PT2 HOME

Zasady oceniania wniosków projektowych
Proposal evaluation rules

Full information is contained in the following documents, available in the page of the call to which you respond:

Here, the most important fragments of these documents are given:


EVALUATION - Key recommendations

  • Eligible partners: Check first that you and your partners are eligible for participation in the Programme (for example: your organisation must have a registered legal existence, there are minimum consortium conditions etc.) and also that you are eligible for the particular activity involved (some activities may be reserved e.g. for SMEs, organisations in particular sectors of industry... etc.)

  • Specific actions and RTD objectives: Check that your proposed work does indeed address an activity included in the current Call. Ineligible proposals, or proposals not addressing activities open in the Call, will be excluded from evaluation.
  • Selection criteria: Any proposal evaluated below the thresholds will not be considered for funding.
  • Management: Clearly indicate ability for high quality management adapted to the size of the project.

  • Content: Good proposals show consistency with the five selection criteria.
  • Ethical issues: Clearly describe any potential ethical aspects and applicable regulatory aspects of the research to be carried out and the way they are dealt with according to national regulations.

  • Presentation: Good proposals are drafted in a clear and easily understandable way. Good proposals are precise and concise, not “wordy” - evaluators judge on content, not on number of pages.

  • Results: Good proposals clearly show the results that will be achieved, and how the participants intend to diffuse or exploit these results.

  • Completeness: Proposals must be complete, as they are evaluated only on the basis of the written material submitted. Follow the format of the Proposal Submission Form. You are highly recommended to use the ProTool software supplied free of charge by the Commission to proposers.

  • Partnership: Partners should discuss and agree beforehand their respective roles and responsibilities.

  • Contract: Check that the model contract conditions for the type of work which you are proposing are acceptable for your organisations.

  • Competition: There will be competition, and a weak element in an otherwise good proposal might make it lose out to others. Therefore edit your proposal tightly, strengthen or eliminate weak elements.

Final Advice:

Arrange for your draft proposal to be evaluated by experienced colleagues before sending it, using the evaluation criteria described in Appendix 6 (Guide for Proposers, PART 2). Use their advice to improve it before submission.

Administrative check on eligibility (check list)

Commission staff will verify that proposals meet the eligibility criteria referred to in the call for proposals. These criteria will be rigorously applied and any proposal found to be ineligible will be excluded from evaluation.

An eligibility check list will be filled out for each proposal on the basis of the information contained in the proposal form. If it becomes clear during or after the evaluation phase that one or more of the eligibility criteria have not been fulfilled by a proposal, it will be declared ineligible and withdrawn from any further examination.

The following criteria will be checked for all proposals. Only proposals that fulfil all of these criteria will be retained for evaluation:

The decision to exclude a proposal for failing eligibility criteria will be taken by the Commission, normally at the same time as the decision to reject proposals which are out of scope with the call (see p.12) or which do not meet the quality criteria (see p.13.ff). Coordinators of ineligible proposals will be informed immediately after the Commission decision.

Special arrangements for eligibility checking in the case of continuously open calls for proposals for SME-specific measures are set out in Annex B.

Evaluation criteria

A number of evaluation criteria are common to all the programmes of the fifth framework programme. Each eligible proposal will be examined against these criteria by the independent experts. The specific programme decisions provide further details of these criteria and may also provide for additional evaluation criteria which apply only to the particular programme(s) concerned. Any particular interpretations of the criteria to be used for evaluation and any weights and thresholds to be applied to the criteria are set out in the programme-specific annexes to this document and referred to in calls and all relevant supporting documentation.

For the detailed examination of proposals against the criteria set out in the rules for participation, the experts will generally provide marks and comments. In addition, the experts will be asked to examine certain evaluation criteria by answering a set of questions relevant to the specifications referred to in the call. The following questions will be addressed at an appropriate moment in the evaluation:

Important questions

In the case of negative answers to these questions, the experts will be required to provide comments to justify their answers. On the basis of the experts' remarks, the Commission reserves the right not to continue with the evaluation of any proposal which is found not to fulfil one or more of the above requirements. In clear-cut cases (for example, a proposal which addresses a research task which is not open in the particular call), a proposal may be ruled out of scope or contrary to clearly stated policy requirements at the moment that the eligibility checks are carried out.

Five Blocks of General Criteria

All eligible proposals which conform to the requirements of the call will be examined for their quality and relevance by the Commission assisted by external experts. Unless otherwise indicated in the programme-specific annex to this manual, experts will examine proposals and provide marks for the criteria grouped into five main blocks. In addition, they will also provide an overall mark for each block of criteria (unless a proposal fails any thresholds). Experts will be required to provide comments to accompany each of their marks in a form suitable for providing feedback to the proposers.

The blocks of criteria to be applied by all programmes are as follows:

Scientific/Technological quality and innovation Community added value and contribution to EU policies Contribution to Community social objectives Economic development and S&T (Scientific and Technological) prospects Resources, Partnership and Management

When examining proposals, experts will only apply the criteria set out in this manual, supplemented by any programme-specific criteria contained in the programme decision. These criteria as they apply to the particular programme may be described in greater detail in the programme-specific annex. Experts will not be allowed to apply criteria which deviate from those set out in this manual and the programme-specific annex.

Proposal marking

Experts will examine the proposals assigned to them individually, filling in an individual evaluation sheet with their comments and marks. Marks will be attributed according to the schemes set out in the programme-specific evaluation annex.

When putting together their proposals, proposers will be asked to prepare the scientific/technical parts with no references to the identity of the proposers, in order to allow the evaluation of the first block of evaluation criteria (scientific/technological quality and innovation) to be carried out anonymously. In general, experts will mark the anonymous parts of a proposal separately, fill in and sign an evaluation form on the anonymous part before being given the remaining parts in which the proposers' identities are revealed.

Each evaluation criterion will in general be marked by the experts on a six point scale from 0 to 5. In this scheme, the scores indicate the following with respect to the criterion under examination:

0 the proposal fails to address the issue under examination or can not be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information
1 poor
2 fair
3 good
4 very good
5 excellent

In addition, taking into account their marks for each of the individual evaluation criteria, experts will give a mark from 0 to 5 to each of the blocks of criteria. Only these marks for each block of criteria will be taken into account (after applying any weightings) for the final overall mark for the proposal.

By only taking the marks for the blocks of criteria into consideration in the final evaluation of the proposals, evaluators are encouraged to "look at the larger picture" and score the proposal against the 5 important categories of criteria as a whole, rather than applying a "mechanical" process of adding the marks for individual criteria.

Once all the experts to which proposals have been assigned have completed their individual assessments for a given phase, a panel will be brought together to discuss the marks awarded with a Commission official acting as moderator for the group. During this consensus meeting, the experts will attempt to agree on a final mark for each of the groups of criteria and on an overall mark for the proposal. They will justify their marks with comments suitable for providing as feedback to the proposal coordinator and agree on an overall evaluation summary report, which will be signed.

Where the evaluation is carried out in several successive stages, any proposal failing a threshold mark will not progress to the next stage. Such proposals will immediately be categorised as rejected.

Weights and Thresholds specific to the IST Programme

W: Weight (weights give a total of 10); T: Threshold.
Note that the threshold refers to the mark (0-5) given to the whole
block of criteria.


TYPE OF ACTION

SELECTION CRITERIA

Scientific / technological excellence, innovation

Community Added value and contribution to EU policies

Contribution to Community Social objectives

Economic Development and S&T prospects

Resources, Partnership and Management

W

T

W

T

W

T

W

T

W

T

RTD step 1 (if applicable)

4

≥ 3

1

≥ 2

1

-

3

≥ 3

1

-

RTD one-step or step 2

4

≥ 3

1

≥ 2

1

-

2

≥ 3

2

≥ 2

Demonstration projects

3

≥ 3

2

≥ 2

1

-

2

≥ 3

2

≥ 2

Combined projects

4

≥ 3

1

≥ 2

1

-

2

≥ 3

2

≥ 2

FET Open

Step 1

Step 2

 

5

4

 

≥3

≥ 3

 

1

1

 

-

≥ 3

 

1

1

 

-

-

 

2

2

 

-

-

 

1

2

 

-

≥ 2

FET Pro-active

4

≥ 3

1

≥ 1

1

-

2

-

2

≥ 2

Take-up

Assessment

Access

 

4

4

 

-

-

 

1

1

 

≥ 2

≥ 2

 

1

1

 

-

-

 

2

2

 

-

-

 

2

2

 

≥ 4

≥ 4

Concerted Actions

2

-

3

-

1

-

2

-

2

≥ 2

Accompanying Measures

2

≥ 3

3

≥ 4

2

-

2

-

1

≥ 2

 

Evaluation Summary Report

Evaluation Summary Report jest jedynym dokumentem stwierdzającym wynik oceny projektu, przeznaczonym dla konsorcjum projektu. Jest to poufny dokument, wysyłany wyłącznie do kordynatora projektu. Komisja nie udostępnia wyników oceny projektów na tym poziomie szczegółowości żadnym innym osobom. Koordynatorzy Programów Tematycznych i członkowie Komitetu IST (ISTC) mogą dysponować jedynie informacją o akronimach i numerach projektów odrzuconych

Koordynatorzy Programów Tematycznych i członkowie Komitetu IST (ISTC) mogą dysponować jedynie tabelami zawierającymi:

Tabele te nie zawierają ani krajów, ani nazw partnerów projektu, ani nazwisk zaangażowanych osób.


Proposal Number

Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

<<ACRONYM>>

<<Research Sector (Unit), Action line>>

Type of action

<<TITLE>>

proposers

R

C

cost

%

funding

%

<<SHORTNAME>>

<<ROLE>>

<<COUNTRY>>

<<C_SHAREC>>

 

<<C_SHAREF>>

 

Total Effort

Total: (KEURO)

 

 

 

 



PROPOSAL ABSTRACT:

XXX

<< page break >>

Marks achieved for evaluation criteria
1.Scientific/technological quality and innovation ¨
Comments:
 
2.Community added value and contribution to EC policies ¨
Comments:
 
3.Contribution to Community social objectives ¨
Comments:
 
4.Economic development and S&T prospects ¨
Comments:
 
5.Resources, partnership and management ¨
Comments:
 
Overall score ¨
General/overall comments:
 

 


PT2 HOME
menu
(when without frames)
               
authors
Modified: