dr. marion tobler, ncp environment 1 1 evaluation criteria and procedure

1Dr. Marion Tobler, NCP Environment

1

Evaluation Criteria and Procedure


And the winner is…And the winner is…


Content

Timeline and contracts

Standardized structures

Evaluation criteria

Evaluators

Evaluation process


Timeline and contracts


From Project Idea to Project Management

t=9 month t=36 - 48 month

Project Idea

Project Preparation

Build a Proposal

Sub-mission

Evaluation

How to negotiate

Project Management

NCP-Support

t=0


Call FP7-ENV-2010

Date of publication: 30 July 2009 Deadline (Brussels local time) : 5 January 2010, 17:00

Remote evaluation: 1 - 26 February 2010 Consensus meetings in Brussels: 1 - 12 March 2010 Meetings of the Review Panels: 15 - 19 March 2010

Quick call info send to Programme Committee: 9 April 2010 Initial information letters sent to coordinators: 9 April 2010


Type of contracts

Consortium

EU Commission

Grant Agreement (GA)

Consortium Agreement (CA)

• Agreement between project participants. EU Commission (EC) is not a party and does not check it!• Mandatory (call for proposals)•Can NOT conflict with provisions of GA! GA prevails

• Agreement between project participants. EU Commission (EC) is not a party and does not check it!• Mandatory (call for proposals)•Can NOT conflict with provisions of GA! GA prevails


Standardized structures


Standardised evaluation structures

10

Dr. Marion Tobler, NCP Environment

Evaluation criteria

11


Evaluation (Part B) by independent panels of experts 3 criteria:

S/T excellence Management / Implementation Impact / Dissemination

scores > ranking list process ~ 3 months

Commission strictly sticks to Expert Decisions!

12


Evaluation criteria

Scientific and/or technological excellence

relevant to the topics addressed by the call

Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

appropriateness of the management structure and procedures

quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

The potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

Minimum threshold

S/T quality 4/5

Implementation

3/5

Impact 4/5

Overall threshold required

12/15

13


Scientific and technical quality S&T excellence, quality of objectives, novelty, concept

Implementation Quality of the consortium, competence and complementarity

of partners (no expertise required should be missing, no blind passenger)

Quality of the management, reflects coordination Mobilisation of the resources (infractructure expected),

budget Impact

as set out in work programme (in line with the Commission’s strategies)

dissamination activities (not only academic, but broad societal dissemination) and IPR management appropriately dealt with

Evaluation criteria

14


The evaluators

15


Call FP7-ENV-2010Evaluators

Category Female Male Total %

EU Member States 86 139 225 82

Associated States 7 11 18 7

Intl. Co-op Partner Countries

7 10 17 6

Developed Countries 4 9 13 5

Total 104 169 273

Percentages (%) 38 62

16


How to become an expert?

Register on https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/index.cfm

17


Evaluation processes

18


Proposal

Individual evaluation

Consensus

Panel review

Consultation of programme committee (if required)

Commission funding and/or rejection decision

with hearing(optional)

Thresholds

Eligibility

Negotiation

Commission ranking

Commission rejection decision

Ethical Review

(if needed)

Security Scrutiny

(if needed)

Applicants informed of results of expert evaluation*

• invitation to submit second-stage

proposal, when applicable

Applicants informed of Commission decision

Processes

19


Eligibility criteria

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 and the call

Completeness of proposal ◦ Presence of all requested forms

“Out of scope” Others (eg..budget limits)

20


The experts

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 Travel and subsistence reimbursed

◦Plus €450 honorarium per day Experts sign confidentiality and conflict of

interest declaration Names published after the evaluations

21


Built on the basis of the individual assessments of all the evaluators

Usually involves a discussion Moderated by a commission staff-member One expert acts as rapporteur Agreement on consensus marks and comments for

each of the criteria

Consensus

22


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

dr. marion tobler, ncp environment 1 1 evaluation criteria and procedure

Documents