H2020 Rules for participation, proposal submission & evaluation procedure Presented at the: H2020 Workshop, Prague, 14 January 2015

1. H2020 Rules for participation, proposal
submission and evaluation procedure
Marta Krywanis-Brzostowska
14/01/2015, Prague

2. Nice to meet you !
MY NAME IS….
• Proposal preparation and submission process
• Rules for participation and evaluation
• Novelties in H2020

3. Agenda
• Proposal preparation and submission process
• Rules for participation and evaluation
• Novelties in H2020

4. How to prepare & submit a proposal?
• Follow strictly the instructions
• Read carefully the work programme topic (+ annexes)
• Respect admissibility and eligibility criteria
– Basic checks by electronic submission system
• Be clear and explicit
– Evaluators must judge only what they read and have limited time
• Convince the evaluation experts regarding ALL selection and award criteria
• Let someone do a mock evaluation before submission
– No pre-proposal checks
• Do not wait until the last minute to submit your proposal
4

5. Be focused and concrete:
Build on fairly mature application or business concepts and fill the gap
Think to bring the products / services on the market at the end of the project
Successful proposal- some hints
Build on market understanding and business expertise:
Ideally, coordinator with good expertise in the specific market
Demonstrable capability to commercialise the products and services developed
Demonstrate a clear motivation to commercialise the products and services:
Market entry plan (marketing strategy & business plan)
Previous achievements in the specific market
Focus on practical impact:
 Maximise the use of the available signals
 Prefer trials and large scale demonstration, involving final users in their real life procedures
 Produce practical tools useful for the GNSS developer community
Select applications where EGNOS and Galileo differentiators
are key for the product/service success

6. 6
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

8. 8

11. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/
en/funding/index.html

12. Agenda
• Proposal preparation and submission process
• Rules for participation and evaluation
• Evaluation process
• Award criteria, proposal scoring & ranking
• Individual evaluation aspects
• Novelties in H2020

13. Preliminary schedule of the Call

14. Evaluation Process
Eligibility and Admissibility
Check
Evaluation by experts
•Individual evaluation
•Consensus meeting
•Panel review
Commission/Agency
ranked list
Information on the
outcome of the evaluation 4
3
2
1

15. Evaluation Process
Eligibility and Admissibility Check
Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline?
Complete?
Readable, accessible and printable?
Respecting page limit
Eligibility and Admissibility
Check 1
Content corresponds to the topic description against which it is submitted?
Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other eligibility
conditions set out for the type of action?

16. 16
Eligibility
checks
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel review
Commission
decision
H2020 Space Calls: All "one stage"
evaluations
Evaluation Process

17. • Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality and
efficiency and speed
• Done by independent experts selected from EMI
– Balance in terms of
1. Skills, experience and knowledge
2. Other factors
• geographical diversity
• gender
• where appropriate, the private and public sectors
• an appropriate turnover from year to year
17
2
Evaluation by experts
•Individual evaluation
•Consensus meeting
•Panel review
Evaluation Process
Evaluation by experts

18. Award criteria
Excellence Impact
Quality and efficiency in the
implementation
• Clarity and pertinence of the
objectives;
• Credibility of the proposed
approach;
• Soundness of the concept,
including trans disciplinary
considerations, where relevant;
• Extent that proposed work is
ambitious, has innovation
potential, and is beyond the
state of the art (e.g. ground
breaking objectives, novel
concepts and approaches).
• The expected impacts listed in the work
programme under the relevant topic
• Enhancing innovation capacity and
integration of new knowledge;
• Strengthening the competitiveness and
growth of companies by developing
innovations meeting the needs of
European and global markets; and by
delivering such innovations to the
markets;
• Any other environmental and socially
important impacts;
• Effectiveness of the proposed measures
to exploit and disseminate the project
results, to communicate the project, and
to manage research data where relevant.
• Coherence and effectiveness of the
work plan, including appropriateness
of the allocation of tasks and resources;
• Complementarity of the participants
within the consortium (when relevant)
• Appropriateness of the management
structures and procedures, including
risk and innovation management.
2
Evaluation Process
Evaluation by experts

19. 19
• Operational capacity:
• Assessed by the experts during evaluations as part of 'Quality and
efficiency of the implementation'
• Check if the consortium partners have the capacity to carry out the
proposed work
• Based on information provided by the applicant in the proposal (Part
B): CVs, publications, references, available infrastructure, etc.
Evaluation Process
Evaluation by experts
2
Source: www.acornsys.com

20. 20
Excellence:
"The
objectives ….."
Impact:
"The innovation
capacity….."
Quality and efficiency of
the implementation:
"The management ….."
Evaluation Process
Evaluation by experts
2
For Innovation actions to determine the
ranking, the score for the criterion ‘impact’
will be given a weight of 1.5.
Interpretation of the scores
0—Proposal fails to address the criterion or can’t be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
1—Poor The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
2—Fair Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.
3—Good Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.
4—Very Good Proposal addresses the criterion very well, a small number of shortcomings are present.
5—Excellent Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion; any shortcomings minor.

21.  Done by experts in panel review that will rank the proposals that passed the
thresholds according to the results of the evaluation
 Award of the grants will be made on the basis of this ranking, and the available
budget.
 Information on the outcome of the evaluation — Rejection of proposals that
are not on the list
 If your proposal is successfully evaluated, we will send an ‘evaluation information
letter’ to the proposal coordinator, to inform you of the results of the evaluation
and to invite you to take part in the grant agreement preparation phase.
 Reserve list
 We may keep a number of proposals in reserve in case proposals are withdrawn,
excluded or extra funding becomes available.
3
4
Evaluation Process
Commission/Agency ranked list and
Information on the outcome of evaluation

22. Each applicant is responsible for:
• identifying any potential ethical issues
• handling ethical aspects of their proposal
• detailing how they plan to address them in sufficient detail already
at the proposal stage.
The Ethics part of each proposal (part A in SEP, part B 5) should include
description of issues and arrangements!
Ethics self-assessment

23. - CONSULT ETHICS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINE!
For guidance incl. documents to be provided
ATTACH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
Indicate pages in the proposal
Ethics self-assessment

24. Communication in H2020
Dissemination and Communication activities are not the same!
The communication activities:
- Evaluation under criterion ‘impact’
- Must already be part of the proposal (either as a specific work package for
communication or by including them in another work package).
- Must make the research activities known to multiple audiences and address
the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding
24

25. Agenda
• Proposal preparation and submission process
• Rules for participation and evaluation
• Novelties in H2020

26. 1) Negotiation becomes Grant Agreement
Preparation
– No longer "recommendations" in ESR
2) Obvious Clerical Errors
– For example Requested EU funding = 0
26
Novelties under H2020 1
Source: www.termpapersolution.com

27. 3) New criteria and sub-criteria
– Different from FP7 – use self-evaluation form and
carefully check the template (ESR-award criteria)!
– Award criteria: More sub-criteria/elements compared to FP7
– Scores: Clear difference between weakness and shortcoming -> above below
threshold
Novelties under H2020 1
Source: www.termpapersolution.com

28. 4) Page limits
5) Third Country Participation and Funding
– Countries outside Annex A/non-associated?
6) Ethics Issues
– Self-Assessment
– Screening
28
Novelties under H2020 1
Source: www.termpapersolution.com

29. We are waiting for your ideas!
High Precision
Road Transport
Agriculture
New markets &
technologies
Rail LBS
Aviation

30. Thank you for your attention !!!
Questions?
marta.krywanis@gsa.europa.eu