Proposal Preparation Call for Proposals & Eligibility Guide for Proposals & Evaluation Criteria Feedback from previous Evaluations Highlights Viability Audit certificates Concluding remarks W. Van Puymbroeck

Proposals have to be in Brussels Call for Proposers & Eligibility Call for Proposals published in June 2001 It defines: the Action Lines that are open Reference to the Workprogramme 2001 the Type of Actions called for See Guide for Proposers the deadline and method of delivery of a proposal refers to Manual of Proposal Evaluation Procedures Proposals have to be in Brussels on 17 October 2001 before 17:00

Key Action 1 in Call 7 Open: June 2001 Deadline: 17 October 2001 do not wait until the last minute! pre-register your proposal! Evaluation: 19 - 23 November 2001 Evaluation Summary Reports: before 28 November 2001 Negotiation: December 2001 - January 2002 (one month if good “technical Annex” / good consortium!) Signature: January 2002 for first contract to start on 1 February 2002 M. Richonnier

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria A proposal has 3 parts: Part A: Administrative, budgetary information (Forms A0-A4) Part B: Description of contribution to scientific/technical objectives and workplan Part C: Description of EC policies, Economic development, management and participants There are 5 blocks of Evaluation Criteria: Scientific/technological quality and innovation Community added value and contribution to EC policies Contribution to Community social objectives Economic development and S&T prospects Resources, Partnership and management

For RTD proposals this part needs to be anonymous Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Evaluation Criteria 1 Scientific Technological quality and innovation Part B of Proposal B1 Title page B2 Content list B3 Objectives B4 Contribution to programme Key Action objectives B5 Innovation B6 Project Workplan For RTD proposals this part needs to be anonymous (incl. Workpackage list, deliverables list, workpackage description)

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Part C of Proposal C1 Title page C2 Content list C3 Community added value and contribution to EC policies C4 Contribution to Community social objectives Evaluation Criteria 2 Community added value and contribution to EC policies Evaluation Criteria 3 Contribution to Community social objectives

Cont’d Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Part C of Proposal cont’d C5 Project management C6 Description of the consortium C7 Description of the participants C8 Economic development and scientific and technological prospects Evaluation Criteria 5 Resources, partnership and management Evaluation Criteria 4 Economic development and S&T prospects

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d For RTD Criteria Weight (1) Threshold (2) Scientific/Technological Quality and innovation 4 >= 3 Community Added Value and contribution to EU policy 1 >= 2 Contribution to Comm. Social objectives 1 - Economic Dev; S&T prospects (range of applications, exploitation, strategic impact, dissemination) 2 >= 3 Resources, Partnership, Management 2 >= 2 1) Weight on a scale of 10 (sum 10) 2) Threshold with respect to score 0-5

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation (for RTD) Quality Innovation and risk Adequacy Evaluation criterion 2: Community added value and contribution to EC policies (for RTD) European Dimension of the problem European Added Value EU policy

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Evaluation criterion 3: Contribution to Community social objectives (for RTD) Quality of Life and Health and Safety Employment Preserving and/or enhancing the environment Evaluation criterion 4: Economic development and S & T prospects (for RTD) Usefulness and range of applications, exploitations plans Strategic impact Dissemination strategies

Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Evaluation criterion 5: Management and resources (for RTD) Quality of management and project approach Quality of partnership, involvement of users and other actors Appropriateness of resources

Feedback from previous Evaluations Evaluators consider all aspects of the proposal and have different backgrounds Experts in IST, knowledgeable in application area, understand business issues Proposers have to make convincing case of innovation and present very clear objectives Your strategic objectives matter most Proposal has to be realistic and “exciting” at the same time Make the case for Community funding i.e. both European level and need for public money Feedback des evaluations precedentes - les evaluateurs examinent tous les aspects de la proposition et proviennent de differents milieux - experience dans l'informatique, la technologie, les finances ou experts dans la matiere en question. - Les projets candidats doivent souligner l'aspect innovateur qu'ils apportent et presenter clairement leurs objectifs - Il faut que la proposition soit a la fois interessante et - realiste - Justificier la necessite des fond publics et les fonds de la Communaute

Feedback from previous Evaluations Cont’d All partners must have a clear role and the consortium has to reach “critical mass” importance of “Consortium engineering” Carefully consider “release” level of deliverables note e.g. the objective to foster the development and use of open source software Management has to consider all issues e.g. risk management handling of conflict communication strategy -Tous les partenaires doivent avoir un role precis - l'importance de la structure de consortium - Considerer attentivement dans quelle mesure le public aura acces aux resultats du projet - Les organisateurs du projet doit considerer: - la gestion a risques - la resolution des conflits - la strategie de communication

Feedback from previous Evaluations Cont’d The proposal may not have a weak point thresholds and weighting each evaluation criteria discussed on its own merits Avoid easy criticism ask colleagues to critique early versions Proposals which are “incontournable” have up to now always been funded Evaluators evaluate what is written, not what is in your mind Evaluators look more for content than style La propostion ne doit presenter aucun point faible - criteres de selection -les seuils - chaque critere est considreree separemment Eviter les critiques faciles - demander aux collegues de verifier les premieres versions - les propositions incontournables ont toujours ete financies

Feedback from previous Evaluations Call 4 Evaluation results Cont’d les resultats domaine - recus - prioritise - selectionne - dans la reserve

Highlights: Viability Legal existence A document that proves the formal registration of the organisation The legal existence of an organisation must predate the contract signature date for all contractors Financial viability Annex 2 in Contract Preparation Forms Audited financial accounts not older than 18 months only for commercial organisations Appropriate resources (personnel)

Highlights: Viability Cont’d Financial Evaluation Good Acceptable Weak Co-financing Weak Acceptable Good Capacity

Highlights: Viability Cont’d Potential contractors for which the LFV is “negative” should demonstrate that they have additional financial resources sufficient to finance their share of the project costs A potential contractor for which the LFV is “negative” cannot be a financial/administrative co-ordinator of the project Potential contractors that do not have the financial resources to finance their cost shares can be rejected or their participation can be decreased

Highlights: Viability Cont’d Further protective measures include: The Commission will not pay an advance to the company The company has to provide a financial guarantee * from i) a bank/insurance company or ii) from the parent company or an affiliated company or iii) from another consortium member Direct payment to individual contractors * the cost of a financial guarantee is an eligible cost under the category “other specific costs”

Highlights: Audit certificates Requested in the IST programme from Call 6 onwards as a Pilot Only for RTD i.e. research, demonstration and combined research and demonstration projects In order to reduce the number of misunderstandings and errors in the submission of cost statements speed up payments improve the system of control in respect of the costs reimbursed to the contractors reinforce the protection of the financial interests of the Community

Highlights: Audit certificates Cont’d When the contractor has A cost of more than 250 000 Euros for the first 12 month period of the project, the audit certificate to be provided with first interim cost statement (or 125 000 Euros for the first 6 months) A total project cost exceeding 250 000 Euros for the total project costs, the audit certificate to be provided (covering all the periodic cost statements) together with the cost statement for the final period, also for those that have provided audit certificates with their first interim cost statement In case a contractor as result of restrictions in its statutes or other national legislation is not in a position to provide an Audit certificate, no Audit certificate will be required

Highlights: Audit certificates Cont’d Eligible costs (under the specific cost categorie) Community financial contribution shall not exceed 4000 Euros per audit certificate Guarantee retention shall be 20% of the maximum amount of the EU contribution In all cases where a certification in an Audit certificate is required, costs for which there is no such certification shall not be considered as eligible costs As part of the Pilot the Commission (or any representative authorised by it) would like to reserve the right to assess the Audit work performed. A model for an Audit certificate is available

Importance of innovation Consortia composition with business interest Concluding remarks What is new at the end of the project? Importance of innovation Consortia composition Exploitation potential European and beyond Project 100% in line with business interest

Concluding remarks Cont’d In order to help us, please pre-register your proposal please submit the full proposal in good time and ensure all forms are duly completed and signed ensure that budget figures add up use Pro-Tool if available use your registration number with the IST Programme

Important details - keep up to date ! http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ IST helpdesk Fax : +32 2 296 83 88 E-Mail : ist@cec.eu.int - Official Journal (call text) - Workprogramme - Guide for Proposers - Evaluation manual