CORDIS Archive

	Growth Evaluation guidelines: 1. Introduction 2. RTD, Demonstration and Combined projects 3. Thematic Networks and Concerted Actions 4. Accompanying Measures 5. Expressions of interest for the needs of research and in support of Research Infrastructures 6. INCO bursaries 1. Introduction Important note: A new version of the FP5 Manual of Proposal Evaluation Procedures (the FP5 Evaluation Manual) was adopted by the Commission on July 14, 2000. There are two important changes made to the procedures for checking the eligibility of proposals received, which should be noted by all potential participants: Proposals submitted on paper must be received by the Commission at the address specified in the call text on or before the applicable deadline. The above constitutes a change with respect to the previous calls. DEADLINES NOW APPLY TO RECEIPT BY THE COMMISSION. It is no longer necessary for the Commission to be in receipt of original signatures of the proposal partners and/or the proposal co-ordinator at the proposal stage. Copies of complete signed proposals will now be accepted. Other changes do not necessarily apply across all programmes. As far as the Growth Programme is concerned, the definition of 'large scale proposals' has been further clarified. It now reads: 'thresholds 4.0 for the criterion "Partnership & Management" in the case of large scale proposals (e.g. technology platforms) with more than 10 M Euro total cost' (see Annex J of the Evaluation Manual). These provisions should apply to all calls published after the July 14, 2000 as well as to the open calls already published as from September 30, 2000. The new version of the Evaluation Manual is available on Cordis at the following address: /fp5/src/evalman.htm The Commission evaluates and selects proposals with the assistance of external experts sought through a call for applications published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. These experts will work in accordance with the Growth Evaluation Guidelines as well as with the Evaluation Questionnaires provided below. The evaluation procedure is in agreement with the rules and principles of the FP5 Evaluation Manual adopted by the Commission and the specific Annex for the Growth Programme. The objective of the evaluation procedure is to obtain a short list of proposals in order of priority for funding. The evaluation and selection of proposals will be carried out in several stages. Receipt After the opening, registration and acknowledgement of the proposals by the Commission, they will be allocated to the appropriate evaluation panels according to the topics addressed in the call. In the case of Accompanying Measure proposals, these will grouped according to the type of measures defined in the Guide for Proposers part 1 and in the Growth Work Programme. Eligibility check The Commission staff will check the proposals’ eligibility and verify the conformity with the specific objectives of the parts of the Workprogramme open for the call. In the case of Accompanying Measure proposals, the conformity with the types of measures and the objectives of the Programme will be verified. Doubtful cases will be presented to the experts at the beginning of the evaluation to decide on possible transfer or ineligibility. Only eligible proposals and proposals which are in line with the objectives of the call will be evaluated. Evaluation The experts will evaluate eligible proposals for quality and relevance. The evaluation criteria are divided into five main categories. For each of these categories, a mark on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) will be awarded1. Each of these blocks is normally weighted equally (20%). There is an eliminating threshold level for each category of criterion, i.e. this minimum level needs to be met to allow for a proposal to be funded. Threshold levels are provided by type of actions in the tables below. 2. Evaluation Guidelines for RTD, Demonstration and Combined projects 2.1 The evaluation procedure The evaluation is carried out in the following way: a) First step: Individual assessment Evaluation Panels consist of one or two groups of evaluators. If split in 2 groups: - one group will evaluate the anonymous scientific and technical part and the managerial part (S&T excellence, partnership & management) and - the second one will evaluate the socio-economic aspects (EU added value, societal needs, economic prospects). A minimum of 3 experts per group, or more when necessary, in particular in the case of large-scale proposals, will evaluate each proposal. Each expert will work independently and give marks and comments by using the appropriate evaluation forms. If the Panel is not split, each expert will assess all the 5 criteria. b) Second step: Panel assessment and initial classification After their individual evaluation the average marks per criterion of the evaluators will be added to obtain a total score for the proposal. To be recommended, a proposal must meet all thresholds for all individual criteria and receive of a total of more than 18 points out of 25. An Evaluation Summary Report is prepared for each proposal. This Report includes the final marks and the consensus opinion of the evaluators. This is also the basis to provide proposers with feedback on their proposals. In case of disagreement among experts, they may discuss the proposal and as a consequence possibly reconsider their marks to reach a consensus. In case a consensus can not be reached, the final recommendation can be left to an Extended (Synthesis) Panel. c) Third step: Extended (Synthesis) Panels and final classification The Extended (Synthesis) Panel is composed of evaluators from the above mentioned teams. The tasks of the Extended (Synthesis) Panel are the following: verify balance and consistency of the overall results consider the need to re-evaluate or discuss and decide on the "no-consensus" cases submitted by the evaluation panels consider and discuss possible suggestions for the clustering or regrouping of projects verify/confirm the ranking and in particular determine the ranking order of proposals with the same score/similar merit Outcome The outcome of the evaluation will be a ranked shortlist of retained proposals and a list of proposals to be rejected, established by the Commission following the panels’ recommendations. The relative importance of some proposals in expressing the priorities as defined in the call may also be used as input for the setting up of the final ranked shortlist. a) List of proposals to be rejected This list comprises ineligible proposals and proposals either failing to reach the required thresholds, or ranked too low on the priority list to be funded, due to budgetary limits. Once the formal decision on the proposals to be rejected has been taken by the Commission, the Coordinators of these proposals will be informed in writing about this decision immediately. b) Final ranked shortlist of proposals The Coordinators of the proposals on the short list will be contacted and contract negotiations with the Commission will start immediately. In case of a successful completion of the negotiations the Commission will take the "selection decision" enabling formal Commission support to be enacted. Negotiations will stop when the available budget is exhausted and a final decision will be taken by the Commission, rejecting the remaining proposals from the shortlists that could finally not be funded. 2.2 Threshold levels for shared-cost RTD activities Minimum mark (scale 0 - 5) KA1 KA2 KA3 KA4 Mat M&T S&T excellence 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0 4,0	3,0
Partnership & Management(2)	3,0	3,0	3,0	3,0	3,0	3,0
Community added value(1)	3,0	4,0	3,0	3,0	3,0	3,0
Societal needs	3,0	4,0	3,0	3,0	3,0	3,0
Economic prospects	4,0	3,0	4,0	4,0	3,0	3,0

(1) 4.0 in the case of dedicated calls
(2) 4.0 in the case of large scale proposals (e.g. technology platforms) with more than 10 millions EURO total cost

To be recommended a proposal must meet all thresholds and receive more than 18.0 points out of 25.

2.3 Evaluation Questionnaire for RTD and Demonstration projects

At the beginning of the evaluation the following three questions need to be answered with a "YES" by the evaluators, otherwise the Commission may decide not to continue with the evaluation:

1. Does the proposal address the parts of the work programme (and Supporting Documents in the case of Dedicated Calls), including policy issues (if applicable), open for the particular call?
2. Is the proposed research compliant with fundamental ethical principles?
3. Does the proposal follow the requirements for layout (e.g. anonymity of Part B)?

Do not forget that your proposal should be driven by a solving problem approach.

The list of questions below are considered as background information for the evaluation of proposals. For proposals being either RTD or Demonstration, the evaluators' assessment must reflect the character of the proposal. For example, the level of innovation and technical risk expected for an RTD project is higher than for demonstration projects. Similarly, the partnership, socio-economic impact and dissemination strategies must reflect the character of the proposals.

Scientific/Technological quality and innovation

• Does the proposal address the key scientific and technological issues supporting the objectives of the Programme and/or Key Actions and/or Generic Activities?
• Are the needs at the origin of this proposal clearly addressed and justified? Is a "problem solving approach" evident?
• Does the proposal have the appropriate level of innovative value/ originality; i.e. does the proposal indicate how the intended results lead to significant progress beyond the state-of-the-art and to successful products/processes on the market?
• Do the proposers demonstrate their knowledge of the international state-of-the-art of related work (evidence of adequate documentary search, incl. results of current or completed RTD projects)? Are the limitations of competing products, processes or techniques presented?
• Does the intended research include an appropriate degree of technical risk and are contingency plans formulated?
• Are the proposed methods and techniques clearly described and justified? Is the workplan adequate and clearly described with well-defined and scheduled tasks, responding to the set short, medium or long-term objectives?
• Is the distribution of workpackages and responsibilities between partners balanced and complementary (not overlapping) with clear indication of partner's contribution in each workpackage?
• Are the major project milestones and deliverables identified and appropriate, including quantitative and/or qualitative criteria for assessing progress and achievement of targets?

Partnership, management and resources

• Is the partnership balanced and effective with regard to the active participation and commitment of essential partners (i.e. active user involvement in more than a symbolic way)?
• Is the stakeholders’ involvement in budgetary terms (i.e. percentage of own funding with regard to EU funding) adequate to the character of the proposal as regards low / high risk, long / short / medium term research, nature of projects results and exploitation²
• Are SMEs (in the case of Industrial Projects) present in the consortium with a significant role?
• Is the expertise of partners well suited to their role in the project? Is the availability of key personnel to the project credible in terms of actual dedication to the project?
• Is the manpower and resources allocation balanced (between partners / between workpackages), reasonable and justified by the intended workplan?
• Is the cost estimation realistic (labour and overheads, equipment, consumables, external services, and other costs)?³*
• Does the co-ordinator demonstrate all the required management capabilities in terms of position, expertise, commitment and available resources?
• Does the method of management in administrative, scientific and strategic terms promise a successful execution of the project (co-ordination and follow-up procedures for monitoring progress, procedures for conflict resolution, allocation and distribution of responsibilities including exploitation, leading role identification, communication strategy)?
• Is the project scheduling realistic and consistent with expected developments and effort? (Bar chart showing partners/tasks inter-dependencies and scheduling of major milestones should be included).

* On the basis of the above assessments the evaluators will be asked to give an estimate of possible cost reductions.

Community added value and contribution to EU policies

• Is there a clear need and clear benefit to carry out the project at European level instead of at national or private level?
• Is a "critical mass" attained regarding complementarity of expertise, multidisciplinarity, transnationality and resources (in human and financial terms)3?
• Does the proposal show short, medium or long term strategic importance to European industry and society?
• Does the project support other EU policies (e.g. regarding environment, free circulation of goods, consumer protection, employment, transport, and energy)?
• Does the project address/solve problems related to Norms, Standards and Regulations?
• Will the project have positive impact on European social and economic cohesion (for example by technology transfer to less technically advanced regions)?
• Will the project lead to a new or improved technological co-operation within EU (in particular for SMEs)?

Contribution to Community social objectives

• Is a "problem solving approach" evident in the proposal?
• Will the project cause positive impact on the quality of life of European citizens?
• Will the project cause positive impact on health and safety (including working conditions) of European citizens?
• Will the project have an impact on preserving or creating employment in Europe (directly and in the longer term)?
• Will the project change/improve the quality of jobs?
• Will the project improve the use and development of skills, including training?
• Will the project contribute to preserve and enhance environmental conditions (e.g. impact on the quality of water, air, soil etc. or the reduction of noise)?
• Will the project respect minimum use or conservation of natural resources and energy?
• Will the project contribute to a sustainable development of European society?

Economic development and S&T prospects

• Are the direct and indirect industrial benefits clearly identified (new markets, patents, prenormative issues, industry and policy sectors)?
• Are the direct and indirect economic benefits identified with a realistic assessment of the possible impact on European society?
• Would the results be clearly and usefully applicable in one or more sector(s) of industry (including SMEs)?
• Are the objectives of the project consistent with the partners’ business strategy? Are the partners capable and committed to exploit the results e.g. through their ability to make significant own investment in the proposed developments?
• Will the project improve the competitiveness of the partners or of possible European user-groups?
• Are the plans for the use of the results feasible, with a good chance of succeeding in the target applications (including identification of potential users, assessment of risks)?
• Have measures to prepare the further use of results been foreseen (e.g. deliverables suitable for transfer or dissemination both during and at the end of the project)?
• Are issues of Intellectual Property Rights considered properly?
• Are the proposed transfer and dissemination measures suitable with respect to the proposed applications (including definition of target groups and industrial sectors including SMEs)?

In the case of "clustered" projects:

• Are the complementarity and possible synergies of clustered projects credibly demonstrated?
• Does the cluster represent an increased European Added Value with regard to its single member projects?

---

---