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

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

3. 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
Electronic Submission Service (the previous EPSS is replaced by a new system)
06/12/2018

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 (
FP7 enquiry service ( )
Help desk SEP (hyperlink….)
Help desk research ethics issues (
Help desk IPR (
06/12/2018

7. 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

8. Evaluation criteria and scores
06/12/2018

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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,
IPR (
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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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