Participating in FP7

1
Participating in FP7
2
Participating in FP7

• Funding Schemes
• Evaluation Criteria
• Rules of Participation
• Submission and Selection

3
Funding schemes

• 3 funding schemes 5 instruments
• Collaborative Projects (CP)
• Large Scale Integrating Projects (IP)
• Small or medium scale focused research actions
  (STREP)
• Networks of Excellence (NoE)
• Coordination and Support Actions (CSA)
• Coordinating or networking actions (CA)
• Support Actions (SSA)
• ICT Workprogramme 2007/08
• budget pre-allocation to instruments !
• SICA Specific International Co-operation
  Actions

4
Budget split per objective

• For each Work Programme objective
• A reserved amount for CSAs
• support activities wont need to compete against
  research projects for funding
• A reserved amount for NoE
• we wont fund multiple NoEs to compete with each
  other
• Remaining (main) part of budget committed to
  Collaborative Projects
• minimum percent Integrating Projects, minimum
  percent Focused Research Actions, the remainder
  distributed by quality of the proposals

5
Evaluation Criteria

• Three evaluation criteria are used
• Scientific and technical quality
• Implementation
• Impact
• All proposal coordinators receive an Evaluation
  Summary Report
• Funding follows successful evaluation, selection
  and detailed contract negotiations

6
Evaluation Criteria FP6 ? FP7

• Scientific and technical quality
• (ST excellence)
• Implementation
• (Quality of the consortium)
• (Quality of the management)
• (Mobilisation of the resources)
• Impact
• (Potential impact)
• (Relevance)

7
Evaluation criteria 1. Scientific and technical
quality

• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
  (ALL)
• Progress beyond the state-of-the-art (CP)
• Contribution to long term integration of high
  quality S/T research (NoE)
• Contribution to the coordination of high quality
  research (CSA)
• Quality and effectiveness of the S T
  methodology and associated workplan (CP)
• Quality and effectiveness of the joint programme
  of activities and associated workplan (NoE)
• Quality and effectiveness of the
  coordination/support action mechanisms and
  associated workplan (CSA)

8
Evaluation criteria 2. Implementation

• Appropriateness of the management structures and
  procedures (ALL)
• Quality and relevant experience of the individual
  participants (ALL)
• Quality of the consortium as a whole
• (including complementarity, balance) (CP)
• (including ability to tackle fragmentation of the
  research field and commitment towards a deep and
  durable institutional integration) (NoE)
• Appropriate allocation and justification of the
  resources to be committed (budget, staff,
  equipment) (CP and CSA)
• Adequacy of resources for successfully carrying
  out the joint programme of activities (NoE)
• for Support actions, only if relevant

9
Evaluation criteria 3. Impact

• Contribution at the European or international
  level to the expected impacts listed in the
  workprogramme under the relevant activity (ALL)
• Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination
  and/or exploitation of project results, and
  management of intellectual property (CP)
• Appropriateness of measures for spreading
  excellence, exploiting results and disseminating
  knowledge through engagement with stakeholders
  and the public at large (NoE and CSA)

10
Rules of Participation

• Minimum conditions for participation
• Consortia
• Grant agreement
• Community financial contribution
• Forms of grants
• Reimbursement of eligible costs
• Indirect costs
• Maximum funding rates
• Guarantee mechanism
• Certificates on financial statements

11
Minimum conditions for participation

• General
• 3 independent legal entities from 3 different
  Member States (MS) or Associated countries (Ac)
• Natural persons may participate
• Sole participants composed of members that meet
  the criteria above can participate
• Collaborative projects for specific cooperation
  actions (SICA) dedicated to international
  cooperation partner countries (ICPC) identified
  in WP minimum 4 participants of which 2 in
  different MS or Ac and 2 in different ICPC
  countries unless otherwise specified in work
  programme
• Participation of international organisations and
  participants from third countries if in addition
  to minima

12
Consortia

• Consortium agreements obligatory unless exempted
  by call for proposals, Commission to publish
  guidelines
• Coordinator acts as efficient interface between
  consortium and Commission (verifies accession,
  monitors compliance, receives and distributes EC
  contribution, keeps financial records and ensures
  timely delivery of reports)
• Tacit approval for changes in consortium
  membership, except if associated with other
  changes
• Written approval for change of coordinator

13
Grant agreement

• Model grant agreement to be drawn up
• to establish rights and obligations of
  participants (including submission of reports,
  termination, access rights)
• to identify whether and what part of EC financial
  contribution is based on reimbursement of
  eligible costs, lump sums or flat rates
• to identify which changes in the consortium
  require prior publication of competitive call
• shall reflect general principles of the European
  Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct
  for the Recruitment of Researchers
• specific provisions for certain types of actions
  (IPR particularly)
• grant agreement comes into force upon signature
  by coordinator and Commission and applies to each
  participant that accedes

14
Community financial contribution

• Eligibility for Funding
• Legal entities from MS and AC or created under
  Community law (and the JRC)
• International European interest organisations
• Legal entities established in international
  cooperation partner countries (ICPC-INCO)
• and
• International organisations
• Legal entities established in 3rd countries other
  than ICPC-INCO, if provided for in SP or WP or
  essential for carrying out action if or
  provision for funding is provided for in a
  bilateral agreement between Community and that
  country

15
Forms of grant

• Reimbursement of eligible costs
• Flat rates a percentage for indirect costs or
  scales of unit costs
• Lump sum amounts
• Combination of the above
• Scholarships or prizes
• Forms of grants to be used are specified in
  WP/calls for proposals
• ICPC participants may opt for lump sum financing.

16
Reimbursementof eligible costs

• Co-financing, no profit.
• Cost reporting models eliminated
• Participants charge direct and indirect eligible
  costs
• Eligible costs
• Actual
• Incurred during the project
• Determined according to usual accounting and
  management principles/practices
• Used solely to achieve project objectives
• Consistent with principles of economy, efficiency
  and effectiveness
• Recorded in accounts (or the accounts of third
  parties)
• Exclusive of non-eligible costs
• Average personnel costs may be used if consistent
  with above and do not differ significantly from
  actual

17
Indirect costs

• All participants
• Actual indirect costs (participants may use a
  simplified method of calculation) or
• Flat-rate of direct eligible costs excluding
  subcontracts and reimbursement of third parties
  costs (to be established by the Commission)
  currently 20
• Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher
  education establishments, research organisations
  and SMEs unable to identify real indirect costs
• Flat-rate of 60 of total direct eligible costs
  (until end 2009)
• Flat rate of minimum 40, to be established by
  the Commission (as of 2010)

18
Maximum funding rates

• Research and technological development
  activities 50 of eligible costs except for
• - Public bodies (non-profit) 75
• - Secondary and higher education establishments
  75
• - Research organisations (non-profit) 75
• - Small and Medium sized Enterprises - SMEs
  75
• Demonstration activities 50 of eligible costs
  
• Other activities 100 including e.g.
  consortium mgmt
• Coordination and support actions 100
• Flat rate indirect costs 7
• Receipts are taken into account to determine the
  final Community financial contribution

19
Guarantee mechanism

• Replaces financial collective responsibility
• Commission establishes and operates a participant
  guarantee fund
• Contribution to guarantee fund of max. 5 of the
  EC contribution by each participant, to be
  returned at the end of the project
• If interests generated not sufficient to cover
  sums due to EC, retention of max. 1 of EC
  contribution
• Exemption of retention for public bodies, higher
  and secondary education establishments, legal
  entities guaranteed by a MS/Ac
• Ex-ante financial viability checks limited to
  coordinators and participants requesting
• gt EUR 500.000 (unless exceptional
  circumstances)
• Guarantee fund replaces financial guarantees

20
Certificates on financialstatements

• Mandatory whenever cumulative amount of interim
  and balance payments equal to or more than EUR
  375 000
• For projects of a duration of max. 2 years only
  one certificate at the end of the project
• No certificates for actions entirely financed by
  lump sums or flat rates

21
Submission and Selection

• Information for proposers
• Submission of proposals
• Eligibility checks
• Evaluation process
• Specific rules for FET Open
• Writing your proposal
• Experts
• Getting help

22
Information for proposers

• Workprogramme 2007-2008
• Guide for Applicants
• now including the Guidance notes for evaluators
  and the Background note on the funding schemes
• Evaluation forms with notes
• EPSS manual
• Model grant agreement
• Rules on submission of proposals, and the related
  evaluation, selection and award procedures

23
Submission of proposals

• Fixed deadline calls
• 17h00 Tuesdays
• One stage submission
• Electronic submission only
• (Special rules for FET Open scheme)

24
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!

25
Proposal Part A(online)

• A1
• Title, acronym, objective etc.
• free keywords
• 2000 character proposal abstract
• previous/current submission (in FP7)
• A2 (per participant)
• Legal address/administrator address/RD address
• Clear identification as SME/Public body/Research
  centre/ Educ. establishment
• Proposer identification code PIC (later calls)
• A3
• More cost details (direct/indirect costs
  distinguished)

26
Proposal Part B(pdf format only)

• Part B format directly linked to evaluation
  criteria
• Summary
• ST quality (bullet points sections)
• Implementation (idem)
• Impact (idem)
• Ethics
• Section lengths recommended

27
Eligibility 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)

28
Evaluation Process

• On-site evaluation
• One step evaluation
• Independent experts

Eligibility Check?
yes
Panel (with optional Hearings?)
Consensus
Individual reading
29
Evaluation criteria scoring

• Scale of 1-5 (and 0)
• No weighting
• except FET Open
• Criterion threshold 3/5
• Overall threshold 10/15

30
Special rules for FET Open Scheme

• For Collaborative research actions in the FET
  Open Scheme
• Initially prepare a short (five page) outline
  proposal
• Submission at any time
• Short proposals are evaluated in batches (three
  or four times per year)
• Successful short proposals develop their idea and
  submit a full proposal at a later date
• Specific weighting of the evaluation criteria

31
When writing your proposal.1

• Divide your effort over the evaluation criteria
• Many proposers concentrate on the scientific
  element, but lose marks on project implementation
  or impact description
• Think of the finishing touches which signal
  quality work
• clear language
• well-organised contents, following the Part B
  structure
• useful and understandable diagrams
• no typos, no inconsistencies, no obvious
  paste-ins, no numbers which dont add up, no
  missing pages

32
When writing your proposal.2

• Make it easy for the evaluators to give you high
  marks. Dont make it hard for them!
• Dont write too little cover what is requested
• Dont write too much
• Dont leave them to figure out why its good,
  tell them why its good
• Leave nothing to the imagination

33
Experts

• New calls for experts for FP7
• to individuals
• to organisation
• Current FP6 experts will be invited to transfer
  to FP7
• with a request to update their information
• (if your email address is up-to-date!)

34
Getting help with your proposal

• Proposers days and briefings
• Partner search facilities http//cordis.europa.eu/
  ist/partners/partner.htm
• A supporting website of advice, information and
  documentation http//cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict
• A Helpdesk for proposers questions, reachable by
  email or phone (and a Helpdesk for electronic
  proposal submission) ist_at_ec.europa.eu
• And a network of National Contact Points
• http//cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp.htm