Access to Research Infrastructures - Call of 15.11.2000 - Evaluation

Access to Research Infrastructures (ARI)

Evaluation of the third call for proposals to the Access to Research Infrastructures action of the Human Potential Programme (IHP-INF-00-1)

1. Background and proposal statistics

1.1 - The rationale of the Access to Research Infrastructures action is to provide access for researchers, wherever they are from the Community, to large nationally-owned research facilities on the same terms and conditions as nationals of the countries that run the facilities (i.e. normally free of charge to the researchers). The action provides also opportunities to promote innovative research into new instrumentation and co-operation, at a Community-wide level, to improve the exploitation of Europe's research infrastructures (through Co-operation Networks and RTD projects).

1.2 - The Human Potential Programme foresees only three calls for proposals concerning Access to Research Infrastructures. The first call was closed in 1999 and resulted in the commitment of 115 Mio EUR. The second call, which was limited to Co-operation Networks, was closed in 2000 and resulted in the commitment of a further 5.4 Mio EUR. The third call, which is also the final, was open to all types of support (Transnational Access, Co-operation Networks and RTD Projects).

1.3 - Following the publication of the call for proposals on 15 November 2000 (call identifier: IHP-INF-00-1), 149 eligible proposals were received by the closing date of 15 February 2001. Of them 112 were for Transnational Access, 9 for Infrastructure Co-operation Networks (ICN) and 28 for RTD Projects. The overall distribution of partners per country for all proposals received is shown in Annex 1. The requested funding is close to 173 Mio EUR (average per proposal = 1,16 Mio EUR). As the indicative budget available for this call is 59 Mio EUR, the rate of oversubscription is 2.9.

2. Peer Review Arrangements

2.1 - The scientific evaluation was carried out by a dedicated Panel with 51 members (including 14 women) meeting twice (6 March and 23-25 April). Prof. Pierre Papon (Ecole de Physique et de Chimie Industriale, Paris) was the Panel's Chairman. Mrs. Katharine Barker (PREST, University of Manchester) was present at both meetings as Independent Observer. The breakdown of experts in the Panel, by nationality and area of expertise, is attached as Annex 2.

2.2 - At the first meeting, all proposals were screened by class of facility and assigned to at least three Panel members for them to conduct individual assessments in time for the second meeting. In addition, each class of facilities was assigned to a rapporteur, who was given the task of chairing the consensus meetings at the second session. The rapporteur of each class was chosen from among the experts of another in order to ensure a homogeneous approach across the various classes of facility and a further element of impartiality.

2.3 - At the second meeting, all proposals were discussed in the light of individual assessments. All proposals were considered to be within the scope of the call and were given a mark by the panel for each of the evaluation criteria (with marks going from 0 to 5). Where relevant, and in accordance with the Evaluation Manual, reports of the Technical Audit of TMR contracts (and of earlier HCM contracts) were made available to assessors and rapporteurs. The details of the Evaluation process are described in the Guide for Evaluators and in the Guide for Proposers for this call, both of which have been available since November 2000 on the Human Potential Programme web page on Internet.

3. Results of the Evaluation

3.1 - For 40 proposals the total marks attributed by the panel fell below 70 % of the maximum. All other 109 proposals, corresponding to a total requested budget of 131.3 Mio EUR, were ranked in priority order. The priority order recommended by the Panel follows the order of the total marks attributed and has not been modified by the Commission services.

3.2 - The Panel produced also a summary report of the evaluation of each proposal, based on individual comments made by primary assessors and on the panel discussion at the second meeting. The summary reports have been communicated to all applicants. In the case of successful proposals, these summary reports are meant to serve as a basis for the negotiation of contracts (to be started in the order of priority of the list and until consumption of the available budget). In all other cases they are transmitted as an explanation of the reasons for rejection.

4. Proposals for Transnational Access

4.1 In the case of access proposals, the Panel recommended reducing the estimated costs for the 69 proposals in the main priority list, i.e. down to the level that corresponds to the total indicative budget available for the call(1), from 83.6 Mio EUR to 33.7 Mio EUR. This corresponds to an average reduction of - 60 % and was due to three main reasons. Firstly, the duration of funding for transnational access will be limited to a period of about two years (i.e. until the expected start of new contracts in the next FP), whereas applications varied but were mostly for longer periods. Secondly, account was taken of the residual funding level remaining on the contracts for those facilities already supported following the first call. Thirdly, in order to avoid undue dependence on this Programme for the running of facilities, care has been taken to limit funding to no more than 15-20% of the annual running costs of any facility. For those proposals where the requested funding is significantly higher that what has been proposed, a "pro-rata" reduction of the corresponding amount of access will be negotiated (taking into account any specific recommendations by the panel). Despite these reductions, the average funding per facility is about 0.49 Mio EUR, i.e. about 0.21 Mio EUR/year which corresponds typically to 5-15% of the operating costs of the infrastructures and can therefore be considered as an appropriate level for this Programme. At the end of the previous TMR Programme, for comparison, this figure was 0.27 Mio ECU. Similar considerations apply to the remaining proposals in the priority list, i.e. beyond the indicative available budget, which can be regarded as a "reserve list".

5. New Applications and Re-Applications

Of the 69 access proposals short-listed (down to the level that corresponds to the total indicative budget available for the call), 31 concerned applications for contract extensions from among the 109 facilities already financed for access under the first IHP round. As can be seen from the table below, the selection rate for such applications was 86 %, in line with the experience of the first round.

Of the remaining 38 proposals in the main priority list, 8 concerned facilities previously financed for access by the TMR/HCM/LIP Programmes, but not so far by the IHP Programme. These proposals had a selection rate of 50%.

The final tranche of 30 proposals in the main priority list concerned facilities that have never previously been financed for access. The selection rate of such proposals (50%) and their relative number over the total are both significantly higher than what was achieved by such proposals in the first round. This reflects the greater willingness of the Evaluation Panel to recommend "trial funding" for "new" facilities, which have yet to prove their ability to satisfy all the characteristics necessary to be considered as large-scale facilities within the meaning of the Programme.

6. RTD Projects and Co-operation Networks

6.1 As for RTD projects, the Panel recommended reducing the estimated costs for the 18 proposals in the main priority list (again, down to the level that corresponds to the total indicative budget available for the call) from 30.7 Mio EUR to 23.2 Mio EUR. This corresponds to an average reduction of about - 25 % and was due mostly to some proposals where the Panel considered that a significantly higher fraction of the project costs should be borne by the various partners. Altogether the 18 RTD projects in the main priority list involve the participation of 132 partners (average: 7.3 partners per project), including 4 from industry. The average estimated cost per project is about 1.3 Mio EUR (it was about 1.2 Mio ECU, on average, under the previous call).

6.2 For Co-operation Networks the recommended reduction for the 5 proposals in the main priority list was from 2.5 Mio EUR to 2.1 Mio EUR, i.e. an average reduction of about -16%. Altogether these networks involve the participation of 47 partners (average: 9.4 partners per project), including 6 from industry. The average estimated cost per network is about 0.4 Mio EUR (compared with 0.36 Mio EUR for the first two calls combined).

7. Links of the recommended proposals with the Thematic Programmes

Following a consultation with the relevant Commission services, all proposals in those areas that are potentially eligible for support under the Thematic Programmes, in particular Networks and RTD projects, were considered to be outside the scope of those programmes and therefore eligible for support under the Human Potential Programme. Of course, those networks that may eventually be selected will be implemented in close coordination with the relevant Thematic Programmes.

8. Participation by third countries

8.1 Several proposals in the main priority lists include partners from third countries, including countries outside Member Countries and Associated States (14) and European intergovernmental organisations (7).

Annexes:

1. Distribution by country of partners in proposals received
2. Breakdown of experts in the Panel according to nationality and to the particular expertise required

Distribution by country of partners in proposals received

Transnational Access: Number of proposals received

Infrastructure Cooperation Networks : Number of partners in proposals received

RTD Projects: Number of partners in proposals received

Breakdown of experts in the Panel according to nationality and to the particular expertise required

1. N.B. The following statistics are purely indicative and are subject to the successful outcome of contract negotiations.
2. Several panel members had expertise in more than one of the classes listed.