Bio-based IndustriesJoint Undertaking

How to write a good proposal?

Project Officer

Brussels, 22 April 2020

Dieter BRIGITTA

• « Can you please share concrete examples of well-written

and badly written proposals? »

• Confidentiality is key → we tried to anonymise the

requested examples / proposals…

• …but anonymised proposals are not concrete enough

Dear BBI JU…

• Call 2016-2019 Brussels info days

– « Think like / write for an evaluator »

– Which information would you need to check if the proposal ‘ticks all

the boxes’, i.e. is in line with the (whole) topic text?

– How can you best structure this information, taking into account the

proposal template & page limits (50p for CSAs, 70p for RIA/IA)?

• This presentation:

– Frequently voiced comments from experts during past evaluations…

– …and how to proactively solve them

What can and can’t we share?

• Horizon 2020 methodology

– 3 main evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact, Implementation

– Each main criterion: different evaluation subcriteria

– Differences per type of action (CSA, RIA, IA)

• BBI JU-specific subcriteria

– Although the same main criteria and all H2020 subcriteria are

applicable…

– …BBI JU also uses some specific subcriteria

BBI JU evaluation principles

« This part is written in a (too) vague / broad way »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

Dissemination, exploitation,

communication plans, IPR

management

• Be specific (e.g. which conferences / journals?)

• Use quantification if relevant (amount of videos, newsletters,…)

• Explicitly mention / describe IPR management

Implementation

• Management structures /

procedures

• Risk & innovation

management

• Be specific; don’t overuse ‘this will be further defined in the consortium

agreement’

• If relevant, also include non-scientific/technical risks (e.g. business,

social, project management,...)

• Include credible risks & risk mitigation measures («it will not

happen» is not a mitigation measure)

« The proposal does more than the topic requires »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

Overall concept (topic requires

A, proposal does A & B)

Main question: how ‘big’ is B? If too big, then the proposal might be

partially out of scope, and (too many) resources might be used on

activities not requested by the topic → lower score

Impact

Expected impacts listed in the

topic text

E.g. topic text requires 50% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction,

and proposal mentions 70% reduction.

• 70% reaches the target → positive evaluation, higher score

• …but the 70% needs to be credible (via e.g. a calculation).

→ A credible 50% reduction is better than a non-credible 70%!

Implementation

Work plan

E.g. overall concept only talks about A, but the work plan included

activities linked to A & B → work plan not in line with concept → lower

score

« What is the proposal’s benchmark? »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

(Going beyond the) state of the art

(SOTA)

• Use a table format: where we are now, and where we want to go

• Ideally, add TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) in this table

Impact

Expected impacts listed in the topic

text

Clearly describe the current situation (e.g. « we will reduce energy

use with 30% ». Compared to which benchmark?)

Implementation

/

« The ‘consortium own contribution’ is unclear »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

(RIA/IA) Consortium own

contribution

Understand the BBI JU terminology, and include the 3 potential

‘consortium own contribution’ parts in the correct part of the proposal:

• ‘In kind’ contributions = total costs minus total requested funding

(→ budget should reflect this)

• Financial (in cash’) contributions: to be included in part A

(quantification) and part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)

• Additional investments: to be included in part A (quantification) and

part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)

Implementation

/

« Where is the business case/plan info?»

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

/

Implementation

Business case / business plan (IA)

IA-specific evaluation subcriterion: ‘business case and plan’

• (Only) in IAs, you can add a comprehensive business case and

plan after part B’s section 5 → not included in page limit!

• Make cross-references between this ‘extra’ section and section

2, where you typically should describe the exploitation plan

• ‘Standard requirements’ for proposals for the different actions– Annual Work Plan, Table 3, p. 30-32

– Per type of action (excl. CSAs): standard requirements, on top of the topic-specific requirements found in the topic texts

« How to evaluate the ‘standard requirements’? »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

Most standard requirements fit best under

‘Excellence’ (logistics, relationship with other

projects,…)

Use a table (left: standard requirement; right: how the

proposal tackles this)

Implementation

• Work plan (standard requirement

‘sustainability assessment – LCA’)

• Business plan / business models

Use a table, explicitly mentioning the ‘standard

requirements’ (→ the expert-evaluator knows that you

have tackled this), potentially referring / cross-

referencing to other parts of the proposal (page limits!)

• « Think like / write for an evaluator »

• Read / use the Annual Work Plan, which contains:– Topic texts

– ‘Standard requirements’ (table 3)

– A topics glossary (definitions applicable to Call 2020)

– The evaluation (sub)criteria per type of action (CSA/RIA/IA)

• Please consult the BBI JU website:– The Guide for Applicants (GfA), which contains examples and the

proposal template

– The Call 2020 ‘FAQ for Applicants’

– The SIRA (which contains e.g. the definitions of BBI JU KPIs)

How to write a good BBI JU proposal?

Thank you