European Commission - Specific RTD programme in the field of Information Technologies

SPECIFIC INFORMATION

DOCUMENT

ESPRIT

Advanced Research Initiative in Microelectronics
MEL-ARI

Single-Step Evaluation

"Supporting the growth and the spread of the Information Society"

August 1997

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Description of Scope and Technical Content

2.1 Rationale

2.2 Approach and priority domains

2.3 Specific Project Characteristics

3. Participation

3.1 Rules on Participation

3.2 Financial and Contractual Conditions

4. Evaluation, Format and Criteria

4.1 The evaluation and selection process

4.2 Questions to be answered in a Proposal

4.3 Proposal preparation and evaluation criteria

5. Submitting a Pre-Proposal

5.1 Objectives

5.2 Nature of the pre-proposal exercise

5.3 Submission of pre-proposals

5.4 Processing of pre-proposals

6. Submitting a Proposal

7. Further Information

8. Annexes

9. Esprit National Contact Points

1. Introduction

This Advanced Research Initiative (MEL-ARI) addresses key emerging technologies for information processing circuits that could lead to future generations of microelectronic components and devices. It adopts an integrated approach, addressing all issues and technologies that would be necessary for achieving, in the long term, target classes of microelectronic components. Call for proposals have already taken place on 15 September 1995 and on 15 December 1995. Projects that resulted from these calls are currently running, and are grouped in two focused clusters that address the areas of:

• Optoelectronic interconnects for integrated circuits
• Nano-scale integrated circuits: technology, fabrication, and architectures

Information on the objectives of both clusters, as well as the synopses of the projects selected under each can be consulted at the following web-page:

/esprit/src/melari.htm

The objective of this call is to select projects in the above two cluster areas, that are complementary to the ongoing work. They may address technical issues not adequately covered by current projects, or provide strong new alternatives to approaches under examination. Proposals must indicate to which cluster they belong and clearly explain the value of the proposed work with respect to the objectives of the cluster (see section 2.2).

Calls and optional pre-proposals

This call for proposals is published on 16 September 1997 (Official Journal of the European Communities). Proposals must be sent to the Commission by 17:00 pm local time on 16 December 1997.

Proposers may submit optional pre-proposals for the above call for consultation with the Commission services. Proposers are advised to take this opportunity, as the advice of the services may save them valuable time and help them best focus their proposal. The deadline for receiving pre-proposals is 31 October 1997.

Budget

The indicative total budget for this MEL-ARI call is 6 MECU.

2. Description of Scope and Technical Content

2.1 Rationale

Since the emergence of digital microprocessor and memory chips in the late 1960s, the use of microelectronic integrated circuits has been extending to all product categories, from mainframe computers to automobiles and house appliances. Semiconductor devices are now at the basis of our business efficiency, of industrial competitiveness, and have pervaded our homes, offices and cars. The corner stone of this expansion is the tremendous increase in performance and the reduction in cost of information processing and storage. During the last 25 years, the capacity of memory chips increased by a factor of 64,000 and the cost per bit now stands at less than 10^-7 Ecu; microprocessor chips improved their performance 3000-fold and the cost per transistor is now less than 10^-5 Ecu. This evolution was accompanied by an exponential increase in factory capital cost which increased from $10 million in 1970 to more than $1 billion in 1994.

Underlying these trends is the reduction in the circuit minimum feature size, which passed from 10 microns in 1970 to 0.25 microns today. However, as feature sizes will approach 0.10 microns in a few years, technological bottlenecks arising from electrical interconnections (density, delays, coupling effects, power consumption), doping fluctuations, tunnelling currents, design complexity, the control of lithographic processes and huge investment costs may make further progress in conventional technology financially untenable.

If that point is reached, either the continuous exponential improvement in cost per function that has been driving the expansion of information technology for the last twenty years will slow down, or technological breakthroughs will give rise to new alternatives and device generations which will sustain the continuing growth not only of the microelectronics industry but of all the industrial sectors it underpins.

This Advanced Research Initiative (MEL-ARI), launched as part of Long Term Research in the Information Technologies Programme, aims at ensuring a strong competitive position for the EU in the key emerging technologies for information processing circuits. The two focused clusters already launched, pursue this objective through highly integrated, focused, and closely co-ordinated RTD activities.

2.2 Approach and priority domains

This initiative adopts an integrated, "holistic" approach: it addresses all issues and technologies that would be necessary for achieving, in the long term, target classes of microelectronic components. These target classes are defined by the two focused clusters described next. Strong emphasis is placed on really cooperative and cross disciplinary research, as well as on strategic planning and management. Please refer to section 2.3 for further details on specific project characteristics.

Focused Cluster no. 1: Optoelectronic interconnects for integrated circuits

The serial nature of conventional circuit architectures results in long interconnection lines on the chips, with most of the devices being idle at any one point in time. In combination to the continuous downscaling of ICs, this has resulted in electrical interconnects representing a formidable bottleneck to further performance increase and miniaturisation.

On 1 September, 1996 five projects were launched under this cluster. These projects are performing research on various approaches on inter and intra-chip optoelectonic interconnects including the hybrid and monolithic integration of light emitters and detectors. Exploratory work on advanced concepts for Si based light emission (SiGe, quantum dots, porous silicon) is also supported. In order to co-ordinate the work of the cluster as a whole, a steering committee and working groups (WGs) have been established. More detailed information on existing projects, working groups and steering committee can be found at the following web address:

/esprit/src/melari.htm

Projects selected as a result of this call will complement the activities already in progress in this focused cluster on optoelectronic interconnects for ICs. Priority will be given to work addressing the following topics:

• III/V on Si: wafer fusion for optoelectronic integration.
• Efficient and reliable Si-based light sources, compatible with Si IC operation and fabrication.
• Fast, sensitive, low noise, and low power multiplying detectors/receivers, compatible with CMOS operation.
• Integration and aligning/coupling of low optical loss waveguides on Si.

The emphasis will be on research approaches that could lead to cost effective, manufacturable and practical solutions. The performance of any light sources based on III-V materials is expected to be in the GigaHertz regime. The overall power budget of the driver / emitter /waveguide / detector / receiver system, as well as the expected bit error rate should be addressed.

Focused Cluster no. 2: Nano-scale integrated circuits

The drive towards small dimensions and high performance has led to the emergence of concepts and devices that exploit inherently low power quantum phenomena for their operation, opening up new possibilities for device functionality. Research activities in this part of the MEL-ARI seek to develop the technologies that have the potential to revolutionise information processing circuits in terms of performance, power consumption and manufacturability.

On 1 January, 1997 nine projects were launched under this cluster. These projects carry out research on new approaches to future circuits and devices, such as single electron memories, quantum cellular automata, scanning probe nanofabrication, molecular electronic devices, single flux quantum logic circuits (high Tc), magneto-electronic devices etc.. In order to co-ordinate the work of the cluster as a whole, a steering committee and working groups (WGs) have been established. More detailed information on existing projects, working groups and steering committee can be found at the following web address:

/esprit/src/melari.htm

Projects selected as a result of this call would complement the activity already in progress in this focused cluster on Nano-scale integrated circuits. Priority will be given to work addressing the following topics:

• Nanofabrication techniques suitable for mass production (e.g. arrays of SPMs or low energy e-beam, chemical self assembly, self organised growth, nanoimprint etc.)
• Novel logic architectures beyond Boolean logic, implementable through quantum or nano/scale phenomena.
• Integrated circuits based on resonant tunnelling devices and multi-value logic: manufacturability, circuit architectures, design.

Compatibility with the existing manufacturing base is an issue that should be addressed, but not a hard constraint. Manufacturability and potential for mass production at low unit cost of nano-scale circuits are however essential. Room temperature operation will be preferred, but it is not mandatory. The systems developed do not need to be based on silicon, but work on silicon-compatible technologies is encouraged.

2.3 Specific Project Characteristics

The selected projects will be jointly launched at a kick-off meeting under the supervision of the Commission, and might have to make adjustments to their workplan at this stage in order to improve their cohesion and overall coverage of the area.

Projects should be cost effective and objective-driven. Any links to existing project work within MEL-ARI should be explained. Each project should consist of a number of work packages, which address the different technological or architectural challenges in a complementary way. The workplan should include flow diagrams that describe sequences and interdependencies among the different work parts and should be flexible to allow for periodic reconfiguration of the work, including possible premature termination of work parts not progressing according to expectations or launching of new activities where needed. Revisions of workplans of different projects within the same focused cluster would be co-ordinated in order to preserve the coherence of the overall work under the cluster.

Each project will be managed by a board, consisting of the work package leaders. Project management should be practical, results-oriented and cost-effective, with milestones, decision points and deliverables. Emphasis should be given to effective collaboration in a real team effort, as well as to maintaining adequate interfaces to other projects in the same cluster of MEL-ARI. Each selected project will participate through a representative in one of the existing cluster steering committees.

3. Participation

3.1 Rules on Participation

From EU member states

The programme is open to all legal entities - i.e. people and organisations - established and carrying out RTD activities in the Member States of the European Union (industrial firms both large and small enterprises aimed at bringing products and services to the market - universities, higher education institutes, research organisations, etc.), and to the Joint Research Centre of the EC.

The group of proposers must contain at least two non-affiliated participants from different member states or from one member state and one state associated and financially contributing to the Programme.

From associated and financially contributing states

Participation in this programme, with financial contribution from the EU, is open to any legal entity established or carrying out RTD activities in a third country associated with and contributing financially to the implementation of this Programme.

These are currently: Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein and Norway.

From other European countries, Australia, Canada and South Africa

Legal entities established and carrying out RTD activities in other European countries or in countries who have concluded an S&T; agreement with the EU (not financially contributing as described above) may participate in the programme on condition that:

• the participation is in the interest of EU policies
• the minimum stipulated number of legal entities from the EU and associated and financially contributing states are involved

These states are at printing date: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldavia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey and Ukraine, for which financial support by the EU, would in the case of acceptance of the proposal, normally be provided from funds other than the Esprit budget (an explicit request for such funding has to accompany the proposal).

Swiss, Australian and Canadian organisations may participate under the above conditions, but without funding from the EC. It is expected that agreement with South Africa will be reached in early 1997, so that organisations from South Africa may from then on also participate under the above conditions without EC funding.

Organisations from other states

Legal entities established in states other than above listed, may participate on condition that:

• the participation contributes effectively to the implementation of the Programme and provides mutual benefit to the interests of the EU and the state concerned
• the minimum stipulated number of legal entities from the EU or associated and financially contributing states are involved

Organisations from Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan and the USA are not eligible for funding from the EU.

For organisations from other countries, financial support by the EU may be provided from funds other than the Esprit budget. An explicit request for such funding has to accompany the proposal.

International organisations

International Organisations may participate on condition that:

• the participation contributes effectively to the implementation of the Programme
• the minimum stipulated number of legal entities from the EU or associated and financially contributing states are involved

Financial support from the Esprit Programme may be provided to international organisations situated in Europe on a case by case basis. An explicit request for such funding has to accompany the proposal.

3.2 Financial and Contractual Conditions

If your proposal is successful in the evaluation and is selected for further negotiation, the Commission services will contact you for finalisation of the Project Programme and budgetary aspects.

The Project Officer assigned to be the responsible Commission official will provide you with the necessary documentation. The time needed in this phase depends on the complexity and evaluators' comments, but normally negotiations would take between 4 and 8 weeks if the work is well planned by the consortium.

The contract used for RTD actions is the standard Cost Reimbursement Contract for RTD as adapted to the Esprit programme.

The Commission has published an information booklet concerning the contracting conditions and the standard contract. You can obtain this booklet by request from:

**** e-mail: info-dg12@DG12.cec.be; fax: +32/2 295 82 20 ****

The contract provides explicit definitions of the partnership, the reporting obligations, the allowable costs and other financial conditions and the intellectual property right conditions. The contractual terms cannot be overruled by a consortium agreement, but the latter is recommended to provide further detail for the consortium on management and exploitation aspects. A model text is not available as it would depend very much on the specific situation of the consortium work to be done under the associate contract.

The essential contractual/financial aspects for RTD contracts are the following:

• The Commission contributes 50% of the actual allowable costs, including overheads. Labour rates, including overheads, need to be accepted by Commission services on the basis of a detailed explanation using analytical budget accounting. For universities and research institutions which do not use analytical accounting systems, the Commission may decide that they must use the so-called 100% additional cost method. This method excludes labour cost of permanent staff and allows only limited overheads. For precise details see the contract text.
• Reporting on results is to be described in the Project Programme, which will form Annex 1 to the contract. Normally every 6 or 12 months cost statements and progress reports are required and a review meeting held with external expert reviewers, to monitor the progress.
• Consortia consist of:
  • Normal partners or contractors, signing the contract and having full rights and obligations, including joint and several responsibility for the work. One of them will take the task of co-ordinator and is responsible for management and administrative tasks and for liaison with the Commission
  • Associate partners, whose interests normally lie in a restricted part of the work and whose shares are relatively small. They will have an associate contract with a normal partner and take no joint and several responsibility. Rights will be appropriate to their share in the work. The conditions on allowable costs, audits and reporting are the same as for normal partners. Associate partners provide standard cost statements and share in the costs of the work like normal partners
  • Sub-contractors, who provide services at market prices. The full costs are born by the partner, who also acquires ownership of the result. The full costs of the services are allowable and the Commission contributes to these costs
• Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The partner who creates (invents) will be the owner of the IPR. Every partner is obliged to provide free licenses for research and exploitation of the results obtained in the project to all contractors. They should also allow access on favourable conditions to background results where needed for exploitation of the project results. Partners have obligations to provide access to IPRs for research to EU and associated state participants in other projects. It is advised that you read carefully the precise contractual conditions, as stated in the Annex II of the standard contract.

4. Evaluation, Format and Criteria

4.1 The evaluation and selection process

The submission and evaluation of the proposals as described in this information package will be done in a single step. Proposers may optionally submit a pre-proposal that will be assessed by the Commission services and feedback will be given (see chapter 5).

All proposals are evaluated by a panel of specially selected experts who are all bound by a confidentiality agreement and a code of conduct to avoid conflicts of interest. The evaluation will be exclusively based on the criteria set out in this section and will include assessment of the conformity of the work with the objectives and topics as stated in chapters 1 and 2 of this Specific Information Document. The evaluation will be carried out under the responsibility and co-ordination of the Commission who will also interact with associate Programmes, e.g. ACTS and IMT.

4.2 Questions to be answered in a Proposal

When making a proposal, proposers should ask themselves the following questions:

• Why is the proposed work needed?
• What does it deliver?
• Who does the work?
• How is the work performed?

Your proposal must answer these questions by fulfilling the criteria detailed below. These will be used by the evaluators to assess the proposal. Criteria address different aspects of a proposal, and assess how it answers the basic questions above, while conforming with the scope and objectives of the programme and showing the necessary European dimension.

The Why

The industrial relevance concerns the industrial context the proposal refers to, including market situation, needs and opportunities, technical state-of-the-art, and outstanding problems.

The What

The objectives set the specific scientific and technical targets to be achieved by the proposers, whereas results define the concrete outcomes of the project. Projects should be innovative within their specific industrial context and provide benefits to a wider community than solely the proposers themselves.

The Who

The proposers must satisfy the evaluators that they collectively have the necessary skills and abilities to achieve the objectives of the project.

The How

The approach mainly concerns the identification of scientific and technological elements, methodology, and planned resources needed to achieve the objectives. The take-up of results refers to the identification of credible and suitable mechanisms of technology transfer, whereas the work planning mainly concerns the identification of activities needed to achieve scientific and technical objectives and the assignment of these activities to the different participants. Duration and resources concerns the staffing and time scale of activities identified in the work plan, whereas project management focuses on how all the components above are managed to achieve success.

You should keep the above basic questions in mind while fulfilling the criteria detailed below. These criteria address the different aspects of a proposal in detail, and will be used by the expert evaluators to assess how it answers the basic questions above, while conforming with the scope and objectives of the Programme and showing the necessary European-level added value. The criteria are designed to provide a fair, practical and consistent way of establishing to what extent proposals meet the goals of Esprit.

4.3 Proposal preparation and evaluation criteria

In this section we will specify the recommended structure of, and the evaluation criteria which need to be satisfied by proposals. A proposal is comprised of two parts:

Part 1: providing the administrative and financial data

Part 2: providing the technical description of the proposed project.

You may submit proposals in any official language of the EC. However, it is appreciated to supply at least the summary in English as this will assist the speedy evaluation of proposals.

The description of the proposal structure given below includes the criteria which have to be addressed in each of the sections. Certain criteria might be addressed in several sections. In such cases it is advised to refer in the relevant section to other places in the proposal which should be taken into account for assessment.

Part 1: Administrative and financial data

To complete Part 1 of the proposal you need to complete all the forms as given in Annex 1. You can obtain an electronic version of these forms by downloading them from the Esprit Web pages. You are strongly recommended to use this way of data preparation and send the prepared diskette along with the proposal.

If you use the Web software to prepare a diskette, it will make it easier to fill in the correct data in the right format. You can also make clear print-outs and it will help Commission services to enter your data quickly in their database. Of course, you may complete the paper forms, or the forms as they are provided by other programmes for RTD Project proposals, as these contain the same questions. In either case, please follow carefully the detailed instructions.

A complete Part 1 comprises:

• The duly completed forms 1a, 1b and 2 as given in the Annex A.
  Form 1a must include the signed declaration of the co-ordinator concerning possible involvement of his organisation in other related or similar proposals in the same or other Calls, in Esprit or other EC programmes.
  Form 1a must also contain a short (max. 1,000 characters) project synopsis. This will be used by both programme staff and external evaluators during the evaluation and will be copied on the evaluation reports provided to the Member State Committee. It should state what is covered in the proposed project, its rationale and importance.
  Please note that the Commission will not edit or reduce the synopsis in any way. If the synopsis is longer than 1,000 characters, all characters above this will be lost automatically.
  Form 1b must present the proposal resource breakdown per partner as well as other administrative information concerning the proposal.
  Form 2 must be completed by each participant, including associate partners, and present the individual participant profiles.
• A written statement of each participating organisation, signed by a representative of the organisation duly empowered to do so, and authorising its participation.

Part 2: Description of the Proposed RTD Project

Part 2 (your project description) should follow the recommended structural outline given below and provide all the information requested in no more than 30 pages. It should contain the following sections:

• Technical summary
• Project objectives and scope
• European dimension
• Industrial relevance
• Results and potential innovation
• Approach
• Work plan
• Project management
• Take-up of results
• Duration and resources
• The proposers

The description of these sections as well as the criteria used for assessment are given below. Evaluators will be asked to use these evaluation criteria to assess your proposal.

It goes without saying that evaluators are best helped in conducting their task if the information provided is concise and follows the recommended structure. Any irrelevant information should be avoided.

Technical Summary

This section should be one page and should capture the essence of the proposal. It should summarise:

• The project objectives, the approach and the expected scientific and technical results (WHAT)
• The industrial relevance (WHY).
• The structure of the consortium and the role of partners (WHO). Note: This may be a copy of the 1000 character summary given in Part 1 (form 1a).

Project Objectives and Scope

The rationale for the project should be clarified. In particular:

• conformity with the scope and objectives of the programme
• the specific measurable project objectives and how they will be measured (yardsticks)
• progress in respect to the technical state-of-the art,

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Does the proposal fall within the scope and objectives of the IT programme and its work programme.
• Does the proposal comply with the objectives, scope and content of this call on MEL-ARI as described in sections 1 and 2 of this document.
• Does the proposal clearly describe the technical objectives, expected progress with respect to the current state of the art, and define appropriate means to measure their successful achievement.
• Does the proposal clearly describe the expected benefits, supported by quantitative comparisons to (or extensions of) conventional technology.

European dimension

Address the relevance of the work to the competitivity of European industry and the interdependence with ongoing national, European or international programmes

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Are the rules on participation as defined in section 3.1 satisfied?
• Does the proposal show a clear added value in carrying out the proposed work at European level?
• Where appropriate, have proposers described dependencies on related projects or proposals carried out within national, European or international programmes?

Industrial relevance

Important aspects are:

• the industrial context or market opportunities
• the potential industrial impact, in particular through improved technologies

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Do proposed results clearly relate to identified future industrial needs? (What is the exact problem that the project solves?)
• In what way is the proposed work of demonstrable relevance to European industry?

Results and potential innovation

The proposal should describe the expected results, and explain in what respect these results are novel compared to the state-of-the art.

• Does the proposal clearly describe the foreseen long term technological and scientific results and are they clearly outlined in the proposal?
• Are the innovations sought put in context with respect to the state of the art and progress being made world-wide?

Approach

The approach, methodologies and technologies being used and developed in order to achieve the project results must be described.

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Is there a clear description of the approach, and is it adequate to achieve the objectives and obtain the expected results, taking into consideration such factors as scientific and technological elements, methodology, planned resources and cost-effectiveness?

Project Work plan

Describe concisely the work planned to achieve the objectives of the project and include the following elements:

• introduction and analysis of the work
• structured description of the work defined as work packages, tasks with identification of partner contributions and responsibilities
• description of timetable of deliverables, milestones, and expected results (e.g. prototypes, reports, etc.)
• charts and graphics shall be used to illustrate the sequence and structure of the work.

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Is a clear presentation given of major development phases, associated milestones and deliverables, and are they clearly related to the stated project objectives?
• Are proposed results and deliverables assessable and are quantitative yardsticks provided against which to measure the project progress?
• Is the contribution of each participant unambiguously related to the work packages by indicating their technical contribution and commitment of effort to each of the tasks?
• Are the workpackages, tasks and their interdependencies clearly defined and scheduled in the context of a plan for advancing towards the long term objectives? Is the work well planned with appropriate milestones at least every 6 months?
• Is the approach convincing in that it addresses the relevant technical domains, manufacturing requirement or other issues that would need to be tackled in order to achieve the overall objectives? Does it also takes into account and draws contributions as needed from any other running or completed research projects or programmes world-wide?

Project management

The project management could form one of the work packages described under Project Work plan. Here one should address:

• roles and resources dedicated to project management and control, in particular for work package and overall project co-ordination
• project management processes, mechanisms for corrective actions and decision making procedures

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Are proposed project management procedures effective, clearly described and include appropriate provisions for conflict resolution?
• Are proposed co-ordination, reporting and progress monitoring procedures clearly described and do they include mechanisms for corrective actions as required?
• Are project and task level roles and responsibilities identified, allocated and suitably distributed amongst the partners?
• Is provision made for co-ordination between the project and any other projects operating in the same cluster?

Take-up of results

Outline the consortium's strategy for information dissemination and take-up of the foreseen project results. It should

• describe the potential industrial impact of the results,
• identify the routes and mechanisms for their take-up,
• include plans for any dissemination and awareness actions.

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Does the proposal describe relevant information dissemination activities?
• Is the potential impact of the expected scientific and technological results clearly explained?
• Are clear, credible and timely routes and mechanisms for the take-up of the results identified, in particular in relation to short term spin-offs?

Duration and Resources

Estimates of the resources (manpower, equipment, etc.) should be presented for each partner and for each work package and summarised at the project level. Total cost and total funding should be given. Any unusual expenditure, such as large equipment costs should be highlighted.

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Are realistic estimates given of the total costs and funding in ECU's for the project as a whole and for each of the partners separately?
• Does the proposal set out the estimated effort, expressed in person-years, for each partner and work package in accordance with achieving the results?
• Does the workplan cover a period of 2 to 3 years? Does the proposal clearly states the duration of each activity and its resource requirements?
• Are the time scales realistic and the resources appropriate for the research to be both effective and cost-efficient? Are the total resources stated for the entire period the proposal covers, as well as for the first 2 years?
• Are there any envisaged plans and prospects beyond the 3 year period?

The Proposers

Present the rationale for the specific consortium, and include:

• a description of each partner, their skills and experience
• the role of each partner in the project
• the CVs of the "key" staff involved in the project in an annex. Each CV should be no more than one page in length

Criteria to be addressed in this section are:

• Are the number of proposers and their roles, skills and experience sufficient and necessary for achieving the expected objectives. Is the profile of partners clearly described?
• Do the proposers demonstrate their capabilities and plans in sufficient depth to inspire confidence that they will achieve the results?
• Is a significant and balanced co-operation between the partners proposed?

5. Submitting a Pre-Proposal

5.1 Objectives

The assessment of pre-proposals is a service provided for the Microelectronics Advanced Research Initiative (MEL-ARI) to help proposers intending to submit a LTR proactive proposal to Task 4.3 of the work programme, by giving advice and guidance wherever possible concerning either the conditions for participation or the suitability of the proposed work with respect to the scope and content of the MEL-ARI, or regarding any other aspects which may assist in improving the quality of the proposal. The main objectives of the pre-proposal exercise are:

• to ensure conformity with the eligibility criteria
• to ensure conformity with the scope, content and specific characteristics of this MEL-ARI call
• to encourage the submission of proposals that are well balanced with respect to multidisciplinarity, complementarity, European dimension, etc.

5.2 Nature of the pre-proposal exercise

Pre-proposals are submitted on a voluntary basis only. It must be stressed that the informal advice provided through the pre-proposals does not in any way engage the Commission with regard to acceptance or rejection of proposals formally submitted at a later stage. In assessing the pre-proposals submitted, the Commission may seek the advice of the scientific and technological community through external experts. Pre-proposal assessment should not be confused with a pre-evaluation of a proposal in terms of scientific and technical quality. The pre-proposal service is not aimed at the identification of possible partners

5.3 Submission of pre-proposals

Pre-proposals should ideally be not more than 5 pages long. The format is free but pre-proposals should include a title and a summary of the project objectives, of the workplan, and of the expected benefits. The consortium should also be described: the already known partners should be stated, and the specifications for missing partners should be given. An estimate of the total cost must be provided, as well as, if available, a tentative cost breakdown between partners.

Pre-proposals should be submitted within the deadlines given in chapter 1 preferably by e-mail to the addresses below. Fax or mail can also be used, although not recommended:

for the focused Cluster no. 1: Optoelectronic interconnects for integrated circuits

P. Malinverni
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi - N105 6/17
B-1049 Brussels
Fax: +32-2-296.83.90
E-mail: ariopto@dg3.cec.be

for the focused Cluster no. 2: Nano-scale integrated circuits

R. Compañó / K. Glinos
European Commission
200 rue de la Loi - N105 6/52
B-1049 Brussels
Fax: +32-2-296.83.90
E-mail: arinano@dg3.cec.be

5.4 Processing of pre-proposals

A response to pre-proposals submitted will be provided by e-mail or fax as soon as possible, and the proposers may be invited to contact the Commission if any further clarification of the response to the pre-proposal is required.

These contacts may take place after the deadline for submission of pre-proposals until approximately 2 weeks before the call closing date.

6. Submitting a Proposal

Each proposal must have a co-ordinating proposer, shortly co-ordinator, and this section of the information package is primarily directed to him. Normally, the co-ordinator will become the project co-ordinator, if the proposal is ultimately successful.

Proposals should be submitted by the co-ordinator, who will be responsible for the liaison with the Commission.

The coordinator should submit one full original of each proposal plus 6 copies. This includes the forms and any useful information you choose to include, as long as it is relevant and limited in length.

It is your responsibility to assemble the proposal and you should submit it in one parcel.

It is also your responsibility to ensure that the proposal is delivered at the appropriate address before expiration of the deadline.

Delivery of your Proposal

Your proposal should be sent by courier or postal services or delivered by hand to:

IT Programme Office
Boulevard du Souverain, 191-197
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium

You must clearly mark on the parcel:

'Confidential: Proposal for the programme for
RTD in Information Technologies (Esprit)'

Important note

Do not send proposals by fax or E-mail. Do not announce by fax or telephone that the proposals are in the mail. Faxes and telephone calls of this nature hinder the operation of the Commission in handling proposals, and will not be acknowledged. Until two weeks have elapsed, do not telephone or fax to enquire whether your proposal has been received.

Do not send or deliver your proposal to Esprit Commission Offices. This would create considerable delays. The only correct address is the one mentioned above.

Deadlines for Submission

The deadline for submission of the proposal is normally three months after the date of the Call for Proposals. The precise information is given in each call and should be carefully checked and adhered to. Proposals which are received after the deadline are not eligible.

Acknowledgement of Receipt Form

You should include – in the parcel in which the proposal is delivered - a separate envelope containing the official 'Acknowledgement of Receipt' form as given in the Annex. On this you – the co-ordinator - must put your organisation's name and address and the title of the proposed project. This will ensure that the acknowledgement is returned to you correctly addressed.

Before it is returned, however, the Commission's reception staff will record the date of receipt and a unique reference number on the form. This reference number must be used in all subsequent correspondence relating to the proposal.

You should ensure that all proposers are given the proposal reference number and use it in all contacts with the Commission.

If you do not receive an 'Acknowledgement of receipt' within two weeks after the closing date of the Call, or the date of submission in case of a continuous Call, you should send a fax to the IT Programme office (Fax: +32-2-663.72.00), indicating the acronym, title, domain, type of action and name of co-ordinator. You will receive an answer by fax within one week. You are strongly advised to retain proof of dispatch if the proposal is mailed or send by courier.

Submitting the proposals to other programmes

You are advised to submit proposals only once and to not send proposals which are essentially the same to different domains of the Esprit Programme or different programmes.

If the proposal is related to other Esprit domains or to other Community programmes you are advised to indicate this in the proposal itself or in an attached covering letter.

In any case you should give details on similar proposals on form 1a and sign the declaration.

The IT programme will take your comments in account and when appropriate involve the other domains or other programmes in the evaluation.

The IT programme reserves the right to redirect the proposals to another domain than indicated by the proposers or to another programme if EC staff or evaluators indicate that that would be more appropriate.

6. Further Information

If there are further questions on the content of this Specific Information Document or if there is a need for further clarification in matters relating to the call, please contact:

8. Annexes

Form 1a : Proposal Administrative Summary

Form 1b : Proosal Administrative Summary (continued)

Form 2 : Individual Participant Profile

List of Codes

Acknowledgement of Receipt Form

Glossary

LIST OF CODES

European Commission
Directorate General III: Industry
RTD: Information Technologies

Glossary

9. Esprit National Contact Points

National Contact Points will help if you have any questions about the Programme and the preparation of proposals.

A list of National Contact Points is available for consultation.

The URL of this document is /esprit/src/arimel.htm

It was last updated on 18 August 1997 and is maintained by Esprit