Provisional draft The ICT Theme in FP7 Submission and Evaluation (preliminary information) ICT-NCP Information Day 19 th October 2006

Provisional draft Funding schemes Collaborative projects –Large scale integrating projects (IP) –Small/medium scale focused research projects (FP) Networks of excellence Coordination and support actions –Coordination actions (CA) –Support actions (SA)

Provisional draft Budget split per objective A reserved amount for CSAs –Support activities won’t need to compete against research projects for funding A reserved amount for (normally one) NoE –we won’t fund multiple NoEs to compete with each other Remaining (main) part of budget committed to Collaborative projects –minimum percent Integrating projects, minimum percent Focused projects, the remainder distributed by quality of the proposals

Provisional draft Information for proposers Workprogramme Guide for Applicants now including the Guidance notes for evaluators and the background note on funding scheme Evaluation forms EPSS manual Model grant agreement

Provisional draft Submission Electronic submission via EPSS Online preparation only Improved validation checks FP6 Failure rate = + 1% Eligibility Committee

Provisional draft Evaluation methodology Fixed deadline calls 17h00 Tuesdays One stage submission No anonymity On-site evaluation except FET Proactive initiatives One step evaluation Hearings ? (FET Open – as FP6)

Provisional draft Experts New calls for experts for FP7 –to individuals –to organisation Current FP6 experts will be invited to transfer to FP7 –with a request to update their information

Provisional draft Evaluation criteria Scientific and technical quality –(S&T excellence) Implementation –(Quality of the consortium) –(Quality of the management) –(Mobilisation of the resources) Impact –(Potential impact) –(Relevance) Criteria supported by descriptive “bullet points”

Provisional draft Collaborative projects Scientific and technical quality –Sound concept, and quality of objectives –Progress beyond the state-of-the-art –Quality and effectiveness of the S & T methodology and associated workplan

Provisional draft Collaborative projects Implementation –Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures –Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants –Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) –Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed

Provisional draft Collaborative projects Impact –Contribution at the European or international level to the expected impacts listed in the workprogramme under the relevant activity –Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property

Provisional draft Evaluation criteria scoring Scale of 1-5 (and 0) No weighting –except FET Open Criterion threshold 3/5 Overall threshold 10/15 Half-marks

Provisional draft Ethical issues New annex “ICT-Ethics” in the Guide for Applicants Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues Procedure for problem cases ?

Provisional draft Other issues Subcontracting Third country participation –(Subcontracting) –(Justification and integration of any third country participation) –(Gender issues) –(Gender action plan IPs and NoEs) –(Readiness to engage with actors beyond the research community and the public as a whole, to spread awareness and knowledge and to explore the wider societal implications of the work) –(Synergies with education at all levels)

Provisional draft Proposal Part A A1 –free keywords –2000 character proposal abstract –previous/current submission (in FP7) A2 –Legal address/administrator address/R&D address –Proposer identification code PIC A3 –More detailed costs (direct/indirect) as CPF forms

Provisional draft Proposal Part B Revised Part B format directly linked to evaluation criteria –Summary –S&T quality (bullet points = sections) –Implementation (idem) –Impact (idem) –Ethics Section lengths recommended

Provisional draft Redress The Commission will establish a committee to review all justified complaints about the evaluation procedures