1. 1 Proposal Preparation J. Cosgrave, CSJU IT Officer Clean Sky Call 11 Info Day Brussels, 20th January 2012

2. 2 Recall about Funding Splitting Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  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. 3 Clean Sky Peculiarities Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  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. 4 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  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) Clean Sky Peculiarities

5. 5 Clean Sky Web Site Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012

6. 6 Call Fiche and Rules for Participation Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 X X

7. 7 Topic Fiche Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012

8. 8 Looking for Partners Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012

9. 9 Proposal Evaluation Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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. 10 Eligibility Criteria Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  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. 11 Eligibility Criteria Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 Make sure this total amount is below the value of the topic! Proposal Total Cost Affiliation Please check on the Web Site the composition of the ITDs in the dedicated page! Applicants who are affiliated to any leaders or associate of an ITD will be declared not eligible for the topics of that ITD

12. 12 Evaluation Criteria Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  Criteria adapted to Clean Sky Specified in the Rules for Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals; refer also to sec. 3.10 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. 13 Proposal Scoring Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012  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. 14 Scores Interpretation Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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. 15 Evaluation Criteria Assessment (1/4) Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 Proposal 1.Scientific and Technical quality 1.1Progress 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. 16 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 Evaluation Criteria Assessment (2/4) 1.2Scientific 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: C1Technical excellence C3Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)

17. 17 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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: C4Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record C5Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

18. 18 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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. 19 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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. 20 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 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: www.cleansky.eu.

21. 21 Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012 © 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.