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