Research Infrastructures in Horizon 2020

INFRADEV-2-2015 info session

18 March 2015, Brussels

Philippe FROISSARD Deputy Head of Unit Research Infrastructures Unit European Commission – DG Research & Innovation

Call 1 - Developing new world-class RI

4 topics

1. Design studies

2. Preparatory Phase of ESFRI projects

3. Individual implementation and operation of ESFRI projects

4. Implementation and operation of cross-cutting services and solutions for clusters of ESFRI and other relevant RI initiatives

Topic summary

• Publication: OJ C 361/9, 11 December 2013, as amended

by Commission Decision C(2014)4995 of 22 July 2014

• Deadline: 21/04/2015 at 17:00 Brussels time

• Indicative budget: 6,00 M€

• Single-stage evaluation

• Eligibility: standard plus sole beneficiary as defined in Art. 122 FR is eligible

• Evaluation criteria: standard

• Type of action: Research and Innovation action or Coordination and Support action

Challenge

• Support the implementation of the ESFRI roadmap to address the commitment of the Innovation Union flagship initiative (60% of the roadmap under implementation)

• Provide catalytic and leveraging support for the preparatory phase leading to the construction of new research infrastructures or major upgrades of existing ones

Scope Two types of preparatory phase proposals:

Preparatory phase type I: • New projects of the ESFRI roadmap

Preparatory phase type II: projects that • have already received preparatory-phase funding

• have not yet entered in implementation phase

• must demonstrate in the proposal their critical need for additional support in order to complete their preparatory phase

• duration not exceeding two years for continuation of the prep phase

• to support a limited set of activities

Only preparatory phase type II proposals can be submitted and only by ESFRI projects which entered in the ESFRI Roadmap in 2008 and which are not addressed by topic INFRADEV-3-2015

Potentially eligible ESFRI projects

Acronym Name Roadmap entry INFRADEV-3

EPOS European Plate Observing System 2008 Yes

ECCSEL European Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage Laboratory Infrastructure

2008 Yes

EISCAT_3D The next generation incoherent scatter radar system 2008 Yes

CTA Cherenkov Telescope Array 2008 Yes

EU-OPENSCREEN European Infrastructure of Open Screening Platforms for Chemical Biology

2008 No

EMBRC European Marine Biological Resource Centre 2008 No

EURO-BIOIMAGING

Research Infrastructure for Imaging Technologies in biological and biomedical sciences

2008 No

ERINHA European Research Infrastructure on Highly Pathogenic Agents (formerly: High Security BSL4 Laboratory)

2008 No

SIOS Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (formerly: SIAEOS)

2008 No

EMFL European Magnetic Field Laboratory 2008 No

Expected Impact

technical, financial, and legal documents which are necessary for the implementation phase of a new or upgraded research infrastructure are created;

technical work necessary to draft the final technical design is completed;

financial needs of the project are mapped out to the extent necessary for medium- and long-term financial planning of funding agencies;

preparation of the legal agreements for establishing the implementing / operating consortium is completed, including governance and statutes;

any technical work will contribute to strengthening the technological development capacity and effectiveness as well as the scientific performance, efficiency and attractiveness of the European Research Area.

Possible activities from "Specific features"

Legal work for creation and operation of RI, and for funding and

founding agreements;

Management and logistical work, both for setup and operation;

Governance work incl. decision-making, access rules, IPR, etc.;

Financial work, including funding arrangements;

Strategic work, including socio-economic impact, integration into the

landscape, regional & site issues;

• Technical work, including for key enabling technologies required for

the RI, and to maximise exploitation by research communities from

the outset, including the introduction of new processes or software

Budget must always be properly justified by the activities

envisaged

Choice of action type: RIA or CSA?

• If the preparatory phase includes technical work it should be implemented as a Research and innovation action,

• otherwise as a Coordination and support action.

Thank you for your Attention!

Third-party issues

and Eligibility criteria

INFRADEV-2 info session for applicants

Harry Tuinder

Research Infrastructures Unit European Commission – DG Research & Innovation 18 March 2015

Resources to implement the action

• See annotated model grant agreement, Articles 10-14 …

• Art. 10: Purchase of goods, works or services

• Art. 11: Use of in-kind contributions provided by third parties against payment

• Art. 12: Use of in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge

• Art. 13: Implementation of action tasks by subcontractors

• Art. 14: Implementation of action tasks by linked third parties

3

"Linked Third Parties, (sub) contractors"

… and annotations on Art. 8

4

Costs of "Third Parties"

• For in-kind contributions provided by third parties and costs of linked third parties, eligible direct costs must be:

• − recorded in the third party’s accounting records

• − calculated in accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country in which the third party is established

• − calculated according to the third party’s usual cost accounting practices.

• • in compliance with applicable national laws on taxes, labour and social security

• • reasonable, justified and must comply with the principles of sound financial management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency (i.e. be in line with good housekeeping practice when spending public money and not be excessive).

6

General cost eligibility rules

• See: annotations to Article 6 in the annotated model grant agreement

• NB: The option in Art. 6.2.D.4 "Capitalised and operating costs of large research infrastructure" is not applicable to Research Infrastructure calls, except under EINFRA topics.

Participation of ERICs in Horizon 2020

• An ERIC may be the sole beneficiary for the INFRADEV-2 and INFRADEV-3.

• The same possibility exists for any other legal another entity as defined in Art. 122 of the Financial Regulation, i.e.

• one entity,

• formed by several entities which satisfy the criteria for being awarded a grant.

“Formed by” implies a statutory relationship, such as an association being formed by its members, or a company being formed by its shareholders.

• A consortium without legal personality is however not eligible as a sole beneficiary

8

Participation of ERICs in Horizon 2020

• Participation of an ERIC with other beneficiaries where the ERIC is deemed to be established in a country other than the country in which another participant in the same action is established.

• The ERIC will be considered as “the participant”. Members of the ERIC, representing entities, or other institutions linked to the ERIC in a legally binding way that is not limited to the action will be identified in the grant agreement as linked third parties.

9

"Linked Third Parties"

• Linked to the ERIC in a legally binding way that is not limited to the action identified in the grant agreement as linked third parties, enabling them to perform work under the grant agreement and to receive an EC contribution for their eligible costs (compare the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, Annotations on Art. 6, pdf-page 99, and Art. 14, pdf-page 119 ff.). As the beneficiary, the ERIC will be responsible for the third parties’ obligations.

10

Thank you for your Attention!

HORIZON 2020 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

HORIZON 2020

2

Overview of the Evaluation Process

Receipt of proposals

Individual evaluation

Consensus group

Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

Individual Evaluation Reports

(Usually

done remotely)

Consensus Report

(May be done

remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list

HORIZON 2020

3

Admissibility and eligibility checks

• Admissibility is checked by the Commission/Agency:

− Readable, accessible and printable

− Completeness of proposal presence of all requested forms

− Inclusion of a plan for exploitation and dissemination of results (unless otherwise specified in the WP)

• Eligibility checked by the Commission/Agency - however, if experts spot an issue relating to eligibility, they inform the Commission/Agency

− Minimum number of partners as set out in the call conditions - The approach to providing 'automatic funding' to third country participants is restricted – see list of countries – CH associated as from 15/09/2014

− Other criteria may apply on a call-by-call basis as set out in the call conditions

• “Out of scope” – experts need to check if the content of a proposal corresponds, wholly or in part, to the description of the topic – applications from projects not listed in the topic shall be

ineligible

Page limits: Clearly set out in electronic system; excess page(s) marked

with a watermark

HORIZON 2020

4

Evaluation criteria

• There are three evaluation criteria:

− Excellence (relevant to the description of the call or topic)

− Impact

Communication activities

Research data management where relevant

− Quality and efficiency of the implementation

Experts should check requests for

‘exceptional funding’ from third country

participants not included in the list

• The criteria are adapted to each type of actions, as specified in the WP

Innovation Management: is a process which requires an understanding of both market

and technical problems, with a goal of successfully implementing appropriate

creative ideas. Typical Output: new or improved product,

service or process. For consortium: it allows to respond to an

external or internal opportunity.

HORIZON 2020

5

Type of actions

Research and Innovation Action

• Action primarily consisting of activities aiming to establish new knowledge and/or to explore the feasibility of a new or improved technology, product, process, service or solution

− For this purpose they may include basic and applied research, technology development and integration, testing and validation on a small-scale prototype in a laboratory or simulated environment

− Projects may contain closely connected but limited demonstration or pilot activities aiming to show technical feasibility in a near to operational environment

HORIZON 2020

6

Type of actions

Coordination & Support Action

• Actions consisting primarily of accompanying measures such as

− standardisation, dissemination, awareness-raising and communication, networking, coordination or support services, policy dialogues and mutual learning exercises and studies, including design studies for new infrastructure, and

− may also include complementary activities of strategic planning, networking and coordination between programmes in different countries

HORIZON 2020

7

Evaluation criteria

Clarity and pertinence of the objectives 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) Credibility of the proposed approach

Excellen

ce

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, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets

Any other environmental and socially important impacts (not already covered above)

Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant

Im

pact

Research and Innovation Actions

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

Im

ple

men

tati

on

HORIZON 2020

8

Evaluation criteria

Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures Credibility of the proposed approach

Excellen

ce

The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant

Im

pact

Coordination & Support Actions

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

Im

ple

men

tati

on

HORIZON 2020

9

Operational capacity

• As part of the Individual Evaluation, experts give their view on whether each applicant has the necessary basic operational capacity to carry out their proposed activity(ies) based on the information provided

− Curriculum Vitae or description of the profile of the applicant

− Relevant publications or achievements

− Relevant previous projects or activities

− Description of any significant infrastructure or any major items of technical equipment

• At the consensus group, experts consider whether an applicant lacks basic operational capacity

• If yes, experts make comments and score the proposal without taking into account this applicant and its associated activity(ies)

HORIZON 2020

10

Proposal scoring

• Experts give a score of between 0 and 5 to each criterion based on their comments

− Half-marks can be used − The whole range of scores should be used − Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding

• Thresholds apply to individual criteria… The threshold is 3

• …and to the total score The overall threshold is 10

HORIZON 2020

11

Interpretation of the scores

The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

0

1

2

3

4

5

HORIZON 2020

13

If a proposal • Is only marginally relevant in terms of its scientific,

technological or innovation content relating to the call or topic addressed, experts must reflect this in a lower score for the Excellence criterion

− No matter how excellent the science!

• Does not significantly contribute to the expected impacts as specified in the WP for that call or topic, experts must reflect this in a lower score for the Impact criterion

• Would require substantial modifications in terms of implementation (i.e. change of partners, additional work packages, significant budget or resources cut…), experts must reflect this in a lower score for the “Quality and efficiency of the implementation” criterion

HORIZON 2020

14

The panel review

• Consists of experts from the consensus groups and/or new experts

• Ensures the consistency of comments and scores given at the consensus stage

• Resolves any cases where a minority view is recorded in the CR

• Endorses the final scores and comments for each proposal

− Any new comments and scores (if necessary) should be carefully justified

• Prioritises proposals with identical total scores, after any adjustments for consistency

• Recommends a list of proposals in priority order

• Proposals are selected for funding in priority order until the topic budget is exhausted

HORIZON 2020

15

Proposals with identical total scores

• For each group of proposals with identical total scores, the panel orders them according to:

− First, their score for Excellence,

− And second, their score for Impact

• If there are ties, the panel takes into account the following factors:

− First, the size of the budget allocated to SMEs

− Second, the gender balance of personnel carrying out the research and/or innovation activities

• If there are still ties, the panel agrees further factors to consider:

− e.g. synergies between projects or contribution to the objectives of the call or of Horizon 2020

HORIZON 2020

16

Impact of grant preparation on evaluation

• No grant negotiation phase!

− The time from submission of a proposal, evaluation and signature of the grant has been reduced to a maximum of 8 months (max. 5 months for evaluation + max. 3 months for grant signature)

• What does this mean for the evaluation of proposal?

− Experts evaluate each proposal as submitted not on its potential if certain changes were to be made

− If experts identify shortcomings (other than minor ones and obvious clerical errors), they must reflect those in a lower score for the relevant criterion

− Experts explain the shortcomings, but do not make recommendations i.e. do not suggest additional partners, additional work packages, resources cut…

− Proposals with significant weaknesses that prevent the project from achieving its objectives or with resources being seriously over-estimated must not receive above-threshold scores

HORIZON 2020

17

Ethics review

• Only proposals that comply with the ethical principles and legislation may receive funding

• For proposals above threshold and considered for funding, an ethics screening and, if necessary, an ethics assessment is carried out by independent ethics experts in parallel with the scientific evaluation or soon after − Proposals involving the use of human embryonic stems cells automatically undergo

an ethics assessment

• For those proposals in which one or more ethical issues have been identified, the experts will assess whether the ethics issues are adequately addressed

• The ethics experts will produce an ethics report and give an opinion on the proposal, including:

− Granting ethics clearance (or not)

− Recommending the inclusion of ‘ethics requirements’ in the grant agreement, or

− Recommending a further Ethics Assessment and/or an Ethics Check or Audit

HORIZON 2020

18

Timeline

21 April 2015 17:00 Brussels time: deadline

At most 5 months after deadline: result letters sent

At most 8 months after deadline: grant agreements signed

Project start: first day of the month after grant agreement signature by default

• Later or earlier fixed starting date possible (up to call deadline)

Pre-financing payment: at the latest within 30 days of project start or grant agreement signature