How to Succeed With FP7 Project Proposal

8/10/2019 How to Succeed With FP7 Project Proposal

1/44

How to succeed with an FP7

Project ProposalJohan Lindberg

NCP-coordinator

VINNOVA

2011-09-06

Bild 1


2/44

How to succeed with an FP7 EU Project Proposal

Proposal setup

How to write a proposal aligned with evaluation criteria

Important details in proposal

Importance of right proposal structure for project execution

Deliverables, milestones

Evaluation process

Who evaluates

Selection process

Budget

Grant Agreement


3/44

From idea to project

Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking

Proposal

Evaluation , ~3 mon ths

Negot iat ion , ~3 m

Grant Agreement

Project start

Invitation to negotiation

Comm iss ion co nsul tat ion, ~2 m

Call ~3 months

Idea

Consortium building

0 6 months 12 m


4/44

Consortium building

Minimum 3 partners from 3 different EU countries or

associated states (normally)Match research groups with topic

Defined role of each group

Whats in it for me?

Clear synergy between the groups Complementary skills, no major overlaps

No project hotel

Choose recognised partners known to deliver

Need to be a balance between academia and industry

SMEs if stated in the call text

Work on a European network even before any calls


5/44

How consortia are formed

- an example from ICT

Bild 5

49%

23%

9%

13%

6% Previous collaborations

Other consortium members

Third parties

At meetings

Other


6/44

Start with a Proposal overview

Work Programme + Project Type

Objective of the proposal

Background (why are we doing it)Expected results + lead users (impact)

Consortium involved partners and their roles

Expected cost + duration

=> All partners are on the same track


7/44

From call to deadline

Make a plan for the proposal

Select topic

Short

proposal

Contact NCP

Consortiummeeting

Divide work

Version 1

Complete

draft

Finalversion

Editing

Proof

reading

All texts toCoordinator

Partners are writing

-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

weeks


8/44

Key questions to ask?

Why bother about this proposal? What problem(s) are you trying to solve?

Is it a European priority?

Could it be solved nationally?

Is the solution already available?

Is there a different but functioning approach?

Why you?

Do you have the best consortium for this problem?

Why now?

What happens if this is not funded now?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?


9/44

Questions to assess Impact

Expected results what will come out of your project?

European or global dimension?

Who needs the results and why?

How will the results affect economy, technology level,

society, environment etc?

How do you plan to exploit/disseminate the results?


10/44


Proposal setup



Importance of right proposal structure for project execution

Deliverables, milestones

Evaluation process

Who evaluates

Selection process

Budget

Grant Agreement


11/44

What does a proposal look like?

Two parts:Part A Forms submitted on Electronic Proposal Submission Service

A1: General information (ex topic, title, summary)

A2: Partner description (ex PIC, name, address, contact person)

A3: Budget (per partner and consolidated)

Part B Project description (approx 60p) Cover page (title, topic etc)

Concept and objectives

Progress beyond state-of-the-art

Work plan and timing

Work package descriptions

Deliverables, milestones, effort in man months

Implementation (organization and management, partner description)

Major cost motivation

Impact (effects on economy, society, health, environment etc.)

Ethical/gender issues


12/44

Writing the proposal Part B

Download (EPSS) proposal template and guidance notes

The proposal should correspond to call text only

Write stringently and clearly

Educate the evaluator no reading between the lines

If possible put quantifiable facts in tables

E.g. progress beyond SoA

Emphasize the importance of a European collaboration

Put the required information in correct paragraphs

Dont duplicate the same information


13/44

Workplan

Rationale for your implementation method Alternatives considered - allow for delays

Phasing and check points

Potential technical risks and fallbacks (contingency

plan vital)

Reference to other work

Reference to other funded projects and justification

This is the technical section convince the evaluators

of your technical excellence


14/44

Allow for some flexibility


15/44

Management

Keep management structure simple but sufficientthere are examples of acceptable structures


16/44

Organisation an example

Steering committee

(WP leaders)

WP1

Lead partner 2

Partner 1 and 2

WP3

Lead partner 5

Partner 1, 5 and 6

WP4

Lead partner 7

Partner 5 and 7

Advisory Board

WP2

Lead partner 3

Partner 2, 3 and 4

Coordinator

(Partner 1)

WP5 Project

management

General assembly

Keep management

structure simple but

sufficient


17/44

Deliverables are the items showing the project results

They are supplied to EC

They are the basis of project reviews by external experts

Milestones are check points of important steps in theproject and dont require any separate reports

Limit the number of deliverables and milestones anddistribute them in time

Deliverables and milestones

1843 1844Deliverable

Activity A Activity B Activity C


18/44

Make milestones meaningful !!!

2011-09-06

Bild 18

M1 All specifications completed

M2 Prototype available for validation

M3 Operational system ready

M4 Final demonstration

M1 Co-research programme agreed

M2 Begin integration of downstream partners

M3 Major conference

M4 Formation of association

M1 6-month report published



M4 Final report published


19/44

Deliverables & milestones

Mile-stone

no

Milestone name

WPsinvolved

Duedate

Means of verification

M3.1 First set of images delivered to WP3 2, 3 3 Images are transferred

M4.1 Biomarker candidates for breast cancer

ready

4 12 List of markers

M1.7 Working in vitroassays 1 15 Inverse assays, ELISA

Del.no.

Deliverable name WPno.

Nature Disseminationlevel

Deliverydate

Partner

D1.1 Availability of 500 specific (stem) sequences 1 O PU 6 2

D1.2 Optimal protocol for cell delivery 1 R PU 12 2

D2.2 Established MegaPlex PCR protocol 2 R PU 12 2

This is a part of the Grant Agreement!


20/44


Proposal setup



Importance of right proposal structure for project execution Deliverables, milestones

Evaluation process

Who evaluates

Selection process

Budget, payments, project reporting

Grant Agreement


21/44

Think as an evaluator

2011-09-06

Bild 21


22/44

Who evaluates?

Peer review

Evaluators contracted before the call deadline

3 or 5 evaluators assigned to each proposal by EC staff

Assignments dependent of the proposal nature based on

EC judgement

Proposals are often multidisciplinary while the evaluators

arent educate the evaluatorEC staff doesnt put the scores on the proposals


23/44

Evaluators

3-5 external evaluators per proposal

They love to pick on

Academics: S/T quality (science) Consultants: implementation - management

Industry reps: impact (applications)

Everybody: clarity of scope and objectives

compliance with the Commissionsrecommendation for proposal length

budget (lack of) realism Bild 23


24/44

You can also be an evaluator

Great experience

Learn what is going on in Europe

Learn to distinguish what a good proposal is like

Excellent networking opportunity

Scientific Colleagues

Commission staff

Register at:

https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/index.cfm Bild 24


25/44

Evaluation overview

Eligibilitycheck

Individualevaluation

Consensus Threshold

Panel

discussion andranking

(EC + experts)No funding

Negotiation

Commission

Funding decision


26/44

Evaluation of proposals Thresholds on scores

Call specific, usually at least 3 of 5 on each

criterion, and at least 10 in totalPriority Proposal No. Total score Grant requested

1 224218 15.0 1.494.867

2 223936 13.5 3.240.591

3 223994 13.5 4.048.381

4 223937 13.5 2.301.400

5 224619 13.5 3.230.083

6 224263 13.0 6.497.158

7 224024 12.5 3.884.985

8 223850 12.5 3.338.8219 224460 12.5 2.923.718

10 224287 12.0 2.578.852

11

Call with 30 mEUR budget, 30 proposals above threshold requesting 111 mEUR

Projects above red line requests a total of 30 960 004 EUR


27/44

Evaluation criteria

2011-09-06

Bild 27

The evaluation criteria are thematic priority or call specific.

They are further elaborated in the guide for applicants of each call.

Notice the differences

S&T excellence Implementation Impact

Scientific and/or

technological

excellence (relevant to

the topics adressed by

this call)

Quality and efficiency

of the implementationand management

Potential impact

through the

development,

dissemination and use

of the project results


28/44

Example of evaluation criteria

S&T excellence Implementation Impact

Scientific and/or

technological

excellence (relevant to

the topics adressed bythis call)

Quality and efficiency

of the implementationand management

Potential impact

through the

development,

dissemination and useof the project results

Soundness of concept, and

quality of objectives

Progress beyond the state-of-

the-art

Quality and effectiveness of

the S/T methodology and

associated work plan

Appropriateness of the

management structure and

procedures

Quality and relevant

experience of the individual

participants

Quality of the consortium as a

whole (including

complementarity, balance)

Appropriateness of the

allocation and justification of

the resources to be

committed (staff,

equipment)

Contribution, at the European

and/or international level, to

the expected impacts listed in

the work programme under

relevant topic/activity

Appropriateness of measures

for the dissemination and/or

exploitation of project results,

and management of

intellectual property.


29/44

How to succeed with FP7 EU Project Proposal

Proposal setup




Evaluation process

Who evaluates

Selection process

Budget

Grant Agreement


30/44

Budget example

Cost category Specification Budget in Euro (4 years)

Personnel 0,5 scientist, 36.000 SEK / month 129600

1 PhD stud full time, 26.000 SEK / month 187200

Consumables 150.000 SEK per FullTimeEquivalent & year 90000Equipment No investment (be careful!) 0

Travel + conf 25.000 SEK per FTE & year 15000

Publication costs 5.000 SEK per person & year 3000

Sum direct costs 432300

Overhead Reimb ursement for indirect costs depending on p art ic ipant

From EU con tr ibut ion 50-100% depending on p art ic ipant and act iv i ty type

Calculate a realistic and consistent budget!

=> 72 man months (= project effort)


31/44

Project effort per beneficiary and Work

Package

Project effort plan used to legitimize the budget

Cost per man month varies dramatically within Europe


32/44

Payments based on periodicreporting

Reporting period: normally 18 months

Periodic Report (60 days after period end)

Scientific report

Management report

Deliverables

Form C (financial report)

Certificates on the financial statements (by

accountant or university centrally) - always if EC

contribution exceeds 375.000 Euro


33/44

and when?

Pre-financing

Interim payments

Final payment

Bild 33


34/44


Proposal setup




Evaluation process

Who evaluates

Selection process

Budget

Grant Agreement


35/44

From idea to project

Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking

Proposal

Evaluation , ~3 mon ths

Negot iat ion , ~3 m

Grant Agreement

Project start

Invitation to negotiation

Comm iss ion co nsul tat ion, ~2 m

Call ~3 months

Idea

Consortium building

0 6 months12 m

Bild 35


36/44

The Agreement with the Commission

Core Grant Agreement

Annex I technical annex (project plan - proposal)Annex II general conditions

Annex IV (= Form A)Accession to Grant Agreement

Is negotiated

Grant Agreement signed only by Coordinator and EC.

Key documents of relevance for negotiation process:


37/44


38/44

Communicable goals that sell the proposal

on the political and societal level

Bild 38


39/44


40/44

Conclusion

EU is a great opportunity

Difficulties can be overcome
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg


41/44

Who owns what?

Background information which is held bybeneficiaries prior to their accession to the grantagreement, and which is needed for carrying out theproject or for using foreground

Foreground - results, including information, whichare generated under the project

Bild 41


42/44

IPR

Regulated both in Annex II of EC contract and in

consortium agreement IPR a tricky thing for Swedish universities due to

teachers exemption

University responsible towards other partners but the

scientist has the ownership


43/44

Who gets access to what?

Access rightsForeground

Background

For implementationFor use

Bild 43


44/44

IPR Annex II to core contractMain issue to be aware off

Beneficiaries shall enjoy access rights to background,if it is needed to use their own foreground provided

that the beneficiary concerned is entitled to grantthem. Subject to agreement, such access rights shallbe granted either under fair and reasonable conditionsor be royalty-free.

Beneficiaries may define the background needed forthe purposes of the project in a written agreementand, where appropriate, may agree to exclude specificbackground

Documents

How to Succeed With FP7 Project Proposal