Insights to proposal submission and evaluation Avelino Gonzalez Gonzalez DG Research and Innovation Research and Innovation

Main calls FP7-ENV, some figures so far 06/12/2018

Who are the actors and tools The Proposers ENV 2012 last calls: ~2,400 applying for EUR 255 million, finally shared by ~810 The Commission services POs for thematic content, but also legal and financial services, logistics, etc. The independent external experts (evaluators and observers) Selected and appointed by the EC staff Tools: Participants portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal Electronic Submission Service (the previous EPSS is replaced by a new system) 06/12/2018

Where to start … Work Programme 2013 and its call fiche Three main calls: FP7-ENV-2013-one-stage (5.6 % of the overall budget – EUR 17 million) Deadline 16/10/2012, 17:00 Brussels time 4 topics (all CA) FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage (81.3 % of the overall budget – EUR 248 million) Deadline 16/10/2012 (first stage) Deadline ~28/02/2013 (second stage) 22 topics (all CP) FP7-ENV-2013-WATER INNO&DEMO (13.1 % of the overall budget – EUR 40 million) Deadline 4/4/2013, 17:00 Brussels time 2 topics (one CP and one CA) Guide for applicants (CP, CP-two-stages and CSA-CA) Available at the call page in the Participants Portal Preparing and submitting your proposal : please use the check lists, indications and templates provided in the Guide for Applicants (GfA) and in the Electronic Submission Service 06/12/2018

Check the eligibility of your proposal …before submission Eligibility criteria, sounds trivial but … Experience shows that 4-8 % of submitted proposals are declared ineligible Please submit before the deadline, after it’s impossible … Not shown in the official statistics: 2-3 % of proposers would like changes … Please respect the funding thresholds (part A) Apply to all topics but two and range from EUR 1, 3, 6, 9 to 12 million as EU contribution Please provide a complete proposal Includes a part A and a part B, which shall be readable, accessible and printable. Download a copy of the part B and check Please involve at least: 3 participants in CP and CSA-CA (established in different MS or AC) Please be in scope, and use the associated funding scheme: Confront objectively your proposal to the topic description Please consider, when appropriate, the additional eligibility criteria: SMEs participation (6 topics at 15%, 1 topic at 20% and 4 topics at 30% EU contrib) to be assessed at the end of the negotiation 06/12/2018

Submission hints Get familiar with the Electronic Submission Service well (SEP) before the deadline, and complete the administrative forms (part A) in advance, including budgetary aspects You can submit as many versions as you like. But note that only the last version, if eligible, will be evaluated SEP data is encrypted and not accessible, even to the Commission services, before the deadline There is no ‘pre-proposal check service’ offered for the ENV calls, but: NCPs (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html) FP7 enquiry service (http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries ) Help desk SEP (hyperlink….) Help desk research ethics issues (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/get-support_en.html) Help desk IPR (http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/) 06/12/2018

Focus on evaluation criteria Please read carefully the instructions given in the Guide for Applicants The evaluation criteria are detailed in the Annex II to the WP2013. The description is adapted to the funding scheme. Please consider carefully the page limits indication (…less is more), be concise and precise Think as an ‘evaluator’ A role game: ask colleague(s) to evaluate your proposal, at least make sure that evaluators can find easily the response to the evaluation sub-criteria … 06/12/2018

Evaluation criteria and scores 06/12/2018

S/T quality You have a limited time, and space, to convince avoid the fog, experts will be reading your proposal Address in this part the relevance to the topic Make it clear, and be objective concept and objectives the current state-of-the-art and the expected progress assess the risks of failure Provide references, including your currently related activities Methodology and integration of activities should be credible Work plan structure and planning shall be realistic overall objectives => work packages specific objectives => tasks => deliverables milestones are associated to relevant objectives and should include criteria for assessment and further decision 06/12/2018

Implementation Present the management structure and how decisions are taken Role and contributions of every single partner should be well defined and relevant experience explained The proposal should explain how partners’ activities will be integrated to form a robust consortium Balance adequately partners involvement, ‘exotic’ participants are not always convincing Stakeholders (end-users, industry, decision makers, general public …) shall be involved as appropriated Justify the resources allocated. While you cannot exceed the maximum EU contribution defined in the WP2013, you can still ask for less … Proposals are not compared in terms of pure costs but the allocation of resources should make sense Avoid calculation mistakes, provide consistent information in both part A and B Reimbursement rates vs. types of activities: from 50% to 100% => BE REALISTIC Management activities does not include scientific coordination 06/12/2018

Impact Explain how the project and its potential outcome(s) will contribute to the impacts listed in the WP2013 Do not hesitate to go beyond the listed impacts Consider carefully this evaluation criteria, it accounts for 1/3 of the overall score (50% in outline proposals) Please be specific, no absolute figures Think about European added value Dissemination, exploitation and potential use of projects results is a ‘must’ Exploitation and use of the generated knowledge goes well beyond pure commercial prospects Stakeholders engagement Specific dissemination strategies Open access policy (OpenAIRE, www.openaire.eu) IPR (http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/) Innovation impact (introduced already in the previous call) Markets and areas of potential use of projects results, including measures to increase the market uptake: Verification, testing, standardisation … Identifying potential users/stakeholders, financial support for development/commercialisation 06/12/2018

Evaluation: some specific features… Relevance to the topic and to the objectives of the call considered in the criterion « S/T quality » and the first sub-criterion under « Impact » reflected in the scoring of the first criterion quid broader topics? bottom-up calls? The innovation dimension of proposals will be evaluated under the criterion « Impact » and should be reflected in the description of the objectives and scope as well as the expected impact (generating knowledge to deliver new and more innovative products, processes and services). Similar proposals or signed contracts ? previously or currently being submitted relevant in the second half of the FP7 evaluation process should consider previous ESR at the consensus stage 06/12/2018

Evaluation process & planning (1) Once you have submitted a proposal, what’s next? Evaluation planning valid for calls (deadline 16/10/2012) Submission Individual assessment Consensus discussions Review Panel deadline Eligibility Ranked list Finalisation Info to applicants Rejection 16/10/2012 3 - 6 independent experts First week of November Mid December Before Xmas break Third week of 06/12/2018

Evaluation process & planning (2) Once you have been invited to submit a proposal, what’s next? Evaluation planning valid the second stage of the two-stages call (deadline ~28/02/2013) Submission Individual assessment Consensus discussions Review Panel deadline Eligibility Ranked list Finalisation Info to applicants Rejection 28/02/2013 3 - 6 independent experts Third week of March Mid May Before mid of May Second week of April Last week of 06/12/2018

Evaluation process & planning (3) Once you have been invited to submit a proposal, what’s next? Evaluation planning valid the WATER call (deadline 4/4/2013) Submission Individual assessment Consensus discussions Review Panel deadline Eligibility Ranked list Finalisation Info to applicants Rejection 4/4/2013 3 - 6 independent experts Last week of April End of May Before end of May Second week of Third week of 06/12/2018

Further evaluation process Redress procedure when applicants believe there have been shortcomings in the handling of their proposal, which jeopardise the evaluations’ outcome complaints should address the evaluation process, the ‘redress committee’ will not call the experts judgement out of 6 calls and 1,925 evaluated proposals, 150 redress for request were received (7.8%), which led so far to 3 re-evaluations (0.16%) Ethics review issues should be addressed in the proposal (ethics issue table) when applicable (informed consent, data protection, use of animals, human embryonic stem cells, …) if selected for funding: ethics screening and ethics review, as necessary 06/12/2018

Simplification measures Two stages submission scheme Broader topics Less funding schemes Compact evaluation period Quick feedback to applicants Early information to applicants (Information Day and Orientation Paper available before the call publication date) Electronic Submission Service … THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND VERY BEST WHISHES WITH YOUR APPLICATION 06/12/2018