good level of assurance that the stated milestones and timelines are deliverable. The explanation includes a description of how dependencies, capacity, and resources will be managed where applicable. There are some minor gaps or inconsistencies, but these raise only limited concerns about overall achievability.
3	Detailed explanation provides a high level of confidence that the stated milestones and timelines are deliverable. The explanation includes a comprehensive description of how dependencies, capacity, and resources will be managed where applicable.

Environmental impact

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence as to how the environmental impacts of the project will be managed and mitigated.
1	Some evidence of how environmental impacts of the project will be identified, measured, and managed. However, there may be some gaps or inconsistencies in the explanation which raise significant concerns around achievability.
2	Clear explanation provides a good level of assurance that environmental impacts will be identified, measured, and managed effectively. Reference made to best practice standards and relevant environmental policies and strategies, although it may not be completely clear how the project will implement these.
3	Detailed explanation gives strong confidence that the environmental impacts will be effectively identified, measured, and managed. It clearly outlines how the project will adhere to best practice, as well as relevant environmental policies and strategies.

Compliance with Equality Act

Weighted at 3%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence as to how the project will be delivered in compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
1	Reference is made to the Equality Act 2010, but unclear how the project will adhere to it in practice.
2	Evidence gives assurance that the project will meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, with clear examples showing how the memorial will be designed to ensure accessibility for all, irrespective of their protected characteristics.
3	Evidence provides strong assurance that the project will comply with the Equality Act 2010. This includes clear examples of how the memorial and all associated funded activities will be designed to ensure full accessibility for all individuals, regardless of their protected characteristics. The submission also outlines planned actions that go beyond basic legal compliance, showing a proactive commitment to inclusivity and equitable access.

Exit plan and arrangements

This section is assessed and carries a weighting of 10%.

We will ask you to:

Confirm who will assume ownership of the memorial after it has been built.

Provide details of the plans, including how these will be implemented to ensure long-term security and maintenance of the memorial.

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence of planning to ensure the long-term maintenance and security of the memorial.
1	Long-term ownership and/or custodianship of the memorial has been identified. There is some evidence of planning to support the memorial’s ongoing maintenance and security; however, this information is limited or lacks sufficient detail.
2	Long-term ownership or custodianship of the memorial has been clearly identified. Clear evidence of sustainable maintenance and security plans, funding arrangements, and any necessary contractual agreements.
3	Long-term ownership or custodianship of the memorial has been clearly identified. Detailed evidence of security plans, funding arrangements, and any necessary contractual agreements. Evidence of a detailed specific conservation plan, including how it will be sustained and implemented.

Costs and Funding

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 10%.

We will ask you to:

Provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed project costs and associated funding sources.

Explain how you have developed credible project expenditure forecasts.

Demonstrate how you will ensure that the project delivers value for money.

Explain how you will manage project cash flow, secure match funding and outline the measures in place to address any potential cost overruns.

Costs and Funding Tables

Weighted at 2.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	The Cost and Funding Tables document either has not been completed at all or contains significant data omissions and errors.
1	The Cost and Funding Tables document is largely complete, but there may be a few minor data omissions, errors or inconsistencies between the data provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
2	The Cost and Funding Tables are complete and accurate, including a clear cost breakdown, which provides assurance is provided that the grant will only be utilised for eligible expenditure. The information across Tables 1, 2, and 3 is consistent throughout.
3	The Cost and Funding Tables have been completed fully and accurately, including a clear, comprehensive cost breakdown, which provides strong assurance that the grant will only be utilised for eligible expenditure. No inconsistencies between the information provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Relevance of costs to project delivery and VFM

Weighted at 2.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no justification that the proposed eligible costs are relevant to project delivery and represent good VFM.
1	Unclear if some of the proposed grant usages are essential to project delivery. Limited or vague evidence that the cost estimates offer Value for Money.
2	Substantial evidence that the proposed eligible costs are directly relevant to project delivery, with clear links to the activities outlined in the project plan and the wider application. Assurance provided that the costs represent best value, supported by reference for example to appropriate benchmarks or comparable projects. Clear rationale provided for any ineligible costs if applicable.
3	Comprehensive evidence that all proposed eligible costs are integral to delivering the project, with direct and consistent cross-referencing to activities in the project plan and wider application. The applicant provides robust assurance of best value, supported by detailed benchmarking, market testing, or clear comparisons with similar projects. Clear rationale provided for any ineligible costs if applicable.

Costs and Funding estimates

Weighted at 2.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no explanation as to how the cost forecasts have been developed.
1	The explanation is lacking in detail or consistency, thus raising significant concerns about the robustness of the estimates.
2	Evidence provides assurance that the cost estimates are credible, with a clearly set out methodology.
3	Evidence demonstrates a high level of assurance that the cost estimates are reliable, supported by a detailed methodology that incorporates risk and provides well explained assumptions.

Funding security and cost control

Weighted at 2.5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence to demonstrate how required match funding will be secured, how cost overruns or match funding shortfalls will be managed, or that the applicant can cashflow the project if costs are reimbursed in arrears.
1	Some evidence is provided to demonstrate how required match funding will be secured, how cost overruns or match funding shortfalls will be managed, and that the applicant can cashflow the project if costs are reimbursed in arrears. However, several details lack clarity or there are significant gaps in the evidence.
2	Evidence demonstrates that either no additional funding is required or that appropriate arrangements are in place to secure it in a timely manner so that project delivery is not compromised. Measures for monitoring and mitigating cost overruns or match funding shortfalls are outlined but may be lacking in detail. The applicant provides assurance that they can cashflow the project if costs are reimbursed in arrears.
3	Evidence demonstrates that either no additional funding is required or that appropriate arrangements are in place to secure it in a timely manner so that project delivery is not compromised. Clear details provided on how cost overruns and match funding shortfalls will be monitored and mitigated. The applicant provides detailed assurance that they can cashflow the project if costs are reimbursed in arrears.

Management and governance

This section is assessed and carries an overall weighting of 15%.

We will ask you to:

Describe the management, procurement, risk, and financial management systems that will be implemented throughout the delivery of the project.

Ensure that all project procurement is carried out in full compliance with the relevant regulations.

Explain how you will manage and monitor the performance of all delivery partners.

Management systems, procedures, and controls

Weighted at 5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence that the necessary overall management, financial, delivery and monitoring systems, procedures, and controls will be put in place.
1	Limited evidence regarding the management, financial, delivery, and monitoring systems. Proposed procedures and controls are unclear or insufficiently described. Details of the project board/steering group are minimal, with little or no information on membership or meeting arrangements. Information on contractual arrangements with delivery partners is either missing or lacks sufficient detail to provide assurance.
2	Proposed management, financial, delivery, and monitoring systems, procedures, and controls outlined. Details of the proposed project board/steering group provided, including membership and meeting frequency. Information on the proposed contractual arrangements with delivery partners is also provided.
3	Detailed evidence provides confidence that management, financial, delivery, and monitoring systems, procedures, and controls are either in place or ready to be implemented, with a clear rationale for their effectiveness. The proposed project board/steering group is well defined, with membership, roles, and a regular meeting schedule clearly outlined. Strong and appropriate contractual arrangements with delivery partners are detailed.

Procurement

Weighted at 5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Little or no evidence that procurement can be managed effectively and in accordance with statutory requirements.
1	Limited evidence that the necessary expertise or experience is or will be in place to manage procurements effectively. Roles and responsibilities are unclear or only partially defined. Applicable statutory requirements may be referenced, but there is insufficient assurance that these will be met or understood.
2	Evidence, supported by specific examples provides assurance that the necessary expertise and experience is or will be in place to manage the majority of the procurements, but there may be some minor gaps. Roles and responsibilities are identified, though some areas require further clarification. Applicable statutory requirements are recognised, with assurance provided on how these will be met.
3	Detailed evidence, supported by multiple specific examples, provides confidence that the necessary expertise and experience are in place, or will be established to ensure all procurements are managed effectively. Roles and responsibilities are clearly identified. Applicable statutory requirements are recognised, with assurance provided on how these will be met.

Managing risk

Weighted at 5%

Score	Descriptor
0	Key delivery risks have not been identified, and there is little or no evidence demonstrating how risks will be managed.
1	Key delivery risks have been identified; however, the explanations and proposed mitigations are vague. While there are some references to the risk management approach, the evidence lacks specificity and contains significant gaps.
2	Key delivery risks have been identified, and the accompanying explanations and mitigation measures are clear. Risk Management Strategy and its implementation are outlined, providing confidence that risks will be effectively identified, managed, and escalated as required.
3	Key delivery risks have been clearly identified, with detailed, well-reasoned mitigation measures. The implementation of the Risk Management Strategy is set out comprehensively, including references to relevant tools, tolerance levels, and links to related strategies. This provides strong assurance that risks will be effectively identified, managed, and escalated as required.