HARMONISED IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS FOR INTERREG PROGRAMMES – TN
Quality Assessment Criteria – FINAL
Criteria for assessing the relevance and feasibility of project proposals on which a judgment or
decision as to whether the project should be funded will be based.
The main objectives of this document are:
 to assess the relevance of the project,
 to assess the feasibility of the project,
 to use the result of the assessment as a basis for decision making,
 to establish common understanding which is common ground for decision making,
 to ensure transparency,
 to be used in case of complaints.
Further assessment methods, tools and procedures are not part of this template and should be decided
by the programme.
Quality assessment criteria are divided into two categories:
1. Strategic assessment criteria - The main aim is to determine the extent of the project's contribution
to the achievement of programme objectives (contribution to programme results), by addressing joint
or common target group needs.
2. Operational assessment criteria - The main aim is to assess the viability and the feasibility of the
proposed project, as well as its value for money in terms of resources used versus results delivered.
To assure project result relevance for the programme, we recommend that the strategic assessment as a
determining factor is carried out first and independently of the operational assessment. If the project's
contribution or the cooperation needs are insufficient, the operational assessment should be questioned.
On the other hand, if a project is considered important enough and relevant for the programme, any
operational defects found during the operational assessment should not lead to immediate rejection. They
could be translated into recommendations and corrected during the contract negotiations. But a high
operational quality of a proposal does not mean that the project will bring sufficient benefit to the
programme area.
There are two options to ensure that strategic considerations come first. It is possible to either:
(a) Have a two-step approach: only projects that are successful at the strategic assessment stage are
assessed also from the operational point of view.
(b) Assess the project using strategic and operational assessment criteria at the same time, but use
weighting of scores and/or setting of thresholds to increase the importance of the strategic
assessment.
Project identification
Project acronym
Project title
Project number
Name of the lead partner organisation (English)
1
Pre-filled from AF
Pre-filled from AF
Pre-filled from monitoring system
Pre-filled from AF
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
1. Strategic assessment criteria
Numerical
assessment
Assessment questions
Guiding principles for the assessment  To what extent does the project …
Project’s context
(relevance and strategy)
 The project addresses common territorial challenges of the programme or a joint asset of the
programme area - there is a real demand for the project
How well is a need for the
project justified?
Cooperation character
What added value does the
cooperation bring?
Project’s contribution to
programme’s objectives,
expected results and
outputs
To what extent will the
project contribute to the
achievement of programme’s
objectives?
Comments
Sections
in AF
C.1.1
 The project clearly contributes to a wider strategy on one or more policy levels (EU / national /
regional)
C.3.1
 The project makes use of available knowledge and builds on existing results and practices
C.3.2
C.3.3
 The project makes a positive contribution to the programme horizontal principles: equal
opportunities and non-discrimination, equality between men and women, sustainable development1
C.4
 The importance of the transnational approach to the topic addressed is clearly demonstrated:
B.1
- the results cannot (or only to some extent) be achieved without cooperation and/or the
C.1.3
cooperation has a significant added value for the partners
- there is a clear benefit from cooperating for the project partners / target groups / project area
/ programme area
 The project demonstrates new solutions that go beyond the existing practice in the
sector/programme area/participating countries or adapts and implements already developed
solutions
C.1.2
 At least 32 cooperation criteria are fulfilled: joint development (mandatory), joint implementation
(mandatory), and joint staffing or joint financing
C.1.4
and/or
C.5, D
 The project’s results and main outputs clearly link to programme priority and its indicators
C.2.1
-
The project overall objective clearly links to a programme priority specific objective
The project results clearly link to a programme result indicator
The project specific objectives clearly link to the project overall objective
The project main outputs clearly link to the project specific objectives
The project main outputs clearly link to programme output indicators3
 Results and main outputs:
- are in accordance with the selected target groups needs
- are specific
C.2.1, C.5
- are realistic (is it possible to achieve them with given resources – i.e. time, partners, budget -
C.2.1,
C.5, D
C.2.1
and they are realistic based on the quantification provided)
 Project main outputs are durable (the proposal is expected to provide a significant and durable
contribution to solving the challenges targeted) – if not, it is justified
C.5
1
The guiding principle needs to be adjusted to the selected horizontal principles in the programme. It could also be a self-standing assessment question.
Some programmes will require all four cooperation criteria to be fulfilled. This could be assessed at the eligibility check. Different scores could be assigned depending on number of criteria fulfilled.
3
In case the programme adds a possibility to add project specific outputs, which are not linked to the programme output indicators, additional guiding principles might be needed.
2
2
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Assessment questions
Numerical
assessment
Guiding principles for the assessment  To what extent does the project …
Comments
 Project main outputs are applicable and replicable by other organisations/regions/countries outside
of the current partnership (transferability) – if not, it is justified
Partnership relevance
To what extent is the
partnership composition
relevant for the proposed
project?
Sections
in AF
C.5
 The project involves the relevant actors needed to address the territorial challenge/joint asset and
the objectives specified.
B
 With respect to the project’s objectives the project partnership:
B, C.5
- is balanced with respect to the levels, sectors, territory
- consists of partners that complement each other
 Partner organisations have proven experience and competence in the thematic field concerned, as
well as the necessary capacity to implement the project (financial, human resources, etc.)
B, C.5
 All partners play a defined role in the partnership and get a real benefit from it
B, C.5
2. Operational assessment criteria
Numerical
assessment
Assessment questions
Guiding principles for the assessment  To what extent does the project …
Management
 Management structures (eg project steering committee) are proportionate to the project size and
needs and allow partners’ involvement in decision-making
 Management procedures (such as reporting and evaluation procedures in the area of finance,
project content, communication) are clear, transparent, efficient and effective
 Project management includes regular contact between project partners and ensures transfer of
expertise across the partnership (internal communication within the partnership)
 Necessary provisions for risk and quality management are in place
To what extent are
management structures and
procedures in line with the
project size, duration and
needs?
Comments
Sections
in AF
C.5 WP 1
 The lead partner demonstrates capacity to manage EU co-financed projects or other international
B.1
 The communication objectives clearly link to the project specific objectives
 The approach/tactics chosen are appropriate to reach communication objectives
 Communication activities and deliverables are appropriate to reach the relevant target groups and
stakeholders
C.5 WP 2
projects or can ensure adequate measures for management support
Communication
To what extent are
communication activities
appropriate and forceful to
reach the relevant target
groups and stakeholders?
3
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
Numerical
assessment
Assessment questions
Guiding principles for the assessment  To what extent does the project …
Work plan
 Proposed activities and deliverables are relevant and lead to the planned main outputs and results
 Distribution of tasks among partners is appropriate (e.g. sharing of tasks is clear, logical, in line
with partners’ role in the project, etc.)
 Time plan is realistic (contingency included)
 Activities, deliverables and outputs are in a logical time-sequence
To what extent is the work
plan realistic, consistent and
coherent?
Budget
To what extent does the
project budget demonstrate
value for money?
To what extent is the budget
coherent and proportionate?
Comments
Sections
in AF
C.5
C.7
Activities outside (the Union part of) the programme area clearly benefit the programme area (if
applicable)
C.6
 The importance of investments and their transnational relevance is demonstrated to reach the
project objectives (if applicable)4
C.8
 Sufficient and reasonable resources are planned to ensure project implementation
 Project budget appears proportionate to the proposed work plan and the main outputs and results
aimed for
 Total partner budgets reflect real partners’ involvement (are balanced and realistic)
B.1, C.5,
C.8, C.9,
PART D,
PART E5
 Financial allocation per budget line is in line with the work plan
B.1, C.5,
C.8, C.9,
PART D,
PART E
 Distribution of the budget per period is in line with the work plan
 Distribution of the budget per WP is in line with the work plan
 The need for engaging external expertise is justified and the costs are realistic
 The need for equipment purchases is justified and the costs are realistic
 The budget is clear and realistic
C.9
4
This guiding principle could be moved to strategic part if investments are having a big role in the programme.
In programmes that do not use PART E of the Application Form, data on the budget of each partner will be provided in B.1. In other words, depending on the programme, reference will be made to
section B.1 or PART E of the Application Form for relevant information required for the assessment.
5
4
INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)