How to succeed with an FP7 Project Proposal Johan Lindberg NCP-coordinator VINNOVA 2011-09-06 Bild 1 How to succeed with an FP7 EU Project Proposal  Proposal setup  How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria • Important details in proposal • Importance of right proposal structure for project execution • Deliverables, milestones  Evaluation process • Who evaluates • Selection process  Budget  Grant Agreement From idea to project Project start Grant Agreement Negotiation, ~3 m Invitation to “negotiation” Commission consultation, ~2 m Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking Evaluation, ~3 months Proposal Call ~3 months Consortium building Idea 0 6 months 12 m Consortium building  Minimum 3 partners from 3 different EU countries or associated states (normally)  Match research groups with topic  Defined role of each group • What’s in it for me?  Clear synergy between the groups • Complementary skills, no major overlaps • No project hotel  Choose recognised partners known to deliver  Need to be a balance between academia and industry • SME’s if stated in the call text Work on a European network – even before any calls How consortia are formed - an example from ICT Previous collaborations 6% Other consortium members 13% Third parties At meetings 9% 49% Other 23% Bild 5 Start with a “Proposal overview”  Work Programme + Project Type  Objective of the proposal  Background (why are we doing it)  Expected results + lead users (impact)  Consortium – involved partners and their roles  Expected cost + duration => All partners are on the same track From call to deadline Make a plan for the proposal weeks -12 -11 Select ”topic” -10 -9 -8 Consortium -7 Version 1 meeting Short proposal -6 -5 -4 -3 All texts to Coordinator Divide work Partners are writing -1 0 Final version Editing Complete draft Contact NCP -2 Proof reading Key questions to ask?  Why bother about this proposal? • What problem(s) are you trying to solve?  Is it a European priority? • Could it be solved nationally?  Is the solution already available? • Is there a different but functioning approach?  Why you? ? ? • What happens if this is not funded now? ? ?? ? • Do you have the best consortium for this problem?  Why now? ? ? ? Questions to assess “Impact”  Expected results – what will come out of your project?  European or global dimension?  Who needs the results and why?  How will the results affect economy, technology level, society, environment etc?  How do you plan to exploit/disseminate the results? How to succeed with an FP7 EU Project Proposal  Proposal setup  How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria • Important details in proposal • Importance of right proposal structure for project execution • Deliverables, milestones  Evaluation process • Who evaluates • Selection process  Budget  Grant Agreement What does a proposal look like?  Two parts: Part A Forms submitted on Electronic Proposal Submission Service • A1: General information (ex topic, title, summary) • A2: Partner description (ex PIC, name, address, contact person) • A3: Budget (per partner and consolidated) Part B Project description (approx 60p) • Cover page (title, topic etc) • Concept and objectives • Progress beyond state-of-the-art • Work plan and timing • Work package descriptions • Deliverables, milestones, effort in man months • Implementation (organization and management, partner description) • Major cost motivation • Impact (effects on economy, society, health, environment etc.) • Ethical/gender issues Writing the proposal Part B  Download (EPSS) proposal template and guidance notes  The proposal should correspond to call text only  Write stringently and clearly • Educate the evaluator – no reading between the lines  If possible put quantifiable facts in tables • E.g. progress beyond SoA  Emphasize the importance of a European collaboration  Put the required information in correct paragraphs  Don’t duplicate the same information Workplan  Rationale for your implementation method • Alternatives considered - allow for delays • Phasing and check points • Potential technical risks and fallbacks (contingency plan vital) • Reference to other work • Reference to other funded projects and justification  This is the technical section – convince the evaluators of your ’technical excellence’ Allow for some flexibility Management  Keep management structure simple but sufficient – there are examples of acceptable structures Organisation – an example General assembly Keep management structure simple but sufficient Advisory Board WP1 Lead partner 2 Partner 1 and 2 Coordinator (Partner 1) WP5 Project management Steering committee (WP leaders) WP2 Lead partner 3 Partner 2, 3 and 4 WP3 Lead partner 5 Partner 1, 5 and 6 WP4 Lead partner 7 Partner 5 and 7 Deliverables and milestones  Deliverables are the items showing the project results • They are supplied to EC • They are the basis of project reviews by external experts  Milestones are check points of important steps in the project and don’t require any separate reports Activity A Activity B 1843 1844 Activity C Deliverable  Limit the number of deliverables and milestones and distribute them in time Make milestones meaningful !!! M1 All specifications completed M2 Prototype available for validation M3 Operational system ready M4 Final demonstration M1 6-month report published M2 12-month report published M3 18-month report published M4 Final report published M1 Co-research programme agreed M2 Begin integration of downstream partners M3 Major conference M4 Formation of association 2011-09-06 Bild 18 Deliverables & milestones Milestone no Milestone name WPs involved Due date M3.1 First set of images delivered to WP3 M4.1 Means of verification 2, 3 3 Images are transferred Biomarker candidates for breast cancer ready 4 12 List of markers M1.7 Working in vitro assays 1 15 Inverse assays, ELISA Del. no. Deliverable name D1.1 WP no. Nature Dissemi nation level Deliv ery date Part ner Availability of 500 specific (stem) sequences 1 O PU 6 2 D1.2 Optimal protocol for cell delivery 1 R PU 12 2 D2.2 Established MegaPlex PCR protocol 2 R PU 12 2 This is a part of the Grant Agreement! How to succeed with an FP7 EU Project Proposal  Proposal setup  How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria • Important details in proposal • Importance of right proposal structure for project execution • Deliverables, milestones  Evaluation process • Who evaluates • Selection process  Budget, payments, project reporting  Grant Agreement Think as an evaluator 2011-09-06 Bild 21 Who evaluates?  Peer review  Evaluators contracted before the call deadline  3 or 5 evaluators assigned to each proposal by EC staff  Assignments dependent of the proposal nature based on EC judgement  Proposals are often multidisciplinary while the evaluators aren’t – educate the evaluator  EC staff doesn’t put the scores on the proposals Evaluators 3-5 external evaluators per proposal They love to pick on … • Academics: S/T quality (science) • Consultants: implementation - management • Industry reps: impact (applications) Everybody: • clarity of scope and objectives • compliance with the Commission’s recommendation for proposal length • budget (lack of) realism Bild 23 You can also be an evaluator… Great experience • Learn what is going on in Europe • Learn to distinguish what a good proposal is like Excellent networking opportunity • Scientific Colleagues • Commission staff Register at: • https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/index.cfm Bild 24 Evaluation overview Eligibility check Individual evaluation No funding Consensus Threshold Panel discussion and ranking (EC + experts) Negotiation Commission Funding decision Evaluation of proposals – Thresholds on scores Call specific, usually at least 3 of 5 on each criterion, and at least 10 in total Priority Proposal No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 224218 223936 223994 223937 224619 224263 224024 223850 224460 224287 … Total score 15.0 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.0 Grant requested 1.494.867€ 3.240.591€ 4.048.381€ 2.301.400€ 3.230.083€ 6.497.158€ 3.884.985€ 3.338.821€ 2.923.718€ 2.578.852€ Call with 30 mEUR budget, 30 proposals above threshold requesting 111 mEUR Projects above red line requests a total of 30 960 004 EUR Evaluation criteria S&T excellence Implementation Impact Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics adressed by this call) Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of the project results The evaluation criteria are thematic priority or call specific. They are further elaborated in the guide for applicants of each call. Notice the differences … 2011-09-06 Bild 27 Example of evaluation criteria S&T excellence Implementation Impact Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics adressed by this call) Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of the project results Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives Progress beyond the state-ofthe-art Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment…) Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property. How to succeed with FP7 EU Project Proposal  Proposal setup  How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria  Important details in proposal • Importance of right proposal structure for project execution • Deliverables, milestones  Evaluation process • Who evaluates • Selection process  Budget  Grant Agreement Budget example Calculate a realistic and consistent budget! Cost category Personnel Specification Budget in Euro (4 years) 0,5 scientist, 36.000 SEK / month 129600 € Consumables Equipment 1 PhD stud full time, 26.000 SEK / month 150.000 SEK per FullTimeEquivalent & year No investment (be careful!) Travel + conf 25.000 SEK per FTE & year Publication costs 5.000 SEK per person & year Sum direct costs 187200 € 90000 € 0 15000 € 3000 € 432300 € Overhead Reimbursement for indirect costs depending on participant From EU contribution 50-100% depending on participant and activity type => 72 man months (= “project effort”) Project effort per beneficiary and Work Package • Project effort plan used to legitimize the budget • Cost per man month varies dramatically within Europe Payments based on periodic reporting  Reporting period: normally 18 months  Periodic Report (60 days after period end) • Scientific report • Management report • Deliverables • Form C (financial report) • Certificates on the financial statements (by accountant or university centrally) - always if EC contribution exceeds 375.000 Euro … and when? Pre-financing Interim payments Final payment Bild 33 How to succeed with an FP7 EU Project Proposal  Proposal setup  How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria  Important details in proposal • Importance of right proposal structure for project execution • Deliverables, milestones  Evaluation process • Who evaluates • Selection process  Budget  Grant Agreement From idea to project Project start Grant Agreement Negotiation, ~3 m Invitation to “negotiation” Commission consultation, ~2 m Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking Evaluation, ~3 months Proposal Call ~3 months Consortium building Idea 0 6 months 12 m Bild 35 The Agreement with the Commission Grant Agreement signed only by Coordinator and EC. Key documents of relevance for negotiation process:  Core Grant Agreement  Annex I – technical annex (project plan - proposal)  Annex II – general conditions  Annex IV (= Form A) – Accession to Grant Agreement Is negotiated Consortium agreement  Contract between partners in a project; doesn’t involve EC  Standard DESCA model very common (DEvelopment of a Simplified Consortium Agreement for FP7) • www.desca-fp7.eu  Regulates the obligations and the rights between the partners • Ownership of Intellectual Property (IPR: inclusion or exclusion) • Organisation, communication flow within consortia • Voting principles, decision making structures, Settlement of disputes • What happens in case of partner default • Financial arrangements • Collective technical responsibility • Etc Communicable goals that sell the proposal on the political and societal level Bild 38 Bild 39 Conclusion EU is a great opportunity Difficulties can be overcome Who owns what?  Background – information which is held by beneficiaries prior to their accession to the grant agreement, and which is needed for carrying out the project or for using foreground  Foreground - results, including information, which are generated under the project Bild 41 IPR  Regulated both in Annex II of EC contract and in consortium agreement  IPR a tricky thing for Swedish universities due to teacher’s exemption  University responsible towards other partners but the scientist has the ownership Who gets access to what? Access rights  Foreground  Background  For implementation  For use Bild 43 IPR – Annex II to core contract Main issue to be aware off  Beneficiaries shall enjoy access rights to background, if it is needed to use their own foreground provided that the beneficiary concerned is entitled to grant them. Subject to agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free.  Beneficiaries may define the background needed for the purposes of the project in a written agreement and, where appropriate, may agree to exclude specific background