evaluation panel 2013 report
Post on 06-Mar-2016
225 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE
EVALUATION PANEL
September 2013
1. BACKGROUND
The i2i competition was designed to reward creativity that has the potential to:
a) Serve the national community by having positive development on
Trinidad and Tobago economically, environmentally, or socially, and,
b) Be commercially viable.
The possibility of award of a grant of “up to $200,000” to finance the commercial development of
the idea was the key factor in attracting submissions. In this context there is no single winner
and each submission “stood on its own merit”, the limit being the extent of funding available
through the Innovation Financing Facility (IFF). The Eligibility Criteria are included in
Attachment 1, and the Evaluation Process and Criteria in Sections 4 and 5 of this Report.
For each submission therefore, the Evaluation Panel focused its effort on testing the idea, and
the potential implementation of the idea, as the two commonly accepted aspects of
INNOVATION.
The competition was launched on May 29, 2013, with a deadline for submissions of July 12, 2013.
The Evaluation Panel was installed on July 12, by letter of July 10th, and the process was started
on July 18th. It was completed on August 31st with fourteen (14) meetings being held for a total
of approximately 69 hours.
2
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The role of the Evaluation Panel was “To assess submitted proposals and project ideas based on a
set of evaluation criteria in the respective area, and provide feedback on same in a marking
framework”, and “To recommend to the Council for Competitiveness and Innovation (CCI) projects
that should be awarded funding under the Innovation Financing Facility (IFF).
3. RESOURCES
a. Evaluation Panel
The Evaluation Panel comprised of:
Mr Hayden Ferreira, Chairman
Engineering Consultant
Chairman - CARIRI
Mr Robert Tang Yuk, Deputy Chairman
Managing Director
TYE Manufacturing Company Ltd
Ms Rachel Renie
Managing Director
Market Movers Ltd.
Ms Jeanelle Frontin
Project Officer,
Project Management Department, Central Bank
Dr. Puran Bridgemohan
Programme Professor
Centre for Biosciences, Agriculture, and Food Technology - UTT
Mr Armand Jackson
Assistant Director, Socio Economic Policy Planning Division,
Ministry of Planning & Sustainable Development
Prof. Pathmanathan Umaharan
Director, Cocoa Research Unit;
Professor of Genetics – Faculty of Science & Agriculture, UWI
Mr Sharaz Ahamad
Director, Origination & Capital Markets Products,
CIBC First Caribbean International Bank
Dr Graham King
Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UWI
b. Administrative Support
Administrative support was provided by Mr Arvinda Rampersad, Ms Vikki Arjoon, and
Ms. Latoya Charles, all of the Ministry of Planning and Sustainable Development.
3
4. EVALUATION PROCESS
The process outlined and agreed at the first meeting of the Panel was:
a. Receive and Register submissions
This was done by the administrative staff prior to the Panel’s deliberations. In
registration, a unique number (Tracking Code) was associated with each submission and
this was used in processing, such that the Panel was not aware of the originator(s) of the
submission.
b. Compliance Review of submissions
The administrative staff further reviewed submissions and removed those that were
incomplete and/or otherwise non-compliant with the submission requirements for
eligibility. In some cases, prior to the date of closing, the submissions were returned to
the originator by staff for completion and re-submission.
c. Pre-Screen of Submissions
The initial i2i event in 2012 was overwhelmed with an unexpected number of 400
submissions, and this tested the Evaluation Panel’s ability to complete the process in
reasonable time. With a higher number of submissions anticipated in 2013, it was
determined that the introduction of a filtering process was an essential requirement. By
doing this the number of submissions that came to the Evaluation Panel was limited to
those with greater potential for earning an award, thereby making more efficient use of
the Panel’s time.
d. Evaluation – Stage 1: Scoring
i. Target timeframe allotment 15 minutes per submission
ii. Agree on CRITERIA
iii. Agree on Meeting Quorum
iv. 3-Stage process:
Review – 5 mins, Individual activity,
Share – 5 mins, Group activity,
Rate – 3 mins, Individual activity,
v. Collation by Competition Administration
(Refer to Report Section 6 for Comments on the elements above.)
e. Evaluation – Stage 2: Grant Assignments
i. Review overall results to determine “cut-off” score point.
ii. Select and review submissions exceeding cut-off point.
iii. Consider each submission and determine the Grant to be awarded.
In considering the Grant the following scope would be considered:
Prototype development activity including design, testing, and field trials.
4
Market testing, if necessary to establish proof of concept.
Expenditure on services and testing up to 40% of project cost.
Raw materials necessary to achieve proof of concept.
Equipment necessary to achieve proof of concept.
IP investigation and documentation, but not patent application.
Specifically not considered, as guided by the Completion Rules, were:
Purchase/rental of non-critical assets (e.g. buildings, vehicles and furniture).
Construction of new infrastructure except to achieve proof of concept.
Utilities.
Travelling costs.
Salary or allowances of any personnel employed by the applicant.
f. Special Consideration
Though promoted as a “competition”, the event in its construction is more of a process
for the selection of worthy ideas for grant funding for development to a point of potential
commercial success. This milestone was defined by the Panel as the “proof of concept”
point which was used at the Grant Assignment stage. The competition aspect was then
from the perspective that only a limited number of the submissions would be expected to
succeed to the final stage of assignment of a Grant. The Evaluation Process would
therefore concern itself more with the selection of a number of worthy submissions than
with a single winner of the competition, and with no prior limit having been placed on the
number of worthy Awardees.
5. EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Evaluation Panel discussed the proposed Evaluation Criteria (as published in the
“Competition Details and Guidelines”) in context of the goals of the competition. Minor change to
in the interpretation of two criteria (Items (h) and (i)) sought to better accommodate
submissions in context of the 2012 experience. The original Criteria were:
a. Innovativeness of the project submissions
Project proposals must indicate whether it is recombination, fusion, integration,
replication or refinement of existing technologies with improved value, enhanced
efficiency or cost reduction.
b. Societal benefits (only relevant to social initiatives)
The project proposals must clearly describe the socio-economic benefits to the
community. The proposals must also describe the community chosen and their
involvement in the project.
5
c. Credibility of project proposal
The project proposal must be clear, accurate and consistent with the objectives of the i2i
competition and the Innovation Financing Facility. It must have achievable milestones
and methodologies (to be in the timeline in the submission form) that can be completed
within the agreed/given time frame.
d. Appropriateness of methodology
The applicant must provide sufficient information or evidence on the appropriateness of
the chosen methodology (new or established methods/techniques). This should outline
the sequence of proposed actions and identify these actions as numbered stages, steps
and phases (explained in the justification details of the timeline).
e. Appropriateness of milestones
The proposed milestones must be appropriate and consistent with the project objectives
and activities.
f. Competency of the Project Team or Individual
Project teams should consist of qualified and technically competent members /
institutions with respect to technical and commercialization aspects. Roles and
responsibility of collaborators involved in the project should be clearly defined.
Involvement of consultants in the project should be justified and with details submitted.
g. Commercialization Prospect (only applicable to relevant business ideas)
The project should indicate clearly the expected outcome and demonstrate potential for
commercialization.
h. Financial Capability
Applicants should express the ability to raise additional capital or indicate sources of
additional capital to finance any portion of project cost not funded by the IFF.
i. Risk Mitigation
The applicant must state the possible risks (technology risk, financial risk and time risk)
that may affect the implementation or completion of the project, and steps likely to
mitigate the risk.
6. COMMENTS FROM THE EVALUATION PROCESS
a) Criteria
Two Criteria “Financial Capability” and “Risk” initially gained the Panel’s attention as in
the 2012 edition of the Competition these were the least well addressed Criteria in the
submissions. One can certainly argue that an expectation of Financial Capability could
prejudice the evolution of an idea seed, which would be counter to the intent of the
Competition. The Evaluation Panel therefore preferred to re-define these two Criteria in
terms of “Impact” (extent of economic stimulation) and “Scalability/Exportability”, which
is self-explanatory.
6
Further to the above, the Criteria “Societal Benefits” was taken to include Environmental
benefits as well.
b) Criteria Weights
Consistent with the changes in the Criteria identified in (a) above, the Panel agreed to the
following Criteria Weights.
Criteria Weight
Innovativeness of Project proposals 20
Societal benefits 10
Credibility of proposals 15
Appropriateness of methodology 10
Appropriateness of milestones 5
Competency of the Project Team (individual) 15
Commercialization prospect/ Economic Sustainability 15
Impact 5
Scalability/Exportability 5
c) Panel Meetings & Quorum
A total of fourteen (14) meetings of the Evaluation Panel were held. Attachment 2
provides details of dates and durations.
A quorum of five (5) was agreed by Panel Members to accommodate the times when
some Members may not be available. The nine member Panel facilitated this.
d) The Screening Process
i. Administrative
A total of four hundred and seventy-one (471) submissions were received at the
closing. Of these, four (4) duplicate submissions were identified, and a further
thirteen (13) were rejected as incomplete submissions. A total of four hundred
and fifty-four (454) submissions were therefore processed.
ii. Pre-Screening
As indicated in Section 4(c), it was determined that the introduction of a pre-
screening process was an essential requirement in order to complete the
Evaluation process in a reasonable timeframe.
This pre-screening reviewed all 454 submissions according to the same Criteria
used by the Evaluation Panel, and provided a rating on each. The Evaluation
Panel then selected a number of submissions for its review. The Panel selected
181 submissions, comprised not only of the higher rated ones of the pre-screen,
7
but also several selected for high criteria scores (e.g. Innovation), and a few
selected at random. In this manner, the pre-screening activity was not allowed
to inadvertently bias the Evaluation Panel’s effort.
The pre-screening was done by the University of Trinidad and Tobago (UTT),
and set up by the Ministry’s i2i Administration using the same Confidentiality
undertakings as exist for the Evaluation Panel. The pre-screening activity was
at all times guided by the Evaluation Panel, which maintained physical control
of all entries. The pre-screening process eliminated applications which were
largely business ideas that did not have a creative element, ideas that have
already been taken beyond the proof-of-concept stage, or applications that
were poorly put together.
The UTT was selected for their entrepreneurial and innovation focus, with
which is associated an appropriately high level of competent staff, and, as a
University, their Administration routinely handles confidential material and
processes. Eight (8) of their Faculty were involved in the pre-screen process.
e) The Evaluation Process
i. Review
The Review step in the evaluation was an individual review by each Panel
Member of the submission.
ii. Share
In the Share step, some questions or perspectives on clarity were shared
among Members. It was agreed, and care was taken to avoid value
judgements that would bias the thinking of other Members. The propensity
for “Group Think” (convergence of a group’s perspective, sometimes being led
by a single person) was the concern that was being avoided.
iii. Rate
Each submission was rated on individual evaluation sheets (i.e. one sheet per
Member). The rating scale was 1-10, with 10 being the highest. Members
calibrated themselves by agreeing that a rating of “5” represented an
“average” assessment for the particular criteria. Ratings of 1-4 were therefore
to be appropriately applied as Ratings of 6-10. This agreement circumvented
a common human failing to avoid the application of ratings that are deemed
“below average”.
iv. Cut-off Point
In context of the process used for the evaluation, it would not have been
possible to pre-determine a “passing score”. Given the four hundred and fifty-
four (454) that passed the administrative screening and which the evaluation
8
process considered, the Panel’s rule-of-thumb expectation was that
approximately 10-15 percent would have been of a satisfactory level to
proceed to the Grant award stage. It was, however, expected that upon
assessment of the scored data, a “natural break point” would be identified that
would yield this number.
The one caveat to the above was a final check that was made to ensure that
no single recipient or company received more than one award. The Panel
considered this a reasonable implementation of the intent of the Competition,
even while encouraging multiple submissions from individuals and
Companies.
v. Grant Award
In considering the amount of the Grant to be awarded, the Panel considered
the nature of the idea/project, the reasonableness of the Plan outlined in the
submission and associated costs, and, in particular, the elements of the cost
that would take the project to the “proof of concept” point. The basic
assumption here is that once the “proof of concept” point was achieved, the
project could now be taken to a funding agency with a higher degree of
confidence in achieving financial support to commercialise the idea.
Alternatively the Awardee could patent the idea and licence it to a third party
that may wish to take it to commercialisation. Consideration was, therefore,
not given to operational needs as these would clearly be past the “proof of
concept” point.
One valid cost aspect that was deliberately not considered at this stage is
associated with IP investigation and documentation. To have considered this
would have required that the Panel make a determination on the likely status
of the idea, or conduct at least a preliminary IP investigation at a time cost.
A key aspect of the Grant Award stage was the conduct of internet searches of
all submissions proposed for Award. Where similar ideas or projects were
identified, the Panel engaged in a deliberation to achieve final agreement.
f) Duration of Evaluations
As was experienced in 2012, the Panel went through an initial Learning Curve in the
Evaluation Process. The first few submissions evaluated required in excess of 20
minutes. Quickly, however, this reduced to an average of approximately 15 minutes,
with a range of 12-18 minutes, as the Panel gained collective expertise. These times
are a little higher than 2012, reflective of the value of the pre-screen process in
bringing a higher quality of submission to the Panel. The value of having Evaluation
Panel Members with last years’ experience, who again served on the Panel this year,
was seen in the quick set-up of the Panel’s work.
9
g) Competence of the Evaluation Panel
The Members of the Panel were selected for independence and professional
credibility, and to have a mix of professions and experiences, including in both the
public and private sectors. This mix of breadth and depth definitely facilitated
discussions, significantly enhanced the evaluation process, and allowed all members
to contribute to the process. Members were dedicated to the task, and, in spite of
other personal/professional obligations, the Panel were able to meet regularly to
complete the Terms of Reference.
h) Trends from the Submissions
i. Summary of Submissions
As indicated earlier, a total of four hundred and seventy-one (471)
submissions were made, the majority via the on-line facility. Of these four
hundred and fifty-four (454) passed the administrative test for completeness.
ii. Completeness of Submissions
In 2012 the level of incomplete entries was a high 20%. It therefore is a very
positive trend that on this occasion that level was under 3%. This reasonably
reflects keener interest by the potential population with innovative ideas.
The other aspect of the Completeness issue is more about Appropriateness.
Like in 2012, several submissions were simply a business plan/direction
needing funding. They typically had no aspect of innovative idea and needed
no research or development. These were basically submitted by individuals
who believed this was a funding mechanism for their business plans. These
submissions on this occasion numbered twenty-nine (29) and had to be set
aside.
iii. Work Programme Timeline & Application of Funds
As experienced in 2012, a challenge for persons submitting entries seemed to
be the Work Programme and associated Timeline and Costs, all part of a
normal Business Plan. Reasonably, there seems to be a lack of even basic
understanding of the development of simple Business Plans. On the positive
side, this reality presents significant leaning opportunity for several of the
Awardees to go through this process with their successful ideas.
iv. Business Proposition or Sustainable Impact
Associated with the deficiency identified in Section 6 h(iii) above is that of not
having a specific requirement for a statement of the Business Proposition, and
in particular addressing the question “how will revenue be earned?”. Several
submissions were guilty of this and required the Panel to exercise its
judgement on the matter.
10
v. Comparative Distributions
Attachment 3 presents the statistical results of the Submissions and
Awardees. Evident here is a disappointing under-representation in
Categories that one would expect high interest in, for example Agro-industrial
Processing, Environment, Tourism, and Food and Beverage. On the other
hand, the Panel also noted what it deems an over-representation by ICT
related ideas. The 16% of Submissions that are recorded in Attachment 3 as
ICT is actually understated as the Creative, and Services Categories have
several submissions that could equally well have been classified as ICT.
In seeking to understand the peculiarity, the Panel takes cognizance of the
current popularity of the IT sector (inclusive of App development). The Panel,
however, wonders whether some aspect of marketing or communication of
the Competition may have inadvertently contributed to a bias towards
particular potential interest groups or away from others, or alternatively a
notion that innovation can only be considered in the context of ICT.
vi. Robustness of Results
Attachment 3 also provides evidence in the similarity between the two
distributions in that the outcome (i.e. the list of Awardees) mirrors very well
the distribution of the Submissions. This is noteworthy as each Submission
was considered on its own merit, with no attempt to achieve a particular
result in any Category. The results are therefore deemed to be robust.
A further aspect of the robustness of the result is in the fact that each Awardee
would have had the application reviewed four (4) times – the initial screening
for completeness, the pre-screening, the Evaluation Panel initial evaluation,
the Evaluation Panel award granting evaluation.
vii. Multiple Awards
Though multiple submissions to the Competition are allowed, multiple
Awards in one year to the same individual or Company is not. A confirmatory
check on this was done by the Administrative Staff at the end of the Awards
phase. Where there was an instance of more than one Award to the same
person or group, the Evaluation Panel was advised and deliberated on which
was the submission more likely to achieve the Proof of Concept stage in order
to make a decision.
11
viii. Repeat Submissions
In making the checks of (vii) above, the Staff noted several persons who had
entered the Competition in 2012, again made submissions in 2013, albeit on
different ideas. The Panel views this as highly desirable and to be encouraged,
even if it results in an individual achieving an Award in successive years, of
course subject to successful completion of their Proof of Concept work scope
in the prior year(s).
7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AWARD
The Evaluation Panel makes a recommendation for basic Grants to fifty-three (53)
submissions as identified in Attachment 4, for a total of $5,710,000, before VAT. If the
maximum VAT becomes applicable, the Grant value is $6,566,500.
For and on behalf of the Evaluation Panel,
Hayden Ferreira
Chairman, i2i Evaluation Panel
September 24, 2013
12
Attachment 1
Eligibility Criteria
1. Applicants must be 18 years of age and over.
2. Individuals, teams or entities from the Diaspora, provided that their projects will be implemented
in Trinidad and Tobago and/or provide jobs here.
3. In the case of companies, they must have a majority shareholding (at least 51%) held by nationals/
citizens of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago including companies in the any in the Diaspora.
4. Applicants wishing to participate as Small and Medium-sized firms must have minimum asset base
of $25,000 dedicated for this project. Start-up companies and teams are exempted from this
stipulation but must provide justification and supporting documents on the ability to sustain their
projects.
5. A work programme and timeline (submission guideline 7) must be also provided indicating the
intended use of the funds and associated time periods for expenditure.
6. The project proposal should contain elements of technological and business innovation leading to
commercialization of innovative products, processes and services.
7. The project team, partnership or entity should provide evidence of technical competency to
undertake the proposed activity.
8. Application from an individual must be accompanied by a supporting letter from a referee i.e. from
an independent person who has been associated with him/her and so qualified to indicate his/her
ability to undertake the project.
9. Applicant must be a registered Cooperative or registered Government recognized Community
Organization / Group, including non-governmental organisations in the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago
10. Applicant must show proof of financial capability that they can fund the portion of project costs
not funded under the IFF.
11. Projects must be undertaken in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
12. All successful participants must commit to a maximum of 30 hours of assistance after completing
the process and implementing their projects towards successful enterprises or ventures to give back
to future participants as mentors or coaches.
13
Attachment 2
Evaluation Panel Meetings
DATE HOURS
1. Thursday July 18th 2013 3.0
2. Wednesday July 31st 2013 4.0
3. Saturday August 3rd 2013 5.0
4. Tuesday August 6th 2013 3.0
5. Thursday August 8th 2013 5.0
6. Tuesday August 13th 2013 5.0
7. Thursday August 15th 2013 4.4
8. Saturday August 17th 2013 6.5
9. Tuesday August 20th 2013 4.0
10.Thursday August 22nd 2013 4.5
11.Saturday August 24th 2013 4.5
12.Tuesday August 27th 2013 5.5
13.Thursday August 29th 2013 5.0
14.Saturday August 31st 3013 9.5
Total 69
14
Attachment 3
Distribution of Submissions and Awardees among Categories
No. % No. %
Agro-industrial processing 1 2% 15 3%
Alternative/remedial energy and energy efficiency 2 4% 11 2%
Creative industries 5 9% 60 13%
Environment (clean technologies, eco-related activities) 1 2% 6 1%
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) 12 23% 74 16%
Manufacturing and manufacturing related 14 26% 88 19%
Primary agriculture, bio-technology 2 4% 23 5%
Services 13 25% 148 31%
Tourism 1 2% 10 2%
Food and Beverage 2 4% 30 6%
Bio-waste and other waste (including recycling activities) 0 0% 6 1%
TOTAL 53 471
SubmissionsAwardeesCategory
L
e
a
15
Attachment 4
No. Tracking Number NameType of
SubmissionProject Title
A Agro-Industrial Processing
1 PH-0712-1011-ON Michael Parris Company Construction of Solar Dryers for Sun Dried Banana Production
B Alternative/Remedial Energy and Energy Efficiency
2 FO-0531-0549-OFF Satnarine Singh Individual Increasing Engine Efficiency by Modifying the Turbo Charger
3 WI-0712-0008-OFF Martin Lee John Individual Movable Heads on an Integral Combustion Engine
C Creative Industries
4 AC-0712-1038-ON Jere Andrews Company Caribbean Treasures
5 MV-0712-0354-ON Jeunanne Alkins Individual Bim and Bam Adventure Series
6 EV-0701-0810-OFF Joseph Rivers Individual The Calypso Song Book
7 ND-0712-1155-ON Leigh Taylor Company Listen to your mom- 3D Animated Series
8 LU-0712-0253-ON Nina Leonard Individual Play Mas
D Environment (Clean Technologies, Eco-related Activities
9 UI-0712-0500-ON Individual Greencrete Reinforced Concrete Composite
E Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
10 YF-0712-0845-ON Michael Wiltshire Company Crick-Crack Digital Game
11 DW-0707-0534-OFF Omar Lewis Individual Crab Catcher
12 BS-0712-0438-ON Adrian Ewing Team Immersive Language Learning Application
13 AC-0712-0117-ON Ian Alleyne Individual Paywise
14 ZE-0712-0955-ON Kevan St Brice Team Caribbean Education Platform
15 HG-0711-1107-ON Quinten Questel Team Birds of Trinidad and Tobago Mobile App
16 XA-0712-0516-ON Anil Ramnanan Company HelpQ
17 FP-0712-0453-ON Anthony Inglefield Company Touchpoint
18 FY-0711-0809-ON Carlton De Silva Gordon Individual Passenger Seat Indicator System
19 FV-0712-0552-ON David Cockburn Team Taxi Me to
20 CY-0712-0646-ON Eddison Alfred Individual Automative Sleep Imobiliser
21 XH-0712-0753-ON Kevan Sinanan Individual Bluetooth key and lock proximity sensors
16
No. Tracking Number NameType of
SubmissionProject Title
F Manufacturing and Manufacturing Related
22 EW-0708-0451-ON Christian Chin Individual The Shop Wizard
23 GJ-0710-0938-ON Leonardo Mohamed Team A Multifunctional Mechanical Coupling/Locking System
24 EV-0712-0700-ON Ryan James Company GoBox the mobile kiosks
25 QE-0703-0103-ON Andrew Smith Individual Mixed Flow Centrifugal Pump
26 OA-0712-0614-ON Dwight Porter Individual Disposable sterilized Medical Rooms
27 EU-0712-0624-ON Estevan Dubrisingh Team Evaporative Cooler
28 OF-0705-0158-ON Gene Jones Individual Portable Automatic Water Closet
29 AJ-0712-1102-ON Shyamal Chandradathsingh Individual Wireless Paired Following Spotlight and Transmitter
30 DU-0711-1047-ON Ancel Bhagwandeen Individual Rythms & Hues, Sticks & Tones
31 ND-0710-1117-ON Jerome Smith Individual See the Sound
32 OG-0712-0816-ON Aaron Doug Deen Individual Multipurpose Angiographic Catheter
33 SS-0712-0658-ON Ambokile Adio Individual Sports Watch
34 WI-0712-0011-OFF Deidra Taylor Individual Stocky
35 YD-0622-0434-ON Jomo Wahtuse Individual JW Venturi Acoustic Electronic Pan
G Primary Agriculture, Bio-tchnology
36 AX-0711-1056-ON David Nedd Team Barley Fed Rabbits/Aeroponic Lettuce
37 NX-0712-0256-ON Gillian Goddard Individual The commercial production and sale of Arthospira platensis
17
No. Tracking Number NameType of
SubmissionProject Title
H Services
38 MQ-0712-1036-ON Troy Hector Team Caribbean Market Square
39 GB-0712-0716-ON Revelino Guevara Company Wi Library
40 TC-0711-1042-ON Alana Abdool Team WeCricket
41 AM-0713-1211-ON Aleksandr Albert Company Routter
42 ME-0712-1128-OFF Clyde George Organisation Bertie Marshall Pan Institute
43 ED-0712-1248-ON Kevin Bhall Team TT Creative Cloud
44 TE-0712-1146-ON Wilhelm Nothnagel Individual The City Kind: Urban Design & Architecture
45 LT-0712-0905-OFF Claude Marshall Individual Kids Programming Starter Program (KPSP)
46 MO-0712-1144-ON Derron Sandy Team The Spoken Syllabus
47 AP-0712-0243-ON Gerard Andrews Team Taksi
48 IP-0712-1146-ON Jeaneen Bharat Company Customer Satisfaction Feedback
49 WI-0712-0012-OFF Kathy-Ann Mackay Individual Peace Education Socialization Programme
50 AW-0712-1146-ON Sterling Ramroach Team Quick sell TT
I Tourism
51 WL-0712-1122-ON Navin Baboolal Company Electronic Guided Tours of T&T
J Food and Beverage
52 WQ-0712-1135-ON Barbara Seunarine Company Family Style
53 MM-0706-0701-ON Marlene Davidson Individual Caribbean Diabetic Cooking Show
top related