LEONARDO DA VINCI Selection exercise 2005 FULL PROPOSALS PROCEDURE B

1
LEONARDO DA VINCISelection exercise 2005FULL
PROPOSALS PROCEDURE B

• Common briefing

2
PRESENTATION

• MAIN MESSAGES
• PRIORITIES OF CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2005-2006
• ASSESSMENT OF CONTENT
• BUDGETARY ASSESSMENT

3

• I. MAIN MESSAGES

4
WELCOME !

• You were selected as the most competent experts
  to evaluate Leonardo da Vinci pilot projects

5
EXPERTS

• Independent
• High professional standard
• Selection criteria
• qualifications
• knowledge of vocational training systems
• expertise in vocational training issues

6
IMPLICATIONS

• Independence!
• No conflict of interest
• Forget your national focus it is a European
  programme
• Quality first!
• Select good projects only

7
OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURE

• Successful pre-proposals invited to submit
  complete proposals
• Procedure B evaluation at national and
  community levels
• Evaluation carried out according to the same
  criteria using a standardised assessment form and
  according to the guidelines approved by the
  Commission

8
LEONARDO DA VINCI PROPOSALS

• 3 types of proposals

9
OUTCOME OF YOUR EVALUATION

• Conciliation procedure
• if the difference between the Community mark
  and the national mark is higher than 2 or/and
  if the difference between the budgets is more
  than 30,
• the experts are invited by the Commission
  (through its Technical Assistance Office) to
  liaise by e-mail or telephone with a view to
  reducing their difference of opinion.
• In the event of continuing disagreement, a new
  evaluator will be named by the Commission.

10
OUTCOME OF YOUR EVALUATION

• An evaluation list of proposals ranked by quality
• National selection committee will establish a
  draft selection list.
• Any change in the evaluation list will be duly
  justified in writing.
• Within the budget available, the best projects
  will be financed.

11
EXPECTATIONS FOR A LEONARDO PROJECT

• True European consortium
• Innovative project (i.e. new solutions)
• Realistic budget (i.e. no over-charging)
• Convincing valorisation plan

12
TRUE EUROPEAN CONSORTIA

• At least 3 countries, except for language
  projects (2)
• At least one UE 25 partner
• Work load (and budget) to be shared as equally as
  possible between the countries

13
INNOVATIVE PROJECT

• 2 TYPES OF INNOVATIVE PROJECTS
• Development of innovation project
• New for the whole of Europe
• i.e. not yet available in Europe
• Transfer of innovation projects
• New for the promoters country and for other
  importing countries
• i.e not yet available in the importing countries

14
REALISTIC BUDGET

• No overestimation of number of person-days
• No over-charging of daily costs i.e. should be
  in line with national daily fees (Europe is not a
  cash cow)

15
GOOD PROJECT

• Objectives and output are SMART
• Specific
• Measurable
• Accurate
• Realistic
• Time-bound

16
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• Be fair
• Be courteous
• substantiate your evaluation
• substantiate your comments to the promoter

17

• II. PRIORITIES OF CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2005-2006

18
Call for proposals 2005-2006

• Forging closer links between the Leonardo da
  Vinci programme and the Copenhagen priorities as
  reaffirmed by the Maastricht Communiqué, so as to
  reach
• the Lisbon and Barcelona 2010 goals
• (Our VET system to become a world reference)

19
PROJECTS SHOULD THEREFORE

• contribute to the setting up of a true European
  labour market
• contribute to the modernization of VET systems in
  Europe

20
Priorities for Projects under procedure B

• Priority 1 Development of a European Labour
  Market by promoting transparency of
  qualifications
• Development of new approaches
• Development of European solutions
• Development of sectoral networks to facilitate
  the exchanges of experiences and good practices.

21
Priorities for Projects under procedure B

• Priority 2 Developing the Quality of VET systems
  and practices
• Refers to the Common Quality Assurance Framework
  agreed by the Technical Working Group on Quality
  in VET (Copenhagen Process)
• Quality assurance procedures, indicators,
  relationships between the labour market and VET

22
Priorities for Projects under procedure B

• Priority 3 Developing relevant and innovative
  e-learning content
• ICT-supported learning, combining ICT based
  learning with other modes of learning
• Appropriate training/learning materials to
  improve skills
• Developing e-learning training tools for Quality
  Management in VET

23
Priorities for Projects under procedure B

• Priority 4 Continuous training of teachers and
  trainers
• Common quality criteria and methods
• Identifying new skills and competencies for
  teachers and trainers
• Developing innovative tools
• Exchange and dissemination of good practices and
  established methods

24
Sectoral approach

• General objective
• Strengthen projects activities at sector level
• Projects must be based on a proper analysis of
  VET needs in the sector

25
Language competences

• Policy background  Action plan on language
• learning and linguistic diversity 
• Language training prior to mobility
• Innovative approaches such as Content and
  Language integrated learning (CLIL)
• Transparency (language tests and certificates)
• Toolkit for language teaching
• Language skills in the workplace
• Diagnostic tools for enterprises

26
Valorisation

• A Valorisation plan is requested in all
  proposals
• Identify needs of interested sectors/users
• Implementation of results must be anticipated
  from the start
• Key players must be involved from the start

27

• III. ASSESSMENT OF CONTENT

28
Three aspects to assess

• Check that proposal corresponds to the
  Objectives, Priorities and Measures of the Call.
• Is the project management of good quality and
  does it guarantee good results?
• Check that the proposal respects the Leonardo da
  Vinci rules partnership, partner countries,
  duration.

29
PRELIMINARY CHECK

• Have you received the correct proposals assigned
  to you
• Is the information of the promoting organisation
  correct
• Is the project number correct?
• Is the other information correct?

30
Point C1 justification

• Is the needs analysis adequate? Is it provided at
  European level and in each partner country ?
• How do the proposal aims support objectives and
  priorities expressed in the Call for proposals?
• Does the proposal show innovative solutions?
  (either development or transfer of innovation)
• Is the proposal based on previous projects? What
  is the added value of the proposal?
• Is it a combined project? What are the
  strengths of this combination?

31
Point C2 Expected results

• Are these clearly described?
• Are these measurable? Quantity/quality?
• Are these suitable for the target groups? What is
  the impact in terms of social dialogue and equal
  opportunities?
• Are these practical, realistic?
• Are these suitable for use in the targeted
  countries?
• Are these innovative?

32
Point C4 Impact

• Does the proposal explain clearly the expected
  Impact?
• For the end-users
• For the VET system concerned
• Is the short-term impact and the long-term impact
  highlighted?

33
Point D Partners

• Is the mixture of expertise in the partnership
  effective (i.e. to achieve the project
  objectives)?
• Is the size of the partnership efficient for this
  project? Why?
• Is the geographic distribution of partners good
  for this project? Why?

34
ContPoint D Partners

• Is the organisational structure of the
  partnership well planned?
• Does the organisation of work between
  promoter/coordinator/partners fit with the
  project profile?
• Are the roles of EU- partners/associated
  partners/silent partners/subcontractors clearly
  explained and well justified?

35
Point E1 Work programme

• Is the content of each work package justified and
  does it help the achievement of the project
  goals?
• What is the output of each work package?
• Is the planning of work efficient for each work
  package?
• Are the person-days required per work package
  realistic?

36
ContPoint E1 Work programme

• Do the players, who are planned to carry out the
  work, have the right qualifications / expertise?
• Are the resources used for each work package
  justified?
• Is the timing of project activities realistic?

37
ContPoint E1 Work programme

• Are the partners roles in work packages coherent
  with the description of partners?
• Is the role of subcontractors justified for good
  quality results?
• Is the share of project work given to
  subcontractors reasonable?

38
Quality Management Plan

• Planned like other key elements of work Programme
• Related to every stage of project (design,
  implementation of results, evaluation,
  valorisation)
• Applicable to all partners
• Includes monitoring and internal/external
  evaluation during the project implementation
• Allows continuous improvement through corrective
  actions

39
VALORISATION PLAN (Dissemination Exploitation
of results Valorisation)

• The proposal is required to explicitly include a
  detailed valorisation plan, indicating the
  timetable, all activities, human and financial
  resources, any commercialisation
• Dissemination is a part (but only a part) of the
  valorisation plan
• Most important is exploitation and implementation
  of results

40
VALORISATION PLAN

• Identifies users needs and group of users to be
  associated with the project during its lifetime
• Identifies potential new users, multipliers
  decision makers
• Identifies milestones for their involvement

41
Rating (1, 2, 3, 4)

• 1 Excellent - All aspects well developed.
  Excellent results can be expected!
• 2 Good Despite some weaknesses, good results
  can be achieved with close monitoring.
• 3 Fair Several shortcomings, as well as some
  good points. Doubts on successful outcome.
• 4 Poor - Failure in one or several aspects.

42
Rating (1, 2, 3, 4)

• Use the full scale!
• Just because the pre-proposal was judged as good
  or excellent, it does not necessarily mean that
  the full proposal will also be poor!

43
Assessment Summary

• Summary of ratings from each chapter.
• Final rating NOT necessarily mathematical average
  of these.
• Coherence with ratings and comments.
• Give overall written comments to justify the
  final rating and to give general impression of
  the project.
• Is the proposal coherent/credible/ready? Why?
• Which are the most important weaknesses? Why?

44
Comments to Promoter

• Your comments need to reflect your ratings
• Promoters, National Agency and Commission rely on
  your recommendations
• Give clear, project specific comments avoid
  overly general comments.
• Instructions as to potential improvement.
• Explanation why or
• Check your language! Comments will be given
  directly to the promoter!!

45

• IV. BUDGET ASSESSMENT

46
Reference documents

• Guidelines for evaluators
• Section E1 - Work programme
• Section E2 - Financial Plan
• Annex 5 Guidelines for the financial evaluation
• Administrative and Financial Handbook
• Chapter I, II.1, III.2 (Annex 5 with more detail)
• Assessment form section E1, E2
• Excel Spreadsheet
• Control of Programme and Category ceilings

47
Objectives of evaluation

• Assess the financial plan/budget
• Units of Input (work plan) and Price per Unit
• Recommend a sounder budget if needed
• Recommendations must be specific and measurable
  (SMART) and coherent
• Do not radically transform budget
• Do not improve the proposal AS IS evaluation
• Comparison of similar activities in different
  proposals may help in evaluation

48
Results of evaluation

• If budget is highly overestimated, proposal
  should be rejected
• Use the whole range of marks (1-4) for the budget
  evaluation
• Reject proposal if serious problem with the
  budget
• Inadequate, inconsistent, inflated, improper
  co-financing

49
Budget General principles

• Budgetary evaluation - technical check
• Financial Plan prepared according to Application
  forms
• Financing per partner (in D1 and E2.4) consistent
  with the Letters of Intent
• Total sums consistent in B1, D1 and E2.1-E2.4
• Analyse work packages per partner
• Table E1
• Basis for evaluation of income and expenditure
  per partner
• Input Number of units of resources planned

50
Budget General principles (contd)

• Resources (with regard to activities) must be
  Eligible
• Connected to subject - relevant
• Necessary
• Reasonable and justified
• Will be generated during lifetime
• Will be incurred, recorded in accounts, legal
• Identifiable and verifiable
• Guidelines Annex 5, AFH Chapter III.2

51
Application Form

• E.2.1. Estimated expenditure by work package and
  type of costs
• Budget for each work package compliant with tasks
  defined in the package (see also Table E1)?
• Categories of expenditure
• Funding for valorisation activities is adequate?
• Specific work package?
• Dissemination of information integrated?
• Program Budget Ceilings respected per type of
  cost?
• If higher proper justification
• For total budget, not per partner
• Consistency between work packages?

52
Application Form (contd)

• E.2.2. Estimated staff needs and costs by partner
• See Table E1 Work Programme and Analysis work
  packages per partner
• Number of days per partner compliant with tasks
  defined in the work packages?
• Category of staff appropriate?
• Overstaffing, in particular for management?
• Staff costs reflect actual salaries?
• Salaries exceeding ceilings can be accepted only
  if clear justification given
• Consistency between partners?

53
Application Form (contd)

• E.2.3. Estimated expenditures by type of costs
  and partner Operational costs
• See Table E1 Work Programme and Analysis work
  packages per partner
• Distribution of expenditure reflects tasks
  distribution by partner
• Travel costs compliant with planned meetings and
  visits
• ICT costs justified by the activities and staff
• Production costs compliant with planned products
• Overheads / Other costs have proper justification
  
• Consistency between work packages and partners?

54
Application Form (contd)

• E.2.3. Estimated expenditures by type of costs
  and partner (contd) Subcontracting
• Expenditure reflects tasks distribution by
  partner
• Which activities are subcontracted, and why
• External expertise necessary for the project
• Consistency between work packages and partners?
• E.2.3. Estimated expenditures by type of costs
  and partner (contd) Other

55
Application Form (contd)

• E.2.4. Estimated financing by type of funds and
  partner
• Financing reflects tasks distribution by partner
• Program Budget Ceilings respected?
• With regard to measure/type of project
• For total budget, not per partner
• Other funding beyond own funding adequately
  justified?
• Any funding in kind?

56
Application Form (contd)

• E.2.4. Estimated financing by type of funds and
  partner (contd)
• Financial commitment of partners, including the
  promoter
• Balanced
• Expressed interest - higher percentage?
• Silent partners financial commitments?
• If justified in the work plan
• No expenditure allowed for co-financing
• Any financial commitment is income for project

57
If you have questions . . .

• . . . please contact your National Agency
• Phone . . .
• e-mail . . .

58

• THANK YOU !