Page 1

Evaluation & selection of FP7 projects

TitleFriday, 9 October 2009 Katrien Selderslaghs


European Commission Enterprise and Industry


1. Project submission 2. Evaluation & selection procedure 3. Tips & tricks 4. Your support structures

1. Project submission

Submission of proposals • Fixed structure and rules for proposals: see Guide for Applicants • Online submission: Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS), via CORDIS ƒ Some parts reserved for coordinator, others need to be completed by partners Æ communication! ƒ Modifications possible until “Submission”

Eligibility checks Checked by the Commission: ƒ Receipt before deadline • Firm deadlines

ƒ Minimum number of partners • As set out in work programme and the call

ƒ Completeness of proposal • Presence of all requested forms

ƒ “Out of scope” • A proposal will only be deemed ineligible in clear cut cases

ƒ Other criteria may apply on a call-by-call basis • Eg. budget limits

2. Evaluation & selection process

Overview of the evaluation process


Individual reading







Final ranking list


Rejection list

Eligibility check




Proposals in suggested priority order COMMISSION


External Experts

External experts • Expert evaluators are at the heart of the FP system • They provide independent, impartial and objective advice to the Commission Æ they represent neither their employer, nor their country

• They can also add value to projects through your comments and suggestions • The integrity of the process is crucial (Code of Conduct with principles of confidentiality, absence of conflict of interest...)

Expert evaluation


Proposal X copy 1

expert 1

Proposal X copy 2

Proposal X copy 3


Consensus meeting

expert 2

IER expert 3

IER: Individual assessment report CR: Consensus Report

CR 3 experts

The criteria • Criteria adapted to each funding scheme and each thematic area Æ specified in the work programme

• Three main criteria: ƒ S&T Quality (relevant to the topic of the call) • Concept, objective, work-plan ƒ Implementation NB: Applicants are not required to provide detailed breakdown • Management of costs • Individual participants and consortium as a whole • Allocation and justification of resources ƒ Impact • Contribution to expected impacts listed in work programme Refer • Plans for dissemination/exploitation to WP!

Scoring • Each criterion is scored 0-5 ƒ half-scores are used ƒ Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding

• Thresholds apply to individual criteria… ƒ Default threshold is 3

• …and to the total score: ƒ higher than the sum of the individual thresholds ƒ Default threshold is 10

• Can vary from call-to-call!

Interpretation of scores 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information

1 - Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

2 - Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.

3 - Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.

4 - Very Good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.

5 - Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Consensus • •

Built on the basis of the individual evaluations The aim is agreement on scores and comments: involves a discussion and is not just a simple average Moderated by a commission staff-member • • •

helps the group to reach a conclusion provides information if necessary does not contribute with opinions!

Assessment of the proposal and feedback on weaknesses & strengths

The Final Panel • To ensure overall consistency • Produces final marks and comments for each proposal ƒ Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR)

• Suggests ranking: list of proposals, with recommendations for priority order (prioritisation of proposals with identical consensus scores) • Clear guidance for contract negotiation

Negotiation • The Commission will: ƒ Send invitation to negotiate to the coordinator, or ƒ Send rejection letter with feedback

• Indicative timing of your project: T T+4 months T+9 months T+15 months T+18 months

Call publication Call closure Start of Evaluation process End of Evaluation Start of Negociations Start of first projects Start of last projects

3. Tips & Tricks

Tips & tricks (1) • Respect eligibility criteria ƒ Deadline (Electronic Proposal Submission System!) ƒ Format requirements ƒ Funding tresholds

• Evaluators have limited time : be straight to the point, clear and consistent (measurable deliverables and milestones) and think about the presentation! • Be clear: write for a non-specialist

Tips & tricks (2) • Analyse what the Commission wants : see work programme and related policies (EU interest!) • Offer good value for money (budget) • You must score on all criteria, as there is fierce competition • Importance of impact & dissemination

Connect to the process! • List of evaluators 2007 – 2008, per programme and per theme: • Always shortage of evaluators: become 1 yourself! Æ Good way to: • get to know the system • network • learn from other projects

• Registration as an evaluator:

4. Your support structures

Your FP7 support structures ÆYou need information about FP7 ? ÆYou need assistance with your FP7 project ? ÆYou want to be part of an FP7 project ? ÆYou are looking for partners for your FP7 project ?

Your support structures: CORDIS National Contact Points Enterprise Europe Network

CORDIS: dedicated FP7 website

CORDIS contents • General news & information • Calls & supporting documents • Legal documents • Guidance documents • Partner search • EPSS (Electronic Proposal Submission System) • National contact points (NCP’s)...

NCP’s: FP7-specific support structure • Inform & assist people free of charge with FP7 • “Intermediary” between EC & FP7 participants • Thematic responsibility • In every member state, all associated states and in some third countries • List of NCP’s:

Tools of the NCP • Experience • Priviliged relationship with Commission • Member of international networks: ƒ Harmonised quality of services ƒ Transnational networking Æ NCP Energy: C-Energy project Æ NCP Environment: Together project

What a NCP can do for you Assistance with: • • • • • • •

Project idea validation Proposal preparation Consortium building Legal, financial & IPR issues Proposal submission Project negotiation Project implementation

...but what about valorisation of your R&D results?

NCP’s in Belgium Flanders IWT

Wallonia UWE

Brussels Brussels Enterprise Agency Federal STIS (Scientific and Technical Information Service)

French Community FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique)

Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) • Network funded by the European Commission • Local implantation • Specific support structure for CIP, but also... …free information and support services for other European programmes, EU-legislation, partnering, innovation etc. • Focus on SMEs, but also open to other businesses, universities, associations, etc.

EEN in Belgium Enterprise Europe Vlaanderen

Wallonie Europe

Enterprise Europe Brussels

Brussels Enterprise Agency Tour & Taxis Havenlaan 86C, b. 211 1000 Brussels Website: Katrien Selderslaghs FP7 National Contact Point EEN Advisor Tel: 02/800 00 60


Sub-title Friday, 9 October 2009 Katrien Selderslaghs PLACE PARTNER’S LOGO HERE European Commission Enterprise and Industry 1.Project submis...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you