Information on FP7
From INCO-Wiki
Contents |
FP7 for beginners
'Framework programmes' (FPs) have been the main financial tools through which the European Union supports research and development activities covering almost all scientific disciplines. FPs are proposed by the European Commission and adopted by Council and the European Parliament following a co-decision procedure.
Performing partner search – a valuable service for NCP clients - an introduction in 6 steps
Although NCPs globally have diverse profiles, different internal structures and service portfolio, Partner search (PS) is one of the main services requested by clients, especially those with limited experience and contacts in FP programs. On the other hand even experienced players often request partner search support, when special partners are requested from:
• Inflexible organisations such as public authorities, hospitals, security organisations, ministries, etc which are difficult to convince.
• Partners from ICPC countries which are difficult to find and check their validity.
• Large companies which are difficult to approach.
• SMEs with specific competences.
Warning! It is always the best solution for your clients to consider first the organisations that they already know: distributors, customers, existing research partners, etc. It is also important to take into consideration a partner’s availability, flexibility, culture, experience, age, any language or email problems, etc.
Seeking partners for international research is in principle, a simple task while efficient partner search is a difficult task requiring specialization and training. However, there are several simple steps and tools that could assist the process and offer good results in most of the cases:
Step 1 – Validity check
Check the validity of your client and check his commitment to submit a proposal. Don’t waste your time and the time of your NCP colleagues.
Note also that it’s quite common in the FP community to submit a partner search, as a bait, just to approach other consortia preparing proposals.
Step 2 – Forming the PS
It is advisable to utilize a standard format for the PS text that has to be filled in by the client:
• Example : http://www.help-forward.gr/en/forms/rtdps_form.php. This is a more or less standard format for composing a partner search. Similar versions are utilized by most NCPs providing a clear picture of the proposal itself and the requested partners.
• It necessary for the NCP client to fill in the PS form, as a minimum requirement to demonstrate its validity and professionalism.
• The PS form is the main document reaching a broad research community. In order to be successful, it must be short, clear, and well-structured.
Warning! The profile itself of an organisation without a project idea is not a valid partner search. It is neither a good idea nor a professional attitude to disseminate profiles of organisations that wish to be included in proposals. In 99% of the cases no one is interested in such cases and usually the outcome is poor.
As you know the needs and competencies of your clients better, it is best to keep the profile until you receive a suitable partner search.
Step 3 – Using the NCP network
The initial obvious step is disseminating the PS through the NCP network. In case you are looking for third country contacts remember to use both the Thematic and the INCO NCPs.
Draft a short mail with all the basic info:
-PS title/abstract
-Call info, deadline for responses
-Partners requested
-contact details for Expressions of Interest (EoIs)
In most cases, a PS disseminated to the NCP network could result in obtaining on average 5-15 suitable contacts.
Warning! As NCP organisations have diverse profiles, the level of PS dissemination varies in the different countries. So usually the EoIs received originate from the same specific countries…. In the case that partners are requested from specific countries or with specific profiles, we have to move to the next steps (step4, step5, etc).
Step 4 – Passive Partner Search / free & paid databases
An invaluable tool is to publish the partner search in several existing web based partner search databases, and although there are hundred of them only maybe a dozen are active and reliable. There are thematic databases, horizontal, EU financed, privately owned, project oriented, NCP administered, etc. that usually face the same problems:
-poor PS quality
-low number of PSs
-PSs not successfully checked and validated by the database administrator
Below you could see an indicative list of some good examples in order of personal preference:
- European R&D Partner Search System: http://www.rdpartners.net
This is a private database created by the St John's Innovation Centre Ltd, Cambridge, and consists of regional paid affiliates (NCPs, innovation and technology transfer offices, consultancies). It has been online for several years and it is utilized for disseminating several PSs for various research or technology related programs (FP, CIP, Eureka, Intelligent Energy, etc) in all the thematic areas.
The system is used by professionals, ensuring the high quality of the requests and the commitment of the users as all PS profiles are entered and checked by the regional affiliates.
-Ideal-ist - the route to IST Partners: http://www.ideal-ist.net/ The Ideal-ist network is co-financed by the European Commission and has 49 national representatives (mainly IST NCPs) in all Member States, Candidate Countries and Associated States, as well as Western Balkan Countries, Newly Independent States and Mediterranean Countries. Moreover Ideal-ist collaborates through a broad geographical network with partners in Third Countries such as China, Brazil, India, Canada, South Africa, South East Asia, Australia, and New Zealand, in line with the international cooperation strategy of the European Commission. Each organisation can register for free and submit a PS. All submitted PS are supervised prior to being published by the National expert and the Quality team and checked for applicability and basic correctness. Local IdealIST representatives could also provide help in formulating the search and ensuring that PS reach the correct types of organisations.
-SMEs go Health: http://www.smesgohealth.org/ This is a free EU funded database, offering the possibility to submit/search either a specific PS or an organisation profile in the Health sector. After a simple registration step, every organisation can submit a PS or look for existing opportunities in the Health Thematic area (FP7)
- AeroSME: http://www.aerosme.com/ The AeroSME project is a joint activity of ASD (AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe) and the European Commission. The database offers the possibility to search for specific SME profiles rather than specific partner searches. Registration is free for all interested industry partners, however, the major intention is to focus on smaller companies which are encouraged to use this data base as a platform to present their company capabilities in order to participate in joint projects.
Step 5 – CORDIS tools
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/partners_en.html
“CORDIS is the European Commission's information service offering a wide range of services on European research and innovation activities to: • Review timely information on the daily News service • Identify funding opportunities for free • Find partners to co-operate in Research and Development activities and share expertise • Promote and locate transferable technologies • Follow-up latest European Research Area (ERA) developments, current research findings and innovation trends”
Warning. CORDIS is indeed a powerful tool offering many possibilities for PS, by containing a huge database of organisations all over the globe in all the thematic areas. However the main drawback of the system is that there is no quality check of the profiles submitted. In practice searching for profiles in CORDIS is a time consuming process with an uncertain outcome.
Step 6 – Blind searching - the ultimate desperate effort
-If you haven’t achieved satisfactory results after steps 3, 4 & 5;
-If you are looking for partners with specific competences or from specific countries;
-If your client is reliable and the proposal idea worthy enough to make an additional effort;
Then the next step is to use special search techniques for identifying suitable partners:
• Some country-specific databases provide partners profiles from specific countries. E.g. - Czech Republic, http://www.czechrtd.info/ - Uzbekistan http://www.fp6nip.uzsci.net/eng/partners/index.php - Slovenia, http://www.rtd.si/eng/
• The CORDIS projects database could provide info on organisations participated in previous EU funded projects. However, usually there are no personal contact details, so extra “Google search” will be needed.
- http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html
- http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/projects.htm
• Google, Yahoo search. This is the last ultimate desperate option. You will probably receive dozens of contacts but serious work is needed for evaluating the results and identifying suitable partners.
Proposal submission
Negotiation phase - what to know, what to read
Negotiations with the commission is an important element of the whole project granting procedure, is because this the stage where all the information related to description of work, the budget for the project, timings of reviews, the start date and project duration are agreed. This stage includes detailed discussions of the roles of each beneficiary and assists them identify exactly what the Commission expects from them during the lifetime of the project.
The following table outlines the procedure for negotiation of the projects as described in the Negotiation Guidance Notes:
• Letter of Invitation and Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) sent to proposal Coordinator includes details of issues and deadlines and name of Commission Project Officer, schedule of meetings (if applicable);
• Verification of legal status, existence of beneficiaries and financial viability (certain exceptions) - as a part of the Unique Registration Facility (if institution not already registered);
• Submission of draft Annex I (description of work) and Grant Agreement Preparation Forms (GPFs);
• Negotiation Meetings between Commission and Co-ordinator plus one or two others (required depending on size and nature of project, and costs of attending not reimbursed);
• Co-ordinator leads negotiations with Commission towards finalisation of Grant Agreement, assuring liaison and ensuring signature of all beneficiaries with certain timescale;
• Consortium Agreement between beneficiaries should be finalised before signature of Grant Agreement;
• Grant Agreement sent to co-ordinator for signature and accession of other participants using 'Form A'.
The Invitation to negotiations takes place right after the positive evaluation of a proposal
and the Commission's definition of a maximum Community financial contribution (the
coordinator of the proposal is invited by letter to commence negotiations with the
Commission). The letter of invitation to negotiations provides details on the results of the
evaluation and any aspects to be reviewed during negotiation and a copy of the Negotiation
Mandate. The letter is accompanied by the independent experts' advice to the Commission
in the form of the Evaluation Summary Report.
Requests for clarification and changes to the proposed project that will need to be
addressed during negotiations together with the maximum Community contribution
available for the project and the suggested duration of the project are indicated in thenegotiation mandate indicates. The name and contact details of the Commission Project
Officer(s) and Administrative Officer(s) will also be indicated in the negotiation mandate.
The following table includes the information sent along with the letter of invitation and/or
the negotiation mandate.
• The deadline by which the consortium must provide the first drafts of Annex I (description of work) of the Grant Agreement (GA) and the Grant Agreement Preparation Forms (GPFs) including all supporting documents.
• The deadline by which negotiations must be completed.
The letter of invitation also points to web addresses for:
• A copy of these guidance notes
• The Model Grant Agreement and its annexes and any special conditions that could apply
• The on-line IT tool called NEF (Negotiation Facility)
• The Guide to Financial Issues relating to FP7 indirect actions
• The Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacities, in FP7 indirect actions
• The Checklist for a Consortium Agreement for FP7 projects
• The Guide to Intellectual Property Rules for FP7 projects
• The SME Tech Web (http://ec.europa.eu/research/sme-techweb/index_en.cfm)
Once the negotiations have began, applicants are invited to submit a draft Annex I (description of work) to the Grant Agreement (GA). This comprises an updated version of part B of the proposal, taking account of the comments made by the Commission in the negotiation mandate. Likewise the Grant Agreement Preparation Forms need to be in place (The GPFs are standard forms that collect the information that the Commission needs in order to prepare the grant agreement and gather programme-wide statistical information. These forms are compatible with the forms used in the proposal submission, so that much of the proposal information is directly transferred into the GPFs that are made available via the on-line tool NEF).
The main purpose of the negotiation phase is to finalise the details of the work to be carried out under the grant agreement within the associated budget, as well as to establish the legal and financial information needed to establish the grant agreement.
Two main elements comprise the project negotiation process:
(1) Technical (scientific) negotiations
(2) Financial and legal negotiations.
Technical (scientific) negotiations
The underlining aim here is to agree on the final content of the work to be performed during
the life of the project. During this part of the negotiation process the proposal may need to
be adapted to meet the recommendations of the evaluation, as described in the negotiationmandate. The full work plan of the project as well as work to be carried out by each of the
beneficiaries and any potential future expansion of the consortium will need to be defined in
sufficient detail.
Agreement will need to be reached on the list of deliverables and their content, timing and dissemination level, as well as on the project milestones and their assessment criteria. Finally, an indicative time schedule needs to be established for the project reviews (if not predefined in the special conditions of the grant agreement) – which ideally should be synchronised with the reporting periods.
Financial and legal negotiations
Here the focus is on reaching agreement on budgetary matters such as the budget for the
full duration of the project and the budget breakdown for the different project periods, as
well as issues related to subcontracting and third parties. In addition, this is where issues
are dealt related to the establishment of the amount of the initial pre-financing, timing of
project periods and reviews.
As far as legal negotiations are concerned, these include the analysis and review of the final composition of the consortium, any special clauses required for the project, and other aspects such as the project start date. During this part of the negotiation process the total costs, total eligible costs and maximum Community financial contribution will be determined, and a table of the estimated breakdown of budget and Community financial contribution per activity to be carried out by each of the beneficiaries will be established. Furthermore, the amount of pre-financing, the start date and the duration of the project, the timing of the reporting periods, and the management capacity of the coordinator, are all established and verified.
Finally, this is the stage where the financial viability of the coordinator and any other applicant with an EC contribution exceeding EUR 500,000 will be assessed, to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their financial capacity.
The coordinator plays an important role during the project negotiation procedure. It is him who leads and represents all the beneficiaries in the negotiations with the Commission. The legal entity that assumes the role of the coordinator needs to identify one of its staff as its representative to carry out the actions required of the coordinator. The representative of the coordinator is responsible for all contacts between the consortium and the Commission. The coordinator submits all documents to the Commission and ensures the liaison between the Consortium and the Commission. The coordinator will also be responsible for submitting the project's financial statements, will receive all payments from the Commission and will distribute them appropriately among the Consortium. Once the grant agreement enters into force the coordinator has a legal obligation to act as the interface between the Commission services and the other members of the consortium. The coordinator must ensure that all beneficiaries accede to the grant agreement within the established timescale. A key document to the whole procedure is the Consortium Agreement which provides the legal basis for the details of the internal relationship and responsibilities between the beneficiaries. The Consortium Agreement is mandatory for all projects unless specifically excluded by the terms of the call for proposals. It is highly advisable that the consortium agreement (in a first version that could be updated later) be finalised before the grant agreement is signed and each beneficiary should have entered into the consortium agreement when it accedes to the grant agreement.
The negotiations end as soon as an agreement is reached on all technical, financial and legal issues related to the Grant Agreement and the Consortium is reached and as such the Commission Project Officer is sent the final version of the relevant documents. TheCommission receives and validates all the necessary legal and financial information required and drafts a grant agreement which is sent to the coordinator for signature.
Validation of legal entities
For the purposes of signing grant agreements under FP7, participants have to be validated
by the Commission as far as their existence as legal entities and their legal status in
concerned. Under FP7 the validation will only be done once for each entity. Once an entity is
identified "FP7 validated" it can participate in subsequent grants without the need for
repeating the validation procedure.
A facility called PDM-URF (Participant Data Management – Unique Registration Facility) has been developed for this reason. The central validation team in the Commission's Research Directorate-General has identified almost five thousand entities as "FP7 validated". After mid-2008, the legal status validation is completely separated from negotiation of individual grants.
PIC - Each validated entity receives a unique identifier (the PIC –Participant Identification Code), which is used for identifying the participant in proposals and negotiations. LEAR - Each legal entity appoints one person (the so-called LEAR – Legal Entity Appointed Representative) that manages the legal entity data stored in the central database. The LEAR gets online access to the PDM-URF, for reading the data stored for the entity and for initiating any appropriate changes.
What to read The Commission has recently published a document titled ‘Negotiation Guidance Notes’ which outlines the information and procedures in the negotiation process, and is aimed at assisting participants who are invited for project negotiation following the evaluation of their proposal. The guide essentially covers projects to be funded under the 'Co-operation' and 'Capacities' Specific Programmes - Collaborative Projects, Networks of Excellence, Coordination and Support Actions, Research for the benefit of Specific Groups (in particular SMEs).The pdf version can be found here: negotiation guidance notes
Alternatively visit ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/negotiation_en.pdf
As stated in the ‘Negotiation Guidance Notes’ it is developed for information purposes only and its contents are not intended to replace consultation of any applicable legal sources or the necessary advice of a legal expert, where appropriate. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on its behalf can be held responsible for the use made of these guidance notes.
FP7 proposal evaluation: rules, procedures, facts and myths
by Prof. Nikos Melanitis, Help-Forward
1. The evaluation debate
Populism is one of these phenomena that even the scientific and business communities cannot escape and may yield to it. In particular, when the topic is about European research funding and distribution of funds, hardly anyone is willing to accept that his/her proposal is not the best (or one of the best ones). Some academics love to think that when they decide to get involved in a research topic, they cannot be anything else than excellent. It is only, they admit, money what they lack to materialise their unique and world class research. SMEs (with some respect to research and technology procedures) always view any transnational project as a good platform for international business opportunities, and why not, some additional cash-flow for their company. Mediators and consultants, who assist and prepare long and laborious proposals on behalf of SMEs (and universities sometimes) hardly ever accept, in front of their clients, that they have not drafted the PERFECT proposal. What happens then, when a proposal is poorly evaluated, on not marked sufficiently, so that it secures funding to the applicants…. Well, some people accept failure as a part of the game and try to get better next time, while some others never accept failure and try to blame it on others: their insufficient partners in research, or … the evaluators (and the Commission procedures)!
Several myths and prejudices find their grounds in the world of European RTD community. Almost everybody in this world has come across views and statements (and sometimes adopts them!) of the kind:
“Small players have no room in the FP7 game …”
“The Commission has decided in advance who the beneficiaries should be …”
“The evaluators are useless and irrelevant …”
“If you lobby you stand a chance …”
“Proposal marking can be altered …”
… and many more …
Are there grounds for these statements? What is happening during evaluation? How the evaluation is conducted? What is the role of the evaluators? Who are the evaluators? Let’s start from scratch.
2.Learning about Framework Programme proposal evaluation
It is a well known fact that any applicant usually misses to read the footnote with the form completion guidelines! This is true for either applicants for research funding, or applicants for a telephone connection, or a bank loan! FP applicants should start from studying the participation rules. They can be found in one of the most visible pages of the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS): Participation Rules
“Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures” is a frequently updated document in CORDIS, where almost everything about proposal “evaluation” is detailed. Most of the times, the applicants do not have the time or patience to go through it as meticulously as they should.
Evaluation is a part of a well defined process, clearly identified in the FP proposal flowchart:
This article focuses in the steps of the proposal evaluation which concern the selection, appointment, briefing and coordination of the evaluators, the individual evaluation and the consensus procedures within the evaluation panels. The aim of this presentation is to make clear what the role of evaluators is and is based on both the official documentation as well as on views and interviews of experienced evaluators.
3. The role of the evaluators
The Commission evaluates proposals with the assistance of independent experts. An independent expert is an expert who is working in a personal capacity and in performing the work does not represent any organization. Because of the breadth and diversity of research domains covered by the Framework Programmes, these experts are external to the Commission (however, staff from relevant specialised EU agencies is regarded as external experts). Experts may be invited to carry out the evaluation fully or partially at their home or place of work (“remote evaluation”), or on Commission premises. Occasionally, when relevant specialised knowledge is held in-house, Commission staff may work as experts alongside external experts. Any such internal experts will work in addition to the minimum number required for the call. The sole exception to the use of experts is in the case of coordination and support actions, where independent experts are only appointed if the Commission deems it appropriate.
4. Appointment of experts and selection
Experts are required to have skills and knowledge appropriate to the areas of activity in which they are asked to assist. They must also have a high level of professional experience in the public or private sector in one or more of the following areas or activities: research in the relevant scientific and technological fields; administration, management or evaluation of projects; use of the results of research and technological development projects; technology transfer and innovation; international cooperation in science and technology; development of human resources. Experts may be citizens of other than the Member States or countries associated to the Framework Programmes. The Commission establishes a database of experts containing the details of suitable candidates on the basis of calls for applications published in the Official Journal of the European Union (https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/index.cfm).
To evaluate the proposals submitted in response to a call, the Commission draws up a list of appropriate experts (including, if necessary, a reserve list). The lists are drawn up primarily using the selection criteria:
– A high level of expertise;
– An appropriate range of competencies.
Providing the above conditions can be satisfied, other criteria are also taken into consideration:
– An appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users;
– A reasonable gender balance;
– A reasonable distribution of geographical origins;
– Regular rotation of experts
In constituting the lists of experts, the Commission also takes account, as necessary, of their abilities to appreciate the industrial and/or societal dimension, and policy relevance, of the topics covered by the call. Experts must also have the appropriate language skills required for the proposals to be evaluated.
An authorised EC officer and his/her team constitutes lists of experts based on selection criteria mentioned above, taking into account the call topic relevance, language skills and security clearance (if required, e.g. in Euratom).
The Commission shall conclude an 'appointment letter' with each expert. The appointment letter binds the expert to a code of conduct, establishes the essential provisions regarding confidentiality, and, specifies in particular, the description of work, the conditions of payment, and reimbursement of expenses. In particular, the appointment letter sets out the code of conduct which includes principles, such as:
• ... confidential, fair and equitable evaluation
• ... independence from affiliation
• …declaration of confidentiality and no conflict
• …not discussing with others during the process
• …strictly no contact with applicants
• …compliance with EC rules
When appointing experts, the Commission ensures that they are not faced with a conflict of interest in relation to the proposals on which they are required to give an opinion. Experts are required to sign a declaration that no such conflict of interest exists at their appointment as well as at the moment of the evaluation. The declaration makes a distinction between 'disqualifying' and 'potential' conflicts of interest.
Disqualifying Conflict of Interest
• Involved on proposal preparation
• Stands to benefit directly
• Close family relationship with applicant
• Director, trustee, partner of applicant
• Employee of applicant (but possible exception for large organizations …)
• Member of Advisory group
• Any situation that compromises impartiality
Potential Conflict of Interest
• Employed in last 3 years by applicant
• Involved in research cooperation in the last 3 years with applicant
• Any situation that casts doubt
The Commission will consider the circumstances of the case and will decide, on the basis of the objective elements of information at its disposal.
4. Experts briefing
The Commission is responsible for appointing a moderator in each panel of evaluators and providing all necessary information to the evaluators by means of documents, presentations, prior to and during the evaluation, per call and panel. Briefing concerns, process, criteria, call content and expected impact, tools used (Rivet software).
The moderator is the contact person for the evaluators during the evaluation, conducts the briefing & answers questions, assists the evaluators during the individual evaluation and the consensus reporting and facilitates the panel reviewing. Some of the tips the moderator may give to the experts could refer to the methodology of marking the proposals (“first read all proposals before marking and scoring”), or to the practicalities of scoring (“avoid scoring around the threshold mark”).
To ensuring a high degree of transparency, the Commission may appoint independent experts to act as observers of the evaluation process. Their role is to give independent advice to the Commission on the conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation sessions. They are also encouraged to enter into informal discussions with the Commission officials involved in the evaluation sessions and to suggest to the Commission any possible improvements that could be put into practice immediately. However, in the framework of their work, they should not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.
5. Evaluation criteria and scoring guidelines
The evaluation criteria are thematic priority or call specific. They are further elaborated in the guide for applicants of each call. It is not in the scope of this article to analyse them. However, it should be pointed out that the applicants should thoroughly address them in their proposal.
Experts examine the issues to be considered comprising each evaluation criterion, and score these on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 indicating “proposal failure” and 5 indicating “proposal excellence”.
It should be noted that the Commission insists when scoring a proposal to pay particular attention in commenting: Comments must be fair in the sense that strengths and weaknesses must be addressed, but comments must also be consistent with the marks in the sense that when marking below threshold the reasons must be clearly identified. When scoring above threshold, it may be appropriate to refer to potential weaknesses as recommendations for improvement. Comments must be specific and helpful. "Excellent", "fair", "to be improved", and "a waste of money" are all not helpful; comments should be worded so that proposers understand where they fell short of the threshold or to what they need to pay more attention for the stage 2 proposal (in two stage schemes).
The two-stage submission and evaluation process has been introduced because the Commission often faced a situation where the number of proposals received and the available budget were such that only about 1 out of 10 proposed projects could be funded. The effort spent in producing and evaluating the other 9 out of 10 projects was enormous. In the present system, a stage 1 proposal is maximum 10 pages of plain text (+ title page, + table of contents, etc.). The effort spent in producing and evaluating such proposals is substantially lower. The idea is that, in a situation as described above, only about 2 out of 10 proposals would become "GO" proposals. When these are then developed into fully detailed proposals, they would usually have 1 chance out of 2 to be funded.
Evaluators are asked to be fair to the system and should not give any credit to text beyond the 10 pages (+ ...) limit, by treat the proposal as if that text was not there. They are also asked not just to eliminate the weakest proposals, but let only the very best ones proceed to stage 2. Being easy and permissive will have no other consequences than causing more work for proposers whose project will anyhow not be funded and causing more public expenses for evaluating proposals that will anyhow not be funded.
The large numbers of proposals are often due to the fact that projects are proposed to an "available" call for proposals, whereas the projects do not really target the specific objectives of the call for proposals. Do not credit such proposals for the fact that they are excellent. The available budget must be reserved for the excellent projects that really address the objectives of the call under which they were submitted! "Relevance to the call" is not an evaluation criterion on its own. Evaluators are requested to understand "S/T quality" as delivering the kind of knowledge that the call describes, and understand "impact" as delivering the effects that the call describes.
6. Individual evaluation
At the initial phase, each evaluator works individually and gives justified scores and comments for each criterion. At this stage, the expert does not know who else evaluates the proposals he/she has been assigned on. He/she checks out “scope” of proposal and deals with ethical and security issues. The software Evaluation tool available to the experts is RIvET. All experts receive detailed briefing in using the system.
The experts go through and mark the proposals allocated to them, providing the necessary remarks (… most of the time). Once they finalise their score they cannot change it. When all experts of a specific proposal have finished with their scoring, then and only then, the scores of each other are publicly available in RIvET, together with their comments on each criterion.
7. Consensus
Consensus starts when individual assessments are completed by all experts allocated to mark a proposal. It entails a consensus meeting (or electronic forum) to discuss scores awarded. The Moderator designates an expert as the “rapporteur”. The experts attempt to agree on score per criterion and comments to justify the scores. It can get very lively! If no consensus reached, the Moderator may ask up to three additional experts to examine the proposal.
The consensus report (CR), is signed (or approved by electronic means) by the moderator and the experts. In the case of a strong minority disagreement, the report presents the majority view but also records any dissenting views from any particular expert(s). The Commission may edit the CR to assure the quality of the consensus reports, with particular attention given to clarity, consistency, appropriate level of detail. If important changes are necessary, the reports will be referred back to the experts concerned.
8. Panel review
This is the final step involving the experts. It formulates their recommendations to the Commission having had an overview of the results of the consensus step. The tasks of the panel may also include:
• Hearings with the applicants (physical or remote);
• Resolving cases where a minority view was recorded;
• Recommending a priority order for proposals with the same score (only if necessary);
• Making recommendations on possible proposal clustering
The Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) is the result of the panel review. The ESR reflects the consensus reached by the experts, including the final review by the panel. The Commission will not change the ESRs that form part of the panel report, except if necessary to improve readability or, exceptionally, to remove any factual errors or inappropriate comments that may have escaped earlier proof-reading. The scores will never be changed.
9. Post-evaluation procedures (not further elaborated in this article)
While the ESR is posted to the applicants, an internal consultation commences in the appropriate EC office. During this consultation, proposals are ranked, EC suggests the financial contribution for the proposals that have passed and in some occasions it sets out conditions for merging or funding. A reserve list is formulated waiting for the outcome of the negotiations of the successful proposals (as well as the rejection list of all proposals which underperformed during evaluation). When the available call budget has been allocated to successfully negotiated proposals, the process is concluded.
10. Concluding remarks
There is hardly any objectively perfect evaluation system. However its credibility is strongly based on the procedures observed, its transparency at every step and its continuous assessment as a system itself. The European Commission has achieved to establish Framework Programme for RTD as a long term reliable and participatory mechanism for Knowledge creation and Cooperation in Europe. Thousands of applicants have participated in transnational projects over the last 30 years, established new contact networks, produced new (or “newish”) knowledge, developed new products and procedures. History has shown that the FP evaluation system deserves the applicants’ trust. It is up to the applicants to understand, learn and make best use of the evaluation process, so that they strengthen their application (both in content and presentation terms) in accordance to the rules and standards of the “game”.
--Nondas 13:33, 11 February 2009 (CET)
Lump-sum: A flexible option for ICPC participants
Introduction
EU financing in FP7 is based upon two principles:
• The principle of co-financing, indicating that the EC will only cover a major part of the project costs and the total real costs.
• The principle of no-profit, indicating that it is not allowed for a project participant to have a positive outcome from a project, eg. by selling services though the project activities.
All participants shall report their eligible direct and indirect costs, and the Commission is providing a reimbursement according to the general reimbursement rules and the project Grant Agreement (GA). In FP7 there are no specific cost models (as AC/FC/FCF in FP6), but there are several different options for calculating the eligible costs for funding.
The upper funding limits are:
–Research activities: 50% of eligible costs, except for SMEs, Non-profit public bodies,Secondary and higher education establishments, and Research organisations (non-profit), that receive 75% !
–Demonstration activities: 50% of eligible costs
–“Frontier” research actions: 100%
–Coordination and support actions: 100%
–Training and career development of researchers actions: 100%
–Other activities (management, training, etc): 100%
The funding should be calculated as: –A percentage % of all eligible direct and indirect costs –A percentage % of all eligible direct costs with flat rate for indirect costs –A percentage % of all eligible direct costs with an average/simplified indirect cost rate for public bodies, SMEs etc.
Lump-Sum for ICPC participants
Instead of using any of these options and having the obligation to report their real Direct and Indirect costs, ICPC participants may alternatively opt for the EC financial contribution to take the form of a lump sum financing.
This option can be made (and changed) up to the moment of the signature of the GA (the contract for the project). Once made, it will apply during the whole duration of the GA without the possibility of changing it.
•In this case, the lump sum covers all the costs of an ICPC participant, not only personnel and travel, but also equipment, consumables and indirect costs.
•Lump sums by definition do not require the submission of financial justifications (statements). So, the ICPC participant does not have to report any of the costs incurred for the project and no audit certificate will be requested.
•The only obligation for the ICPC participant is to keep in place the relevant time sheets for the personnel working for the project.
•Again, are applied the usual upper funding limits according to the funding scheme. e.g 75% for research activities, 100% for management and training activities, etc.
Depending on the country, the lump sum contribution for participants from ICPC is defined like this:
Funding Calculation
For a legal entity established in an ICPC, if the lump sum option is chosen, the contribution in a project is based on the amounts in Table 1. These amounts must be multiplied by the total number of person-years for the project requested by the ICPC legal entity. When the person is not working full-time on the project, these amounts must be reduced to take into account the portion of his/her working time devoted to the project.
The maximum EC contribution is calculated by applying the upper funding limits to the resulting amount. This amount is all inclusive, covering support towards both the direct and the indirect costs. In other words, the lump sum is deemed to cover all costs of a participant from an ICPC country, including not only the costs of personnel and travel, but also, among others, equipment, consumables, subcontracts and indirect costs.
Example
The Technical University of Moldova (UTM), is participating in a 3 year research project performing a number of costs (staff, traveling, lab equipment, etc). UTM instead of reporting its actual costs (air tickets, purchase of equipment, etc) has chosen to use the Lump Sum option:
•In the 3 year research project , there are involved 6 UTM researchers. 3 researchers are spending 50% of their time and 3 are working full time.
•The actual total researcher working years are: 3y * (3researchers + 3researchers x 50%) =13,5 person years
•Moldova is indicated as a Lower Middle Income country, with 9800 €/researcher/year (see table 1).
•EC maximum contribution is 75% for Universities, so lump sum funding for the UTM is= 13,5 x 9800 € x 75% =99.225 €
•UTM can spend this amount for the project needs (staff, equipment, traveling) without any obligation of providing any documentation on costs or an audit certificate. The only obligation for the ICPC participant is to keep in place the relevant time sheets for the personnel working for the project.
--Nondas 12:29, 8 January 2009 (CET)
