ENV-NCP-TOGETHER

Specific Programme Cooperation in FP7

- Evaluation criteria for a proposal -

Dr. Shilpi SAXENA

Partner im EU-Project "Environment NCP Together"

National Contact Point Environment, Germany

Proposal evaluation - timeline

Project Idea

Project Preparation

Write a Proposal

Sub-mission

Evaluation How to negotiate

Project Management

t=0 t=9 month t=36 - 48 month

XXXX 1. S&T Quality

2. Implementation

3. Impact

Eligibility criteria Evaluation criteria - ref participation - - ref submitted proposal -

1. Who can participate?(universities, research institutions, SME, etc.)

2. Which countries?1

(EU MS*, EU AC**, ICPC***)

2a. Minimum eligibility?min. 3 independent legal entities 3 MS or AC

2b. Where do ICPCs come in?if specifically stated in call text

1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html; or: Annex 1 of Work programme

* MS: Member States; ** AC: Associated Countries; *** ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Countries

Eligibility criteria - ICPC countries

1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html

27EU Member

States(MS)

More than 140 International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC = Africa, Asia, Latin America)

Other ICPCs (''High Income Countries'' = USA, Canada, …)

Turkey, Croatia, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina,

Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Republic of Moldova

EU Associated Countries

(AC)

ICPC

Money comes from MS / AC

to EU minimum eligibility

PART A - Administrative part

- Summary

- Participants

- Financial breakdown

- Workplan tables

PART B – Main part

- Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1

- Management Structure Section B.2.1

- Consortium Section B.2.3

- Dissemination Section B.3.2

- Ethical Issues Section B.4

Proposal structure - necessities

You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner (see highlighted areas)

Project Evaluation criteria

1. S&T Quality

2. Implementation

3. Impact

PART B – Main part

- Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1

- Management Structure Section B.2.1

- Consortium Section B.2.3

- Dissemination Section B.3.2

- Ethical Issues Section B.4

Where to start – Example Environment

• Work Programme 2013 & its call fiche

• FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage (81.3 % of overall budget – 248 m €)

- Deadline 16/10/2012 (first stage), ~28/02/2013 (second stage)- 22 topics (all CP)

• Guide for applicants (CP, CP-two-stages and CSA-CA)

- Call page of Participants Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal

- Preparing & submitting your proposal:

GfA, Electronic Submission Service (SEP)

Source: EU Commission

Evaluation process & planning

Once you have submitted a proposal, what’s next?

- Evaluation planning calls: 1-stage, 2-stage (stage 1) (deadline 16/10/2012)

Submission Individual assessment

Consensus discussions

Review Panel

dead

line

EligibilityRanked

listFinalisation

Info to applicants

Rejection list

Rejection list

Info to applicants

16/1

0/20

12

3 - 6 independent experts

Firs

t wee

k of

N

ovem

ber

Mid

D

ecem

ber

Before Xmas break

Thi

rd w

eek

of

Nov

embe

r

Firs

t wee

k of

D

ecem

ber

Source: EU Commission

Focus on evaluation criteria

• Read carefully instructions: Guide for Applicants

• Evaluation criteria: Annex II to the WP2013

• Consider: page limits indication (…less is more)

• Make sure evaluators can find easily response to evaluation sub-criteria

Source: EU Commission; Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA vs

SCORES

FP7-ENV-2013-one-stage

FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage

stage 1

FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage

stage 2

FP7-ENV-2013-WATER

INNO&DEMO

S/T quality 3 / 5 4 / 5 4 / 5 3 / 5

Implementation 3 / 5 -- 3 / 5 3 / 5

Impact 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 5

Overall threshold 10 / 15 8 / 15 11 / 15 10 / 15/ 10

In the end effect:10 out of 15 points in ENV is not

enough for mainlisting!!

Summary of mandatory page limits

Guide for Applicants: CP FP7-ENV-2012-two-stage

Excl. Gantt chart 1.3.ii), tables 1.3a-e; Pert diagramm under 1.3

Evaluation criteria and scores

Source: EU Commission

S/T QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

“Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)”

“Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management”

“Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results”

- Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives

- Progress beyond the state-of-the-art

- Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan

- Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures

- Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

- Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)

- Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment …)

- Contribution, at the European [and/or international] level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity

- Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property.

Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals

SCORING

MEANING

0.0The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot

be judged due to missing or incomplete information

0.5

1.0Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are

serious inherent weaknesses.

1.5

2.0Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are

significant weaknesses.

2.5

3.0Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements

would be necessary.

3.5

4.0Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although

certain improvements are still possible.

4.5

5.0Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the

criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Evaluation not done by EU or NCPs but by individuals!

Evaluation Summary Report – how it could look like

1. Scientific / technological quality

• ''….demonstrates an excellent level of integration and multidisciplinarity……The S/T approach is very sound and established in a stepwise manner…..The tasks, the deliverables and the work plan are very well described and logically spread over the 48 months duration…'' (5,0)

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

• ''The consortium is balanced with regards to expertise, although the partners performing … appear to be more experienced than the … partners. There is some concern that the budget may be somewhat high and disproportionately allocated.'' (3,5)

3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

• ''The decision support system will assist in the transfer of project results to politicians, …managers and other stakeholders….The web site could be a useful outlet, but details on its specifications and operation are not provided.'' (2,0)

Where you need to contribute as an ICPC – in short –

The coordinator will give send you via the Electronic Submission Service (SEP)

the respective forms where you need to contribute

• Areas for your contribution:

- estimate of your budget

- your info as an individual partner

- data on your (sub-)project

- your resources (which you will bring into project)

1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed

• Limited time & space to convince

• Make it clear, and be objective - assess risks of failure

• Provide references, incl. your currently related activities

Source: EU Commission

1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed (contd.)

Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

1.1 Concept and objectives- What is the overall goal?- Which specific results are to be achieved?

1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art- What is the status of the research?- How does the project go beyond that?

1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan- Explain the methods of the sub-projects and /

or work packages- Define indicators in order to verify the goal

achievements You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner

2. Implementation – a bit more detailed

Source: EU Commission

• Role & contributions: every single partner

• Proposal: how partners' activities will be integrated robust consortium

• Justify resources allocated

• Do not exceed maximum EU contribution defined in WP2013

- Reimbursement rates vs. types of activities: from 50% to 100%

BE REALISTIC

2. Implementation – a bit more detailed (contd.)

2.1 Management structure and procedures relevant for coordinator

2.2 Individual Participants- Are the project partners suited for the tasks?

(experience, publications, infrastructure)

2.3 Consortium as a whole aspects which coordinator needs to explain

2.4 Resources to be committed- Which resources will the partners contribute? (equipment, personnel, infrastructure)

Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

3. Impact – a bit more detailed

Source: EU Commission

• Explain how project & potential outcome(s) will contribute to impacts

- accounts for 1/3 of overall score

• Dissemination, exploitation & potential use of projects results a 'must‘

- IPR (http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/)

- Open access policy (OpenAIRE, www.openaire.eu)If you are a grant recipient of FP7 (e.g. Environment) – youare required to deposit your publications!

3. Impact – Work Programme 2012* Environment -

Challenge 6.1 Coping with climate change

ENV.2012. 6.1-1

Funding scheme:

EU contribution

One or more proposals can be selected

Expected Impact: Contribution to WMO Global framework for Climate Services….New business opportunities for SMEs

• Prior to the publication of the official WP, an Orientation paper is released, does not include the call-fiche and is not legally binding

3. Impact – a bit more detailed (contd.)

3.1 Expected Impacts listed in the Work Progr. aspects which coordinator needs to explain

3.2 Dissemination and Exploitation & Management of IP

- Which useable results can be expected for which user / target groups? (SME, industry, consumers, research)

Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

Evaluation: specific feature…

• The innovation dimension of proposals

- evaluated under criterion ''Impact''

- be reflected in description of objectives & scope

- expected impact

Some hints…

• Pay attention to:

- formal criteria (font, page limitation, page margin)

- proposal quality (your contribution) i.e. include relevant data, numbers

• Layout: use bullet points, diagrams, charts

• Write understandably (evaluators: generalists & specialists)