CORDIS Archive
This page has been archived. It will no longer be updated.
 |
 |
|
 |
 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
- MANUAL -
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| . |
ENVIRONMENT SUBPROGRAMME
1. The Evaluation Process.1.1 Pre-registration. Pre-registration of proposals will not be offered.1.2 Pre-proposal check. Initial pre-checking will be offered. 1.3 Remote or postal evaluation. All evaluations will normally be performed within the premises controlled by the Commission, with possible exceptions for proposals for Infrastructures and for Accompanying Measures submitted in response to a call for proposals. 1.4 Anonymity. The evaluation of the scientific and technological excellence aspects of project proposals (research and technological development, demonstration, combined RTD/demonstration, thematic networks, concerted actions and accompanying measures) will be carried out according to the rules preserving strict anonymity of the applicants. For further steps of the evaluation and other types of action these rules will not be applied. 1.5 The Evaluation Procedure. The evaluation will be carried out in two stages. Stage 1 will be the evaluations by the various panels, while stage 2 will be done by the extended panel.
Stage 1: Stage 1 will be divided into 3 steps. The step 1 evaluation will consist of evaluating scientific and technological value, including innovation (block 1). The identity of the participants will not be disclosed to the evaluators. At the end of this step, the evaluators will make a "go/no go" recommendation, depending if the threshold for step 1 has been reached or not. At step 2, the evaluators will assess "Community added value and contribution to EU policies" (block 2), "Contribution to Community social objectives" (block 3) and "Economic development and S&T; prospects" (block 4). The identity of the participants will be known. At the end of this second step, a "go/no go" recommendation will be made depending if the minimum threshold for step 2 has been reached. At step 3, the evaluators will assess "Management and resources" (block 5). At the end of this step, a "go/no go" recommendation will be made depending if the minimum threshold for step 3 has been reached. Only the proposals which have reached the minimum thresholds for steps 1, 2 and 3, i.e. those which received a go recommendation after all three steps, will proceed to stage 2. The overall mark will be the sum of the points of the blocks for the first 3 steps, taking into account the weighting factors so that the highest possible total will be 100%. Normally, experts will be rotated from proposal to proposal so as to harmonise the ratings throughout the process and to make best use of the available expertise. If the evaluators cannot agree on a common view, then the moderator will ask another panel for a new evaluation of the proposal. If the second panel reaches consensus, the views of the first panel will be discarded. If there is still no consensus, the moderator will ask the two panels collectively to record the majority and the minority views. Stage 2 Stage 2 by the extended panel will be done as described in the general manual. 1.6 Specific procedure for the Specific Measures for SMEs. The evaluation procedure, criteria and weightings concerning the above will be defined in the specific annex to the IPS programme.
2. Specific interpretation of evaluation criteriaThe evaluation criteria and their interpretation are the same as described in the general manual
3. Weighting of the evaluation criteria and thresholdsWeighting of evaluation criteria For shared-cost actions, the weighting of the various blocks will be as follows (on a scale of 1 to 10) for all 4 key actions for the scientific and technical evaluation (Block 1), for the socio-economic evaluation (Blocks 2-4) and for the evaluation of the proposed management and resources (Block 5).
Thresholds The thresholds for the 3 steps of stage 1 will be as follows:
Accompanying measures, networks and concerted actions will be evaluated with the same weightings and thresholds as those for the infrastructure projects (5/2/3).
ENERGY (INCLUDING EURATOM) SUBPROGRAMME
1. The Evaluation process1.1 Pre-Registration. Pre-registration of proposals will not be offered.1.2 Pre-proposal check. Initial pre-checking will be offered. 1.3 Remote or postal evaluation. All evaluations will normally be performed within the premises controlled by the Commission. 1.4 Anonymity. Due to the nature of research into energy matters, the evaluation process will need to integrate socio-economic and scientific/technical issues fully at all stages. To this end, the evaluation will be carried out by joint teams of experts gathering the necessary scientific and socio-economic expertise, hence the identity of the proposers will be revealed to the experts from the ouset of the evaluation. 1.5. The Evaluation Procedure. Proposals submitted to the Energy sub-programme will be examined by a number of panels of experts covering different areas of energy RTD (for proposals dealing with nuclear energy, different areas of RTDT in nuclear energy and radiation protection), composed of teams of ‘technical experts’ and ‘socio-economists’. At Stage 1, proposals will in principle be attributed to teams composed simultaneously of ‘technical experts’ and ‘socio-economists’ for assessment along the evaluation criteria of the specific programmes (see below). As a first part of the evaluation, experts will be asked to assess the pertinence of the proposal with regard to the problems identified in the calls. Only proposals deemed pertinent will be further assessed.By ‘technical experts’, it is meant experts with confirmed and up-to-date scientific and technological knowledge concerning the topics of the programmes open for the related call for proposals, and a good sense of resources assessment and project management issues. These experts should also have experience in international cooperation. For a given proposal, at the end of the individual assessment by the experts (taking into account the specific interpretation, thresholds and weighting given in the following tables), the moderator will convene the evaluators to a meeting to discuss the proposal. During this meeting, the experts will attempt to agree on a final mark for the proposal, justified by written comments, and a recommendation to the Commission. The final mark attributed to a proposal must be coherent to the recommendation to the Commission. If no consensus on the final mark and on the recommendation is achieved, the Commission will consider the average mark as the final mark, quoting the majority view as well as any dissenting views. The final recommendation is taken according to the majority rule. To be recommended at Stage 1, proposals should receive at least 2/3 of the total score possible. Stage 2: when Stage 1 has terminated, in order to check on the consistency of the marks given within different panels and in order to prioritise proposals which demonstrate similar merits at Stage 1, an ‘extended panel’ composed of representative(s) of individual panels will be constituted. As a result, the overall mark and/or comments can be changed and constitute the final recommendation of experts to the Commission services. Proposals will be ranked by key action and/or thematic priority in accordance with the scores.1.6 Specific procedure for the Specific Measures for SMEs The evaluation procedure, criteria and weightings concerning the above are defined in the specific annex to the IPS programme.
2. Specific interpretation of evaluation criteria Onespecific interpretation relates to the Scientific and Technological Excellence.
3. Weighting of the evaluation criteria (scale of 1 to 10) and thresholds (scale of 0 to 5)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conc. Actions Thematic Networks Accompanying Measures |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY Weighting (Threshold) | |||||
|
TYPE OF ACTION |
Scientific and technological excellence |
Community Added value etc. |
Contribution to Community Social Objectives |
Economic Development and S&T; prospects |
Management |
| Key actions and Generic Actions |
4 |
4 |
2 | ||
|
Support for research Infra-Structures |
4 |
4 |
2 | ||
|
Concerted Action Thematic Networks Accompanying Measures |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
______________________________________________
21.Minimum average mark required for this criterion for a proposal to be considered for funding.
|
|
|
|
