1. Proposal Preparation &
Evaluation Process

2. Recall about Funding Splitting
ITD leaders & Associates
Organisation necessary to the delivery of the platform objectives
7 years commitment
Sign the JTI Statutes
Participate in JTI operational costs
Cannot respond to the Calls for Proposals of the platform
Partners
will respond to the calls for proposal (CFP) organised by Clean Sky JU
CFP follows the ITDs Specifications
Contract for a limited duration up to 7 years

3. Clean Sky Peculiarities
Topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels).
Topics prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU).
Budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum funding
A single entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created
There is ONE winner per topic

4. Clean Sky Peculiarities
Funding up to 75%
IPR agreed at the beginning with the Topic Manager
Single entity or consortium
Day-to-day work with the Topic Manager
Contract managed by the CS Project Officer: reporting, costs claims, amendment requests, …
Reporting and Review at the end of each reporting period (up to 18 months)
Time to contract: 6 months after the launch of the call (« target »)
A promising start for SME and research organisations
(academic or not)

5. Clean Sky Web Site

6. Call Fiche and Rules for ParticipationX X

7. Topic Fiche

8. Looking for Partners

9. Three guiding principles:
Proposal Evaluation
Three guiding principles:
Objectivity
Each proposal is evaluated as it is written
Accuracy
Proposal evaluated against the official evaluation criteria, and nothing else
Consistency
The same standard of judgment is applied to each proposal

10. Eligibility Criteria Receipt before deadline Firm deadlines
Completeness of proposal
Presence of all requested forms
“Out of scope”
A proposal will only be deemed ineligible in clear cut case
Other criteria may apply
Eg. budget limits

11. Eligibility Criteria Proposal Total Cost Affiliation
Make sure this total amount is below the value of the topic!
Affiliation
Applicants who are affiliated to any leaders or associate of an ITD will be declared not
eligible for the topics of that ITD
Please check on the Web Site the composition of the ITDs in the dedicated page!

12. Criteria adapted to Clean Sky
Evaluation Criteria
Criteria adapted to Clean Sky
Specified in the Rules for Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals; refer also to sec Instructions for drafting "Part B" of the CS-RTD proposal
Six main criteria:
C1 Technical excellence
C2 Innovative Character
C3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)
C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record
C5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)
C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness

13. Each criterion is scored 0-5
Proposal Scoring
Each criterion is scored 0-5
half-scores to be used
whole range should be considered
Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding
Thresholds apply to individual criteria…
Default threshold is 3
…and to the total score
higher than the sum of the individual thresholds
Default threshold is 20

14. Scores Interpretation
0 - 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.

15. Evaluation Criteria Assessment (1/4)
Proposal
1. Scientific and Technical quality
1.1 Progress beyond the State of the Art
Describe the state of the art and demonstrate the innovative character of the proposal
This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria:
C2 Innovative Character

16. Evaluation Criteria Assessment (2/4)
1.2 Scientific and Technology methodology and work plan:
A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work
packages (WPs). Please present your plans as follows:
1.2.1) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan.
1.2.2) Show the timing of the different WPs and their components
(Gantt chart or similar timetable)
1.2.3) Provide a detailed work description broken down into work
packages:
1.2.4) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing
their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)
1.2.5) Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency
plans.
This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria:
C1 Technical excellence
C3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)

17. Evaluation Criteria Assessment (3/4)
2. Implementation
2.1 Management structure and procedures
2.2 Participants
2.3 Resources to be committed
In addition to the costs indicated in Part A of the proposal, and the
staff effort shown in table 5 above, please indicate any other major
costs (e.g. equipment).
Please ensure that the figures stated in part B are consistent with those
in Part A.
This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria:
C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record
C5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

18. Evaluation Criteria Assessment (4/4)
3. Impact
3.1 Expected impacts
Describe how your project will contribute to the expected impacts in relation to the Topic in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved.
3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property
Describe the measures you propose for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights.
This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria:
C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness

19. Evaluation Criteria Summary
Six CRITERIA 1
Technical excellence
EXCELLENCE 2
Innovative character
INNOVATION 3
Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)
COMPLIANCE / RELEVANCE 4
Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record
CAPABILITY 5
Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)
EFFICIENCY 6
Contribution to European competitiveness
IMPACT

20. Evaluation Process Overview
publication
EVALUATION
SELECTION
Submission
Individual
reading
Consensus
Panel
Finalisation
Full Proposal
Proposal
forms
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Final ranking
list
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Rejection list
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
For each proposal
All proposals
Clean Sky JU
Clean Sky JU ITDs
Role of experts

21. Roles in the Evaluation (1/2)
Observer Role:
To give advice to the Clean Sky JU on:
conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation
ways in which the experts acting as evaluators apply the evaluation criteria
and on ways in which the procedures could be improved.
The observer shall not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts' opinions on the proposals.
Moderator Role:
Typically a Project Officer of the Clean Sky JU
Assures the interface between the experts panel and the Topic manager
Moderates the consensus meeting, helping reaching a final agreed evaluation of each proposal
Keeps track of the process, assuring the proper approval at different steps of evaluation

22. Roles in the Evaluation (2/2)
External/Internal Experts Role:
Provide independent, impartial and objective advice to the JU/Commission
Represent neither the employer, nor the country
Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their advice
Can also add value to projects through their comments and suggestions (Recommendations)
Topic Manager Role:
Briefing of experts on the technical goals of the call and the technical context against which the proposals have to be evaluated
To assist on any query by experts, through the moderator
Provide additional technical information when appropriate

23. Consensus Meeting
The consensus discussion is moderated by the CSJU Staff member, assisted by the Topic Manager.
The role of the Moderator is to seek:
to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved,
and to ensure a confidential, fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria.
The Topic Manager provides additional technical information only when appropriate.

24. Topic Panel To ensure consistency
Prioritise proposals with identical consensus scores, after any adjustments for consistency
Resolve any cases where a minority view is recorded in the consensus report
Clear guidance for contract negotiation
Produces final marks and comments for each proposal
List of proposals, with recommendations for priority order
Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR)
Usually follows the consensus report
Any new scores (if necessary) … should be carefully justified

25. Concluding Remarks
Opportunity to fund research project in alternative to classical FP7 Collaborative Research Project scheme, with very focused technical targets.
Peculiarities with respect to FP7 on participation rules, proposal preparation and proposal evaluation.
Main advices to write a good proposal:
Fulfil the requirements contained in the topic description.
Read carefully the documentation of the call.
In particular rules of participation in order to understand how your proposal will be evaluated (A summary is provided in this presentation).
Check eligibility criteria.
Find complementary partners in order to have a good consortium if needed.
All information about the call and tools in order to help you to apply can be found
on the Clean Sky Web Site:

26. © 2012 by the CleanSky Leading Partners: Airbus, AgustaWestland, Alenia Aeronautica, Dassault Aviation, EADS-CASA, Eurocopter, Fraunhofer Institute, Liebherr Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Saab AB, Safran Thales and the European Commission.
Permission to copy, store electronically, or disseminate this presentation is hereby granted freely provided the source is recognized. No rights to modify the presentation are granted.