WARTO PRZECZYTAĆ

1. JAK PODNIEŚĆ WARTOŚĆ WNIOSKU PROJEKTOWEGO

2. WYSYŁANIE WNIOSKU PROJEKTOWEGO

3. OCENA WNIOSKU

1.1 Polskie kobiety i SME-sy

Analizując dokumenty Unii dotyczące 5PR, można bez trudu dopatrzyć się dwóch bardzo ważnych elementów, które zdecydowanie mogą podniość wartość projektu RTD

Są to jak zwykle kobiety i SME-sy.

Małe i Średnie Przedsiębiorstwa, tzw. SME-sy, zachęcane są do uczestnictwa w 5PR nie tylko przez konkursy Progamu Ramowego Growth ( 2 Program Horyzotalny przeznaczony jest głównie dla MŚP). W zadaniach programu Growth SME-sy mogą wystąpić między innymi jako użytkownicy wyników z projektów badawczych. Zespoły badawcze ze SME-sami uzyskują dodatkowe uznanie w Komisji Europejskiej ze względu politykę prowadzoną przez Unię dotyczącą Małych i Średnich Przedsiębiorstw.

Jeśli chodzi o płeć piękną to Komisja Europejska wyjątkowo zachęca kobiety do uczestnictwa we wszystkich projektach przewidzianych w 5PR a także we wszystkich rodzajach stypendiów (stypendia dla młodych pracowników naukowych z krajów rozwijających się, stypednia Marie Curie). Jeśli chodzi o stypendia to należy nie wysyłać naszych pracowników a zapraszać do naszych pracowni, instytutów, jednostek badawczych a także do jednostek przemysłowych.

Dodatkowym elementem podnoszącym wartość projektów z 5PR jest uczestnictwo polskich naukowców. Polscy naukowcy cieszą się wysokim uznaniem i autorytetem w Europie. Będąc obecnie w zintegrowanej europejskiej strukturze badawczej będziemy mieli szanse uczestniczyć w licznych zadaniach przewidzianych w 5PR Unii Europejskiej.

Rozważając więc dokumenty Unii oraz uwzględniając ostatni akapit można powiedzieć teraz, że walory projektu podniosą polskie kobiety i SME-sy

1.2 Stypendyści z krajów rozwijających się

Składając wniosek o finansowanie projektu RTD można również złożyć dodatkowo wniosek

Osoba zaproszona na stypendium może uczestniczyć w realicji składanego projektu. Pieniądze na stypendium pochodzą z programu INCO

Szczegółowe informacje podane są w Guide for Proposers Part 1 na stronie 10 oraz w 1 Programie Horyzontalnym

Można zachęcać swoich współpracowników np. prze doktoratem o składanie wniosków bezpośrednio do Komisji

Dla absolwentów i młodych pracowników naukowych po doktoracie składanych przez instytucję zapraszającą ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem wniosków stypendialnych składanych przez Małe i średnie Przedsiębiorstwa

Szerzej na temat stypendiów można dowiedzieć się z 3 Programu Horyzontalnego

2.1 Praktyczne wskazówki przed wysłaniem wniosków

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.

2.2 Gdzie wysłać

Proposals may be sent by one of the following methods:

-      Made with the Proposal Preparation Tool and submitted electronically, the details of which are given in the Guide for Proposers. When packaging a proposal for electronic submission, two files are created. The first is a small validation file, which provides basic information on the proposal and a unique identification code. The European Commission must receive this validation file before the deadline specified in this call. The second file contains the proposal and must be received unmodified, as verifiable from the unique identification code, not later than 48 hours after this deadline.

-      Made with the Proposal Preparation Tool and printed out by the co-ordinator, or prepared on the paper forms distributed with the Guide for Proposers and sent by post, courier[1] or hand delivery to the following address. To be receivable, proposals submitted on paper must be received by the Commission before the applicable deadline for receipts at the following address:

      

       The GROWTH Programme

       Research Proposals Office

       Square Frère-Orban/Frère-Orbanplein 8

       B – 1040 Brussels

 

Proposers are requested to use only one of the methods described above by which to submit proposals, and to submit only one version of any given proposal. In the case of an eligible proposal being received in both paper and electronic formats, only the electronic version will be evaluated.

 

2.3 Ile kopii

Paper proposals should be prepared :

-        with five bound copies of Part A

-        with five bound copies of Part B

-        with five bound copies of Part C,

-        with one complete unbound paper with signatures.

 

The complete set of proposal documentation should be placed in an envelope or envelopes, marked “Commercial-in-confidence” with additionally the following information:

 

Ø      The name of the Programme to which it is submitted, the date of publication of the Call and the Call identifier;

Ø      A reference to the work addressed by the proposal (e.g. the name or number of the key action, action line etc., as given in the Work Programme or Call for Proposals).

 

The package should also contain a completed “Acknowledgement of receipt” form (see Annex 1) so that the Commission can return notification of safe arrival of the proposal.

 

This envelope/these envelopes should then be sealed within a second envelope or packaging, which is addressed to the Commission office for receipt of proposals given as specified in the call text.

3.1 Kryteria oceny

Jakikolwiek projekt oceniony ponizej ustalonego pulapu przy uwzglednieniu powyzszych kryteriow nie bedzie finansowany przez UE. Tych kryteriow nalezy rowniez przestrzegac przy realizacji zadania badawczego po to zeby osiagnac doskonalosc i spojnosc zalozen projektowych.

Powyzsze kryteria powinny byc bezwzglednie uwzglednione przy budowie konsorcjum, zeby nie powstala jakas luka (patrzac na podane kryteria) przy skladanym wniosku projektowym.

3.2 Ocena wniosków projektowych

Model of Evaluation Summary Report

Programme: Date:
Proposal No.:
Proposal title:
Proposal acronym (if used):
Marks achieved for evaluation criteria:
1. Scientific/technological quality and innovation ¨
Comments:
2. Community added value and contribution to EU policies ¨
Comments:
3. Contribution to Community social objectives ¨
Comments:
4. Economic development and S&T prospects ¨
Comments:
5. Resources, partnership and management ¨
Comments:
Overall ¨

General/overall comments [including proposals for modifications and possibilities for clustering/fusion with other proposals]:

 

 

 

Annex J

 

EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR THE PROGRAMME

“COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH”

 

1. The Evaluation process

-          Pre-Registration: Not envisaged for paper submission, but pre-notification is obligatory in the case of electronic submission.

-          Pre-proposal check: Pre-screening will be offered.

-          Remote or postal evaluation: All evaluations will normally be performed within the premises controlled by the Commission.

-          Anonymity: The programme will conduct the evaluation of the scientific, technological excellence and innovation aspects as described in part B of the RTD proposal respecting strict anonymity. The scientific and technical part of the RTD proposal should therefore be written in an anonymous manner. Identity of partners might be revealed in the other part of the proposal. Anonymity is however not requested for co-ordination activities, support to research infrastructure or accompanying measures, although the whole evaluation will be conducted without regard to identity of the applicants except insofar as the characteristics of the proposer(s) are relevant to the criteria.

-          The Evaluation Procedure: The evaluation process will consider two main parts:

 

                       - the evaluation of the scientific, technical and managerial part

- the evaluation of the socio-economic aspects.

The recommendation of experts will be based on marks allocated, comments given and programme priorities. If there is more than one group of experts, these should agree independently on the recommendation of the proposals. In a subsequent step, extended groups will revise the consolidated evaluation results, examine possible doubtful cases, and discuss the ranking.

-          Marking: To be recommended, a proposal should receive more than 18.0 points out of a total of 25. Marks will normally be averaged between evaluators to the first decimal point.

-          Ranking: Proposals recommended will usually be ranked according to the marks, per key action or generic activity. Final recommendation will however not be based only on marks but also on justified comments. The relative importance of some proposals in expressing the priorities as defined in the call may also be used as input for the setting up of the final list.

-          Procedure for the Specific Measures for SMEs: The evaluation procedure, criteria and weightings concerning the above will be defined in the specific annex to the “Innovation and Participation of SMEs” programme.

2. Specific interpretation of evaluation criteria: RTD actions and related activities have to be selected according to criteria reflecting the overall objectives of the programme. These criteria are grouped in five categories described in pages 13, 14 and 15 of the general part of this manual (scientific / technological quality and innovation, Community added value and contribution to EU policies, contribution to Community social objectives, economic development and S&T prospects, management and resources).

For most activities within this programme, and referring to the five evaluation criteria, particular attention would be given to projects which facilitate cross-sectoral exchanges and consider multi-disciplinarity as well as participation of all relevant stakeholders in consortia, including industrial and related service enterprises, effective participation of SMEs wherever possible, and/or links and access by SMEs to RTD results.

 

3. Weighting of the evaluation criteria and thresholds: For this programme equal weighting will be given to the five selection criteria.

The thresholds proposed for shared-cost RTD activities are as follows:

Minimum mark (scale 0 - 5)

KA1

KA2

KA3

KA4

Mat

M&T

S&T excellence

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

Community added value (1)

3.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Societal needs

3.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

Economic prospects

4.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

Partnership & management(2)

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

(1)       4.0 in the case of dedicated calls
(2)       4.0 in the case of large scale proposals (e.g. technology platforms) with more than €10 million total cost and/or very large number of participants

{KA1= “innovative products, processes and organisation”; KA2=”sustainable mobility and intermodality”; KA3=”land transport and marine technologies”; KA4=”new perspectives for aeronautics”; Mat=”materials and their technologies for production and transformation” including steel research; M&T= “measurements and testing”}

For the other activities the thresholds are as follows:

Minimum mark (scale 0 - 5)

Co-ordination activities

Support to Research Infrastructure

Accompanying measures

S&T excellence

3.0

3.0

3.0

Community added value

4.0

4.0

3.0 (3)

Societal needs

3.0

3.0

3.0 (3)

Economic prospects

3.0

3.0

3.0

Partnership & management

4.0

4.0

3.0

 

(3) For policy driven research studies in KA2 the thresholds are increased to 4.0

Annex K

 



[1]              For courier services that require a telephone number for the recipient, please use (32-2)298 42 06