proposal preparation & evaluation process - clean sky · 2018-03-23 · 12 evaluation criteria...

1

Proposal Preparation &

Evaluation Process

2

Recall about Funding Splitting

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

Maximum Overall EC Contribution:

800 M€

Partners(min 200 M€

i.e.25%)

Call

for

Proposals

Members(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)

ITD Leaders(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)

Associates(max 200 M €

i.e. 25%)

match EC contribution

50% (in-kind)

match EC

contribution 50%

(in-kind)


800 M€


i.e.25%)

Call

for

Proposals




i.e. 25%)


50% (in-kind)

match EC

contribution 50%

(in-kind)


800 M€


i.e.25%)

Call

for

Proposals




i.e. 25%)


50% (in-kind)

match EC

contribution 50%

(in-kind)


800 M€


i.e.25%)

Call

for

Proposals




i.e. 25%)


50% (in-kind)

match EC

contribution 50%

(in-kind)

12 67

3

Clean Sky Peculiarities

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

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

Clean Sky Web Site

6

Call Fiche and Rules for Participation

X

X

7

Topic Fiche

8

Looking for Partners

9

Proposal Evaluation

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

Eligibility Criteria

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

Eligibility Criteria

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

Evaluation Criteria

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

Proposal Scoring

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

Scores Interpretation

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

Evaluation Criteria Assessment (1/4)

Proposal

1. Scientific and Technical quality

1.1 Progress 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


1.2 Scientific 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:

C1 Technical excellence

C3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)

17


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:

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)

18


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

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

Evaluation Process Overview

Full Proposal

Proposal

forms

Evaluators

Eligibility

Evaluators Evaluators

Final ranking

list

Panel Submission Consensus Individual

reading

Proposals in

suggested

priority order

Rejection list

Finalisation

Criteria Criteria Criteria

Clean Sky JU

Role of experts

Clean Sky JU ITDs

publication EVALUATION SELECTION

21

Roles in the Evaluation (1/2)

Observer Role: To give advice to the Clean Sky JU on:

conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation

ways in which the experts acting as evaluators apply the evaluation criteria

and on ways in which the procedures could be improved.

The observer shall not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts' opinions on the proposals.

Moderator Role: Typically a Project Officer of the Clean Sky JU

Assures the interface between the experts panel and the Topic manager

Moderates the consensus meeting, helping reaching a final agreed evaluation of each proposal

Keeps track of the process, assuring the proper approval at different steps of evaluation

22

Roles in the Evaluation (2/2)

External/Internal Experts Role: Provide independent, impartial and objective advice to the

JU/Commission

Represent neither the employer, nor the country

Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their advice

Can also add value to projects through their comments and suggestions (Recommendations)

Topic Manager Role: Briefing of experts on the technical goals of the call and the

technical context against which the proposals have to be evaluated

To assist on any query by experts, through the moderator

Provide additional technical information when appropriate

23

Consensus Meeting

The consensus discussion is moderated by the CSJU Staff member, assisted by the Topic Manager.

The role of the Moderator is to seek:

to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved,

and to ensure a confidential, fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria.

The Topic Manager provides additional technical information only when appropriate.

24

Topic Panel

To ensure consistency

Prioritise proposals with identical consensus scores, after any adjustments for consistency

Resolve any cases where a minority view is recorded in the consensus report

Clear guidance for contract negotiation

Produces final marks and comments for each proposal List of proposals, with recommendations for priority order

Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR)

• Usually follows the consensus report

Any new scores (if necessary) … should be carefully justified

25

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.

26

© 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.

proposal preparation & evaluation process - clean sky · 2018-03-23 · 12 evaluation criteria...

Documents