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

2. 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

3. 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: November 2001
Evaluation Summary Reports: before 28 November 2001
Negotiation: December January 2002 (one month if good “technical Annex” / good consortium!)
Signature: January 2002 for first contract to start on 1 February 2002
M. Richonnier

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Cont’d
For RTD
Criteria Weight (1) Threshold (2)
Scientific/Technological Quality and innovation >= 3
Community Added Value and contribution to EU policy >= 2
Contribution to Comm. Social objectives
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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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)

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

18. 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

19. 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”

20. 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

21. Highlights: Audit certificates Cont’d
When the contractor has
A cost of more than Euros for the first 12 month period of the project, the audit certificate to be provided with first interim cost statement (or Euros for the first 6 months)
A total project cost exceeding 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Important details - keep up to date !
IST helpdesk
Fax :
- Official Journal (call text)
- Workprogramme
- Guide for Proposers
- Evaluation manual