Proposal Submission and Evaluation

1
Proposal Submissionand Evaluation
UK Research Office Tel [phone] Fax
0032-2-230-4803 http//www.ukro.ac.uk rue de la
Loi 83, B-1040, Brussels
2
Proposal Submission and Evaluation EPSS From
Cradle to Grave

• Contract negotiations
• Submission of project deliverables
• Communication between partners Commission
• Viewing of project documents (read only)
• For all projects, the choice of control is at
  the
• level of Individuals or Organisations
• Helpdesk from 08.00 to 20.00 CET every day and
  from 07.00 to 22.00 CET in the 7 days before any
  deadline. Responses will be made within 24
  hours.

3
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process
1
2
On-line using EPSS
Off-line preparation, on-line submission via
EPSS
3
4
On paper
Off-line preparation, submission on CD or
diskette
4
Proposal Submission and Evaluation EPSS
On-line Proposal Development Submission
EPSS
Develop and Submit Proposal
Proposal co-ordinator
Develop and Submit Proposal On-line
Download/Access On-line Information Package
Change Password
Fill-in/Update Administrative and Financial Forms
Upload Text/ Multimedia Files
Check Eligibility
Download Forms In Printable Format/ Files Uploaded
Submit Proposal
Register
5
Proposal Submission and Evaluation EPSS
On-line Proposal Development Submission
CO requests User ID and password
EPSS sends CO User ID and Password (by mail) data
upload, modification and proposal submission
Partners User ID and Password organisation data
upload, read only access to proposal
Partners Comments
Proposal Development
Eligibility Check
Proposal Modification
CO Modifies
OK
Not OK
Proposal Submission
CO Justification
Acknowledge Receipt
Call Closes
6
Proposal Submission and Evaluation EPSS
Advantages

• Quicker preparation
• You are sure that it is delivered on time
• You can revise a proposal up to call deadline
• Signatures replaced by user id password

7
Proposal Submission and Evaluation EPSS Note

• Commission cant access to proposals until the
  call has closed
• Irrespective of the means of submission, all
  proposals are put into electronic form for
  evaluation
• EPSS or submission on CD/diskette speeds the
  evaluation
• Choice of control at individual or organisation
  level

8
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process
Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
9
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process

• One-stage submission of proposals
• Full proposal with all details
• Set of criteria defined in the work programme
• Two-stage submission of proposals (optional)
• First stage
• short proposal (about 10-15 pages)
• use of limited set of criteria
• successful proposers invited to complete
  proposals
• Second stage - like one-stage submission

10
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process

• Simpler administrative forms
• Work and consortium description combined
• Old parts B C
• No anonymity
• New electronic submission system
• Offline tool available mid-January 2003
• Web-based online tool probably available
  mid-February 2003

11
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process Forms

• A1 - General info on the proposal
• A2 - Info on the co-ordinator and other partners
• One form per partner
• A3 - Cost breakdown
• One sheet for the whole consortium

12
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process - Forms

• Form A1.-
• General information on the proposal
• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• etc.

13
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process - Forms

• Form A2.-
• Info on the co-ordinator and other partners (1
  sheet per partner)
• organisation name
• address
• legal status
• activity type
• SME yes/no
• etc.

14
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process - Forms

• Form A3 Cost breakdown by type of activity
  by partner

(one line by partner, i.e. only one sheet for the
consortium)
15
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process - Forms

• PART B
• PROPOSAL CONTENT
• Objectives and expected impact
• Work plan and associated budget
• The consortium and the project resources
• Project management
• Exploitation and dissemination plans
• Ethics, safety and other issues (where relevant)

16
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Submission Process - Eligibility

• Date and time of receipt of proposal on or before
  deadline for receipt
• Firm deadlines
• Minimum number of eligible, independent partners
• As set out in work programme/call
• Completeness of proposal
• Presence of all requested administrative forms
• Other requirements as set out in call text
• SMEs, HRM, infrastructures

17
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process - Evaluators

• High quality evaluators core of evaluation system
• Wider pool of evaluators
• Qualifications
• High level of professional experience in public
  or private sector within areas related to FP
• Some will participate in the hearings with the
  consortia (IP and NoE)
• Sign confidentiality and conflict of interest
  declaration
• Names published after the evaluations

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
18
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process

• Individual Readings
• By 3 or more evaluators, depending on the
  instrument (IP and NoEs probably 5 or more)
• May take place remotely (at their home or place
  of work)
• Marks and comments for each block of criteria
• Individual evaluation form (set out in the work
  programme)

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
19
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process - Criteria

• Criteria adapted to each instrument
• May vary within the different areas
• Will be specified in the work programme
• Codification of ethical review procedures
• Gender issues fully integrated into criteria for
  all proposals
• Different weights and thresholds may be applied
  to the criteria
• Science and society issues

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
20
Proposal Submission and Evaluation During the
Evaluation Proposal Marking (IPs)
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources
4
4
3.5
0
0
0
10
30
10
10
25
15
Example taken from Functional Genomics area
Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
21
Proposal Submission and Evaluation During the
Evaluation Proposal Marking (NoE)
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact
4
4
3.5
0
0
10
25
20
20
25
Example taken from Functional Genomics area
Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
22
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process Consensus Report

• Build on the basis of the individual assessments
  of all the evaluators
• A discussion may be convened
• Agreement on consensus marks and comments for
  each of the blocks of criteria
• Overall consensus report
• After the consensus weightings and thresholds
  applied, when used
• as set out in the work programme

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
23
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process Hearings and Panel

• Hearings with proposers (particularly NoE and IP)
  may be convened
• As set out in the work programme
• Questions to the invited proposal coordinators
• Small number of proposal representatives
• Panel Meeting
• Final marks and comments for each proposal
• Suggestions on order of priority, clustering,
  amendments, etc.

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
24
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process Final Decisions

• Final ranking lists
• Evaluation summary reports sent to proposers
• Information to and discussion with the Programme
  Committee
• Commission decisions on rejected proposals
• Contract negotiation
• Commission decisions on proposals selected for
  funding

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
25
Proposal Submission and EvaluationThe
Evaluation Process Final Decisions

• Priority list based on evaluators
  recommendations, programme priorities, etc.
• Rejection list ineligible, out of scope,
  failing threshold etc.
• Reserve list withdrawal of proposals,
  negotiation failure
• Negotiation and contract preparation all
  proposals on
• priority list, request for additional
  information
• LOBBYING DOES NOT WORK!

Submission
Individual Reading
Panel/ Hearings
Consensus
Follow-up
26
Practical Proposal Writing and Maximising
Proposal Content
UK Research Office Tel [phone] Fax
0032-2-230-4803 http//www.ukro.ac.uk rue de la
Loi 83, B-1040, Brussels
27
Practical Proposal Writing Proposal Preparation
Consortium Design
Documents and Contacts
Self-evaluation
Proposal Writing
28
Practical Proposal Writing Documents and
Contacts

• Key documents
• Call text
• Work Programme
• Guide for Proposers
• Application Form
• Evaluation manual and guidelines
• Policy documents
• Key contacts
• European Liaison/Research Officers
• UKRO
• Commission Desk Officer

29
Practical Proposal Writing Consortium Design

• Ensure a range of complementary expertise,
  disciplines, sectors, countries and human
  resources
• Industrial partners needed where appropriate
• No core competitors
• Identify an appropriate co-ordinator
• Define management structures, mechanisms and
  tools
• Previous European experience essential
• Meet ALL partners
• Long-term relationship

30
Practical Proposal Writing Consortium Building

• Phone a friend
• Use known colleagues
• Blind date
• Use colleagues of colleagues
• Dating agency
• Use Partner search services
• Ask the audience
• Use publications

31
Practical Proposal Writing Proposal Writing

• Involve both scientists and administrators
• Involve all partners
• Think about whose need you are addressing
• Think about the impact of the project
• Ensure that ALL aspects are addressed
• (science, management, integration, training,
  technology transfer, dissemination.)
• Use simple, clear language
• Pay attention to layout

32
Practical Proposal Writing Self Evaluation

• Does the project fit with the Commissions FP6
  objectives?
• Does the project contribute to relevant EU
  policies?
• Are the project objectives consistent with the
  partners long-term strategies?
• Does the project complement partners other
  activities?
• Is there institutional backing and support
  structures?
• Are the partners committed to a long-term
  relationship/ the continuation of a network
  beyond the term of the funding?

33
Practical Proposal Writing FP6 Proposals -
Summary

• Whilst there are significant continuities with
  FP5, dont let them deceive you
• The work programmes are likely to be very
  prescriptive
• Build a strong core partnership with plans for
  expansion
• Ensure the full commitment of all partners (get
  early agreement to avoid misunderstandings)
• You will need more time for the consortium
  agreement
• Think of whether your project fits with the
  strategic ambitions of Europe
• IPR exploitation strategies are crucial

34
Maximising Proposal Content Policy Background

• Lisbon Objectives
• to become the most dynamic and most competitive
  knowledge-based economy
• Barcelona Objectives
• education and training, innovation
• Gothenburg Objectives
• sustainable development (environment, economy,
  employment)
• Stockholm Objectives
• fostering entrepreneurship and harnessing new
  technologies
• All underpinned by the ERA objectives

35
Maximising Proposal Content Building an ERA
Project
RTD Activities
Project
Network
Structuring Activities
Co-ordination of National RTD Programmes
36
Maximising Proposal Content Delivering the
Policy Background
Increasing RTD efforts and Reducing the
competitive gap

• Meeting the Lisbon and Barcelona objectives
• EU to become the most competitive knowledge
  economy
• Increase in EU RTD spend (esp. in industry)
• Developing spin-offs and enabling access to
  investment
• More coherent use of public instruments and
  resources

37
Maximising Proposal Content Delivering the
Policy Background
Strengthening coherence and Promoting capacity
building

• Integrating the research potential of CEE
  countries
• European approach to research facilities
• Better use of electronic networks
• More abundant and mobile human resources
• Greater place and role for women in research

38
Maximising Proposal Content Delivering the
Policy Background
Addressing the broad context and Improving the
impact of RTD

• Common systems of scientific and technical
  reference
• Developing the research needed for policy making
• Development of effective Intellectual Property
  tools
• Creation of companies and risk capital
  investment
• Tackling the questions of science and society
• Promotion of research careers

39
Maximising Proposal Content What you should
cover

• All projects
• European infrastructure development
• Co-operation with non-European countries
• Special measures for candidate countries
• Integration of the ethical, social, legal and
  wider cultural aspects
• Gender aspects in research
• Industry and SME participation
• Socio-economic aspects (including innovation and
  exploitation of knowledge)

40
Maximising Proposal Content What you should
cover Integrated Projects

• Objectives and expected impact
• Implementation plan and associated budget
• The consortium and the project resources
• Project management
• Exploitation and dissemination plans
• Ethics, safety and other issues

41
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Do you have a holistic solution to an
  identified problem?
• Does your project match a paragraph or a
  phrase?
• Have you gone further than the text?
• Does your approach have the ambition - or is it
  the next step?

42
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Have you addressed the state-of-the-art?
• Have you clearly identified your objectives?
• Do you have improvement or innovation?
• Have you clearly described your methodology?
• Is the link clear between your aims and your
  methodology?

43
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Have you identified the role of the
  co-ordinator?
• Have you identified management teams?
• Have you described the management structure?
• Can you demonstrate relevant management
  experience?
• Do you have an information management strategy?
• Do you have a knowledge management strategy?
• Are the management systems appropriate to the
  task?

44
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Does each partner have a clearly defined role?
• Is the expertise of each partner appropriate to
  the task?
• Is the experience of each partner appropriate
  to the task?
• Is there identifiable synergy in the
  consortium?
• Can you demonstrate commitment of partners to
  tasks?
• Can you elaborate on criteria for selecting the
  team?
• Is there a need for a broader base?

45
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Does the project have suitably ambitious goals?
• Are the deliverables more than the next step?
• Does the project have the European dimension?
• Can you identify the Community added-value?
• Can you illustrate a contribution to economic
  competitiveness?
• Can you illustrate impact on quality of life?
• Have you elaborated on your dissemination
  strategy?

46
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation
Criteria- Integrated Projects
Relevance to the Programme
ST Excellence
Management Quality
Consortium Quality
Potential Impact
Mobilisation Of Resources

• Can you illustrate a critical mass of
  resources?
• Do you have the appropriate personnel?
• Do partners have the appropriate equipment?
• Can you illustrate integrated financial
  planning?
• Can you illustrate integrated project planning?

47
Maximising Proposal Content What you should
cover Networks of Excellence

• Objectives and strategic impact
• Excellence of the participants and resources of
  the network
• Degree of integration and the Joint Programme
  of Activities
• Organisation and management
• Ethics, safety and other issues

48
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation Criteria
- Networks of Excellence
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact

• Do you have a multidisciplinary network of
  excellent teams?
• Does your network match a paragraph or a phrase?

49
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation Criteria
- Networks of Excellence
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact

• Is your network able to conduct excellent
  research?
• Can you demonstrate critical mass?
• Have you identified resources to be integrated?
  
• Does your network have the ambition to be a
  virtual institute?
• Does your network have the potential to be a
  world leader?
• Do the partners have clearly defined roles?
• Are the integration tasks appropriate to the
  partners involved?

50
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation Criteria
- Networks of Excellence
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact

• Have you identified the role of the
  co-ordinator?
• Have you described the management structure?
• Have you described the decision making
  structures?
• Can you demonstrate relevant management
  experience?
• Do you have an information management strategy?
• Can you demonstrate plans to promote gender
  equality?

51
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation Criteria
- Networks of Excellence
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact

• Will your network have a satisfactory degree of
  integration?
• Will the Joint Programme of Activities achieve
  its aim?
• Is there organisational commitment to the
  integration?
• Can you demonstrate commitment from research
  funders?
• Can you demonstrate longevity of your network?

52
Maximising Proposal Content Evaluation Criteria
- Networks of Excellence
Relevance to the Programme
Excellence of the Participants
Organisation and management
Quality of Integration
Potential Impact

• Is the network suitably ambitious?
• Have you identified the need to structure
  research in the field?
• Can you illustrate the effect of shaping
  research in the field?
• How will your network spread excellence?
• What is the likelihood of sustained impact?
• Will the network be a world leader?

53
Maximising Proposal Content What to do next?
DONT PANIC!
there is help at hand
54
The 6th Framework Programme
55
Maximising Proposal Content What to do next?

• European Research/Liaison Officer
• UKRO (http//www.ukro.ac.uk)
• National Contact Points
• http//www.cordis.lu
• European Commission
• Innovation Relay Centres

HELP!!