work programme 2018-2020 fet open · fetopen-01-2018-2019-2020 (fet-open ria 2018) specific...

Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020

FET Open

Briefing for Evaluators

Maciej Lopatka Roumen Borissov

Research Executive Agency

Call Coordination FET-Open RIA 2018

Web-briefing, Brussels, 22 June 2018

You can send your questions to the following email address:

[email protected]

They will be answered during the presentation.

2

mailto:[email protected]

Outline

1. FET-Open RIA and its main features

2. Admissibility and Eligibility

3. FET-Open evaluation process

4. Remote evaluation phase: roles of REs and VC-QCs

5. FET-Open evaluation criteria

6. Additional info & Third countries

7. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

3

FET-Open RIA and

its main features


[email protected]

4


Horizon 2020: a strong, clear focus!

INDUSTRIAL

LEADERSHIP

€ 16,5 billion

SOCIETAL

CHALLENGES

€ 28,6 billion

EXCELLENT

SCIENCE

€ 24,2 billion

OTHER * € 6 billion

H2020 budget € 74,8 billion

*OTHER: • Spreading excellence & widening participation • Science with and for society • JRC • EIT

ERC 54%

FET 11%

MSCA 25%

Research infrastructures

10%

5

FET activities

• Fertile ground for multidisciplinary collaborations on FET

• Kick-starting European R&I eco-systems

• Seeds for future industrial leadership and tackling society's

challenges

• Focus on research beyond what is currently known

40% H2020 budget

FET-Open

Early Ideas

FET Proactive

Exploration and Incubation

FET Flagships

Large-Scale Partnering Initiatives

Roadmap based research Open, light and agile

Future and Emerging Technologies: lines of activities

Exploring novel ideas

Developing topics and communities

Addressing grand challenges

6

Let's try even if it may fail!

FET spirit

7

FET-Open RIA: Challenging Current Thinking Research and Innovation Actions (RIA)

• Collaborative research (min. 3 partners from different MS/AC)

• No thematic restriction, no emphasis on any subject, all areas are welcome (physics, chemistry, mathematics, ICT, materials, medicine, biology, energy, social sciences…)

• Interdisciplinary consortia (new connections between remote disciplines – unexpected collaborations)

• Completely bottom-up, but with a clear target – NOT blue sky research!

• Successful FET-Open project can be a proof-of-concept…

• Combination of high scientific ambition with concrete technological implications

• High risk projects potentially leading to ground breaking breakthroughs

• EU contribution of up to 3M€ (indicative)

8

FETOPEN-01-2018-2019-2020 (FET-Open RIA 2018)

Specific Challenge

+ to lay the foundations for radically new future technologies

+ to encourage the driving role of new actors in research and innovation

Scope

+ proposals are sought for cutting-edge high-risk / high-impact

interdisciplinary research with all of the following essential characteristics

("FET gatekeepers"):

• Radical vision: the project must address a clear and radical vision, enabled by a new technology concept

that challenges current paradigms. In particular, research to advance on the roadmap of a well-established technological paradigm, even if high-risk, will not be funded.

• Breakthrough technological target: the project must target a novel and ambitious science-to-

technology breakthrough as a first proof of concept for its vision. In particular, blue-sky exploratory research without a clear technological objective will not be funded.

• Ambitious interdisciplinary research for achieving the technological breakthrough and that

opens up new areas of investigation. In particular, projects with only low-risk incremental research, even if interdisciplinary, will not be funded.

9

NEW

Expected Impact

FET-Open 2018-2020

• Scientific and technological contributions to the foundation of a new future technology

• Potential for future social or economic impact or market creation

• Building leading research and innovation capacity across Europe by involvement of key actors that can make a difference in the future, for example excellent young researchers, ambitious high-tech SMEs or first-time participants to FET under Horizon 2020 (specific question in FET-Open proposal template)

10

NEW

Evaluation criteria, Scoring and Thresholds FET-Open 2018-2020

Excellence Impact Quality and efficiency of the implementation

Adherence to the "FET gatekeepers" as described in the call text:

Clarity of the radical vision of a science-enabled technology and its differentiation from current paradigms.

Novelty and ambition of the proposed science-to-technology breakthrough that addresses this vision.

Range of and added value from interdisciplinarity for opening up new areas of research; non-incrementality of the research proposed.

High-risk, plausibility and flexibility of the research approach.

The extent to which the outputs of the project would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under this topic.

Effectiveness of measures and plans to disseminate and use the results (including management of IPR) and to communicate about the project to different target audiences.

The following aspects are taken into account:

Coherence and effectiveness of the research methodology and work plan to achieve project objectives and impacts, including adequate allocation of resources to tasks and partners.

Role and complementarity of the participants and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.

Threshold: 4/5 Weight: 60%

Threshold: 3.5/5 Weight: 20%


11

NEW

Topic (Type of Action) Budget 2018

EUR

million

Budget 2019

EUR

million

Budget 2020

EUR

million

Deadlines (cut-off dates)

FETOPEN-01-2018-2019-2020 (RIA)

123,70 160,40 160,40

203,00

16 May 2018 24 January 2019

18 September 2019 13 May 2020

Total budget for FET-Open 2018-2020 (RIA): 647,50 M€ (92,7% more per cut-off than in WP 2016-2017) Opening of the call: 7 November 2017 at 17h00 CET

Call conditions and evaluation

Dates and indicative budget

12

NEW

Proposal composition (RIA)

• Part A: Administrative part of the proposal

• Part B: Narrative part of the proposal (core proposal)

• Section 1: Excellence

• Section 2: Impact

• Section 3: Quality and efficiency of the implementation

• Section 4: Members of the consortium (additional information)

• Section 5: Ethics and security (additional information)

Page limit: Sections 1 to 3 together are limited to 15 pages A4 (clearly shown) and Sections 4 to 5 are not covered by the page limit

Specific formatting required (specific FET-Open proposal template)

13

NEW

Admissibility and

Eligibility


[email protected]

14


Admissibility

To be considered admissible, a proposal must be:

1. Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline given in the call conditions or rules of contest;

2. Readable, accessible and printable;

3. Complete and include the requested administrative data and the proposal description; 4. Include a draft plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results, unless otherwise specified in the call conditions. In addition to the above admissibility conditions, page limits (15 pages A4) will apply, page limits will apply to parts of proposals.

15

Eligibility Rules for Participation Regulation No. 1290/2013

A (RIA) proposal will only be considered eligible if: 1. Its content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description for which it is submitted (so called in-scope, contrary to out-of-scope) 2. At least three legal entities are present in the consortium. The following applies:

Each of the three must be established in a different EU Member State (MS) or Horizon 2020 associated country (AC);

All three legal entities must be independent of each other.

16

Admissibility and Eligibility conditions for all submitted proposals are checked by the Agency.

If however you spot an issue related to admissibility

and/or eligibility of a given proposal, please contact us.

17

FET-Open evaluation process


[email protected]

18


Schedule

Milestone Deadline

Call cut-off 16 May, 2018

Remote Evaluators (RE) web-briefing 22 June, 2018

Remote evaluation [start] 22 June, 2018

At least 2 (or all) IERs submitted 02 July, 2018

At least 4 (or all) IERs submitted 09 July, 2018

All IERs submitted 16 July, 2018

Remote evaluation [end]

(All QC recommendations implemented) 27 July, 2018

Remote cross-reading [start] 27 July, 2018

Remote cross-reading [end] 23 August, 2018

Panel review in Brussels 3-7 September, 2018

Evaluation results (ESR) sent to applicants 15 October, 2018

Grant Agreements signed 15 January, 2019

20

Feedback (TTI)

in 5 months

Ethics screening/ assessment

Panel Review Final score & comment

Cross-Reading by Panel Membres

Evaluator writes Individual Evaluation Report

(IER)

Admissibility & Eligibility*

Check

REA

Proposal submission

Collated IERs Check by 4 evaluators

Expert Assignment

X 4

Conflict of Interest (COI) check at any stage of evaluation

Iterations if necessary

Draft ESR created

Applicant

For each (4x)

*out-of-scope can be declared at further stages

Each proposal is allocated to 4 remote evaluators (RE)

Each evaluator drafts comments and assigns scores

IER Quality Check (QC) with support of

Vice Chairs (VC-QC)

21

Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) - feedback to applicants

• Collation of all individual comments, per sub-criterion, from all 4 Individual Evaluation Reports (IER) – may be mutually contradicting (no consensus): full transparency

• Consensus score of the proposal, per criterion, is calculated as a median of all individual scores from IERs

• Final score, per criterion, is decided by the final Panel Review and the proposal total score is calculated as a weighted sum of scores from all 3 criteria

• Final Panel Review adds also some additional comments, possibly including the advice not to resubmit the proposal

22

Main Actors • Remote Evaluators (RE): ~600

o Write remotely good quality individual evaluation reports and assign corresponding scores

o Submit individual evaluation reports within deadline

• Vice-Chair Quality Controllers (VC-QC): ~65 o Fine tuning of proposals' descriptors o Check the quality of individual evaluation reports

• Vice-Chair Cross Readers (VC-CR): ~65 o Cross-read proposals o Take part in the panel review in Brussels

• Independent Observer (IO)

o Observe the evaluation process o Provide advice/suggestions to REA on the evaluation process (if

needed)

23

Independent Observer

Prof. Eliana B. Souto ([email protected])


[email protected]

24



Independent Observer (IO) appointed by the Agency to ensure a high degree of transparency of the evaluation process, by:

• checking the functioning and execution of the overall process;

• verifying compliance with the procedures;

• advising on the conduct and fairness of the evaluation sessions, how the experts apply the criteria, and how the procedures could be improved;

• liaising with the staff members involved in the evaluation sessions;

• if necessary, suggesting possible corrections that could be put into practice immediately (or for future evaluations).

The Independent Observer sets out her/his findings (and suggestions on corrections) in the observer report to the Commission/Agency.

The Independent Observer:

• does not evaluate proposals nor expresses any opinion on their quality;

• may raise any question, attend any meeting related to the evaluation.

25

Remote evaluation phase:

roles of REs and VC-QCs

[22 June – 27 July 2018]


[email protected]

26


Individual Evaluation Report (IER)

• Quality of IERs is PARAMOUNT!

• There are NO consensus meetings

• IERs remain unchanged and are collated all together (ESR) and sent to the applicants with possible additional comments by the panel review

• Quality is ensured by the fairness of the assessment, completeness and full compliance of the comments with corresponding FET-Open evaluation criteria/sub-criteria

• Scope of IER is to give:

• Clear assessment of the proposal based solely on its merits

• Clear feedback on the proposal's strengths and weaknesses

27

Individual Evaluation Report (IER)

• Composition of IER:

• Criterion 1 – Excellence (4 sub-criteria, 1 score)

• Criterion 2 – Impact (2 sub-criteria, 1 score)

• Criterion 3 – Quality and efficiency of the implementation (2 sub-criteria, 1 score)

• Scope of the proposal: 'out of scope' because or 'in scope'

• Operational capacity: 'No' or 'Yes'

• Exceptional funding of third country participants/international organizations: comments for supporting/not supporting exceptional funding

• Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC): 'No' or 'Yes'

28

Interpretation of the scores

Scores must be in the range 0-5. Half marks may be given. When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned.

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

29

Role of independent experts

• As an independent expert, you evaluate proposals submitted in response to a given call

• You are responsible for carrying out the evaluation of the proposals yourself - you are not allowed to delegate the work to another person!

• You must close reports in the electronic system within a given deadline

- This is part of your contractual obligations! The allowance/expenses you claim may be reduced or rejected otherwise

• Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of your assessment

• If you suspect any form of misconduct (e.g. plagiarism, double funding), please report this to EC/Agency staff

• You need not comment on ethics, as proposals that are successful in this scientific evaluation will undergo an ethics review

30

Remote evaluators (RE) tasks

• RE evaluates each proposal as submitted, not on its potential if changes were to be made

• If RE identifies shortcomings/weaknesses, these must be reflected in a lower score

• RE comments on the identified issues, but cannot make recommendations

• Proposals with weaknesses that prevent the project from achieving its objectives should not receive above-threshold scores (should stay below threshold for a given criterion)

• To complete the RE task you have to sign and submit the form in the electronic system (Participant Portal)

31

Instructions for Remote Evaluators (RE) :

• 'Accept to evaluate' each proposal as soon as possible, but not later than within 2 days! Number of proposals to be evaluated ranges from 1 to 7

• Submit at least 2 IERs for the assigned proposals within 1 week

• Submit at least 4 IERs for the assigned proposals within 2 weeks

• Submit all IERs for the assigned proposals within 3 weeks

• React within 2 days to Quality-Control (QC) comments by modifying accordingly IER and re-submitting it

32

Quality check of IERs – why?

IERs will be quality checked by Vice-Chairs Quality-Controllers (VC-QC) for:

• Relevance and completeness of the comments

• Consistency between comments and scores

• Inappropriate language

This process ensures high-quality of the evaluation.

Immediately after an IER has been submitted the quality control starts. The QC phase is about the 'format' of the IER comments and not its 'content' – you are the evaluator and it is your opinion which counts.

33

Quality check of IERs – how?

• VC-QC provides feedback to REA in case an IER needs to be revised

(re-opening of the IER task)

• If applicable, each evaluator should revise a given IER according to REA request based on QC comments provided by VC-QCs

• To finalize the QC process, it may be that several iterations will be needed – please, be patient and collaborative

• Once the QC phase for a given IER is finalized you will received an email notification with confirmation

34

Consistency between IER comments and scores

• You should ensure that the your scores (per criterion) are consistent with the corresponding comments (per criterion including all different sub-criteria)

• You will not be suggested a score that should be given (it is your task as evaluator), but you will be informed that the proposed score may not correspond to the provided comments (for a given criterion); you will be further invited to revisit your score or your comments

• It is of paramount importance that you are properly using the range of scores (the whole range of scores from 0 to 5 with step of 0.5 should be used); scores must be above thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding

35

Some of typical problems requiring clear QC check/intervention

• Comments not compliant with the evaluation criteria/sub-criteria

• Comments starting with a (too long) summary of the proposal

• Particular part of a sub-criterion not addressed at all

• Comments for one (sub-)criterion entered under another (sub-)criterion

• Score for a given criterion not aligned with the corresponding comments

• Comments clearly too short or too long

• Emotional or very personal statements, abusive language

• Too generic comments

• Too rigid and concrete comments – "there is no description of…", "there is

complete lack of…"

• Comments with examples of research being conducted elsewhere (followed by

citations)

• Suggestions for improvement of the proposal

36

FET-Open evaluation criteria


[email protected]

37


Evaluation criteria, Scoring and Thresholds















38
















39

Criterion 1: Excellence

1.1 Radical vision of a science-enabled technology • Describe the vision of a radically-new science-enabled technology that the project would contribute towards. • Describe how this vision surpasses substantially any technological paradigms that currently exist or are under development. • Describe the overall and specific objectives for the project, which should be clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within the duration of the project. (The details of the project plan belong to the Implementation section).

40

Source: Specific FET-Open RIA proposal template

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/call_ptef/pt/h2020-call-pt-fetopen-ria-2018-20_en.pdf




1.2 Science-to-technology breakthrough that addresses this vision • Discuss the relevant state-of-the-art and the extent of the advance

the project would provide beyond this state-of-the-art. • Describe the science-to-technology breakthrough, targeted by the

project that would represent the first proof of concept of the envisioned technology.

41






1.3 Interdisciplinarity and non-incrementality of the research proposed • Describe the research disciplines necessary for achieving the

targeted breakthrough of the project and the added value from the interdisciplinarity.

• Explain why the proposed research is non-incremental.

42






1.4 High risk, plausibility and flexibility of the research approach • Explain how the research approach relates to the project objectives

and how it is suitable to deal with the considerable science-and-technology uncertainties and appropriate for choosing alternative directions and options. (The risks and mitigation plan should be spelled out under the Implementation section).

43




















44

Criterion 2: Impact

2.1 Expected impacts Describe how your project will contribute to: • each of the expected impacts listed in the work programme:

- Scientific and technological contributions to the foundation of a new future technology.

- Potential for future social or economic impact or market creation. - Building leading research and innovation capacity across Europe by involvement of key actors that can make a difference in the future, for example excellent young researchers, ambitious high-tech SMEs or first-time participants* to FET under Horizon 2020.

• any substantial impacts not mentioned in the work programme, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society.

*First time participation here refers to the individuals involved, not their institution or organisation. Please make sure in section 4 the first-time participants are clearly indicated.

45





Criterion 2: Impact

2.2 Measures to maximise impact (1/2) • Dissemination and exploitation of results

Provide a draft ‘plan for the dissemination and exploitation of the project's results’. Please note that such a draft plan is an admissibility condition. Show how the proposed measures will help to achieve the expected impact of the project. The plan, should be proportionate to the scale of the project, and should contain measures to be implemented both during and after the end of the project Outline the strategy for knowledge management and protection. Include measures to provide open access (free on-line access, such as the ‘green’ or ‘gold’ model) to peer-reviewed scientific publications which might result from the project

46





Criterion 2: Impact

2.2 Measures to maximise impact (2/2) • Communication activities

Describe the proposed communication measures for promoting the project and its findings during the period of the grant. Measures should be proportionate to the scale of the project, with clear objectives. They should be tailored to the needs of different target audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community.

47




















48

Criterion 3: Implementation

3.1 Research methodology and work plan – Work packages, deliverables Please provide the following: • details of the research methodology and overall structure of the work plan; • timing of the different work packages and their components (Gantt chart or similar); • Please use the following indicative table for the project reporting periods (RPs) • detailed work description, i.e.:

- a list of work packages (table 3.1a); - a description of each work package (table 3.1b); - a list of all deliverables (table 3.1c);

• Graphical presentation of the work packages showing how they inter-relate (Pert chart or similar).

49






3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures • Describe the organisational structure and the decision-making (including a list of

milestones (table 3.2a))

• Explain why the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project.

• Describe any critical risks, relating to project implementation, that the stated project's objectives may not be achieved. Detail any risk mitigation measures. Please provide a table with critical risks identified and mitigating actions (table 3.2b) and relate these to the milestones.

50






3.3 Consortium as a whole • Describe the consortium. Explain how it will support achieving the project objectives.

Does the consortium provide all the necessary expertise? Is the interdisciplinarity in the breakthrough idea reflected in the expertise of the consortium?

• In what way does each of the partners contribute to the project? Show that each has a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role. How do the members complement one another?

Other countries and international organisations: If one or more of the participants requesting

EU funding is based in a country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for such funding (entities from Member States of the EU, from Associated Countries and from one of the countries in the exhaustive list included in General Annex A of the work programme are automatically eligible for EU funding), explain why the participation of the entity in question is considered essential for carrying out the action on the grounds that participation by the applicant has clear benefits for the consortium

51


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016-2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-annex-a-countries-rules_en.pdf

















3.4 Resources to be committed Please provide the following: • a table showing number of person months required (table 3.4a)

• a table showing ‘other direct costs’ (table 3.4b) for participants where those costs

exceed 15% of the personnel costs (according to the budget table in section 3 of the administrative proposal forms)

52





Additional information &

Third countries


[email protected]

53


Operational capacity – reflected in the score for Criterion 3 (Implementation)

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

• Curriculum Vitae or description of the profile of the applicant

• Relevant publications and/or products, services or other achievements

• Relevant previous projects or activities

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

• Description of any third parties contributing towards the work

If an applicant (consortium partner) lacks operational capacity, please, make comments and score the proposal without taking into this applicant and its associated activity(ies).

54

Countries whose entities are eligible for funding

• Member States (MS) of the European Union, including outermost regions; the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) linked to MS.

• Associated Countries (AC) – Iceland, Norway, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYRM, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Israel, Moldova, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Ukraine, Tunisia, Georgia, Armenia

• Third Countries eligible for funding – see the document '19. General Annexes – Annex A: List of countries eligible for funding'.

• International European interest organisations

• Exceptionally, other countries and international organisations when the Commission deems the corresponding legal entity's participation essential for carrying out the action

55

Third countries' participation

Horizon 2020 – Open to the world!

Applicants from around the world are almost always invited to take part in Horizon 2020 programmes — even if the call for proposals or topic text do not state this explicitly.

They are not always automatically entitled to funding

For example the applicants from the following countries are not automatically eligible for funding (non-exhaustive list): USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, China, Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico

A number of these countries have made specific provisions for making national funding available for their participants in Horizon 2020 projects (co-funding mechanisms).

56

Non-EU/Non-Associated Countries

not automatically eligible for funding

Only in exceptional cases – funding might be admissible in case the participation of the given entity is essential for carrying out the action (clear benefits for the consortium): - outstanding competence/expertise - access to research infrastructure - access to particular geographical environments - access to data In such exceptional cases, the IER should clearly mention whether funding should be granted or not. NB: when EU funding is NOT granted, this entity must be considered to participate with its own funding

57

Additional information

• In/out of scope (eligibility condition) – reflected by the score for Criterion 1 (does the proposal convincingly satisfy all FET gatekeepers?); to be discussed by the review panel if evaluators flag the proposal as being out of scope;

• Ethics screening/assessment – not part of the evaluation

• Horizon 2020 Open Access to Research Data – not part of the evaluation (default participation, but possible opt-out)

58

Implicit gender biases may exist

• Implicit (or unconscious) gender biases refer to a cognitive phenomenon that takes place automatically and without our knowledge when assessing people and situations, influenced by our background and socio-cultural environment.

• Implicit gender biases based on gender stereotypes can affect both men and women, and influence behaviour and decision making.

• The following videos can help you understand and mitigate implicit gender biases in the evaluation process:

- Royal Society (UK) – Understanding unconscious bias

- Université de Lausanne (Switzerland) – Eviter les biais de genre lors de nominations professorales (video, with English subtitles)

- Institució CERCA (Spain) – Recruitment Bias in Research Institutes

59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVp9Z5k0dEE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQG7zySAyaE&feature=youtu.be




http://cerca.cat/en/women-in-science/bias-in-recruitment/

Outcome of the UK referendum and Horizon 2020: State of Play

Until the UK leaves the EU, EU law continues to apply to and within the UK, both when it comes to rights and obligations. This includes the eligibility of UK legal entities to participate and receive funding in Horizon 2020 actions. Experts should not evaluate proposals with UK participants any differently than before.

60

Confidentiality and

Conflict of Interest


[email protected]

61


The expert must keep his/her work under the Contract strictly confidential, and in particular:

a) not disclose (directly or indirectly) any confidential information relating to the proposal(s) or applicants, without prior written approval by Agency;

b) not discuss proposal(s) with others (including other experts or Agency staff that are not directly involved in the evaluation of the proposal(s), except during evaluation meetings and with prior approval by the responsible Agency staff;

c) not disclose:

• details on the evaluation process or its outcome, without prior written approval by Agency;

• details on his/her position/advice;

• The names of other experts participating in the evaluation

Social media: Take great care not to post pictures or comments on evaluation matters through social media

62

d) not communicate with applicants (including linked third parties or other third parties involved in the actions) during the evaluation or afterwards – except in panel hearings;

e) may not remove from the premises any documents, material or information on the proposal(s) or on the evaluation;

f) is responsible for ensuring adequate protection of electronic documents and information and for returning, erasing or destroying all confidential information after the end of the evaluation (if so instructed).

Social media: Take great care not to post pictures or comments on evaluation matters through social media

63

An expert has a Conflict of Interest (CoI) if:

a) was involved in the preparation of the proposal(s);

b) is a director, trustee or partner or is in any way involved in the management of an applicant (or linked third party or other third party involved in the action);

c) is employed or contracted by one of the applicants (or linked third parties, named subcontractors or other third parties involved in the action);

d) would benefit if any proposal(s) submitted is accepted or rejected;

e) has close family ties (spouse, domestic or non-domestic partner, child, sibling, parent etc.) or other close personal relationship with a person (including linked third parties or other third parties) involved in the preparation of any submitted proposal(s) or with a person which would benefit if such a proposal(s) is accepted or rejected;

64

f) is a member of an advisory group set up by the Commission to advise on the preparation of EU or Euratom Horizon 2020 work programmes or work programmes in an area related to the call in question;

g) is a National Contact Point (NCP) or is working for the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN);

h) is a member of any H2020 Programme Committee

Conflict of Interest of an expert may lead to his/her exclusion from the evaluation of a given proposal(s) or the entire evaluation.

65

The Agency can decide on whether the following situations are considered as Conflict of Interest (in view of the objective circumstances, the available information and the potential risks), if an expert:

a) was employed by one of the applicants (or linked third parties or other third parties involved in the action) in the last three years;

b) was involved in a contract, grant, prize or membership of management structures (e.g. member of management or advisory board etc.) or research collaboration with an applicant, a linked third party or another third party involved in the action in the last three years;

c) is any other situation that could cast doubt on his/her ability to participate in the evaluation impartially, or that could reasonably appear to do so in the eyes of an outside third party.

66

An Expert must inform the Agency as soon as he/she becomes aware of any type of Conflict of Interest (CoI)!

If there is a CoI for an expert for a given proposal, then the expert:

- cannot evaluate this proposal;

- Might be excluded from the panel review for a given proposal.

The Agency will determine if there is a CoI on a case-by-case basis and decide the course of action to follow.

If an expert knowingly hides a CoI, then he/she will be excluded from the entire evaluation and his/her work will be declared null and void. Moreover, the allowance/expenses he/she claimed may be reduced, rejected or recovered and the contract may be terminated.

If a CoI for an expert becomes apparent at any stage of the evaluation, then the expert should immediately inform the Agency. If the CoI is confirmed, the expert must stop evaluating the concerned proposal. Any comments and scores already given by the expert will be disregarded. If necessary, the expert will be replaced.

67

© E

uro

pean U

nio

n,

2017 | P

ictu

re ©

olly

, #143530931,

2017.

Sourc

e f

oto

lia

Thank you for your attention!

Questions?

[email protected]


work programme 2018-2020 fet open · fetopen-01-2018-2019-2020 (fet-open ria 2018) specific...

Documents