1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

Proposal Preparation &
Evaluation Process
Joseph COSGRAVE
IT Manager Clean Sky
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€
Members
Partners
(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)
(min 200 M€
i.e.25%)
12
ITD Leaders
67
Associates
(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)
(max 200 M €
i.e. 25%)
match EC contribution
50% (in-kind)
match EC
contribution 50%
(in-kind)
Call
for
Proposals
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
Clean Sky Peculiarities
 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 Web Site
Clean Sky Web Site
Topic Fiche
Looking for Partners
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
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
Eligibility Criteria
Proposal Total Cost
Make sure this total amount is below the value of the topic!
Affiliation
Applicants who are affiliated to any leaders or associate of an ITD will be declared not
eligible for the topics of that ITD
Please check on the Web Site the composition of the ITDs in the dedicated page!
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
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
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.
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
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (2/4)
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)
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (3/4)
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)
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (4/4)
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
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
Evaluation Process Overview
publication
Submission
EVALUATION
Individual
reading
Evaluators
Consensus
Evaluators
SELECTION
Panel
Finalisation
Evaluators
Final ranking
list
Full Proposal
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Criteria
Rejection list
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Clean Sky JU ITDs
Clean Sky JU
Role of experts
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
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
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.
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
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.
Thank you for your attention