Transcript Diapositiva 1

APRE
Agency for the Promotion of
European Research
Evaluation and submission procedures
in Seventh Framework Programme
Sabrina Bozzoli
Overview
1. Information for proposers
Submission
2. Writing your proposal
3. Getting help
Eligible?
4. Submission of proposal
5. Eligibility checks
Evaluation
6. Evaluation (experts)
7. Selection
Selection
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
2
Information for proposers
 Call fiche
 Workprogramme 2007-2008
 Guide for Applicants (now including the Guidance notes
for evaluators, the evaluation criteria and the Background note on
the funding scheme)
 Model grant agreement
 Rules for participation
 Rules on submission of proposals, and the
related evaluation, selection and award
procedures
 EPSS manual
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
3
When writing your
proposal…(1)
Divide your efforts over the evaluation criteria
[Many proposers concentrate on the scientific element, but loose marks on
project implementation or impact description]
a strong title, acronym
 an interesting project summary (objectives, results, R&D-approach, partnership,
utility of results, exploitation)
 convincing technology background and state of the art
 clear objectives, methods, results and deliverables
 well designed work plan
 appropriate management structures & procedures
 detailed implementation & exploitation of results
 realistic costs that lie within the budget of the Call
 convincing consortium (roles, qualifications)
 keep it clear and simple without loosing quality
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
4
When writing your
proposal…(2)
Think of the finishing touches which contribute to
the quality of work
Use coincise standard English
Make text clear, well structured, easy to read
Add a table of contents, use short paragraphs, highlight
key points in italics, use bullet points to break up lists
Include only relevant information
Make your proposal virtually attractive and inviting using
graphic devices
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
5
Getting help with your
proposal
www.cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
+
 National Contact Points
 practical information & advice on modalities and rules
 National delegates in Programme Committees
 background information on EU policies
 Innovation Relay Centre (IRC)
 EC Information desks (reachable by e-mail or phone. eg. IPR Help-desk)
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
6
Submission
Fixed deadline calls
Electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) only
Proposal template given in the ‘Guide for Applicants’
Closely aligned to the evaluation criteria
Proposals are normally submitted and evaluated in a single
stage
Two-stage submission of proposals
 May be used for large, ‘bottom up’ calls
 First stage
• short proposal (about 10-20 pages), dealing with main scientific
concepts and ideas
• use of limited set of criteria
• successful proposers invited to submit complete proposals
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
7
Electronic submission
EPSS
[Electronic Proposal Submission System]
Online preparation only!
 Improved validation checks before submission is
accepted
 FP6 Failure rate = + 1%
 Main reason for failure - waiting till the last minute
 Submit early, submit often!
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
8
Proposal Part A
• A1
–
–
–
–
Title, acronym, objective etc.
Free keywords
2000 character proposal abstract
Previous/current submission (in FP7)
• A2
– Legal address/administrator address/R&D
address
– Clear identification as SME/Public body/Research
centre/ Higher and Secondary education
establishment
• A3
– More cost details (direct/indirect costs
distinguished)
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
9
Proposal Part B
(pdf format only)
• Part B format directly linked to evaluation
criteria
–
–
–
–
–
Summary
S&T quality (bullet points = sections)
Implementation (idem)
Impact (idem)
Ethics
• Section lengths recommended
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
10
Elegibility checks
• Date and time of receipt of proposal on or before
deadline
– Firm deadlines - except for Continuously Open Calls
• Minimum number of eligible, independent partners
– As set out in work programme/call
• Completeness of proposal
– Presence of all requested administrative forms (Part A) and
the content description (Part B)
• “Out of scope”
• Others (eg. budget limits)
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
11
Evaluation - FP7
 No major change for FP7
 But improved and streamlined, based on experience
 Adapted to the new features of FP7 where necessary
 What’s new?
 Clearer page limits
 Elegibility criteria (includes “scope”)
 Evaluation criteria (3 instead of 5 or 6)
 More clarity on conflicts of interest (Indipendent experts)
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
12
Evaluation – The criteria
 Adapted to each funding scheme and each thematic area
 Specified in the specific programme/work programme (Annex 2)
 Divided into three main criteria:
 S&T Quality (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)
 quality of the objectives
 progress beyond the state of the art
 work plan
 Implementation
 individual participants and consortium as a whole
 allocation of resources (budget, staff, equipment)
 Impact
Contribution to expected impacts listed in work programme
Plans for dissemination/exploitation
 Criteria generally marked out of 5
 Criterion threshold 3/5
 Overall threshold 10/15
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
13
Evaluation - The experts (1)
 The Commission draws on a wide pool of evaluators
 about 50.000 in FP6
 Call for candidates published on December 2006
Call for applications are addressed to individuals/organisations
Applications via CORDIS
 FP6 experts have been invited to transfer to FP7 (with
a request to update their information)
Commission invites individuals on a call-by-call basis
Not self-selection!
Expertise, and experience are paramount
Geography, gender and “rotation” is also considered
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
14
Evaluation - The experts (2)
 Experts agree to terms and conditions of an
“appointment letter”
 Typically an individual will review 6-8 proposals
“remotely”…
 …then spend a couple of days in Brussels
 Some will participate in “hearings” with the
consortia
 Experts sign confidentiality and conflict of interest
declaration
 Names published after the evaluations
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
15
Selection procedure
PROPOSAL
Eligibility
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
Security
Scrutiny
(if needed)
Thresholds
Panel review
Applicants informed of
results
of expert evaluation
with hearings
(optional)
Ethical
Review
(if needed)
Commission ranking
Negotiation
Commission rejection
decision
Applicants informed of
Commission decision
Consultation of programme committee
(if required)
Commission funding and/or rejection
decision
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
16
1. From Individual assessment
to Consensus
May be “remote”
Proposal X
Copy 1
Proposal X
Copy 2
Proposal X
Copy 3
IAR*
Expert 1
IAR
Expert 2
CONSENSUS
REPORT
3 experts
IAR
Expert 3
*IAR= Individual assessment report
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
17
2. Consensus
 Built on the basis of the individual
assessments of all the evaluators
 Usually involves a discussion
 Moderated by a Commission representative
 One expert acts as a rapporteur
 Agreement on consensus marks and comments
for each of the criteria
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
18
3. Panel review
 Panel Meeting
 Compare consensus reports
 Examines proposals with same consensus score (if needed)
 Final marks and comments for each proposal
 Suggestions on order of priority, clustering, amendments, etc.
 Hearings with proposers may be convened
 Questions to the invited proposal coordinators
 Small number of proposal representatives
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
19
4. Commission Follow-up
 Evaluation summary reports (ESR) sent to applicants
(“Initial information letter”)
 Draw up final ranking lists
 Information to the Programme Committee
 Commission decisions on rejected proposals
 Contract negotiation
 Formal consultation of Programme Committee (when
required)
 Commission decisions on proposals selected for funding
 Survey of evaluators
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
20
Thank you for your attention!
Sabrina Bozzoli
APRE
+39 06 5911817
[email protected]
Poznan, 23rd January 2007
21