1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. management
4. project management

How to launch an FP7 project
A practical handbook for proposers
Special focus on Collaborative Research Projects
Launching an FP7 project is an ambitious task that involves a lot more than merely carrying out
research at a European level. It also entails serious administrative paperwork, long hours of
reading through piles of papers and much time spent on gathering relevant information from
various parts of your organization.
This handbook is meant to assist (senior) researchers with struggling their way through
administrative procedures in an efficient way. The objective of the guide is multifold: it provides
researchers with up-to-date information, but also gives financial and administrative officers at the
faculties or research institutes hands-on suggestions and guidelines.
The handbook consists of five steps, each describing a particular part of the EU project process.
The manual hopes to lessen the bureaucratic burden by providing accurate data, tips & tricks,
examples and referring to useful checklists and hence wishes to make the EU application process
more efficient.
Good luck with your proposal!
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Content
FP7 in brief
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction
Programmes
Schemes
Applicants
Funding
Accountability
page 3
page 3
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
Lifecycle of a project
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
IDEA
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
Building the
project
Writing the
proposal
Reviewing by
experts
Negotiation &
Formalisation
Execution &
Administering
page 9
page 13
page 24
page 28
Annexes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Assistance at Tilburg University
Assessment of a Consortium
Tips & tricks for writing a proposal
How to calculate your project
Example of a time sheet
Project file
Abbreviations
page 41
page 42
page 45
page 52
page 57
page 58
page 59
2
STEP 5
page 35
FP7 Handbook for proposers
FP7 in brief
1. Introduction
The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) is the
main European funding scheme for research and development. It will last for seven years from
2007 until 2013. The programme has a total budget of over € 50 billion. This represents a
substantial increase compared to previous Framework Programmes.
FP7 is composed of four main Specific Programmes. The 'Cooperation' programme supports
research cooperation in key thematic areas. 'Ideas' funds investigator-driven research through a
newly created European Research Council (ERC). The 'People' programme supports training and
researchers' career development, while 'Capacities' funds research infrastructures, regional
research clusters, international cooperation and closer ties between science and society.
The Specific Programmes specify the concrete scientific-technical, economic and societal
objectives of each activity. They also indicate the evaluation criteria that will be applied. Calls are
invitations for researchers to submit project proposals for a specific area of FP7 by a specific date,
usually about three months after the call. Calls for proposals are set out in the annual work
programmes and provide details about topics, timing and implementation.
2. Programmes
The Specific Programmes constitute the major building blocks of FP7: Cooperation, Ideas, People
and Capacities.
Cooperation
The core of FP7, representing two thirds of the overall budget, is the ‘Cooperation’ programme. It
supports cooperation between universities, industry, research centres and public authorities
throughout the EU and beyond. Support will be given to the whole range of targeted research
activities (or so called ‘Funding Schemes’) carried out in trans-national cooperation, mostly small
collaborative projects, but also large collaborative projects, research networks, coordination and
support actions.
'Cooperation' is sub-divided into ten distinct themes, of which Socio-Economic Sciences and
Humanities (SSH) and ICT, and - to a lesser extend - Security, Health, Energy and Environment
are relevant for Tilburg University. These themes reflect fields of knowledge where research
excellence is particularly important to improve Europe’s ability to address its social, economic,
public health, environmental and industrial challenges of the future.
3
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Within SSH € 610 million is available for research (coordination) with regard to the following topics:
Growth, employment and competitiveness in a knowledge society
Innovation, competitiveness and labour market policies; education and life-long learning; economic structures
and productivity.
Combining economic, social and environmental objectives in a European perspective
Socio-economic models within Europe and across the world; economic and social and cohesion across
regions; social and economic dimensions of environmental policy.
Major trends in society and their implications
Demographic change; reconciling family and work; health and quality of life; youth policies; social exclusion;
discrimination.
Europe in the world
Trade; migration; poverty; crime; conflict and resolution.
The citizen in the European Union
Political participation; citizenship and rights; democracy and accountability; the media; cultural diversity and
heritage; religions; attitudes and values.
Socio-economic and scientific indicators
Use and value of indicators in policymaking at macro and micro levels.
Foresight activities
Future implications of global knowledge; migration; ageing; risk and the emerging domains in research and
science.
Ideas
The programme 'Ideas' aims at enhancing dynamism, creativity and excellence in European
research at the frontier of knowledge by supporting ’investigator-driven’, frontier research projects
across all fields by individual teams competing at a European level. Projects will be funded based
on proposals presented by researchers on subjects of their choice, evaluated on scientific
excellence by peer review. The programme is supervised by the independent European Research
Council (ERC), composed of a Scientific Council and a dedicated support organisation.
The Starting Independent Research Grant scheme targets young researchers who have the
proven potential of becoming independent research leaders. The grants amount up to 400,000
Euro per year for a period of up to five years. Calls will be published in the second half of each
year. A second funding stream, the Advanced Investigator Research Grant scheme, which
offers grants of up to 500,000 Euro per year (in exceptional cases up to 700,000 Euro per year) for
a period of up to five years, targets researchers who have already established themselves as
being scientifically independent and world-class leaders in their own right.
The competition is extremely high: more than 90% of all proposals will fail. Hence applying for
ERC Grants means presenting an excellent candidate and a perfect research proposal.
4
FP7 Handbook for proposers
People
The Specific Programme ‘People’ aims to stimulate people to enter into research professions,
encouraging European researchers to stay in Europe and making Europe more attractive for the
best researchers from around the world.
'People' is based on the long and successful experience of the Marie Curie actions, and covers:
− Initial Training Networks (ITNs): research training of young researchers, consisting of different
types of activities (training, chair, summer school etc.), facilitated by structural partnerships
with involvement of commercial (sector) organisations;
− Life-long training and career development: to support the career development of experienced
researchers. Especially Intra-European Fellowships are interesting for Tilburg University;
− Industry-academia pathways and partnerships (IAPP): supporting longer term cooperation
programmes between academia and industrial entities through staff secondments and
workshops;
− International exchange of researchers (IRSES);
− International Fellowships: to support exchanges and work-stays for non-European
researchers.
Capacities
The Specific Programme 'Capacities' aims to enhance research and innovation capacities
throughout Europe and ensure their optimal use.
The programme operates in six broad areas, amongst which:
− Research infrastructures;
− Research for the benefit of SMEs;
− Regions of knowledge and support for regional research-driven clusters;
− Science in society: Europe-wide debate on science, society and culture.
The overall objective of the ‘Research infrastructures’ part is to optimise the use and development
of the best research infrastructures existing in Europe, and to create new research infrastructures
of pan-European interest in all fields of science and technology.
3. Schemes
"Funding schemes" are the types of projects, by which FP7 is implemented:
Collaborative projects
Collaborative projects are focused research projects with clearly defined scientific and
technological objectives and specific expected results (such as developing new knowledge or
technology to improve European competitiveness). They are carried out by consortia made up of
participants from different countries, and from industry and academia. The project duration is 24 to
60 months, unless otherwise specified.
Individual research projects
Projects carried out by individual national or multinational research teams, lead by a ‘principal
investigator’, funded by the European Research Council (ERC).
5
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Networks of Excellence
The Networks of Excellence (NoE) are designed for research institutions willing to combine and
functionally integrate a substantial part of their activities and capacities in a given field, in order to
create a European ‘virtual research centre’ in this field. This is achieved through a Joint
Programme of Activities based on the integrated and complementary use of resources from entire
research units, departments, laboratories or large teams. The project duration is 48 to 60 months,
unless otherwise specified.
Coordination and support actions
These are actions that cover not the research itself, but the coordination and networking of
projects, programmes and policies. This includes, for example, coordination and networking
activities, dissemination and use of knowledge, studies or expert groups assisting the
implementation of FP7 or specific FP7 calls, and support for transnational access to major
research infrastructures.
Training and career development
Training and career development for researchers from across the European Union and its
research partners, through a range of support actions named after Marie Curie.
4. Applicants
Which types of participants?
Participation in FP7 is open to a wide range of organisations and individuals:
− research groups at universities or research institutes;
− companies intending to innovate;
− SME associations or groupings;
− public or governmental administration (local, regional or national);
− individual researchers;
− institutions running research infrastructures of trans-national interest;
− organisations and researchers from third countries;
− international organisations;
− civil society organisations.
Different participation rules apply, depending on the research initiative in question.
From which countries?
As a general principle, FP7 is open to participation from any country in the world. The procedures
for participation and funding possibilities vary for different groups of countries.
'Member States'
The EU-25, including Romania and Bulgaria.
'Associates Countries'
Israel, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
'Candidate Countries'
Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Turkey.
'Third Countries'
Other countries: industrialised high income countries (e.g. United States,
Canada, Brazil, China, South-Korea or Japan) and low and middle
income countries (International Cooperation Partner Countries).
6
FP7 Handbook for proposers
EU Member States enjoy the broadest rights and access to funding. The same conditions apply to
Member States and to countries associated to FP7. Another important group are the International
Cooperation Partner Countries (e.g. Russia and other Eastern European and Central Asian states,
developing countries, Mediterranean partner countries, Western Balkans countries). Participants
from these countries are entitled to funding under the same conditions as EU Member States. The
only restriction for them is that consortia must first have the required minimum number of
participants from Member States or associated countries. Participation from industrialised highincome countries is also possible on a self-financing basis, with EU funding granted only in
exceptional cases. Always check the Guide for Applicants here!
Consortia
In most cases funding is to be sought by building a Consortium, though the general minimum
requirements do not always clearly indicate this. Always check the specific (work) programmes for
additional conditions!
Collaborative projects
and Coordination actions
≥ 3 independent legal entities must participate, each of which is
established in a different Member State or Associated country.
Support actions
≥ 1 legal entity.
ERC grant schemes
(Ideas)
≥ 1legal entity (together with the principal investigator) established in a
Member State or in an Associated country together.
Marie Curie actions
(People)
≥ 1 legal entity. However for a Marie Curie Initial Training Network a
Consortium will be requested.
5. Funding
Reimbursement rate
The basic principle of funding in FP7 is co-financing. The Commission gives grants to projects,
thus contributing a certain percentage to the overall costs. The maximum reimbursement rates to
the costs of a project depend on the funding scheme, the legal status of the participants and the
type of activity. The Community financial contribution covers for Tilburg University:
Collaborative research
(Cooperation, Capacities),
Networks of Excellence
75% for research, 50% for demonstration, and 100% for management
and other costs.
Project costs consist of 'direct costs' and 'indirect costs' (=overhead)*.
The Tilburg University overhead flat rate is 60% of the {direct costs
minus (minor) subcontracting costs and costs made available by third
parties}.
ERC grant schemes
100% of the eligible direct project costs. The overhead flat rate is 20%
of the direct costs.
Other funding schemes
100% of the eligible direct project costs. Depending on the specific
scheme, overhead may be charged.
*)
If, for example, the total direct research costs of a project are 100,000 euro, on top of this amount 60%
may be charged for overhead. Hence the total eligible costs will be 160,000 euro, and the EU
contribution of 75% will be 120,000 euro.
Please note both temporary and permanent staff is eligible in FP7.
7
FP7 Handbook for proposers
6. Accountability
Participating in a FP7 project implies more than just executing the project itself. By signing a
contract with the Commission in order to receive EU funding, as a researcher you have committed
yourself to a series of obligations.
No funding without time sheets
For all temporary and permanent staff funded by the project time sheets will have to be provided. It
is important that these time sheets make a clear distinction between activities for the EU project
and other activities. The 'other' activities do not have to be explained in detail.
Project file
It is obligatory to keep proof of receipts and invoices of all costs made within your EU project. This
may range from timesheets, air tickets to hotel invoices, as well as bookings of meeting rooms and
catering services.
Project reporting
You have to perform previously agreed research tasks and deliver predefined research results in
time. You have to periodically report on project content and financing. In some of the larger
projects you may have to arrange financial audits.
8
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Step 1: Idea – Building the project
In this initial phase of a project lifecycle, the focus is on developing the project idea, finding the
right partners and informing your stakeholders.
1. Considerations
Business card of an individual researcher and the entire university
FP projects are known for being ambitious, multidisciplinary and internationally oriented. Receiving
EU funding for specific research has a special connotation. By participating in a EU project
researchers get involved in an international scene of excellent scientists and entrepreneurs. Active
participation in an excellent FP7 project by one researcher may also affect the status of the entire
university. In a negative scenario, however, bad participation of one researcher may imply that
Tilburg University gets a bad reputation and will be avoided as a project partner in the future.
A complex, bureaucratic and time-consuming process
Depicting the application process as time-consuming and bureaucratic runs the risk of deterring
researchers before even trying. Nevertheless, it is wise to take into account that writing a FP7
proposal is a long process of filling out papers and forms. Furthermore, the success rates for many
programmes are low and vary between 10% and 25%. Last but not least, the procedure – once the
proposal is submitted – takes between 3 to 9 months before a green light is given.
A few words of advice
Only submit a FP7 proposal for highly strategic research, and for which your faculty management
considers international cooperation crucial. Never consider FP7 funding as essential to carry out
the research project, but consider it as a nice additional contribution to activities that already get
basic funding within the organisation. That way disappointment and vulnerable dependence on
one single form of financing can be avoided. For the administrative process you can rely on
assistance, either within your faculty or from the EU liaison officer of the university. Annex 1
contains an overview with all local EU contact persons.
A FP7 project implies a lot more than ‘just’ performing research
If one believes that FP7 is only about receiving funding to perform excellent European research or
to arrange mobility of researchers, one might become seriously disappointed, especially taking into
account the vast amount of time necessary for managerial and administrative tasks during the
project. Networking, filling out forms, writing reports and reading through contracts are just some of
the tasks that are expected from a researcher who wants to be involved an a FP7 project.
Inform your management in time of your intention to start a FP7 project
Participation in a FP7 project is a time-consuming business that may have serious impact on the
faculty’s infrastructure if the proposal is selected for funding. It is a misconception to think that only
researchers play a role in a EU project. Particularly financial controllers and EU liaison officers
spend a lot of time providing the necessary data and giving assistance throughout the process.
EU funding also constitutes only part of the entire project funding. The other part will have to come
from your department. It is therefore of importance to inform your management timely, to make
sure that the necessary financial means can be arranged in your faculty. Make sure you talk to
your director of operations and supply him or her with copies of any proposals being submitted.
9
FP7 Handbook for proposers
2. Creating your own funding opportunities
How are the annual work programmes developed?
With the structure, objectives and conditions fixed for several years, the Commission is relatively
free to set the research agenda (content) on an annual basis. In this annual process, the
Directorate-General (DG) for Research takes the lead. Scientific officers start to write draft texts on
the topics to be funded, and will propose funding schemes to be used. They do this in consultation
with colleagues from other DG’s, such as DG Employment or DG Justice. As soon as ‘Brussels’
has agreed upon the draft texts, these will be discussed in Working Groups for Specific
Programmes. In these groups members of the so called National Programme Committees take
place. The Dutch representatives are NWO, EG-Liaison and OCW. The Working Groups meet a
few times. Although these representatives will only propose minor changes, these still can be very
crucial. Adding for example the words “pensions”, “language” or “values” could increase
participation opportunities for Tilburg University. In the end, drafts become final and are published.
Exposure and lobby
In practice, most researchers will only notice (and accept) the outcomes of this policy making
process: the yearly Work Programmes. However, if your strategy is to increase collaborating
opportunities in European projects, a passive attitude may be disappointing: call texts will often
appear to be a difficult match to your ideas. You might even wonder why certain topics texts suit
better to the plans of other consortia you know: how on earth did they manage to get their project
in the work programme?
Exposure and lobby may be the answers. Groups of researchers who expose themselves and
their ideas to key-persons in Brussels and Den Haag every now and then can increase their
chances of influencing the agenda. Ask your UvT liaison officer for a list of scientific officers at DG
Research. Also, taking place in a European advisory group on socio-economic sciences or
scientific forecasts can help communicating a specific scientific or societal problem to be
researched. Another option is to apply for ESF’s Forward Looks topics. A typical “Forward Look”
project consists of several transnational workshops in which the research topic and its needs are
thoroughly investigated. The results of such projects are given wide dissemination. ESF will pay
much of the related costs. Last but not least, after the call is published, you can informally present
the outlines of an early version of the proposal to the appropriate EU official(s) (see ‘Present your
proposal informally in Brussels’). Names of EC officials involved in writing the annual FP7 work
programmes are available. Just call or mail Willem Megens.
3. Partners
Project partners
In most FP7 projects, except for e.g. ERC and individual Marie Curie fellowships, collaboration
with partners located in other countries is mandatory. Finding partners that complement your
expertise and give the proposal added value is of crucial importance in EU projects. A
multidisciplinary and balanced international Consortium consisting of representatives from both
research and, if appropriate, companies is the first step towards a competitive proposal.
10
FP7 Handbook for proposers
But what partners are needed for your proposal?
- Firstly one should consider what is needed for the project: how can you address all or most of
the aspects mentioned in the topic description.
- Secondly, what kind of partners do you need? Often it is not enough to present a consortium
consisting only of academic partners. Think of companies, trade organisations, NGO’s, policy
consultants.
- Thirdly excellence in the field is a major criterion, so involve the best partners for the job.
- A fourth criterion is the project scope: does it matter where the data collection or research is
done, foe example in the case of comparative studies?
- Lastly the geographical balance counts. A consortium existing purely of excellent British,
Dutch and Belgian partners will impress less than a consortium of excellent partners from all
over Europe. With regard to the European coverage, it is nevertheless wise involve only
organisations from ‘weaker’ EU regions if these have added value in terms of excellence or
access to specific country information.
Following the previous question, how many partners are needed? Actually there is no other rule
than what is requested in the rules in the call (often at least 3 partners from at least 3 countries).
The statistics of the first FP7 application year in SSH, with a maximum amount of EU funding of
1,5 million euro, shows on average a consortium of 7 to 11 partners and a project duration of 3 to
4 years. Higher EU funding will possibly lead to larger consortia.
Initiating a Consortium
There are several ways of launching a EU research project:
- Join a project idea, launched by European colleagues from another university or research
organisation. There are some serious advantages when this line of action is followed. First of
all it means that not all the thinking and writing has to be done by you only. Secondly you can
rely on a project Coordinator to assist you and inform you on what needs to be done when. It
is in your best interest to hook up with a Coordinator that understands all the procedures and
all the policy debates, and has a track record in obtaining and managing FP projects.
- Initiate your own research proposal. It is then important to make use of your existing
international network to find suitable project partners. In that case, you must be aware of two
things. The organisation that launches the project proposal is often regarded as the
coordinator of the writing process and as the suitable project Coordinator (although these roles
require different skills!). Secondly, be aware of the (administrative) tasks and responsibilities of
a project Coordinator.
Finding partners
Participants in FP7 have to be ‘legal entities’, for example research institutes, universities, public
and private companies, or physical persons (individual people). If you search for additional
expertise outside your own international network, the Commission has several partner search
services at its disposal that may be useful. The following EU services can be found on the Cordis
website:
- the FP7 partner search database, which allows you to search for partners in various ways;
- the project database, which contains all former projects (FP4 to FP7) that have already been
formally approved and for which the official funding contract has been signed.
11
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Assessment of a Consortium
(Source: Yellow Research, 2005)
Setting up a Consortium may sometimes feel like riding a roller coaster. In the beginning there is
great optimism and you feel that nothing can damage the spirit of this collaboration; but after some
discussions about finances some doubt may creep in about the chances of ever setting up a viable
Consortium. One partner who does not perform the research as promised or abuses EU funding,
may affect the entire project in a very negative way. Whether the Consortium is just beginning to
take shape or has already experienced some difficulties, the best advice is to take one step back
and look for objective parameters against which to evaluate progress and to highlight the
underlying issues that need to be addressed.
A sound Consortium has the following characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Project plan reflects vision and goals of the partners
Sufficient preparation and room for change
Right mix of partners – no conflicts of interest within the Consortium
Management structure fits the Consortium dynamics
Open and clear communication
Efficient administrative systems and support
Research and Evaluation
Clear set of rules on intellectual property
Dispute avoidance and dispute resolution
Transparency in project finances and accounting
History of working together
Please hold these factors in mind when building the Consortium, or later on if problems arise
between the partners. By asking the partners to rate how well they feel the Consortium is
performing against each of these factors it is possible to highlight the underlying causes of
problems, or to identify factors that may give rise to problems in the future.
More detailed information about this assessment tool can be found in Annex 2.
Decide whether you want to be a project participant or a project Coordinator
Being a partner in a FP7 project is one thing, being a project Coordinator, however, is a different
ballgame. Particularly Large Collaborative Projects (IPs) and NoEs are known to be projects with
on average 10 to 30 participants. Being a Coordinator for such a project demands so many talents
and capacities which lie outside the research territory that one must seriously consider if one has
the time and courage to perform the task.
To elicit the role of project Coordinator, a few of the tasks are listed below:
- Act as official delegate on behalf of all project participants towards the Commission (including
negotiations about the actual funding).
- Prepare and distribute all project documentation to all project partners.
- Distribute the EU funding to all project partners within a given period of time.
- Coordinate legal disputes with the Commission or between project partners.
- Coordinate the creation of a sound and well-balanced Consortium agreement.
- Monitor the management of the project, preferably assisted by a management committee.
12
FP7 Handbook for proposers
The above-mentioned set of tasks is not exhaustive, but merely to show some of the actions that
are demanded from you, when you act as the project Coordinator. Hence, make sure that this
decision is made consciously and that colleagues within your faculty, such as secretaries and
financial controllers are informed of your plans well in advance, since they too will have to assist
you in performing the work adequately.
Present your project idea informally in Brussels
After having composed a core group of project partners and after having read all necessary
documents, it may be wise and useful to informally present your an outline of your project idea to
the appropriate official(s) in the European Commission. Such a first exploratory meeting gives you
not only more insight in the chances for success, but often you also receive valuable information
with regard to relevant EU ambitions and possible additional partners that need to be involved in
your project to make it successful.
13
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Step 2. Application – Writing the proposal
If you decide to start the process of project application, then writing the proposal is the next step.
1. Check the necessary documents
Writing a competitive proposal is a prerequisite to receive EU funding. Writing such a proposal is
an art in itself. The secret lies in the mixing of excellent research with a clear understanding of the
political ambitions of the EU officials. Thorough preparation long before the stated deadline is
therefore a must rather than an option. Timely study of all relevant reference documents, such as
work programmes, guides for applicants, evaluation guidelines and call texts will prove useful.
These documents often are lengthy. If you think your research proposal fits in one of the FP7
programmes and if you wish to respond to a call for proposals, specifically addressing your type of
research, then the following documents will be indispensable for the writing of your proposal:
Work programme
This is the detailed implementation plan for a specific FP7 programme. It specifies the concrete
scientific-technical, economic and societal objectives of each thematic priority. It gives a broad
background to the thematic activity, and the detailed technical content of the activity. In the Work
programme a number of topics are listed that you can apply for. It projects a 'road map' of the
planned calls for proposals. It also indicates for each call the instruments that will be available and
the evaluation criteria that will be applied. Understanding the objectives of the work programme is
essential for preparing a good proposal.
Call text
The proposal process is triggered by the call. Calls are official invitations to submit project
proposals for a specific area of the Framework Programme by a specific date, usually about three
months after the call. Calls specify very clearly what is required. Call texts contain information,
such as closure date(s), an indicative budget and its distribution per area and/or instrument,
minimum number of participants, one-stage or two-stage submission and evaluation procedure,
non-standard evaluation criteria etc.
Guide for Applicants
This guide gives practical information and advice on how to prepare and submit a proposal. There
is a separate Guide for Applicants for each instrument in each call. Guides for Applicants are
distributed only in electronic format via the respective CORDIS call page. Make sure you download
the most recent version of the guide.
Relevant policy papers
An FP7 project is not about science, it is about integrating research, stimulating collaboration and
filling the gap between scientific results and policy. Keeping that in mind, read the Work
Programme and find out what sources the EU policy makers refer to. For various research topics
the EU has issued directives, Green Papers or White Papers with up-to-date policy priorities. Be
also aware of current policy measures. Lisbon ’00, Stockholm ’01, Gothenburg ’02, Barcelona ’02
and again Lisbon ’05 are summits you may wish to read to understand the call and position your
project. Documents and directives in your research area can be consulted on the Europe website.
José Manuel Barroso's website contains several useful links to current EU policy papers. Also
OECD documents can help you when presenting your case for research.
14
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Information on horizontal issues
Apart from the research content the Commission considers it important to address specific
horizontal issues in the proposal, such as gender and ethical issues. The promotion of active
involvement of women in research, for instance, is a high priority issue in the Commission.
2. Write and submit your proposal
Division of tasks
Preferably at a kick-off meeting with your partners, you decide to prepare a proposal. The
Consortium has to discuss the division of the workload of the application as well within the project
itself. One member of the Consortium is designated as the Coordinator and it is their job to put
together the proposal with the other partners and submit it to the Commission as required.
Generally, if the proposal is accepted, the Coordinator will be expected to become the project
Coordinator and thus be responsible for overall project administration and management. However,
this is not a rule and should not be treated as such. After all, composing a proposal and
coordinating a project demand different skills. It happens that a university that wants a project
so badly will gladly be ‘given’ the lead task by the others, without sufficiently checking his
knowledge, experience and past performance.
The project Coordinator is the first point of contact to the Commission during proposal preparation
and project implementation. He is responsible for submitting the proposal and also leads the
contract negotiation. After the project starts, he will probably appoint a Project Manager, submits
all reports, usually handles the financial statements and payments, chairs the Project Management
Board and has overall control of the project. The Project Manager will be responsible for the
Management of the Project and execution of the contract. He is appointed by the Prime Contractor
and chairs the Management Meetings. He approves all outputs and reports, is the prime external
interface and also may be the Technical Director (if one is deemed necessary).
A proposal consists of two application forms: part A and part B.
Part A – Administrative information
This application form contains the administrative information about the proposal and the
participants. The information requested includes a brief description of the work, contact details and
characteristics of the participants, and information related to the funding requested. This
information will be encoded in a structured database for further computer processing to produce,
for example, statistics, and evaluation reports. This information will also support the experts and
Commission staff during the evaluation process. The information in part A is entered through a set
of online forms.
What to fill out on A2 – the Participant’s Form?
For most participants it will be sufficient to enter the Participant Identity Code (PIC). By just filling
in this PIC, a number of standard checks will be automatically filled out. If things go well, the
following administrative and financial data will appear on your screen:
15
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Participant Identity Code (PIC):
Organization Legal Name:
Organisation Short Name:
Legal Address:
Confirm to SME definition:
“9 9 9 8 9 9 4 7 5”
"Stichting Katholieke Universiteit Brabant"
"Tilburg University"
"Warandelaan"
"2"
"5037 AB"
"www.tilburguniversity.nl"
"YES"
“NO”
“NO”
“YES”
"Higher Education" (HE 80.3)
“NO”
"NO"
"NO"
“YES”
“NO”
Dependencies with other participants:
Method of determining Indirect Costs / Cost Model:
"NO"
Special Transition Flat Rate (max. 60%)
Internet homepage:
Status of your organization:
Main area of activity (NACE code):
SME questions:
Street:
Number:
Postal code:
Non Profit:
Public Organisation:
Research Organisation:
Higher Education:
1. Number of employees (...):
2. Turnover (...):
3. Balance sheet (...):
4. Legal entity (...):
Part B – The project plan
Part B is a "template", or list of headings, rather than an administrative form. You should follow this
structure when presenting the scientific and technical content of your proposal. The template is
designed to highlight those aspects that will be assessed against the evaluation criteria. It covers,
among other things, the nature of the proposed work, the participants and their roles and workload
in the proposed project, and the impacts that might be expected to arise from the proposed work.
A maximum length may be specified for the different sections of Part B, or for Part B as a whole.
You must keep your proposal within these limits. Even where no page limits are given, or where
limits are only recommended, it is in your interest to keep your text concise since overlong
proposals are rarely viewed in a positive light by the evaluating experts.
Tips & tricks
Writing a proposal is a complex process. Many aspects can be taken into account if one wants to
write a very competitive proposal. Basically it is a matter of explaining ‘what, why and how’. In
Annex 3 you will find for each of the evaluation criteria a number of tips & tricks.
Understand the call text
Make sure that you are fully aware of the meaning of the topic you apply for. Read it very carefully,
divide its aspects in a logical structure until you know for 100% what kind of expertise is needed to
tackle most or all of these aspects. But there is more than the topic: also the introduction to the
Area, and the introduction to the annual Work programme will give you clues of what to look for.
For example the 2009 SSH work programme mentions explicitly in its introduction the following
elements: European coverage, cooperation with other disciplines, involve users and stakeholders,
make data available to the broader research community. Of course EU policy documents should
be read to know the context of the call. If you, after having read all this information, still feel
uncomfortable, try to make an appointment with the scientific officer of DG Research.
16
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Impact
A project can only create the desired impact on the EU objectives if the implementation of the
project as well as the dissemination and exploitation phase is successful. You will have to
demonstrate the impact through addressing one or more EU challenges, opportunities and/or
EU benefits described in the work programme and, if possible, challenges on a higher level.
Examples of EU challenges:
Pooling resources
Different types of resources can be pooled: methodology resources, knowledge resources, human resources
and budget resources. At the start of the project you can already envision the ownership of the results, for
example joint ownership with regard to databases. Explain why the project needs a European effort.
Comparative research
If your project is focussed on comparing the results of different research disciplines or geographical
differences, the results of the comparative research could probably benefit by open dissemination strategies.
Standardisation
If standardisation of e.g. national policies in a certain area is the main purpose for the project, than wide
spread dissemination seems to most logical way of making everyone aware of the new standard developed.
EU benefits
Also try to link these efforts to some of the main Commission aims: improving EU’s Competitiveness (new
products or services, added value, lower costs) by means of creating a Knowledge based economy, thereby
considering Social well-being of EU citizens, a Healthy population and the Environment. Check policy
statements made in the Lisbon, Barcelona, Gothenburg and Stockholm summits.
Your project can benefit to these EU challenges by collecting data, involving certain research
disciplines etc. This will define your dissemination and exploitation strategy. So after having
identified possible results, categorise these to their possible use in terms of suitable for further
research activities, exploitation activities and/or dissemination. Mention the target groups
specifically. Present the strategy you will use to create the circumstances in order to make the
impact happen. You can increase your impact through involving stakeholders, for example by
pro-active dialogues, debates or assigning these in an advisory board.
When writing a FP7 proposal it is recommendable to write the Impact chapter parallel to the
description of the work packages, since impact is generated via deliverables. Please note that
deliverables are contractual obligations. So be sure a deliverable is feasible within the timeframe
of your project. For example do not write that you will deliver 1.000 interviews, but make this a
milestone: if you achieve 800 interviews during the project, inform the Commission, and state at
that moment you will deliver 800.
Gender issues
When using the term gender equality, meant is encouraging participation of women in research
and addressing both women’s and men’s needs. In the FP7 evaluation process gender aspects do
not get as much formal attention as was the case in FP6. However keep in mind that the aim of the
commission is that 40% of the evaluators will be women. It may be wise therefore to include in the
proposal some practical actions, such as collecting gender statistics on the workforce employed by
the Consortium and monitor the progress made in terms of gender balance. Also when gender
issues are associated with the subject of the research proposal present clearly how these aspects
have been taken into consideration into the research content.
17
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Governance
Governance is the allocation and management of resources to respond to events and to deliver
the results by way of participation, transparency, accountability and effectiveness. A Consortium
will have to be able to cope with management risks, financial changes, technical changes, change
of partners and change in dissemination and exploitation.
The governance structure should be well balanced: on the one hand, there is a need for effective
decision-making at a strategic level; on the other, there is a need for all partners to feel involved
and engaged with the day-to-day management and implementation of the project.
The characteristics of a project and its participants determine the governance structure. Every
project has its own governance structure and scheme. Therefore it is not possible to present one
single model that fits all collaborative projects. In general the governance structure covers at least
a project Coordinator, daily management, an overall deciding body (General Assembly, sometimes
also an Executive Board), an Advisory Board(s) and Stakeholders.
At the risk of presenting a too simplified structure, here is an example of a possible governance
structure of a medium or large collaborative research project:
European
Commission
General Assembly
Scientific Board
Executive Board or
Core Management Group
Subproject Committees
Project Coordinator
Advisory Board or
Stakeholder Committee
Management
Support Team
Please note that the Commission is no part of this structure.
For an explanation of roles, tasks and web links please check the DESCA website.
In a small research project, Subproject Committees and an Executive Board could be left out. It
depends on the type of project if an External Scientific Board is needed. An Advisory Board (with
limited powers) is recommendable for most collaborative FP7 projects since it supports the
Dissemination and Exploitation strategy and therefore the possible Impact of the project.
18
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Here is an example of an embedded structure for a small collaborative research project:
Please note that it is not obligatory to graphically present the governance structure. A good
description is more important.
Stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders can have different tasks, such as scientific guiding, giving input, valuating
commercial or societal potential of results, testing results and/or making policy observations.
One could consider organising the stakeholders in direct linkage to the project. The stakeholder
engagement is organised through a specific committee, task force or forum at project level. The
direct link to the project creates possibilities for direct interaction with the project management; the
co-ordinator chairs the committee/task force. It seems logical to limit the involvement to an
advisory capacity because stakeholders are not participants and as such they have no
responsibility towards the commission for carrying out the project.
An approach which is almost like the opposite of the previous is to link the stakeholders to certain
participants in the Consortium. This could for example entail an organisation per member state.
Although there is a direct link to a member of the Consortium, the influence of a stakeholder on the
project is less than in the case if a stakeholder is directly linked to the project.
Project activities
A typical FP7 project consists of several work packages (sub-projects). Each work package has a
number of tasks and deliverables (tangible results), such as a scientific publication or a
symposium. Furthermore, the European Commission determined several types of activities (types
of work the partner is carrying out): RTD, Demonstration, Consortium Management or Other
activities.
Please see below for a non-exhaustive list of (sub) activities (subsidy rate):
− ‘Research and technical development’ (RTD, 75%): activities directly aimed at creating new
knowledge, new technology, and products, including scientific coordination. Scientific
coordination of the project can be carried out by another beneficiary than the project
Coordinator.
− ‘Demonstration’ (50%): activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer
a potential economic advantage, but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of
products such as prototypes).
19
FP7 Handbook for proposers
−
−
‘Consortium management’ (100%): these include the typical management activities mentioned
in the Grant Agreement. They may include others, like for example the costs to organise a call
or a tender to choose a subcontractor. Also the costs of external certificates (audits), if
required at all, can be budgeted here as subcontracting costs. Please note that scientific
coordination is not regarded as Consortium management but RTD.
‘Other activities’ (100%), such as:
o Dissemination: for example the establishment of a website, the presentation of the project
during conferences or workshops, the drafting of a scientific publication including, if
applicable, the payment of a fee for its publication.
o Networking: for example the organisation of a seminar for networking.
o Coordination: for example the organisation of a meeting or travel for coordination
purposes.
o Intellectual property: for example the filing and prosecution of patent (and other IPR)
applications.
o Studies on the socio-economic impact: for example the assessment of the expected
socioeconomic impact of the foreground.
o Training: these activities may cover the salary costs of those providing the training but not
the salary costs of those being trained.
Example of a work package description:
20
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Since everything you write down in your proposal will be binding as soon as it is attached to the
signed Grant Agreement, you would better not mention names of specific persons in the work
package descriptions. This would make the project and your research staff less flexible.
Budgeting the project
Budgeting the project is an aspect you should take care of in an early stadium of the proposal
preparation process. You need to know the hourly rate of the staff involved and need to
understand the way indirect costs are calculated. You should never ask more EU funding than
allowed in the call text; by asking too much your proposal will not be taken into consideration. To
prevent such mistakes, it is highly recommended to involve your local EU liaison officer in making
up the budget.
Below some general instructions are listed that can help you in budgeting your project. Annex 4
provides more detailed information.
Direct and indirect costs
Direct costs are the costs directly related to fulfilling the project tasks. All or most of the project
tasks will be carried out by the Consortium partners themselves. In some circumstances these can
be subcontracted. There are several types of direct costs, such as Personnel, Travel and
subsistence, Durable equipment, Databases and Research infrastructure, Consumables and
supplies, Literature, Publications, Conferences, Symposia and workshops etc.
Indirect costs (or ‘overheads’) are eligible costs which cannot be identified by the beneficiary as
being directly attributed to the project, but which can be identified and justified by its accounting
system as being incurred in direct relationship with the eligible direct costs attributed to the project.
Rules for determining indirect costs
Depending on the funding scheme, different rules apply for determining the indirect costs:
- Collaborative Research Projects and Networks of Excellence: a Special transitional rate of
60% of the total direct costs minus subcontracting. Tilburg University has decided to use this
flat rate for FP7 projects for which the Grant Agreement is signed in 2007 or 2008.
- Coordination and Support Actions: a flat rate of 7% of the total direct costs minus
subcontracting.
- ERC grants: a flat rate of 20% of the total direct costs minus subcontracting
- Marie Curie Grants: please see the specific rules.
How to calculate
There are two approaches to budgeting a project:
− Bottom-up: write the work package(s), chose the project members and estimate the amount of
man-months you really need to deliver good results in time. Make a list of possible cost types
and make use of experiences within former projects. Apply the overhead as stated under the
heading ‘Indirect costs’ in this document. It is highly recommendable to calculate bottom-up
before the negotiation process with your project partners starts. Do not wait until the
Consortium leader tells you how to budget; tell him/her what you need at forehand.
− Top-down: given a maximum amount of Commission contribution, and given the profile and
expertise of the partners, each of the Consortium members is allocated a specific part of the
contribution. Often a Consortium leader dictates this process; sometimes it happens in a more
democratic way. Stay in close contact with the Coordinator with regard to the project budget
and the Commission contribution. This may prevent the Coordinator from allocating you
insufficient resources to perform good research.
21
FP7 Handbook for proposers
On the Tilburg University website you can find a simple but handy budget tool that helps you to
calculate at the level of cost types and activity types for up to 20 partners. It shows immediately
the consequences of partner type and models for indirect costs.
The pre-proposal check service
Some FP7 programmes offer a pre-proposal check as a special service. It means that
researchers, who intend to submit a proposal, may informally check with the appropriate EU
official whether the proposal generally meets the EU objectives and fits in the specific call. Note
that this service always has a deadline, which is in most cases 4 weeks before the official closing
of the call. Furthermore, the Commission clearly mentions that a pre-proposal check is not a
binding advice and by no means a formal approval of the proposal. It is a service to help you
improve your proposal, not to give you any guarantees in advance.
It is also possible to contact EG Liaison (EGL) for further advice. EGL is a so called National
Contact Point and provides advice and support to organisations that are preparing proposals.
One or two stage submission
For some instruments in certain calls (for example Marie Curie ITN, ERC), the Commission uses a
two-stage procedure. In a first stage only a short outline proposal has to be submitted and this
outline proposal will be evaluated against a restricted set of core evaluation criteria (defined in the
Work Programme). Only proposals passing all thresholds in the first-stage evaluation are invited to
submit a full proposal that is then evaluated against the full set of criteria.
Submitting the proposal via EPSS
The whole proposal must be uploaded by the Coordinator into the Electronic Proposal Submission
Service (EPSS) described below. Completing the Part A forms in EPSS and uploading a Part B
does not yet mean that your proposal is submitted. Once there is a consolidated version of the
proposal the Coordinator must expressly submit it by pressing the “SUBMIT” button. Only the
Coordinator is authorised to submit the proposal. On submission, the EPSS performs an automatic
validation of the proposal. An automatic message is sent to the Coordinator if the system detects
any apparent problems. This automatic validation does not replace the more detailed eligibility
check later carried out by the Commission.
If successfully submitted, the Coordinator receives a message that indicates that the proposal has
been received. The Coordinator may continue to modify the proposal and submit revised versions
overwriting the previous one (by pressing the “SUBMIT button” each time!) right up until the
deadline. Errors discovered in proposals submitted to the EPSS can be rectified by simply
submitting a corrected version. So long as the call has not yet closed, the new submission will
overwrite the old one. Once the deadline has passed, however, the Commission can accept no
further additions, corrections or resubmissions. The last eligible version of your proposal received
before the deadline is the one which will be evaluated, and no later material can be submitted.
Irrespective of any page limits specified in the guide for applicants, there will probably be an
overall limit to the size of proposal file (Part B). There are also restrictions to the name you give
the part B file. You should only use alphanumeric characters. Special characters and spaces must
be avoided. For the proposal Part B you must use exclusively PDF. Other file formats will not be
accepted by the system. Only a single PDF file comprising the complete Part B can be uploaded.
Unless specified in the call, any hyperlinks to other documents, embedded material, and any other
documents (company brochures, supporting documentation, reports, audio, video, multimedia etc.)
sent electronically or by post, will be disregarded.
22
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Use of EPSS by the proposal Coordinator
As a Coordinator you can:
- register as interested in submitting a proposal to a particular call set up (and modify) your
Consortium by adding/removing participants;
- complete all of Part A of the proposal, pertaining to the proposal in general, and to your own
administrative details;
- download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal and, when it is completed,
upload the finished Part B;
- submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B.
Use of the system by the other participants
Other participants can:
- complete their own sections A2 (participant details);
- download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal, in order to assist the
Coordinator in preparing it (however, only the Coordinator can upload the finished version);
- view the whole proposal.
Check the deadline for submission in time!
The closure date for a call for proposals is mentioned in the official call text that is published
months before the deadline. Not only the date, but also the time of closure is mentioned, in the
majority of cases based on Brussels local time. It may be wise to check the call text on Cordis from
time to time, as the Commission may in some cases decide to prolong the closure date with a
couple of weeks. Leaving your first submission attempt to the last few minutes of the call will give
you no time to overcome even the smallest technical difficulties, proposal verification problems or
communications delays which may arise. Such events are never accepted as extenuating
circumstances; your proposal will be regarded as not having been submitted.
No signatures needed at this stage
Note that at this stage of proposal submission, the Commission does not yet ask for signatures of
the project participants. Signatures are asked for, only when the project proposal has received a
positive evaluation and when the Consortium is invited for contract negotiations. By way of
exception, the ERC Starting Grants scheme demands letter of commitments of the University in
both stage 1 and 2 of the proposal process.
23
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Step 3. Evaluation – Reviewing by experts
Acknowledgement of receipt
Shortly after the call deadline, the Commission will send an acknowledgement of receipt to the
email address of the proposal Coordinator given in the submitted proposal.
Eligibility check
The Commission verifies that proposals meet the eligibility criteria established in the call. Only
proposals that fulfil the eligibility criteria are retained for evaluation. The basic eligibility criteria are
the following:
- Receipt of proposal by the Commission on or before the deadline date and time established in
the call.
- Minimum number of participants, as referred to in the call for proposal.
- Maximum Commission contribution for a project: do never ask more!
- Completeness of the proposal: presence of all requested administrative forms and the
proposal description.
In the Work Programmes, additional specific eligibility criteria can be defined.
Evaluation process
The evaluation process roughly consists of three phases:
1. Evaluation by experts.
2. Consensus meeting.
3. Panel review.
1. Evaluation by experts
Proposals are evaluated against a set of criteria. This set varies between instruments and can also
be further specified for each thematic priority or activity. The place to look for the actual set of
criteria for a given call for proposals is the Work Programme. The most commonly used evaluation
criteria are Scientific and/or technological excellence, Implementation and Impact.
Each proposal is evaluated against the applicable criteria independently by at least three experts
who fill in individual evaluation forms giving marks and providing comments. The evaluators make
use of special Commission guidelines for proposal evaluations. There are different guidelines for
evaluation, depending on the call or the instrument. Before starting their work, the evaluators are
all briefed in-depth by the Commission about the evaluation process and the criteria to be applied.
To ensure impartiality, the evaluators sign a confidentiality and ‘conflict of interest’ declaration.
Marks and comments for each block of criteria are given on a standard individual evaluation form.
Criteria may vary between the different areas and instruments. The same is true of weighting and
thresholds. Bonus marks may be awarded in cases where a proposal addresses issues relating to
gender or science and society in a particularly effective way.
At this first step the experts are acting individually; they do not discuss the proposal with each
other, nor with any third party. The experts will have limited time for their reviewing task: often no
longer than 2 to 3 hours per proposal. They and will record their individual opinions in an
Individual Assessment Report, giving scores and also comments against the evaluation criteria.
When scoring proposals, experts must only apply the above evaluation criteria. Experts will assess
and mark the proposal exactly as it is described and presented. They do not make any
assumptions or interpretations about the project in addition to what is in the proposal. Concise but
explicit justifications will be given for each score. Recommendations for improvements to be
discussed as part of a possible negotiation phase will be given, if needed.
24
FP7 Handbook for proposers
2. Consensus meeting
Once all the experts to whom a proposal has been assigned have completed their Individual
Assessment Report, the evaluation progresses to a consensus assessment, representing their
common views. This entails a consensus meeting to discuss the scores awarded and to prepare
comments. The consensus discussion is moderated by a representative of the Commission. 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 outcome of the consensus step is the Consensus Report.
If hearings or an interview are planned in a specific call, you will receive an invitation if your
proposal is highly rated. You will be asked by the evaluation panel to provide further details on the
proposal. The invitation letter will specify the date and time and the particular arrangements. It may
also list a number of specific questions concerning the proposal, which you should be prepared to
respond to at the hearing. The letter will explain how to reply if you cannot attend in person.
3. Panel review
This is the final step involving the independent experts. The main task of the panel is to examine
and compare the consensus reports in a given area, to check on the consistency of the marks
applied during the consensus discussions and, where necessary, propose a new set of consensus
scores. The panel comprises experts involved at the consensus step. Several panels will cover the
different topics or areas of this call. In this call, all the experts for a particular topic/area will
examine all the proposals submitted for this topic/area, and will therefore carry out their final
review at the same time as they prepare the consensus reports. These experts are thus
considered to constitute the panel.
The outcome of the panel meeting is a report recording, principally:
- An Evaluation Summary Report for each proposal, including, where relevant, a report of any
ethical issues raised and any security considerations.
- A list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final score for each proposal passing
the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order.
- A list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds.
- A list of any proposals having been found ineligible during the evaluation by experts.
- A summary of any deliberations of the panel.
In practice, only proposals with a score of 13.0 or higher will have a chance of being funded.
The evaluation results will be finalised and all Coordinators will receive a letter containing initial
information on the results of the evaluation, including the Evaluation Summary Report giving the
opinion of the experts on their proposal. Even if the experts viewed your proposal favourably, the
Commission cannot at this stage indicate if there is a possibility of EU funding. The Commission
also informs the relevant programme committee, consisting of delegates representing the
governments of the Member States and Associated countries.
Based on the results of the evaluation by experts, the Commission draws up the final list of
proposals for possible funding, taking account of the available budget. The Commission must also
take account of the strategic objectives of the programme, as well as their overall balance. Official
letters are then sent to the applicants. If all has gone well, this letter will mark the beginning of a
negotiation phase.
Please send a copy of the Evaluation report to the EU liaison officer of your faculty!
25
FP7 Handbook for proposers
“Be clear to people, but not so clear that they can take you to court!”
Insight in the tasks of an FP7 evaluator – Tips & tricks to help him (and yourself)
The moment you have been waiting for: you receive the e-mail with attached to it the Evaluation Summary
Report. If you are lucky the message is very positive: you are invited to the negotiations. In most cases you
will be disappointed: the application failed (again...). Moreover, the style in which the ESR is written is
annoying: very vague and standard. Why could they not have at least put some effort in writing down more
detailed comments? How did they handle my application anyway? Below you will find some useful insights
by a senior evaluator in the FP7 proposal evaluation process.
DG Research invites a number of independent experts on the subject described in the call text. Several
selection criteria are applied. The most obvious criterion is the specific knowledge and experience
someone has. But in some cases, proposals are judged also by people who are only acquainted with the
subject, but happened to be available. Thirdly experts are selected who had the expertise once, but act as
reviewer in such a professional way that they are very popular with DG Research.
In most cases these experts will stay for a whole week in Brussels. An EC Head of Unit will present the call
topics and the kind of projects DG Research would like to see. Each expert is given a number of proposals
to evaluate, and 2 hours on average . Experts must carry ‘their’ proposals in their own box throughout the
week, and it is strictly forbidden to talk with fellow evaluators about these proposals.
So far so good. What makes an evaluation week a survival is the fact that the last few days consensus
meetings are organised in which applications in each of the topics are discussed. Due to these consensus
meetings that intervene the average time spent on one application – often just 2 hours or so – is spread
over several days. This leaves very little time to read a proposal very carefully.
You can help the evaluator (and yourself!) by presenting a very clear proposal: writing in such a way that
he can remember and defend its unique selling points throughout the week. A few suggestions:
write a very concise management summary, with the key-words in bold and bullets, and mention
explicitly what makes the project different from other projects
present a consistent deliverables list
include a sound PERT chart
present in a scheme the complementarity within the consortium
mention the partners’ track record of former EU collaborative projects
include a table in which you position the state-of-the-art (including acronyms of former FP projects) left
and the added value by your project in the right column
make very clear statements on each of the evaluation sub-criteria by starting of ending the
corresponding chapter with a statement
This leaves the question why ESR’s are so vague. Well, after having discussed all proposals, projects are
ranked and the evaluation summary report is made up. A senior evaluator will compose these ESR’s. His
important task is to present the findings in such a way that it is clear for the reader if and how proposals
meet the criteria while, at the same time, being so vague that any redress procedures are prevented.
It is of crucial importance to present a proposal in such a way that reviewers remember its unique
selling points. So write to-the-point, highlight words, and use bullets, graphs and tables.
Becoming an expert yourself!
A good way of gaining knowledge on the way FP7 proposals are judged is to be involved as an
expert in evaluation panels. Such experience can help scientists in building their own EU
proposals, and/or commenting on proposals of colleagues.
In this connection, please note the following:
- registration of experts can be done individually or by recommendation of an (other)
organisation;
26
FP7 Handbook for proposers
-
chances of getting selected as expert increase if there is a good match between scientific
profile and research subject of the specific FP7 call;
registration does by no means imply an obligation to actually perform as an expert;
experts are hired for a number of days or even a few weeks at a time;
experts will be remunerated by the Commission for their services (appr. 500 euro per day).
Signing in as a FP7 expert can be done through this portal.
27
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Step 4. Commitment – Negotiating and Formalisation
This chapter gives you the information you need for the negotiation phase. In fact in most cases
there are two documents to agree on:
• the Grant Agreement between the Consortium and the Commission;
• the Consortium Agreement between the Consortium partners.
The Grant Agreement is to be agreed upon for all projects, whilst the Consortium Agreement is
mandatory in the case of collaborative projects (collaborative research, infrastructures, training
networks, networks of excellence). The Coordinator plays a significant role in the negotiation
phase: he not only gathers all the information necessary for the Grant Agreement and is contact
person to the Commission, he also initiates the Consortium Agreement and makes sure a (draft)
Consortium Agreement is available before finalising the Grant Agreement. Beware of the fact that
the Commission sometimes is impatient when asking for information: often you need to deliver a
lot of information within a relatively short time notice. The process between the initial results and
starting the project has an average duration of 4 to 6 months. It is very important that the
Coordinator is available during this critical period.
Please check this website for full information on the contract negotiations. These Negotiations
Guidance Notes also contain FAQs on participation and Grant Agreement issues.
Need help? Contact your local support unit.
1. The Grant Agreement
Following the positive evaluation of a proposal and the Commission's definition of a maximum
Community financial contribution for the work, the proposal Coordinator is invited by letter to
commence negotiations with the Commission for a grant agreement. The letter of invitation to
negotiations provides details on the results of the evaluation and any aspects to be reviewed
during negotiation. The letter is accompanied by a Negotiation Mandate and the Evaluation
Summary Report.
The ESR is the independent experts' advice to the Commission. The Negotiation Mandate will
indicate requests for clarification and changes to the proposed project that will need to be
addressed during negotiations together with the maximum Community contribution available for
the project and the suggested duration of the project. The name and contact details of the
Commission Project Officer and Administrative Officer will also be indicated here. The Project
Officer may request one or more negotiation meetings to be held (normally in Brussels or
Luxembourg).
The overall purpose of negotiations is to finalise the details of the work to be carried out under the
grant agreement within the associated budget, as well as to establish the legal and financial
information needed to establish the grant agreement. The project negotiation process comprises
technical (scientific) negotiations, and financial and legal negotiations. The aim of the technical
negotiations is to agree on the final content of Annex I (Description of Work) to the Grant
Agreement. Financial negotiations focus mainly on reaching agreement on budgetary matters,
such as initial pre-financing, timing of project periods and reviews. Legal negotiations include the
analysis and review of the legal status of each applicant and the final composition of the
Consortium, any special clauses required for the project.
28
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Technical negotiations:
Financial and legal negotiations:
• The proposal may need to be adapted to meet
the recommendations of the evaluation.
• The Commission will verify that the project
objectives are 'SMART' (Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Realistic, Timely).
• The full work plan of the project will need to be
defined in sufficient detail.
• The work to be carried out by each of the
beneficiaries and any potential future expansion
of the Consortium will need to be defined in
sufficient detail.
• Agreement will need to be reached on the list of
deliverables and their content, timing and
dissemination level.
• Agreement will need to be reached on the
project milestones and their assessment criteria.
• A time schedule needs to be established for the
project reviews (if not predefined in the special
conditions of the grant agreement) – which
ideally should be synchronised with the
reporting periods.
• The total costs, total eligible costs and maximum
Community financial contribution will be
determined. Special attention will be given to the
calculation of personnel costs and indirect costs.
• A table of the estimated breakdown of budget and
Community financial contribution per activity to be
carried out by each of the beneficiaries will be
established.
• The amount of pre-financing is established.
• The start date and the duration of the project are
agreed upon.
• The timing of the reporting periods will be
established (normally every 12 months).
• Any subcontracting or third-party issues will be
clarified.
• The legal status of each applicant will be reviewed.
• The financial viability of the Coordinator and any
other applicant with a Commission contribution
exceeding EUR 500,000 will be assessed, to
ensure consistent verification of the existence and
legal status of participants, as well as their financial
capacity.
At this stage the Commission will also assess whether the proposed Coordinator has the required
management skills, capabilities and experience to carry out the Coordinator’s tasks.
What documents are needed during negotiations?
Grant Preparation Forms
The Grant Preparation Forms (GPFs) are standard forms that have been designed to facilitate the
project negotiations and the production of the grant agreement. Essentially the forms are used to
identify the beneficiaries that will sign the grant agreement and to determine the eligible costs and
Community contribution. The forms also include a standard declaration to be signed by each
participating organisation.
The budget forms and the project summary form are included as part of Annex I to the Grant
Agreement. The GPFs may also be used as a reference base by the Commission when receiving
financial statements during the lifetime of the project. Thus, although the GPFs are not part of the
Grant Agreement, it is important that the information in the forms is exact.
The GPFs have to be completed in an IT tool. The details of access to the tool will be given in the
letter of invitation to negotiations. The forms should be completed by all applicants (including
those not requesting any funding). The GPFs have sections for each individual applicant, and also
a section to be completed by the Coordinator for the project as a whole. The use of the IT tool
allows the Coordinator to establish a complete set of GPFs for all applicants in the project and to
exchange several versions with the Commission in an iterative process of negotiation.
A first draft of the GPFs must be completed and sent electronically to the Commission Project
Officer before the first negotiation round or meeting. The final agreed version of the GPFs should
be submitted to the Project Officer as soon as agreement is achieved, in one unbound copy on
white paper with original signatures, and in electronic format using the GPF-editor application.
29
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Legal status of Tilburg University
Unlike most other universities, Tilburg University is not a governmental organisation, but a private
foundation. The official legal name of this university is Stichting Katholieke Universiteit Brabant
and we are a legal entity governed by private law, but with a public mission. This sometimes raises
questions within the Commission and additional information regarding our organisation is often
required to verify our exact legal status. I you need documentation explaining our organisational
structure and our mission, please contact your EU liaison officer.
Authorisation
In the GPFs the Commission asks who is the authorised official in the organisation to sign the
contract. Note the Tilburg University has a clear policy on who is authorised to sign which
contracts. This policy is defined in the Mandaatregeling: all EU research contracts entailing
financial obligations amounting to 250,000 euros or more, have only to be signed by the Executive
Board of the university and cannot be signed by the head or director of the faculty. So make sure
you mention the right authorised official.
Description of Work (Annex I)
The Description of Work (DoW) is largely an updated version of part B of the proposal, taking
account of the comments made by the Commission in the negotiation mandate. It is the reference
document for the work and the effort to be executed by the Consortium and must facilitate the
implementation and meaningful monitoring of the project for both the Consortium and the
Commission. The concrete goals and expected results must be clearly described and the research
must be clearly defined, including its 'tangible' outcome. In the Negotiation Guidance Notes,
annotated structures of Annex I for Collaborative Projects, Networks of Excellence and
Coordination and Support Actions are provided.
Negotiation meetings
Depending on the size and nature of the project, meetings between the Consortium and the
Commission may, or may not, be required. The Coordinator normally attends all meetings,
accompanied by a small number of the participants, as appropriate, and the Commission may be
assisted by external experts. The cost of travel and subsistence of the Consortium members
(including the Coordinator) to negotiation meetings is not reimbursed.
The Coordinator
The Consortium Coordinator leads and represents the applicants in the negotiations with the
Commission. The representative of the Coordinator is responsible for all contacts between the
Consortium and the Commission. If meetings are planned, he/she attends all meetings. Once the
Grant Agreement enters into force the Coordinator has a legal obligation to act as the interface
between the Commission services and the other members of the Consortium. The Coordinator
must ensure that all beneficiaries accede to the grant agreement within the established timescale.
The Coordinator submits all documents to the Commission and ensures the liaison between the
Consortium and the Commission. The Coordinator will also be responsible for submitting the
project's financial statements, will receive all payments from the Commission and will distribute
them appropriately among the Consortium.
30
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Before entering negotiations
Some advice may come in handy before entering negotiations talks with the Commission.
Never go alone to negotiate
Negotiation meetings sometimes turn out to be hard battles and tiresome meetings. Going alone
on behalf of a large project Consortium is therefore not a wise thing to do. Not only is it nice to be
able to consult with your partners, in some cases it is wise to check if all people present have
interpreted the Commission suggestions in the same way. Furthermore, it is often the case that the
scientist involved in the project, is not always familiar with the details of the project budget. In such
cases it is wise to take along a financial controller. In projects where some project partners -apart
from the Coordinator- play an important role in the project both content and finance wise, it is
advisable to take along this project partner(s), even if the Commission does not encourage it.
Consult your project partners before entering into negotiations
Although the Coordinator is invited to enter negotiations, one must always remember that the
Coordinator acts on behalf of the entire project Consortium when starting these talks. It is therefore
of crucial importance to first consult all project partners and to develop a strategy which is agreed
upon by all partners. The Coordinator has a considerable responsibility in this respect. Serious
budget cuts or serious alterations in the project content, suggested by the Commission, may affect
not only the Coordinator, but all project partners and that may result in one or more partners
refusing to continue with the project. It is therefore very important that the point of view and the
maximum limit of budget cuts for each individual partner are very clear before going to Brussels.
Written and signed points of view of each partner allow the Project Coordinator to take a form and
clear standpoint when the Commission suggests budget cuts that are no longer reasonable.
You have the right of refusal during negotiations
Negotiations are known for being a hard bargain from the side of the Commission. It only happens
too often that the Commission proposes budget cuts of 20% tot 40% or major changes in the work
packages with as a result that the project turns out to be very different from the original plan.
Never forget that you have the right to refuse to carry out the project if you regard the budget cuts
as unreasonable and damaging for the quality of the project. Individual participants may wish to
withdraw during the course of negotiations. If the Commission thinks that the withdrawal of one
partner has affected the essence of the project in a very negative way, the Commission may
decide to terminate the negotiations or suspend them until the project Consortium has offered an
alternative.
Funding must be committed in the budget year for which the call is published
The Commission must commit funding to projects in the same year in which the call for proposals
was officially published. If not, the money is lost for that year. It is therefore important not to slow
down the negotiation period too much as to endanger the chances of getting project funding. In
most cases the letter of invitation of the Commission specifies the time limit for negotiations.
Start of the project
The start date of the project may be the first day of the month following the entry into force of the
Grant Agreement, or a specific fixed date as negotiated. Where the Consortium requires a specific
fixed start date for the project that precedes the entry into force of the Grant Agreement, full details
regarding the justification for the request should be made in writing to the Project Officer prior to
the finalisation of the Grant Agreement and of the GPFs. The Commission may refuse this request
if no sufficient and acceptable justification is provided.
31
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Finalising the negotiations
When all the necessary legal and financial information required has been received and validated
by the Commission, a Grant Agreement is drafted and sent to the Coordinator for signature.
The Coordinator signs two originals of the Grant Agreement on behalf of its organisation and
returns them to the Commission. The Commission will sign these once all its internal procedures
have been successfully completed and will return one duly signed original to the Coordinator. In
parallel, the Coordinator must distribute a copy of the Grant Agreement to the other beneficiaries,
along with Form A – the form for the other beneficiaries to accede to the Grant Agreement. All
beneficiaries must sign Form A to accede to the Grant Agreement. Three duly completed originals
of Form A are signed by each beneficiary and returned to the Coordinator for the Coordinator’s
signature. When the Coordinator has signed all the A forms he/she sends one original of the A
Form to each beneficiary and one original to the Commission, keeping one for its records.
The Grant Agreement covers the project as a whole and binds each individual beneficiary that has
acceded to it. This has a number of important consequences:
• If one potential beneficiary fails to accede to the Grant Agreement, it is up to those
beneficiaries who have acceded to the Grant Agreement to propose an acceptable solution to
the Commission; either by reallocating the work of the missing beneficiary among them or by
the accession to the Grant Agreement of a new beneficiary. The Commission may terminate
the Grant Agreement if it considers that due to this change the project is no longer viable or
has been fundamentally changed, compared to the negotiated proposal.
• If a beneficiary subsequently withdraws from the Grant Agreement, the others remain
responsible for the completion of the work, including the part allocated to the withdrawn
beneficiary (technical collective responsibility).
A typical Grant Agreement is composed of the following documents:
Collaborative projects and Marie Curie projects:
•
Core text
•
Annex I: Description of Work / Project plan
•
Annex II: General Conditions
•
Annex III: Specific provisions for certain types of actions or schemes
•
Annex IV: Form A – Accession of Beneficiaries to the Grant Agreement
•
Annex V: Form B – Request of Accession of a new Beneficiary to the Grant Agreement
•
Annex VI: Form C – Template for Financial report and Financial statement
•
Annex VII: Form E – Terms of Reference for the Certificate of Financial Statements
•
Special Clauses
ERC schemes:
•
Core text
•
Annex I: Description of Work / Project plan
•
Annex II: General Conditions
•
Annex III: Accession of Beneficiaries to the Grant Agreement
•
Annex II: Form C – Template for Financial report and Financial statement
•
Annex V: Form E – Terms of Reference for the Certificate of Financial Statements
•
Supplementary Agreement Host Institution and Principal Investigator
•
Special Clauses
An Annex ‘Terms of Reference for the Certificate on the Methodology’ may also be part of the Grant
Agreement. Since we do (yet) not opt for a Methodology certificate, this document will not be relevant.
32
FP7 Handbook for proposers
2. The Consortium Agreement
A Consortium Agreement is obligatory in many collaborative projects financed under FP7. It
provides the legal basis for the details of the internal relationship and responsibilities between the
beneficiaries. The Consortium must decide on terms and conditions of their Consortium
Agreement that suits its members and their interest. The Consortium Agreement must be
consistent with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. They may further develop those provisions
or clarify details, specify the organisation of the work to be carried out and establish decisionmaking and technical management of the project, and dispute settlement procedures for the
Consortium. In addition, the Consortium Agreement is important for determining the provisions for
distribution of the Commission financial contribution including the pre-financing, and it can be used
to identify the particular provisions relating to terms of the Commission Grant Agreement.
Key-aspects
Key aspects covered in Consortium Agreements are typically:
• the internal organisation of the Consortium (e.g. membership of management bodies, voting
rights, settlement of disputes between partners);
• the distribution of the Community financial contribution (e.g. when should the project
Coordinator distribute advance payments from the Commission to the other partners?);
• management of intellectual property and access rights to results (e.g. when, and on what
terms, should access to results be provided to other partners and their affiliates?);
• liability and confidentiality arrangements between partners (e.g. the extent of liability of the
partners to one another and towards third parties).
On the FP7 website you can find a checklist of issues that can be addressed in the CA..
Bank account
The Coordinator must at any moment be able to identify dates and figures related to any payment
received or made under the Grant Agreement. This requirement is necessary for the identification
of the interest that has to be recovered (or offset), or indeed for proving that there has in fact been
no interest. Beyond that, the requirement is also important in order to enable a reconciliation of
accounting records with the actual use of funds. The Commission recommends that the
Coordinator opens a specific bank account for handling the funds of a specific EU project. If an
existing account/sub-account is used, the accounting methods of the Coordinator must make it
possible to comply with the above mentioned requirements. At Tilburg University we use one
single bank account. So if you are project Coordinator, you could contact Mr. Toine van Helderen
(tel. 2247) as he can give some suggestions on how to meet the requirements.
It is not necessary to start writing a Consortium Agreement from scratch. For Collaborative
research projects satisfactory model agreements have been developed, such as DESCA or IPCA.
DESCA
DESCA (DEvelopment of a Simplified Consortium Agreement for FP7) is a comprehensive,
modular Consortium Agreement for FP7. The DESCA project has tried to bring together all of the
key groups involved in producing FP6 model Consortium Agreements, with the aim of producing
one consistent modular agreement for FP7 which balances the interests of all key player
categories, in the spirit of “Responsible Partnering”. DESCA is also a more simplified Consortium
Agreement compared to many of the FP6 models. It offers a model stripped of unnecessary
complexity in both content and language.
33
FP7 Handbook for proposers
DESCA Version 2 is designed to be used for FP7 Collaborative Projects. It offers alternative
modules for large projects and small projects; an optional module for projects with a strong
software focus; and optional clauses in the IPR section.
The DESCA model is developed for the mainstream size projects, which could entail projects
roughly of the size between 6 and 20 participants. There is a specific order in which the governing
bodies are listed: first the General Assembly, continued with the Executive Board, Sub Project
Committees, Sub Project Leaders and last the Coordinator. With regard to the governance section
there is in DESCA a tendency to minimise the grip of the overall structure (General Assembly,
Executive Board and Coordinator) at the level of the work package by compartmentalising the
work packages and structuring their responsibilities. The central governing body of the DESCA
model is the General Assembly. The Executive Board is operational control oriented and takes
here the role of the Coordinator. The Coordinator is a ‘postman’ and ‘banker’ even though he has
an obligation to monitor the parties’ obligations under the Consortium Agreement and the Grant
Agreement. The role of the General Assembly functions as a safety valve at the central project
level. At the level of the subproject it becomes more operational control minded.
For Networks of Excellence and Marie Curie Initial Training Networks, such models are still not
available. In case you have to prepare a new Consortium Agreement, you might benefit from
examples of good FP6 Consortium Agreements. Please be sure this Consortium Agreement will
be fully consistent with the Grant Agreement.
Initiate the Consortium Agreement in an early stage
The contents of the Consortium Agreement are the responsibility of the Consortium. The
Commission is not party to the Consortium Agreement and the Commission does not verify or
check the content of the Consortium Agreement. Still it is highly advisable that the Consortium
Agreement (in a first version that could be updated later) be finalised before the Grant Agreement
is signed and each beneficiary should have entered into the Consortium Agreement when it
accedes to the Grant Agreement.
It is wise to start with the Consortium Agreement process as soon as you are invited by the
Commission to contract negotiations, also because preparing it is a time consuming process that
involves exchanging draft versions and adapting paragraphs and articles several times. In some
cases conflicts may arise between the non-commercial and commercial partners with regard to
pre-existing know-how.
Stakeholder involvement
If stakeholders are involved in your project, please note that they will probably not be signatories of
the Grant Agreement nor the Consortium Agreement. Hence they should sign some kind of
declaration which entails confidentiality of received information, reimbursement costs, relation to
the Consortium and other rights and obligations.
Support by Legal Affairs
The department of Legal Affairs (Niels van de Ven) of Tilburg University can advise on legal
matters related to EU proposals. For example on foreign legislation, intellectual property rights,
duration of the agreement, decisions on staff personnel, financial obligations etcetera. It is
recommended that you lay down your request at least one week before you will need the answer.
Legal Affairs will decide how to handle your request. Sometimes external parties will be involved.
34
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Step 5. Implementation – Executing the project
Participating in a FP7 project implies that you commit yourself to a series of rules and obligations.
This chapter will explain why and how:
1. Communication
Kick-off meeting administrative officer
Before starting a project, always make a planning of tasks and activities during and after the
project, in order to meet the administrative and financial requirements. You can do this together
with your local administrative officer. Typical things to discuss with him/her are budgetary control,
time registration, declarations, reporting, financial statements etc. He or she will also import the
project structure in PACS, the project software application of Tilburg University.
Kick-off meeting Consortium
In case of a collaborative project, make sure that all partners establish good working practices and
that they keep in mind the agreed deadlines. It is customary to organise a 'Kick-off' meeting at the
beginning of your project to set the tone for all future conduct.
The project Coordinator is the intermediary for any communication between the Consortium and the
Commission. The mandatory tasks of a project Coordinator include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Administering the Community financial contribution regarding its allocation without unjustified delay
between beneficiaries and activities, in accordance with the Grant Agreement and the decisions taken by
the Consortium.
Keeping records and financial accounts making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the
Community financial contribution has been paid to each beneficiary for the purposes of the project.
Informing the Commission of the distribution of the Community financial contribution and the date of
transfers to the beneficiaries, when required by the Grant Agreement or by the Commission.
Reviewing the mandatory reports to verify consistency with the project tasks before transmitting them to
the Commission.
Monitoring the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations under the Grant Agreement.
Informing the Commission of any event affecting or delaying the implementation of the project.
The Coordinator is not allowed to subcontract these tasks. He may however appoint a Project Manager within
his organisation who will act as linking pin to the Commission.
Commission Project Officer
The Commission assigns a Project Officer to each project. If possible, this person is the one who
acted as Project Officer during the negotiation He/she is the project’s key link to the Commission
throughout the execution of the work. The project officer monitors the project to ensure that it
develops in accordance with the contract (in terms of deliverables, milestones and finance).
Problems during the project
Since many of the EU projects last for a couple of years, it is not unlikely that in some cases
problems arise that may affect the process of the project seriously. The Project Officer should be
contacted as soon as possible if any problems, unexpected situations or irregularities occur during
project implementation, such as changes in the project Consortium or serious delays in work
packages. Certain tasks concerning project management, financial statements or legal and
35
FP7 Handbook for proposers
financial matters may be handled by specialist staff within the Commission who communicates
directly with the Project Officer or the Coordinator.
It is possible that an unforeseeable event occurs beyond the control of the Commission or the
consortium partners affecting the contract and the project. Such an event constitutes a force
majeure. In a case of force majeure occurring to the contractors or the Commission, notification of
such circumstances will be given to the Commission without delay, including full justification and
information related to the event, as well as an estimation of the date when the work on the project
will begin again. The project can be suspended or terminated due to force majeure.
If the Commission considers that the Consortium is not carrying out its work satisfactorily, it may
suspend part or all of the work under the project, so as to re-negotiate the contract. The work or
the project can begin again when both parties agree. Both the Commission may terminate the
contract and the Consortium may request that the contract be terminated if it is established that it
will be excessively difficult to continue with all or part of the project and/or that for technical,
financial, economic or scientific reasons the delay or non-execution will be such that the project is
no longer viable.
2. Project administration
To avoid problems and to make sure that you will receive proper Commission funding, it is of
crucial importance to build an extensive project administration right at the start of your project. A
good project administration implies at least the following aspects:
Use of time sheets for all the people funded from the project
For all personnel that is funded by the project, i.e. researchers as well as permanent staff charging
management time, time sheets will have to be provided, on a weekly or monthly basis. The
Commission does not impose a specific time sheet model. Organisations are allowed to make use
of the time sheet models, which have been standard practice. Important is, however, that the time
sheet makes a clear distinction between activities for the EU project and other activities. The
'other' activities do not have to be explained in detail. Furthermore, a distinction has to be made
between research and project management activities. It is also wise to include holidays and illness
as part of your time sheet model. Last but not least it is recommendable (but not mandatory) to
specify the time spent on each of the deliverables. Annex 6 contains an example of a time sheet
model on a monthly basis that may be applied. Time sheets have to be signed at least every
month by the person concerned and his/her direct senior executive assigned to the project on
behalf of Tilburg University.
Compose a file with all relevant documents, receipts and invoices
In order to meet the requirements by the Commission, it is mandatory to keep a copy of receipts
and invoices of all costs made in your EU project. This may range from air tickets to hotel invoices,
as well as bookings of meeting rooms and catering services. Note that it is important that the
receipts mention the name of the EU project for which costs were made. Original receipts are
important for an audit, so collect them in one project file. The original receipts and invoices are
kept for a period of 10 years by DEA/FIA. Note that project records and data have to be kept for at
least five years after completion of the project, since the Commission may carry out an audit up to
five years after the end date of the project.
36
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Prepare for a Certificate on the Financial statement
For every EUR 375,000 of Community funding per participant, a certificate on the financial
statement is required in order to ensure that the Commission funding is rightfully given to cover
eligible and actual project costs. Tilburg University makes use of the accounting services of PwC.
When an audit occurs, the responsible auditor will require to look into files and documents that
may give proof of costs made in the project. A certificate must be in the form of a detailed
description verified as factual by its external auditor (Form D - Annex VII of the Grant Agreement).
Prepare a time schedule with deadlines
As a Beneficiary of Community funding you have to periodically report (both on the content and
the financing of your project), you have to perform previously agreed research tasks and deliver
predefined research results in time, you have to perform periodic audits, etc. It is therefore wise to
draw up a timetable with deadlines for each of the tasks that is expected from you:
• Indicate for each task what has to be ready by which deadline .
• Check the list regularly and adapt it in case new deadlines have been agreed.
• Provide a copy of this list with deadlines to all your colleagues within your faculty who will have
to perform part of these tasks.
3. Project Reporting
Types of reports
According to the Grant Agreement all projects are obliged to submit periodic reports as well as a
Final Report to the Commission. Projects should also include a 'Final plan for the use and
dissemination of foreground in their deliverables list. All projects have to report on horizontal
project related issues at the end of the project. Make sure that you use the layout and content of
the reports conform to the instructions and guidance notes established of the Commission.
Consortium
A periodic report for each reporting period (within 60 days after the end
of each respective period), including:
an overview of the progress of work towards the objectives of the
project
an explanation of the use of the resources
Single
beneficiary
x
x
x
financial statements from each beneficiary
x
a summary financial report
A final report (within 60 days after the end of the project), including:
a final publishable summary report covering results, conclusions
and socioeconomic impact of the project;
a report covering the wider societal implications of the project as
well as a dissemination plan
A report (within 30 days after receipt of the final payment) on the
distribution of the Commission contribution between beneficiaries.
Certificates on the financial statements for claims of interim payments
and final payments (only necessary if funding ≥ 375 000).
37
x
x
x
x
FP7 Handbook for proposers
The Consortium transmits the reports and other deliverables through the Coordinator to the
Commission by electronic means. In addition, Form C, the financial report, must be signed by the
authorised person(s) within the beneficiary’s organisation, and the certificates on the financial
statements must be signed by an authorised person of the auditing entity, and the originals shall
be sent to the Commission.
Technical audits and reviews
Based on the projects reports and deliverables, and possibly also with the support of presentations
made by Consortium members, the Commission may conduct reviews of project progress with the
assistance of independent experts. These are used by the Commission to assess the project’s
progress and to decide if Commission support for the project should be continued. The review may
also lead the Consortium, or the Commission, to require changes to the work plan.
4. The Community Financial Contribution
The maximum Commission contribution which appears in the Grant Agreement cannot be
exceeded. Even if the eligible costs of the project happen to be higher than planned, no additional
funding is possible. The Commission contribution includes a single pre-financing payment paid at
the start of the project, interim payments following each reporting period, and a final payment at
the end of the project for the last reporting period plus any adjustment needed.
Start of the project
After the application procedure and the formal signing of the Commission contract, the project can
officially start. The start date of the project may be the first day of the month following the entry into
force of the Grant Agreement, or a specific fixed date as negotiated. Costs can be incurred from
the start date of the project but not before. Where the start date of the project precedes the entry
into force of the Grant Agreement, future beneficiaries take the risk that this agreement might not
be signed. In such a case costs will not be reimbursed by the Commission.
Pre-financing
There is only one advance payment during the life of the project. The purpose of this pre-financing
is to make it possible for the beneficiaries to have a positive cash-flow during (most of) the project.
It will be defined during the negotiations. It will be received by the Coordinator at the beginning of
the project and in any case within 45 days of the entry into force of the Grant Agreement (unless a
special clause stipulates otherwise), who will distribute it to the other beneficiaries.
As an indicative general rule, for projects with a duration of more than two reporting periods, it
should be equivalent to 160% of the average EU funding per period. However the amount of the
pre-financing may change in cases where the specific circumstances of the individual project
require it. For projects with one or two reporting periods, the amount of the pre-financing could be
between 60-80% of the total Commission contribution, unless the specific circumstances of the
project require otherwise.
The pre-financing amount specified in the grant agreement includes the beneficiaries' contribution
to the Participants' Guarantee Fund. This fund aims primarily at covering the financial risks
incurred by the Community and the beneficiaries during the implementation of the indirect actions
of FP7. The contribution represents 5% of the requested total Commission contribution and is
transferred directly to the Guarantee Fund by the Commission.
38
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Interim payments following the approval of periodic reports
After approval of the periodic reports interim payments will follow and will be calculated on the
basis of the accepted eligible costs and the corresponding reimbursement rates as indicated in
Article II.16 of Grant Agreement. The amounts paid for interim payments will correspond to the
accepted Commission contribution. However, the total amount of interim payments + pre-financing
will be limited to 90% of the maximum Commission contribution. This may imply that in some
cases payment for the interim periods may be reduced in order to respect this limit. Payments will
be made within 105 days of their receipt and only after the Commission has approved these.
Final payment following the approval of final report
A 10% retention of the total Commission contribution will always be kept by the Commission until
the date of the last payment. This final payment will be transferred after the approval of the final
reports and consists of the difference between the calculated Commission contribution (on the
basis of the eligible costs) minus the amounts already paid. The total payment is however limited
to the maximum Commission contribution as defined in the Grant Agreement. If the total amount
already paid would prove to be higher than the Commission contribution accepted, the
Commission will recover the difference.
Also at this stage, the Commission will order the Fund to release the amount of the beneficiaries
contribution to the Guarantee Fund according to the provisions of Article II.21 of Grant Agreement.
Transfer of budget
Transfer of budget between activities and beneficiaries is allowed without the need for an
amendment of the Grant Agreement. However, a condition for this is that the work be carried out
as foreseen in the Grant Agreement. In case of a transfer with a potential impact on the
‘Description of Work” in Annex I, it is recommendable for the Coordinator to inform the Project
Officer. This notification would avoid disagreement on the interpretation later. An amendment to
the Grant Agreement will be necessary in all cases if the budget transfer arises from a significant
change in the Description of Work. Significant change refers to a change that affects the technical
work as foreseen in Annex I to Grant Agreement, including the subcontracting of a task that was
initially meant to be carried out by a beneficiary.
5. Cost declarations
Financial Statements
Financial statements form the basis for any payments made by the Commission. Beneficiaries, via
the Coordinator, will be required to submit financial statements (cost claims) during the course of
their work. The frequency and format of these (and the cases where they need to be certified by
an independent auditor) are defined in the Grant Agreement.
Certificate on the financial statements
Certificates are mandatory for every claim (interim or final) in the form of reimbursement of costs
whenever the amount of the Commission contribution is equal or superior to EUR 375,000 when
cumulated with all previous payments for which a Certificate has not been submitted. Once a
Certificate is submitted, the threshold of EUR 375,000 applies again for subsequent Commission
contributions but the count starts from 0.
39
FP7 Handbook for proposers
In case of a project with duration of 2 years of less and the amount of the Commission contribution
claimed by a beneficiary is equal or superior to EUR 375,000 (cumulated with all previous
payments), only one Certificate shall be submitted at the time of the final payment.
It is the policy of Tilburg University that a certificate on financial statements is only required if this
is mandatory according to Commission rules, as long as you fulfil the obligations with regard to a
proper project file, time registration, cost administration and timely reporting.
Each contractor has the freedom to choose a qualified external auditor, provided that the auditor is
independent from the contractor. Please contact Sinne Pulles (tel 2265) of DEA for information
regarding the Certificate.
6. After the project
Commission ex post audits
Once the project is completed, the Commission has approved all reports and a final payment is
given, then the project file may be closed. The Commission preserves the right to perform ex post
audits on projects up to 5 years after completion of the project. Commission audits are always
carried out on a confidential basis and may cover scientific aspects, technological aspects, ethical
aspects or financial aspects (relating to costs). The auditors are performed either by the
Commission’s own departments or by the European Court of Auditors. In case an Commission
audit leads to recovery of money by the Commission, the Commission has several methods of reimbursement and – in bad cases – even sanctions.
Responsibilities after the end of the project
The submission of final reports is not the end of the obligations of a Consortium. There is an
obligation to use and disseminate the results of the project. The participants have to set out the
terms for use of the knowledge in a detailed and verifiable manner, in accordance with the rules for
participation and the contract.
For more detailed information please check the Guide to Financial Issues.
40
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 1 – Assistance at Tilburg University
Writing a FP7 implies much more than elaborating on the research content. You need to estimate
project costs and fill out papers with administrative, legal and financial data. Researchers can rely
on assistance from colleagues, either at faculty level or within the university bureau. A wide range
of assistance can be given: assistance with partner search, filling out application forms, making
budget estimations according to the right cost model, help with project management etc.
Please contact us:
Research
support
Financial
support
Legal
support
University Office
Willem Megens
phone 3632
Edwin Hendriks
phone 2786
Niels van de Ven
phone 2631
Economics and Business
Administration
Marjoleine de Wit
phone 3266
Lisette Ligtenberg
Phone 8956
Web site
click here
Bianca Starren
Phone 2866
Law
Petra Jaminon
phone 2241
Jose Welling
phone 8949
Social and Behavioural
Sciences
Ton Heinen
phone 3136
Jane Pinas
phone 8064
Arts, Philosophy, and
Theology
Linda Jansen
phone 3357
Leen Jacobs
phone 2638
41
click here
click here
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 2 – Assessment of a Consortium
Setting up a Consortium may sometimes feel like riding a roller coaster. In the beginning there is
great optimism and you feel that nothing can damage the spirit of this collaboration; but after some
discussions about finances some doubt may creep in about the chances of ever setting up a viable
Consortium. Whether the Consortium is just beginning to take shape or has already experienced
some difficulties, the best advice is to take one step back and look for parameters against which to
evaluate progress and to highlight the underlying issues that need to be addressed.
Below 11 factors are identified which can have a major impact on the success or failure of a
Consortium. Please hold these factors in mind when building the Consortium, or later on if
problems arise between the partners. By asking the partners to rate how well they feel the
Consortium is performing against each of these factors it is possible to highlight the underlying
causes of problems, or to identify factors that may give rise to problems in the future.
A sound Consortium has the following characteristics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Ad 1
Project plan reflects vision and goals of the partners
Sufficient preparation and room for change
Right mix of partners – no conflicts of interest within the Consortium
Management structure fits the Consortium dynamics
Open and clear communication
Efficient administrative systems and support
Research and Evaluation
Clear set of rules on intellectual property
Dispute avoidance and dispute resolution
Transparency in project finances and accounting
History of working together
Project plan reflects the vision and goals
The Consortium has developed a compelling vision that is well understood by the partners. There
is a common vision and understanding of what the Consortium desires to achieve, with clear
agreement on its mission, objectives and strategy. All partners are confident that the aims can be
achieved within the agreed timescales and with the resources they have committed.
Ad 2
Sufficient preparation and room for change
When building a Consortium: each partner feels that the issues that matter to them have been
discussed openly and are happy with the agreements that have been reached, When managing a
Consortium: the agreements between the partners allow the Consortium sufficient flexibility in the
implementation of the project to take the measures that may be necessary to adapt to changing
circumstances. In other words partners’ commitment to the project goals is stronger than their
immediate self-interest.
Ad 3
Right mix of partners – No Conflicts of Interest
Each Consortium member is an expert in its own field and respected by the others for the
contribution it will make. The mix of partners is balanced so that for each work package the most
appropriate partner has been chosen. This applies both during the research and exploitation and
dissemination phases of the project. Where commercial partners are involved they have properly
evaluated the benefits of the collaboration against the potential commercial risks of working
alongside competitors.
42
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Ad 4
Management structure fits the Consortium dynamics
Depending on the way the project is to be implemented, an appropriate management structure has
been adopted. This means that the roles and functions identified are compatible with the
Consortium dynamics. Each Consortium member has a clear understanding of its role, rights and
responsibilities is comfortable with them and is confident of being able to perform its part of the
project. Does the management structure ensure so far as possible that there will be no surprises
for the partners as the project goes forward? This means openness in the way decisions are
prepared and taken, access to the decision-making process for all partners with an interest in a
decision, and clear communication concerning the progress and future direction of the project.
Ad 5
Open and clear Communication
The Consortium has open and clear communication. There is an established structure and
process for communication between partners. Partners convey all necessary information and have
easy access to the information they require to carry out their work and to participate effectively in
the management of the Consortium. All partners feel they can contribute to the decision-making
process and are properly informed about decisions that are taken. The appropriate structures for
good communication may be in place, but are they being properly implemented?
Ad 6
Efficient Administrative Systems and Support
The Consortium provides high quality organisational support: procedures, functions, resources,
expertise, etc to enable all partners to carry out their work as laid down in the project plan. The
members of the Consortium receive the necessary support from their own administrative services
with regard to financial, commercial, legal and similar issues
Ad 7
Research and Evaluation
The Consortium has focused on its outcomes, identified impacts, and conducted a needs
assessment to establish its goals. Additionally, data are collected to establish that goals have been
met. Strategies for sharing data and results are employed to share information with partners.
Partners receive feedback on their progress and impact.
Ad 8
Clear set of rules on intellectual property
The partners feel ownership of the way the Consortium works and how the results of the research
are to be exploited and/or disseminated. There is sufficient clarity in the agreements made that all
partners are confident that their individual interests have been secured as well as ensuring
maximum beneficial and responsible use of the results by the Consortium as a whole.
Ad 9
Dispute Avoidance and Dispute Resolution
Dispute avoidance is always better than dispute resolution. Are the rules for decision-making in the
Consortium clear and are all partners confident that they will result in fair decisions? Do they
address the possibility that partners may have to accept decisions contrary to their individual
interest for the wider good of the Consortium?
If problems arise that cannot be resolved through discussion and the normal give and take of a
collaboration, are there clear formal procedures for resolving them promptly and effectively and in
a manner that will be acceptable to all concerned?
If a partner’s fundamental interests mean it can no longer continue in the Consortium are clear
procedures in place to allow that partner to leave and to deal with questions of residual rights and
obligations?
43
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Ad 10
Transparency in project finances and accounting
When writing the project proposal the budget is not a big issue. The budget looks substantial and
adequate. However, during budget negotiations and allocations the tension within a Consortium
may increase. Does every partner get fairly paid for his research and management obligations?
Where does/did all the money go? Is it clear to all partners that the money is well allocated, spent
and accounted for?
Ad 11
History of Working Together
A successful Consortium is built on trust which itself is built on past experiences. Where there is
not a strong history of previous collaboration and contact between the partners special efforts
need to be made to establish trust.
(Source: Yellow Research, 2005)
44
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 3 – Tips & tricks for writing a proposal
This list of tips & tricks is assembled from interviews, presentations and a large number of
evaluation summary reports of FP6 and FP7 proposals in which Tilburg University was involved. It
is applicable to collaborative FP7 research projects en Networks of Excellence. Recommendations
for Marie Curie proposals are available via the UvT FP7 website.
General remarks
-
-
-
-
Preparation. Read the relevant parts of the work programme (topic, introduction), policy
documents and specific guide for applicants carefully. A number of successful proposals and
evaluation reports are available to give you an impression of what a proposal could look like.
Internal review. Arrange for your draft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use their
advice to improve it before submission. Let also non experts read your proposal, since in
many cases evaluations are carried out by broad committees. Make sure they check not only
the scientific part, but also the readability, the soundness, the feasibility, the evaluation criteria
and the mandatory proposal structure. Have a native English-speaker read the proposal and
suggest improvements.
Mandatory structure. Always follow the structure and elaborate on all information required.
Check page limits. Omitting requested information will definitely lead to lower scores; it is after
all quite easy for reviewers to be critical about what is missing…
Evaluation criteria. A peer review panel will evaluate your proposal. Pre-check your draft
proposals by checking all evaluation criteria. Each evaluation criterion must be addressed.
Black & white. Only black and white copies are used for evaluation and you are strongly
recommended, therefore, not to use colour in your document.
Copy & paste. Expect the EU project officers and reviewers to notice important parts to be
copied from other proposals. So be careful here.
Don’t ask too much. If you ask more EU Contribution than the maximum amount mentioned in
the call, your proposal will not be eligible.
English. Write in UK or US English, do not use both.
Selling the project. The review panel members have to evaluate a lot of proposals within a
limited timeframe. Your proposal must be readable for evaluators that are no experts in your
research field. You have to enable them to remember the unique selling points of your project
throughout their chaotic evaluation week in Brussels. So make sure your application is easy to
read and understand:
o Highlight texts relevant to the evaluation criteria (additional headings, or use bold).
o Write to-the-point, be precise and concise.
o Start paragraphs by statements and end these by conclusions.
o Start chapters by statements and end these with conclusions on the way the project meets
the evaluation criterion.
o Your executive summary has to be extremely clear and to the point.
o A good lay-out can help making your proposal more accessible. It is for example not
forbidden to include some tables and graphs.
o Substantiate! Explain the project in a verifiable way: what how and why? For example:
why adapt theory X; why investigate country A; why use method Z; why use data Q?
o Use positive statements (‘opportunities’ and/or ‘challenges’) rather than negative ones
(‘problems’).
o Copy and paste the key-words and ‘buzzwords’ that were used by the Commission in the
call description and the background information in the work programme.
45
FP7 Handbook for proposers
0. Table of contents / Summary
-
-
-
The first part of the proposal reviewers will look at is probably the table of contents. Take care
of a well defined and ready accessible document structure with correct page numbers.
Although a summary is only mandatory in the A forms, it is wise to also include the summary
right at the start of Part B. A summary of a half to 1 page will give you the opportunity to sell
the project at forehand and to make reading it more easy for the reviewer.
Include in the summary the most important elements: basic problem/challenge, main objective,
approach, envisaged results, possible impacts, along with a very short description of the
partners and their relevance. Highlight the project’s unique selling points.
A bad strategy is to write the summary as if it were a scientific publication; a reviewer wants to
get a snapshot of the project, not an elaboration of the state of the art. Another common
mistake is to copy and paste relevant parts at the very last moment and hope it will read like a
summary; the result can be a text that is not readable and therefore will influence the mindset
of the reviewer with regard to the rest of the proposal.
1. S&T Quality
1a. Concept and Project objectives
- In general. An objective is something to be achieved: the desires outcomes of the project or
any part of the project, both in terms of concrete deliverables and behavioural outcomes.
Present these objectives in a clear and specific way. This may go without saying, but among
all negative comments in evaluation reports, this is by far the most cited.
- Generic results. If applicable and possible, emphasise that the results are generic and can
affect several S&T domains.
- Coverage key-aspects of topic. Make your proposal dedicated to the call/topic text. Certainly a
topic description is not a menu out of which you can chose whatever you like. In general,
proposals that cover most or all of the elements of this topic, or even move beyond, will be
rated higher than proposals that do not. If you and your partners miss key-aspects, try to find
extra partners that are able to cover these.
- Policy and science. Make a convincing case for research for the benefit of policy and the EU
agenda. Try to connect science and policy by explaining that the project enhances both
scientific and policy understanding of an issue. Very important is timeliness: explain why the
specific subject should be investigated now. See also Impact.
1b. State-of-the-art
- Description. Make sure you give a profound view of the research area and state-of-the-art.
Reflect on the available information on the topic and/or in the sector. Reflect on the state-ofthe-art in terms of literature, both in general and your own publications. Address recent
discussions. Name the internationally leading research groups (if you belong to the state-ofthe-art: explicitly state this). Focus on interactions between different fields. Always mention
specific (European) research projects or programmes, preferably by name (acronym) and
year(s). Discuss all important concepts relevant to the topic and your project. If you chose to
leave some out, briefly explain why. Just a good description of theoretical models is
insufficient. Also indicate what theoretical framework you intend to use and why.
- Progress beyond state-of the-art. Specify the limits of the state-of-the-art and consequently the
interest. Explain how the project will reach beyond the state-of-the-art. What will be the added
value of the project? How will it add to existing knowledge, existing platforms, et cetera? Will
the project integrate different research streams?
46
FP7 Handbook for proposers
1.c Comparative perspective and EU coverage
This is a new evaluation sub criterion.
1d1. Methodology
- In general. Present a clearly described and well-designed methodology. Be specific.
Substantiate why the planned methodology is the most efficient and effective one.
- Approach. Always mention (and explain!) novel elements of the methodology and/or approach.
You will also get a bonus for having a truly multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary focus in the
research proposed.
- Evaluation. Describe the evaluation criteria for the results. Specify indicators for measuring the
success of the methodology to be used. Explain how the methodology will contribute to the
objectives.
- Feasibility. Be realistic in describing the aims and the timeframe in which they can be
achieved. Also explain the feasibility of facilities, methodology, instruments etc. to be used.
- Datasets (if applicable). If different datasets from different sources are used, present how
these will be coherent and representative, and how portable to the European situation. If
different datasets, contexts, formats etc. are used, make clear how you will combine these and
why this is feasible. Describe how the partners have access and research experience on
databases.
- Empirical research (if applicable). Describe in detail how the empirical work will be carried out.
Pay attention to the complexity of empirical data. If you carry out studies on a number of
groups, demonstrate how these groups will be selected, categorised, sampled and used.
- Comparative research (if applicable). If possible, allow for cross-country comparisons. If
different papers with comparative potential are prepared, then refer to this comparative
dimension explicitly, include remarks on the different findings within the work packages, and
focus on the integration of findings at EU level. Specify to what entity (country, region) the
projections will be applied, this should also be consistent with the work packages. If the project
studies groups in different countries and contexts, describe how you will integrate the
approach and results. Also explain how the sharing of the projects results will impact possible
future comparative research.
1d2. Work plan
- Structure. Present a clear and well-structured work plan. Work packages should not overlap,
and should at the same time not be too isolated (since it would make the proposal less
focussed). The complexity of the work package structure must be in accordance with the size
of the project. A small research project with a complex structure of 15 work packages and 52
deliverables with many internal links, to be carried out by six universities in four countries
could be regarded as an exaggeration. Furthermore, keep the work package descriptions
simple.
- Consistency. If you indicate that a theoretical concept or notion is important in understanding
something, then integrate this in the research design, methodology and work packages.
- Roles. Assign the partners to leading particular work packages in accordance with their
specific profiles and roles. Responsibilities for each work package must be identified and, if
appropriate, for themes across the work packages as well. A (small) involvement of other
partners in a work package would surely enhance the value of the results. If the work
undertaken by a partner in a work package will feed into other work packages, the other
partners should be consulted on the relevance of the work performed.
- Be specific. Specify the techniques to be applied (which, why, how). Provide a list of clear
tasks and deliverables. Give technical descriptions wherever possible.
47
FP7 Handbook for proposers
-
-
-
Deliverables. Deliverables are tangible and verifiable results of the project (to which you have
a contractual obligation!), such as:
o products: scientific publications, reports on results, handbooks, data, databases, software,
(improved or new) products, a website, events (campaigns, seminars, debates and
symposia) etc.;
o methods: processes, procedures, methodologies, patents, standards, exchange of ideas
and good practices etc.;
o experiences: report on increased knowledge of the participants within a certain field of
topic, exchanging experience, mobility experience etc;
o policy lessons.
Time path and Duration. Milestones are a point in time when a deliverable or a set of
deliverables is available, and a control point at which a decision is needed. Research results
are good milestones for determining the next phase in a project. These milestones must be
clearly stated and must fit within a logical time path. The project duration should be adequate.
For example a project in which data from several countries will be used will need considerably
time.
Integration. Describe the way the outcomes of work packages will be integrated.
Dissemination/demonstration. Dissemination and/or demonstration activities should be clearly
identified as such in the work plan.
2. Implementation
2a. Management
- Structure. The coordination and the management structure of the project should be well
articulated and reflect the project-specific work and data flow. The management structure
should expose a clear allocation of roles appropriate to partner expertise. Start the chapter
with the organisation chart, and explain the levels/elements. Describe the collaboration in
good detail, signalling that the work is reflected on carefully in advance, and that the
participants have a clear idea of how to proceed. If appropriate, design a grid of
responsibilities and a work flow that will ensure the integration of data and analyses in a
coherent concept.
- Separate work package. If management is separated from all other work packages because
the organization in charge does not participate in any other work packages, special attention
should be paid to effective communication so management will not become too isolated from
the work implementation.
- Quality. The management of the project (both in terms of overall coordination and work
package management) should be of demonstrable experience, authoritativeness and quality.
The higher the number of participants and budget, the louder the call for further details about
the coordinator’s experience to lead such a complex project.
- Communication. Pay attention to conflict resolution and communication flow procedures
between the partners.
- Completeness. Address, if applicable, data management and intellectual property concerns in
an adequate way.
- Feasibility and Risks. Likely risks to be addressed in the project must be presented as well as
the risk management.
- Advisory group. If appropriate, include in an advisory group of independent experts also
perspectives which may be underrepresented in the composition of the consortium, especially
those from other disciplines.
48
FP7 Handbook for proposers
-
Stakeholder involvement. One might consider having the consortium supported by the
stakeholder committee. If you do so, explain their role! Stakeholders could be composed from
selected (EU) policy makers and practitioners in both private and public institutions, and even
NGOs who are important actors in the field. They can allow for keeping a strong linkage
between research activities and their policy implications assessed by practitioners and to
facilitate dissemination of policy relevant research results to relevant stakeholders and the
policy community. Especially when research is targeted at policies that are difficult to
implement, the presence of people from the policy making side would be very useful.
2b. Participants
- Individual quality and experience. Demonstrate that all partners have necessary skills and
relevant experience in the fields of their participation in the project. This is most important for
the principal researchers who should be established as individuals or leaders in their field. It is
insufficient to state that participants have project experience; to be able to judge their
involvement in projects, you will have to make clear whether they had leading roles or only
took part in minor research and/or management functions. So use qualifications, for example
“He is the leader in his field, because of A, B and C.”
- Scientific profile. Present the scientific profile of each participant clearly. Always include a list
of relevant publications that proves the competence of the researchers involved. Just listing
the research journals and stating that project participants have published in the journals, is not
enough. You have to indicate which author has published which article in which journal.
- Young researchers. It could be a good idea to involve some young doctoral and post-doctoral
researchers into the project activities. However if you state that you wish to increase
networking and/or promote young researchers, also explain how and to what extend.
- Gender. If possible, involve female researchers and allocate them with full responsibilities.
Remember that female researchers may evaluate your proposal.
2c. Consortium quality and experience
- Critical mass. The consortium should represent a critical mass in the European scene on the
research topic, and include the disciplines to cover all relevant domains and achieve the
project goals.
- Complementarity. The consortium must be well balanced, without one discipline dominating
the project (unless specified for in the call), and with complementary competences.
- Geographical balance. If possible and academically acceptable, balance the team from the
geographical point of view. Remember: the number of evaluators from the new Member States
is increasing. The geographical balance is also something the EU project officer will look at.
- Country focus. It seems logical to involve researchers from the countries the project is focused
on (for example in the case of comparative research). At the other hand it can be reasonable
that a data-driven project does not need scientific partners in each and every country covered.
Then still it remains questionable how the country-specific information can be adequately
grasped for the countries not represented by a national research team. A network of
corresponding experts might be the solution at hand which can fit into the financial framework.
- Cooperation. The quality of the collaboration should be made clear by mentioning (longstanding) cooperation in previous projects. Refer for example to projects in the Fifth and Sixth
Framework Programs, or to other (DG) programmes.
49
FP7 Handbook for proposers
2d. Resources
- Financial plan. Present an overall financial plan that is detailed, adequate and coherent. The
allocation of resources should be well described and justified and in line with the tasks at hand
under the proposal. If one or some work packages are allocated high budgets, justify why.
Reviewers can get annoyed if partners who execute the same type of tasks (for example
preparing a publication) are allocated an identical amount of man-months, even if it is clear
from the description that these tasks have different degrees of complexity.
- Subcontracting. Questions will be raised about the contributions of the national teams if
substantial parts of the work are outsourced to subcontractors.
3. Impact
3a. Contribution at the European level
- In general. What will be the added value of the project? How will the project leverage existing
results? What deliverables can have impact and why? Present how the results will actually be
used. For each impact, describe its target group, use and specific process/route. Be very
specific and clear about the way the consortium will interact with the wider policy and scientific
communities (or even the general public).
- EU policy. The Commission would like to see the project contribute to EU and/or national
policies, over and above past research in the topic! In other words, substantiate why the
project is of considerable policy ambition, perhaps even with an implication for policy reforms,
given the importance of the corresponding issues in the EU agenda. The impact on EU policy
could for example be the added-value to a number of research activities of the EU and
national agencies by significantly advancing policy relevant knowledge (i.e. overcome
narrower and segmented knowledge). Other examples of EU challenges could be pooling
resources, or standardisation.
- Relevant policy documents. Find out what sources the EU policy makers refer to in the work
programme. For various research topics the EU has issued directives, Green Papers or White
Papers with up-to-date policy priorities. Be also aware of current policy measures. Lisbon ’00,
Stockholm ’01, Gothenburg ’02, Barcelona ’02 and again Lisbon ’05 are summits you may
wish to read to understand the call and position your project. Documents and directives in your
research area can be consulted on the Europe website. José Manuel Barroso's website
contains several useful links to current EU policy papers. Also OECD documents can help you
when presenting your case for research. Integrate the EU’s political ambitions in your project
proposal by including relevant citations of the corresponding documents.
- Outreach to research community. Make clear how the project will contribute to the activities of
researchers. For example through providing databases, comparable data, new tools, improved
survey techniques etc. Sometimes integration of research is an explicit goal of the FP7
programme topic. In that case clearly describe the effective level of integration to be achieved.
One impact of a project might be the close work between scientists from two disciplines; in
that case also describe how this might help developing new insights into research on a
specific topic.
- New EU member states. There is also the case of the research community focus on the new
EU member states. This could extend dissemination effects in terms of methodological
advancement, empirical findings and policy implications. One might consider encouraging
young researchers from these countries to participate in dissemination activities.
50
FP7 Handbook for proposers
-
-
Enterprises. If enterprises are involved in the consortium, substantiate the impact at the level
of advancing the competitiveness of these enterprises. A more broad impact on the industry
(and the internal market) could also be envisaged, for example the development of standards
or protocols, or other results that can be exploited by organisations outside the consortium.
Other target groups. Of course other target groups can be envisaged, such as professionals,
civil society organizations, unions, practitioners and other professionals. It is important that
you present a feasible strategy to reach these groups. Think for example of a project that
leads to a deeper understanding of an issue, and which can also provide input for a more
inclusive learning situation. How to influence both policy makers and stakeholders in schools
and education who could make use of the findings of the project as well?
3b. Dissemination, Exploitation, IPR
- Dissemination activities. Dissemination is the planned process of providing information to key
actors. Consider building a specific Dissemination work package. Describe the dissemination
process, present a feasibility check, and do not forget risk management. The dissemination of
the results and insights should be well organized, and comprise a broad approach. Think of
dissemination through a variety of means, like scientific publications (open access!),
discussion paper series, reports, newspaper and magazine articles, workshops, international
conferences, brokerage events, policy guidance, a final conference at the European
Parliament, a handbook for policy makers, an upgrade of best practices at the EU level,
shaping research approaches, newsletters, setting up and maintaining a web page, digital
forum and internet work space. With regard to websites please beware: to state “we will
design a webpage and it will be updated on a weekly basis” neglects the knowledge and
resources it takes to build a user-friendly web-site. Last but not least, make a clear distinction
between these means and the target groups (see heading ‘Contribution...’ above).
- Geographical focus. The dissemination should be implemented with regard to the countries
covered in the research. For example in a European-wide survey project, a narrow
geographical base of a consortium may limit the effective dissemination of the results to other
regions. In such a case it may be suggested to have correspondent experts in the countries
surveyed but not represented in the core group.
- Intermediaries & dialogue. Dissemination through senior and junior researchers can be fruitful
and relatively easy arranged. Approaching stakeholders, through a stakeholder committee,
and involvement of an international support group of renowned scholars in the field are
generally regarded as good initiatives too. If impact is foreseen on organisations beyond the
stakeholders, describe this process. If you chose not to provide opportunities for dialogue
between policy makers, relevant stakeholders and interested actors, the proposal may
overemphasise academic pursuits as a consequence. So, if there is concern in the project for
public policy, you might seriously consider including policy makers in early meetings.
- Open access policy. The dissemination plan must have a stated provision for intellectual
management. One way of handling IPR is to establish and execute open access policy:
dissemination of results and findings by sharing the results and make research accessible to
the general public. Check the OECD website for documents on open access.
- Innovative approach. Never give the impression that dissemination will occur through
traditional academic methods, since these have a limited audience. Reviewers often regard
exploitation and dissemination plans to be correct, but not very innovative (“standard”,
“unimaginative”, “conventional”). So use any opportunities to include innovative aspects.
- Consistency. Include activities targeted at the dissemination and exploitation plan in the work
packages as well.
51
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 4 – How to calculate your project
This annex guides you through some of the most essential information you should be aware of
when budgeting a FP7 project. The focus is limited to collaborative research projects, coordination
actions, support actions, infrastructure projects, networks of excellence and ERC funding
schemes. Marie Curie actions have a different budget structure.
Content
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Direct costs
Indirect costs
Non-eligible costs
Project structure
Upper funding limits
How to calculate
1. Direct costs
Direct costs are the costs directly related to fulfilling the project tasks. There are several types of
direct costs, such as Personnel, Travel and subsistence, Durable equipment, Databases and
Research infrastructure, Consumables and supplies, Literature, Publications, Conferences,
Symposia and workshops etc. All or most of the project tasks will be carried out by the Consortium
partners themselves. In some circumstances these can be subcontracted. In the following a
number of cost types are elaborated.
Personnel costs
− This is the core part of the budget. You may include in your personnel costs "permanent
employees", who have permanent working contracts with the beneficiary and/or "temporary
employees", who have temporary working contracts with our university.
− Several types of personnel can be added tot the budget: project leader, project manager,
researcher, assistance... It is important that no personnel are included that we normally think
of as overhead: general administrative support, internal auditors, general policy support,
faculty management etc. These costs are already taken into account in the flat rate overhead
we charge. Only in exceptional cases support staff may be seen as direct costs, for example if
they fulfil a substantial supportive task in a work package (time registration!), however this will
leave room for discussion with the Commission.
− Personnel costs should reflect the total remuneration: salaries plus social security charges
(holiday pay, pension contribution, health insurance, etc.) and other statutory costs included in
the remuneration. In the case of Tilburg University we call these the “brutoplus loonkosten”.
On this web site an excel sheet with “brutoplus rates” for different types of staff can be
obtained.
Travel and subsistence
− Actual travel and related subsistence costs relating to the project may be considered as direct
eligible costs. Where it is the usual practice of the beneficiary to consider these costs as
indirect costs, they cannot be charged as direct eligible costs.
Conferences, Symposia, Workshops
− Think for example of the invitations. External rent of a location or external assistance for an
event can be considered as a minor subcontracting task.
52
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Publications
− Costs made for the benefit of (scientific) publications are eligible. Moreover the European
Commission would like researchers to make publications more accessible to the scientific
community and public, for example by publishing on the Internet. Additional costs incurred by
the publisher for open access are eligible.
− Think also of translations of project publications. Translating reports for in 10 languages is
very costly and should always be budgeted and incurred.
Subcontracting
− A subcontractor is a third party, a legal entity which is not a direct beneficiary of the
Commission Contribution, and is not signatory to it. Subcontracting may concern only certain
parts of the project, as the implementation of the project lies with the participants. Therefore,
the subcontracted parts should in principle not be "core" parts of the project work.
− Usually subcontracts do not concern the research work itself, but tasks or activities needed
in order to carry out the research, auxiliary to the main object of the project. Subcontracts
may involve large amounts of money, even though they have nothing to do with the core parts
of the project. Their purpose might be just to facilitate/make possible the research work. In
projects where research is not the main purpose (like in coordination and support actions CSA) the core part should be understood as referring to the main activity of the project.
− Minor tasks correspond to minor services, which are not core project tasks, but are needed for
implementation of the project. They do not have to be specifically identified upfront (the
amounts involved are also normally small). Minor subcontracting tasks (i.e. not ‘core task’)
may for example relate to the costs of the organisation of the rooms and catering for a
meeting, printing materials and leaflets, translation, publicity, building a website, or an external
certificate on financial statements.
− Please note that according to Commission rules an external certificate on the financial
statement(s) is necessary only in the case the cumulative Commission contribution within a
project to Tilburg University reaches 375,000 euros or more. At our university we follow this
rule, since we have internal audit procedures that fulfil the Commission regulations, so why
add an extra control mechanism? In theory a project Coordinator may try to negotiate with his
Consortium in order to ‘demand’ of his partners external certificates, no matter the cumulative
project funding. If this is the case in your project and you agree, just add 1,500 euros to the
budget for obtaining a certificate on the (final) financial statements.
− In cases where it is proposed to subcontract substantial/core parts of the work, this question
should be carefully discussed with and approved by the Commission. Usually in such cases,
the Commission will push you to have the intended subcontractor instead become a
beneficiary, or have the Consortium find another beneficiary able to perform that part of the
work. Please note that coordination tasks of the Coordinator, such as the distribution of
funds, the review of reports and others tasks mentioned in the grant agreement, cannot be
subcontracted.
2. Indirect costs
Indirect costs (also called overheads) are all those eligible costs which cannot be identified by the
beneficiary as being directly attributed to the project, but which can be identified and justified by its
accounting system as being incurred in direct relationship with the eligible direct costs attributed to
the project.
53
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Depending on the specific funding scheme, different rules apply for determining the indirect costs:
- Collaborative Research Projects and Networks of Excellence: a Special transitional rate of
60% of the total direct costs minus subcontracting. Tilburg University has decided to use this
flat rate of 60% for FP7 projects for which the Commission contract is signed in 2007 or 2008.
It is possible for Consortium partners to use their own model (Special transition rate, Real
indirect costs or a 20% Flat rate).
- Coordination and Support Actions: a flat rate of 7% of the total direct costs minus
subcontracting
- ERC grants: a flat rate of 20% of the total direct costs minus subcontracting
- Marie Curie Grants: please see the specific rules.
3. Non-eligible costs
Identifiable indirect taxes including value added tax
− In general, the beneficiary is entitled to charge to the project only the net value of the invoice,
provided that all eligibility criteria are met. Identifiable VAT is not eligible.
− Indirect taxes' will be allowed when not identifiable. This may be for example the case with
foreign invoices where the price indicated is gross without identifying the tax. In any case, the
beneficiary should be able to justify this in the event of audit. Airport taxes may be considered
a fee and therefore eligible if they are neither a duty nor an indirect tax.
No double funding
− Costs declared or incurred, or reimbursed in respect of another Community project, are not
eligible. Always avoid double EU funding.
4. Project structure
Most FP7 projects consist of several work packages (sub-projects). Each work package has a
number of deliverables (tangible results), such as a scientific publication or a symposium.
Furthermore, the European Commission determined several types of activities (types of work the
partner is carrying out): RTD, Demonstration, Consortium Management or Other activities.
Please see below for a non-exhaustive of (sub)activities:
− Research and technical development (RTD): activities directly aimed at creating new
knowledge, new technology, and products, including scientific coordination.
− Demonstration: activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer a
potential economic advantage, but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of
products such as prototypes).
− Consortium management: these include the typical management activities mentioned under
Article II.2 of the Grant Agreement. They may include others, like for example the costs to
organise a call or a tender to choose a subcontractor. Also the costs of external certificates
(audits), if required at all, can be budgeted here as subcontracting costs.
− Other activities, such as:
o Dissemination: for example the establishment of a website, the presentation of the
project during conferences or workshops, the drafting of a scientific publication including, if
applicable, the payment of a fee for its publication.
o Networking: for example the organisation of a seminar for networking.
o Coordination: for example the organisation of a meeting or travel for coordination
purposes.
o Intellectual property: for example the filing and prosecution of patent (and other IPR)
applications.
54
FP7 Handbook for proposers
o
o
Studies on the socio-economic impact: for example the assessment of the expected
socioeconomic impact of the foreground.
Training: these activities may cover the salary costs of those providing the training but not
the salary costs of those being trained.
5. Upper funding limits
Reimbursement rates are as follows (% of the total eligible costs):
− Research and technical development (RTD): 75% or 50%
o 75% for secondary/higher education establishments (=Tilburg University), public bodies,
research organisations, not-for-profit organisations, public bodies, SME’s;
o 50% for larger commercial enterprises.
− Demonstration: 50%.
− Consortium management. 100%. Unlike in FP6, there is not a defined ceiling of costs or
percentage of Commission funding which can be used for management activities. In practice
however, we expect the Commission to limit these costs to 7% or max. 10% of the total
Commission contribution.
− Other activities: 100%
− The upper funding limit fixes the maximum rate of reimbursement per activity and per
beneficiary. However, the resulting total Commission funding for the project cannot go beyond
the maximum Community financial contribution indicated in the Grant Agreement. Also it is not
possible for a beneficiary to request a smaller rate to allow another beneficiary to claim
reimbursement beyond the funding limit, even if the maximum Commission contribution is
respected.
6. How to calculate
There are two approaches to budgeting a project:
− Bottom-up: write the work package(s), chose the project members and estimate the amount
of man-months you really need to deliver good results in time. It is not so difficult to budget
your project bottom-up. Make a list of possible cost types and make use of experiences within
former projects. Apply the overhead as stated under the heading ‘Indirect costs’ in this
document. It is highly recommendable to calculate bottom-up before the negotiation process
with your project partners starts. Do not wait until the Consortium leader tells you how to
budget; it is wiser to tell him/her what you need at forehand
− Top-down: given a maximum amount of Commission contribution, and given the profile and
expertise of the partners, each of the Consortium members is allocated a specific part of the
contribution. Often a Consortium leader dictates this process; sometimes it happens in a more
democratic way. Anyway, you will have to calculate top-down. On the Tilburg University
website you can find a simple but handy budget tool (see below) that helps you to calculate at
the level of cost types and activity types for up to 20 partners. It shows immediately the
consequences of partner type and models for indirect costs.
55
FP7 Handbook for proposers
56
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 5 – Example of a time sheet
Timesheet EU project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dd>
Mndt
Work Package
Research & Technical Development
Demonstration activities
Training activities
Management of the consortium act.
Other specific activities
Work Package
Research & Technical Development
Demonstration activities
Training activities
Management of the consortium act.
Other specific activities
Work Package
Research & Technical Development
Demonstration activities
Training activities
Management of the consortium act.
Other specific activities
Other project management
0
Subtotal project
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Sick leave
Holiday leave
Other (e.g. teaching)
Subtotal other
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Project:
Acronym
Employee:
Name
Sr Executive:
Name
Code (PACS)
ANR
Year
Signature
Signature
Date
Date
Month
57
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 6 – Project File
Below you will find an overview of items and papers that have to be kept in a separate project file
during and up to 5 years after completion of the project:
(A)
First page: Contacting information
o EU Project Officer
o Consortium Participants
o Subcontractor(s) / Third parties hired by Tilburg University (if appropriate)
o Researchers of Tilburg University
o Staff of Tilburg University involved in administrating the project
(B)
Official documents
o Grant Agreement (GA) including all Annexes
o Consortium Agreement (CA)
o Subcontractor agreement(s) (if appropriate)
o Project budget
(C)
Personnel costs
o Relevant data concerning labour contracts*
o Signed time sheets
o Copies of salary slips
(D)
Other costs
o Copies of out-of-pocket costs, such as bills, invoices or tickets
(E)
Subcontracting costs
o Agreement with the subcontractor
o Copies of signed time sheets
o Copies of detailed invoices
(F)
Reports
o Periodic report(s)
o Final report
o Financial statement(s)
o Certificate(s) on financial statement(s)
(G)
Project correspondence
o European Commission
o Project Coordinator
o Participants
o Subcontractors
o Project leader Tilburg University
o Financial support
o Accountant
58
FP7 Handbook for proposers
Annex 7 – Abbreviations
Below some frequently used abbreviations are listed:
CA
Consortium Agreement
CA
Coordination Action
DG
Directorate-General
EC
European Commission
ESF
European Science Foundation
EU
European Union
FP7
Seventh Framework Programme
GA
Grant Agreement
GPFs
Grant Agreement Preparation Forms
IP
Integrated Project
IPR
Intellectual property Rights
ITN
Marie Curie Initial Training Network
MC
Marie Curie
NoE
Network of Excellence
NPC
National Programme Committee
RTD
Research and Technological Development
SME
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SSA
Specific Support Action
SSH
Socio-economic Sciences and the Humanities
STREP
Specific Targeted Research project
59