How to succeed with an FP7

Project Proposal
Johan Lindberg
NCP-coordinator
VINNOVA

2011-09-06
Bild 1

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

From idea to project

Project start
Grant Agreement
Negotiation, ~3 m
Invitation to negotiation
Commission consultation, ~2 m
Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking
Evaluation, ~3 months
Proposal
Call

~3 months

Consortium building

Idea
0

6 months

12 m

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

How consortia are formed

- an example from ICT

Previous collaborations

6%

Other consortium members

13%

Third parties
At meetings

9%

49%

Other

23%

Bild 5

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

From call to deadline

Make a plan for the proposal
weeks

-12

-11

Select topic

-10

-9

-8

Consortium

-7

Version 1

meeting
Short
proposal

-6

-5

-4

-3

All texts to
Coordinator

Divide work

Partners are writing

-1

Final
version
Editing

Complete
draft
Contact NCP

-2

Proof
reading

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?

? ?

What happens if this is not funded now?

??
?

Do you have the best consortium for this problem?

Why now?

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?

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

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

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

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

Allow for some flexibility

Management

Keep management structure simple but sufficient

there are examples of acceptable structures

Organisation an example
General assembly

Keep management
structure simple but
sufficient

Advisory Board

WP1
Lead partner 2
Partner 1 and 2

Coordinator
(Partner 1)
WP5 Project
management

Steering committee
(WP leaders)

WP2
Lead partner 3
Partner 2, 3 and 4

WP3
Lead partner 5
Partner 1, 5 and 6

WP4
Lead partner 7
Partner 5 and 7

Deliverables and milestones

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 the

project and dont require any separate reports

Activity A

Activity B

1843

1844

Activity C

Deliverable

Limit the number of deliverables and milestones and

distribute them in time

Make milestones meaningful !!!

M1 All specifications completed
M2 Prototype available for validation
M3 Operational system ready
M4 Final demonstration

M1 6-month report published

M2 12-month report published
M3 18-month report published
M4 Final report published

M1 Co-research programme agreed

M2 Begin integration of downstream partners
M3 Major conference
M4 Formation of association

2011-09-06
Bild 18

Deliverables & milestones

Milestone
no

Milestone name

WPs
involved

Due
date

M3.1

First set of images delivered to WP3

M4.1

Means of verification

2, 3

Images are transferred

Biomarker candidates for breast cancer

ready

12

List of markers

M1.7

Working in vitro assays

15

Inverse assays, ELISA

Del.
no.

Deliverable name

D1.1

WP
no.

Nature

Dissemi
nation
level

Deliv
ery
date

Part
ner

Availability of 500 specific (stem) sequences

PU

D1.2

Optimal protocol for cell delivery

PU

12

D2.2

Established MegaPlex PCR protocol

PU

12

This is a part of the Grant Agreement!

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, payments, project reporting

Grant Agreement

Think as an evaluator

2011-09-06
Bild 21

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 evaluator

EC staff doesnt put the scores on the proposals

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 Commissions
recommendation for proposal length
budget (lack of) realism

Bild 23

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

Evaluation overview
Eligibility
check

Individual
evaluation

No funding

Consensus

Threshold

Panel
discussion and
ranking
(EC + experts)

Negotiation

Commission
Funding decision

Evaluation of proposals Thresholds on scores

Call specific, usually at least 3 of 5 on each

criterion, and at least 10 in total

Priority

Proposal No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

224218
223936
223994
223937
224619
224263
224024
223850
224460
224287

Total score

15.0
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.0

Grant requested

1.494.867
3.240.591
4.048.381
2.301.400
3.230.083
6.497.158
3.884.985
3.338.821
2.923.718
2.578.852

Call with 30 mEUR budget, 30 proposals above threshold requesting 111 mEUR
Projects above red line requests a total of 30 960 004 EUR

Evaluation criteria
S&T excellence

Implementation

Impact

Scientific and/or
technological
excellence (relevant to
the topics adressed by
this call)

Quality and efficiency

of the implementation
and management

Potential impact
through the
development,
dissemination and use
of the project results

The evaluation criteria are thematic priority or call specific.

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

2011-09-06
Bild 27

Example of evaluation criteria

S&T excellence

Implementation

Impact

Scientific and/or
technological
excellence (relevant to
the topics adressed by
this call)

Quality and efficiency

of the implementation
and management

Potential impact
through the
development,
dissemination and use
of the project results

Soundness of concept, and

quality of objectives
Progress beyond the state-ofthe-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.

How to succeed with 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

Budget example
Calculate a realistic and consistent budget!
Cost category
Personnel

Specification
Budget in Euro (4 years)
0,5 scientist, 36.000 SEK / month
129600

Consumables
Equipment

1 PhD stud full time, 26.000 SEK / month

150.000 SEK per FullTimeEquivalent & year
No investment (be careful!)

Travel + conf
25.000 SEK per FTE & year
Publication costs
5.000 SEK per person & year
Sum direct costs

187200
90000
0
15000
3000
432300

Overhead

Reimbursement for indirect costs depending on participant

From EU

contribution 50-100% depending on participant and activity type

=> 72 man months (= project effort)

Project effort per beneficiary and Work

Package

Project effort plan used to legitimize the budget

Cost per man month varies dramatically within Europe

Payments based on periodic

reporting
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

 and when?

Pre-financing

Interim payments
Final payment

Bild 33

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

From idea to project

Project start
Grant Agreement
Negotiation, ~3 m
Invitation to negotiation
Commission consultation, ~2 m
Evaluation summary report ESR, project ranking
Evaluation, ~3 months
Proposal
Call

~3 months

Consortium building

Idea
0

6 months

12 m
Bild 35

The Agreement with the Commission

Grant Agreement signed only by Coordinator and EC.
Key documents of relevance for negotiation process:

Core Grant Agreement

Annex I technical annex (project plan - proposal)

Annex II general conditions

Annex IV (= Form A) Accession to Grant Agreement

Is negotiated

Consortium agreement
Contract between partners in a project; doesnt involve EC
Standard DESCA model very common (DEvelopment of a

Simplified Consortium Agreement for FP7)

www.desca-fp7.eu

Regulates the obligations and the rights between the partners

Ownership of Intellectual Property (IPR: inclusion or exclusion)
Organisation, communication flow within consortia
Voting principles, decision making structures, Settlement of disputes
What happens in case of partner default
Financial arrangements

Collective technical responsibility

Etc

Communicable goals that sell the proposal

on the political and societal level

Bild 38

Bild 39

Conclusion

EU is a great opportunity
Difficulties can be overcome

Who owns what?

Background information which is held by
beneficiaries prior to their accession to the grant
agreement, and which is needed for carrying out the
project or for using foreground
Foreground - results, including information, which
are generated under the project

Bild 41

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

Who gets access to what?

Access rights
Foreground
Background
For implementation
For use

Bild 43

IPR Annex II to core contract

Main 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 grant
them. Subject to agreement, such access rights shall
be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions
or be royalty-free.
Beneficiaries may define the background needed for

the purposes of the project in a written agreement

and, where appropriate, may agree to exclude specific
background