TEN-T Experts Briefing, March Annual Call Award Criteria

What are the four blocks of award criteria? 1. Relevance: contribution of the Action to the TEN-T policy and the objectives of the calls, and EU dimension 2. Maturity of the Action: is the Action ready to go? 3. Impact of the Action: anticipated socio-economic effects and impact on the environment 4. Quality of the Action: completeness and clarity of the proposal, description of the planned activities, coherence between objectives, activities and planned resources, soundness of the project management process

Relevance contribution of the Action to the TEN-T policy and the objectives of the calls, EU dimension, need for EU support TEN-T Relevance: It is one of the 30 PPs, or is a project of common interest as defined in the TEN Guidelines It addresses TEN-T priorities as identified in Art. 5 of the TEN Guidelines The Action addresses the objectives, priorities and expected results of the Call for proposals EU Dimension: It contributes to the internal market, cohesion policy and/or Europe 2020 strategy It generates socio-economic benefits (e.g. competition, jobs, social integration) at macro level (EU level) Without EU funding the project will not go ahead (or will go ahead but in a reduced form)

Relevance: notes It is not enough for project to be on TEN-T network or priority corridor! The relevance must be justified Explain why the project is worth funding by EU or what difference EU funding makes

Maturity of the Action is the project ready to go? The proposal has received formal approval at governmental, regional, local level Political commitments have been given (including cross-border commitments where relevant) Public consultations have been positively accomplished The EIA has been completed (and approved by the relevant Authorities) The project is ready to start from a technical point of view The necessary building permits have been received / the procedures to receive them are well advanced Procurement procedures are defined and well advanced There are no risks or factors of uncertainty which remain to be settled before activities can start. Risk mitigation is appropriate The necessary financial resources have been committed

Maturity: notes EU is interested in projects which are “ready to roll”! Importance of certificates or supporting documentation: if this is not available, this is interpreted as evidence that project is not mature. May be submitted in other EU languages

Impact of the Action WORKS Socio-economic effects: Positive direct and indirect socio-economic effects (as specified in ex-ante evaluation, socio-economic and cost/benefit analyses) Positive impact on traffic growth, multimodal split, inter- operability, regional or national competition, service quality, safety and security Positive impact on regional and / or local development and land use (impact on neighbouring regions +ve/-ve) Positive impact on competition Environmental impact (nature, emissions, noise, land use, etc.) Measures to reduce or compensate any negative impacts Contribution to the re-balancing of transport modes in favour of the more environmentally friendly ones Positive or negative effects on the environment Have adequate measures of prevention, monitoring and mitigation been foreseen?

Impact of the Action STUDIES Impact of the study as a decision-making tool: How will the output of the study be used for decision-making, and when? Does the decision-making directly result in works or only for other studies? Is it a ‘stand-alone project’ or part of a Global Project level. What are the expected benefits of the final works project (relevance and economic value of the study in terms of costs / benefits etc). Impact of the study in terms of policy-making and best practices: Extent to which the study: considers the policy context in which it will be undertaken provides a sound basis for institutional and national policy- making Can it be used to develop best practices Does the study contribute to better assessment of socio- economic or environmental effects

Impact: notes Sustainable dimension of project is particularly important. Sustainable projects are given priority. Proposals should highlight and explain how they contribute to sustainable development

Quality of the Action completeness & clarity, description, project management process, coherence Are the proposed activities coherent with the objectives and adequate to achieve them? Is it realistic and consistent from a technical point of view? Are there adequate resources to implement the planned activities? The costs budgeted for each activity are realistic and reasonable The organisational structure and the project management plan put in place for the Action are sound A sound risk management plan has been prepared Sound control procedures and quality management are in place The overall proposal is of good quality in terms of its logic, completeness and clarity A satisfactory level of publicity regarding the funding support requested from the TEN-T programme is planned Sound arrangements for monitoring, internal / external audits and evaluations are in place or foreseen

Quality: notes Proposal must include a comprehensive description of the objectives and the way to achieve them A sound project management process and plan is in place

Award criteria must be rigorously applied! Detailed information on the meaning of each block of criteria is provided in the Guide for Applicants Where necessary, specific interpretations of the criteria are provided in the call text To facilitate the evaluation process, the structure of Application Form Part B2 reflects the four blocks of award criteria For each proposal, external experts must answer a set of “prompting questions” specific to each criterion, assessing the extent to which the proposal satisfies this criterion These “prompting questions” are listed in the Guide for Applicants

Scoring For each criterion, experts will award a score on a six-point scale from 0 to 5: 0 - Insufficient. 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.

To ensure that only the very best proposals are recommended for TEN-T funding… … experts should not recommend for funding proposals scoring <3 points for one or more of the four blocks of award criteria