1. 8 April 2003 Annex III of the model contract Networks of Excellence Training session for FP6 National Contact Points, Brussels, 8 April 2003 Colette Renier, RTD-B2

2. 2 The determination of the grant for integration Various elements 3 number of researchers 3 number of doctoral students 3 converting table 3 specificity of the research field

3. 3 The number of researchers In the proposal, indication by the participants of the number of researchers who: 3 have their PhD or 4 years experience in research 3 make part of the participants research capacities in the topic of the network 3 are employee of one of the participants or 3 work under one participants management authority in the frame of a formal agreement between this participant and their normal employer

4. 8 April 2003 The number of doctoral students In the proposal, indication of the number of doctoral students who : 3 are enrolled in a recognised course run by one of the participants 3 have less than 4 years experience 3 are involved in the networks research activities researchers and doctoral students are auditable at the time of the calls deadline

5. 8 April 2003 The converting table 50 researchers 1 million/year 100 researchers 2 million/year 150 researchers 3 million/year 250 researchers 4 million/year 500 researchers 5 million/year 1000 researchers and + 6 million/year Doctoral students 4,000/year/head within the limits of 10 % of the result of the application of the converting table

6. 8 April 2003 Calculation of the grant Number of researchers X amount per head (converting table or less if requested by participants) X number of years ---------------------------- subtotal 1 + Number of doctoral students X 4,000 X number of years ---------------------------- subtotal 2 (maximum 10 % of subtotal 1)

7. 7 Payment of the grant for integration Rhythm 3 as negotiated between Commission and participants 3 specified in Annex I of the contract Conditions 3 satisfactory results of the annual review and 3 demonstration of no-profit through the grant: eligible costs incurred for implementing the JPA at least = EC contribution at the end of the period: costs incurred for JPA > EC contribution

8. 8 Competitive calls When? 3 as defined in Annex I of the contract How? 3 Publicity : journals (1 international, 3 national), Internet, specialist press, NCPs 3 According to instructions and guidance by the Commission 3 Information of the Commission (call + content) at least 90 days before publication

9. 9 Selection of new partners How? 4 On basis of the evaluation criteria applied for the project by the Commission 4 With the assistance of at least 2 external independent experts Notification to the Commission 3 proposed new partner(s) 3 means of publication 3 names and affiliations of experts Commission reaction 3 may object within six weeks of the receipt

10. 1010 Updating the joint programme of activities (1) Which update? 3 The detailed joint programme of activities for the next 18 months period and/or 3 The outline joint programme of activities for the whole remaining period Commission reaction 3 evaluation, if appropriate with the assistance of external experts 3 no comment within 90 days = approval

11. 1 Updating the joint programme of activities (2) Possible cases 3 unconditional approval (i.e. absence of Commission reaction within 90 days) continuation 3 conditional rejection completion of the work, additional work re-submission of the reports/deliverables 3 conditional approval re-negotiation of the work to be performed during the next period (possible suspension) 3 unconditional rejection termination of the contract

12. 1212 Annual review When? 3 After having received the reports and the proposed JPA update What is assessed? 3 Progress of the network 3 Prospects for achieving the overall objectives (durable integration) Which follow up? 3 Results and possible Commission recommendations communicated to the consortium 3 if necessary submission of a revised JPA

13. 1313 Failure of the annual review Example 3 no satisfactory progress towards durable integration Follow up Two options: 3 termination of the contract by the Commission (red flag) 3 the consortium is offered the choice(yellow flag) termination continuation

14. 1414 Continuation after failure of the annual review Consequence continuation of the action but without any contribution from the Commission Follow up arrangement of a review at the end of the year: 3 if successful: payment of the contribution for both previous periods 3 if failure: termination of the contract