Proposal submission and
evaluation procedures in FP6
Corinna Amting, DG Information Society
Graham Stroud, DG Research
10/10/02 - 1
NCP presentation
Proposal evaluation in FP6

New approaches, new instruments for FP6

Re-examine evaluation procedures from first
principles
Examined best practice in other systems
 Sought advice (EURAB)
 Kept best features from FP5, improved
quality overall
 Require transparent process, understood
by all

10/10/02 - 2
NCP presentation
Overview Evaluation Process
Submission
Full/short
Proposal
Individual
reading
Consensus
with optional
Hearings
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Questions
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Tips for
success
10/10/02 - 3
Panel
NCP presentation
Commission
Follow-up
Final ranking
list
Rejection list
Overview Evaluation Process
Submission
Full/short
Proposal
Individual
reading
Consensus
with optional
Hearings
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Questions
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Tips for
success
10/10/02 - 4
Panel
NCP presentation
Commission
Follow-up
Final ranking
list
Rejection list
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Full / short proposal

One-stage submission of proposals



Full proposal with all details
Set of criteria defined in the work programme
Two-stage submission of proposals (optional)

First stage
 short proposal (about 10-15 pages)
 use of limited set of criteria
 successful proposers invited to complete proposals


Second stage - like one-stage submission
to be defined in the work programme

10/10/02 - 5
First calls mostly one-stage submission
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Proposal submission
Simpler administrative forms
 Work and consortium description combined




Old parts B + C
No anonymity
New electronic submission system


10/10/02 - 6
Offline tool available mid-January 2003
Web-based online tool probably available
mid-February 2003
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
4 means of submission
Prepare off-line, submit on-line
 Prepare on-line, submit on-line
 Prepare off-line, submit on CD or diskette



with a paper backup
Prepare off-line, submit on paper

10/10/02 - 7
only one copy required
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
The proposal forms part A
What they contain
A1 - General info on the proposal
 A2 - Info on the co-ordinator and other
partners



One form per partner
A3 - Cost breakdown

10/10/02 - 8
One sheet for the whole consortium
NCP presentation
Form A1:
General info
on the
proposal
Title, abstract,
keywords etc.
10/10/02 - 9
NCP presentation
Form A2:
Info on the
co-ordinator
and other
partners
(1 sheet per partner)
organisation name,
address, legal
status, activity type,
SME yes/no etc.
10/10/02 - 10
NCP presentation
Form A3: Cost breakdown by type
of activity and by partner
(one line by partner, i.e. only one
sheet for the consortium)
10/10/02 - 11
NCP presentation
type of activity:
research, innovation,
demonstration,
training, management
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Eligibility checks

Date and time of receipt of proposal on or
before deadline for receipt


Minimum number of eligible, independent
partners


Presence of all requested administrative forms
other requirements as set out in call text

10/10/02 - 12
As set out in work programme/call
Completeness of proposal


Firm deadlines
N.B. SMEs, HRM, infrastructures
NCP presentation
Overview Evaluation Process
Submission
Full/short
Proposal
Individual
reading
Consensus
with optional
Hearings
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Questions
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Tips for
success
10/10/02 - 13
Panel
NCP presentation
Commission
Follow-up
Final ranking
list
Rejection list
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Evaluators (1)
High quality evaluators core of evaluation
system
 Wider pool of evaluators




10/10/02 - 14
Call for applications from individuals
Call addressed to institutions with a view to
establishing list of suitable independent
experts
Commission may select individuals with the
appropriate skills from outside these lists
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Evaluators (2)

Qualifications

High level of professional experience in public
or private sector within areas related to FP
Some will participate in the hearings with
the consortia (IP and NoE)
 Sign confidentiality and conflict of interest
declaration
 Names published after the evaluations

10/10/02 - 15
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
The criteria

Criteria adapted to each instrument

May vary within the different areas
will be specified in the work programme
 Codification of ethical review procedures
 Gender issues fully integrated into criteria
for all proposals
 Different weights and thresholds may be
applied to the criteria
 Science and society issues

10/10/02 - 16
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Example of criteria (1)

Integrated projects






10/10/02 - 17
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
Potential impact
S&T excellence
Quality of the consortium
Quality of the management
Mobilisation of resources
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Example of criteria (2)

Networks of Excellence





10/10/02 - 18
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
Potential impact
Excellence of the participants
Quality of the integration
Organisation and management
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Individual reading
By 3 or more evaluators, depending on the
instrument (IP and NoEs probably 5 or
more)
 May take place remotely (at their home or
place of work)
 Marks and comments for each block of
criteria
 Individual evaluation form


10/10/02 - 19
as set out in the work programme
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Consensus
Build on the basis of the individual
assessments of all the evaluators
 A discussion may be convened
 Agreement on consensus marks and
comments for each of the blocks of criteria
 Overall consensus report
 After the consensus: weightings and
thresholds applied, when used


10/10/02 - 20
as set out in the work programme
NCP presentation
Individual
reading
Submission
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Panel (with optional hearings)

Hearings with proposers (particularly NoE
and IP) may be convened




Panel Meeting


10/10/02 - 21
As set out in the work programme
Questions to the invited proposal coordinators
Small number of proposal representatives
Final marks and comments for each proposal
Suggestions on order of priority, clustering,
amendments, etc.
NCP presentation
Overview Evaluation Process
Submission
Full/short
Proposal
Individual
reading
Consensus
with optional
Hearings
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Questions
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Tips for
success
10/10/02 - 22
Panel
NCP presentation
Commission
Follow-up
Final ranking
list
Rejection list
Submission
Individual
reading
Consensus
Panel
with optional
Hearings
Commission
Follow-up
Commission Follow-up
Final ranking lists
 Evaluation summary reports sent to
proposers
 Information to and discussion with the
Programme Committee
 Commission decisions on rejected proposals
 Contract negotiation
 Commission decisions on proposals selected
for funding

10/10/02 - 23
NCP presentation
Overview Evaluation Process
Submission
Full/short
Proposal
Individual
reading
Consensus
with optional
Hearings
Evaluators
Evaluators
Evaluators
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
Proposal
forms
Questions
Proposals in
suggested
priority order
Eligibility
Tips for
success
10/10/02 - 24
Panel
NCP presentation
Commission
Follow-up
Final ranking
list
Rejection list
Tips for
success
Tips for success (1)

Read and understand the documents





10/10/02 - 25
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_
en.html
Work programme
Guides for proposers
Guides for evaluators
http://www.cordis.lu/fp6
NCP presentation
Tips for
success
Tips for success (2)

Your proposal:


Is it complete?
Is the partnership right?
 can we all work together?
 clear roles responsibilities, critical mass, etc.

Does it address all the questions?
 (see guide for proposers)

Does it address the work programme?
 (check with the call!)


10/10/02 - 26
Are the objectives clear?
Is it clear how the project will be managed?
NCP presentation
Thanks and good luck!
[email protected]
[email protected]
10/10/02 - 27
NCP presentation