Post on 05-Jan-2016
1
Proposal Preparation
J. Cosgrave, CSJU IT Officer
Clean Sky Call 11 Info Day
Brussels, 20th January 2012
2
Recall about Funding Splitting
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
ITD leaders & AssociatesOrganisation necessary to the
delivery of the platform objectives
7 years commitment Sign the JTI StatutesParticipate in JTI operational
costsCannot respond to the Calls for
Proposals of the platform Partners
will respond to the calls for proposal (CFP) organised by Clean Sky JU
CFP follows the ITDs Specifications
Contract for a limited duration up to 7 years
Maximum Overall EC Contribution: 800 M€
Partners(min 200 M€
i.e.25%)
Callfor
Proposals
Members(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)
ITD Leaders(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)
Associates(max 200 M €
i.e. 25%)
match EC contribution 50% (in-kind)
match EC contribution 50%
(in-kind)
Maximum Overall EC Contribution: 800 M€
Partners(min 200 M€
i.e.25%)
Callfor
Proposals
Members(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)
ITD Leaders(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)
Associates(max 200 M €
i.e. 25%)
match EC contribution 50% (in-kind)
match EC contribution 50%
(in-kind)
Maximum Overall EC Contribution: 800 M€
Partners(min 200 M€
i.e.25%)
Callfor
Proposals
Members(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)
ITD Leaders(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)
Associates(max 200 M €
i.e. 25%)
match EC contribution 50% (in-kind)
match EC contribution 50%
(in-kind)
Maximum Overall EC Contribution: 800 M€
Partners(min 200 M€
i.e.25%)
Callfor
Proposals
Members(max. 600 M€ i.e. 75%)
ITD Leaders(max 400 M € i.e. 50%)
Associates(max 200 M €
i.e. 25%)
match EC contribution 50% (in-kind)
match EC contribution 50%
(in-kind)
12 67
3
Clean Sky Peculiarities
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels).
Topics prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU).
Budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum funding
A single entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created
There is ONE winner per topic
4
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Funding up to 75%
IPR agreed at the beginning with the Topic Manager
Single entity or consortium
Day-to-day work with the Topic Manager
Contract managed by the CS Project Officer: reporting, costs claims, amendment requests, …
Reporting and Review at the end of each reporting period (up to 18 months)
Time to contract: 6 months after the launch of the call (« target »)
A promising start for SME and research organisations (academic or not)
Clean Sky Peculiarities
5
Clean Sky Web Site
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
6
Call Fiche and Rules for Participation
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
X
X
7
Topic Fiche
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
8
Looking for Partners
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
9
Proposal Evaluation
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Three guiding principles:
ObjectivityEach proposal is evaluated as it is written
Accuracy Proposal evaluated against the official evaluation
criteria, and nothing else
ConsistencyThe same standard of judgment is applied to each
proposal
10
Eligibility Criteria
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Receipt before deadline Firm deadlines
Completeness of proposal Presence of all requested forms
“Out of scope” A proposal will only be deemed ineligible in clear cut
case
Other criteria may apply Eg. budget limits
11
Eligibility Criteria
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Make sure this total amount is below the value of the topic!
Proposal Total Cost
Affiliation
Please check on the Web Site the composition of the ITDs in the dedicated page!
Applicants who are affiliated to any leaders or associate of an ITD will be declared noteligible for the topics of that ITD
12
Evaluation Criteria
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Criteria adapted to Clean Sky Specified in the Rules for Participation and Rules for Submission of
Proposals; refer also to sec. 3.10 Instructions for drafting "Part B" of the CS-RTD proposal
Six main criteria:C1 Technical excellenceC2 Innovative CharacterC3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and
timetable (relevance)C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management
and implementation capabilities and track recordC5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be
committed (budget, staff, equipment)C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness
13
Proposal Scoring
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Each criterion is scored 0-5 half-scores to be used whole range should be considered Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be
considered for funding
Thresholds apply to individual criteria… Default threshold is 3
…and to the total score higher than the sum of the individual thresholds Default threshold is 20
14
Scores Interpretation
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information
1 - Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
2 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.
3 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.
4 - Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.
5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
15
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (1/4)
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Proposal
1. Scientific and Technical quality
1.1 Progress beyond the State of the Art
Describe the state of the art and demonstrate the innovative character of the proposal
This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria:
C2 Innovative Character
16
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (2/4)
1.2 Scientific and Technology methodology and work plan:
A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into workpackages (WPs). Please present your plans as follows:1.2.1) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan.1.2.2) Show the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar timetable)1.2.3) Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages:1.2.4) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)1.2.5) Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency plans.
This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria:C1 Technical excellenceC3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification
and timetable (relevance)
17
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (3/4)
2. Implementation2.1 Management structure and procedures 2.2 Participants2.3 Resources to be committed
In addition to the costs indicated in Part A of the proposal, and the staff effort shown in table 5 above, please indicate any other major costs (e.g. equipment).Please ensure that the figures stated in part B are consistent with thosein Part A.
This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria:
C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record
C5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)
18
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Evaluation Criteria Assessment (4/4)
3. Impact3.1 Expected impactsDescribe how your project will contribute to the expected impacts in relation to the Topic in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved.
3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual propertyDescribe the measures you propose for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights.
This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria:
C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness
19
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Evaluation Criteria Summary
Six CRITERIA
1 Technical excellence EXCELLENCE
2 Innovative character INNOVATION
3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance) COMPLIANCE / RELEVANCE
4Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record
CAPABILITY
5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) EFFICIENCY
6 Contribution to European competitiveness IMPACT
20
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
Concluding Remarks
Opportunity to fund research project in alternative to classical FP7 Collaborative Research Project scheme, with very focused technical targets.
Peculiarities with respect to FP7 on participation rules, proposal preparation and proposal evaluation.
Main advices to write a good proposal:•Fulfil the requirements contained in the topic description.•Read carefully the documentation of the call.•In particular rules of participation in order to understand how your proposal will be evaluated (A summary is provided in this presentation). •Check eligibility criteria.•Find complementary partners in order to have a good consortium if needed.
All information about the call and tools in order to help you to apply can be found on the Clean Sky Web Site: www.cleansky.eu.
21
Call 11 Info-Day, Brussels, 20th January 2012
© 2012 by the CleanSky Leading Partners: Airbus, AgustaWestland, Alenia Aeronautica, Dassault Aviation, EADS-CASA, Eurocopter, Fraunhofer Institute, Liebherr Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Saab AB, Safran Thales and the European Commission.
Permission to copy, store electronically, or disseminate this presentation is hereby granted freely provided the source is recognized. No rights to modify the presentation are granted.