DG XII-B QoL

1
Theme 1 Quality of life and management of
living resources MARY KAVANAGH - DGXII-B02

• The Fifth Framework Programme
• (1998-2002)

2
PROPOSAL PLANNING PHASE

• Identifying objectives and contents of the
  proposal
• Which area of the WORK PROGRAMME covers the
  intended research proposal?
• Identifying the appropriate type of project
• Which type of project (IMPLEMENTATION MODALITY)
  is best suited to achieve the objectives of the
  project? What are the eligibility criteria? What
  is the role of each participants?
• Call for proposals
• Is there currently a call open for the chosen
  research area and implementation modality?

3
PROPOSAL PREPARATION PHASE

• Proposal preparation
• How do I write a proposal?
• What forms do I have to use?
• What are the criteria of proposal evaluation and
  selection? Does the proposal address these
  criteria?
• Other issues
• Where can I get specific help (partner search,
  IPR aspects, SME specific measures, etc.)?

4
Types of projects

• RD project research contract 50 of costs
  financed -access of specific programme to IPR for
  RD purposes
• Demonstration project demonstration contract -
  35 of costs financed/IPR access restricted to
  project
• Combined (RD/demo) project
• Cluster (cluster of a number of co-ordinated
  individual sub-projects around a common
  objective) but one RTD contract
• Co-ordination projects 100 of eligible costs
  (thematic networks, concerted actions)
• Accompanying measures up to 100 of costs

GUIDE TO PROPOSERS - PART 2 - SECTION IV.2
Details of implementation modalities
5
Shared cost actions (RD, demo,
combined) Descriptive and qualifying conditions

• novelty of approach and comparison to state of
  the art
• meet the objectives of the specific key action or
  generic activity
• balanced partnership and competence (research,
  industry, users,etc.)
• demonstrate positive economic/social impact
• address intellectual property protection and
  exploitation aspects
• take into account and clarify all legal, ethical,
  safety and other regulatory aspects

GUIDE TO PROPOSERS - PART 2 - Appendix 1c
Ethical and safety aspects
6
Shared cost actions (RD, demo,
combined) Descriptive and qualifying conditions

• Use of RTD proposal submission forms
• Average project duration of 36 months
• Transnational partnership two Member States or 1
  MS and one Associated State
• Non-EU participation is permitted

GUIDE TO PROPOSERS - PART 1 - BOX 4
Participation to FP5
7
ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS

• The Framework Programme is open to any entity
  established in the Member States, e.g.
  individuals, industrial and commercial firms,
  universities, research organisations, SMEs, etc.
• The responsibilities of participants vary
  according to their role as
• Co-ordinator
• Principal Contractor
• Assistant Contractor

GUIDE TO PROPOSERS - PART 1 - Section III
Participation in activities of FP5
8
Call for proposals
FIXED DEADLINE CALL FOR PROPOSALS
OPEN DEADLINE CALL FOR PROPOSALS
1For area 6.1, some actions are not called for.
See the Year 2000 Work Programme for more details.
9
Proposal submission
Structure of proposal submission forms

• RTD proposal submission forms and guidelines must
  be used (Part A, B and C)
• Part A Common Administrative forms
• Parts B and C Programme specific
• Part B Description of scientific/technological
  objectives and workplan
• Part C Description of contribution to EU
  policies, economic development, management and
  participants

10
Proposal submission forms - Part A
Part A for shared cost actions consists of
Application forms Form A0 Proposal
information Form A1 Proposal Administrative
Overview Form A2 Proposal Summary Form A3
Participant Profile/Information (one for each
participant) Form A4 Cost Summary in euro (2
sheets) Guidelines for completing the
forms Annexes (common to all types of actions)
Part A Administrative forms can be downloaded
in pdf-format from http//www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/fo
rms_a.htm ProTool, a software for electronic
preparation of Part A (and B,C) will soon be
available on CD-ROM or may be downloaded from
CORDIS
11
Proposal submission - Part B and C
Parts B and C only give a structure or list of
topics which has to be followed, rather than
pre-prepared forms. For cost-shared RTD
proposals, Part B must be anonymous!The
participants must only be referred to by the
codes and numbers assigned to the participants in
the administrative form (sheet A3) Potential
ethical and safety aspects of the research to be
carried out should be described in detail in Part
C of the proposal!
Guidelines for preparing Part B and C (RTD,
Co-ordination activities, Accompanying Measures)
can be found in Appendix 1, Part 2 of the Guide
for Proposers
12
Proposal evaluation

• The proposals will be evaluated on the following
  criteria
• Scientific/Technological quality and innovation
• Resources, Partnership and Management
• Community added value and contribution to EU
  policies
• Contribution to social objectives
• Economic development and ST prospects
• These criteria are further outlined in Appendix 6
  of Part 2 of the Guide to Proposers and can be
  used for a  self-evaluation  of the draft
  proposal.

13
INFORMATION PACKAGE

• CALL FOR PROPOSALS
• WORK PROGRAMME
• GUIDE FOR PROPOSERS
• PART 1 (Common part)
• PART 2 (Programme specific)
• ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS (Part A)

Internet www.cordis.lu/life (see also the new
Guided tour on CORDIS) FAX [phone] e-mai
l quality-of-life_at_cec.eu.int
14
PARTNER SEARCH

• The Commission offers a partner search facility
  through the CORDIS server. This includes
• searching for a partner
• request to enter the partnership database
• For further information and access to the
  database
• http//www.cordis.lu/fp5/src/eoi.htm

15
REASONS FOR PROPOSAL REJECTION

• LATE SUBMISSION
• NO ORIGINAL SIGNATURES
• PROPOSAL NOT COMPLETE
• PART B NOT ANONYMOUS
• OUT OF SCOPE
• MINIMUM NUMBERS OF PARTNERS

16
Evaluation process
Stage 1
Stage 2
Scientific Technological Excellence
Management and Partnership
Community Added Value
Contribution to Community Social Objectives
Economic Development ST prospects
Pre-eligibility check
Threshold
4
4
NONE
NONE
NONE
Weight
30
20
20
20
10
Example Project 4 4
5
3 4 (4 x 30 )
(4 x 20 ) (5 x 20 ) (3 x
20 ) (4 x 10 ) Final mark 4.00
17
Env. Health Stage 2 Marks
Main list
Reserve
Third list
18

• REASONS FOR FAILURE (1)
• Scientific / Technological quality and innovation
• no innovation, no originality
• over-ambitious, unrealistic goals
• no recognition of former work in the area
• messy presentation of workpackages
• re-conduction of existing network without novel
  elements, pure data collection, no research
• methodology design?, sample size?, power? need
  for specific WP?
• Unnecessary animal study.

19

• REASONS FOR FAILURE (2)
• Resources, partnership and management
• lack of specific expertise
• no involvement of obligatory partners
  (industry, clinician)
• unclear responsibility of partners
• misbalance in partnership / domination
• lack of complementarity
• management structure absent or poorly described /
  overcomplicated.

20

• REASONS FOR FAILURE (3)
• RELEVANCE CRITERIA
• generic approach, no problem solving
• ? about how to translate results into policy
• possible contribution to social objectives
  unclear or not addressed
• academic exercise with limited social/industrial/Q
  .o.L. input
• theoretical approach
• problems and solutions already well known
• geographical misbalance
• European dimension / national level
• no dissemination / exploitation strategy
• economic potential not described, not recognised.

21

• REASONS FOR FAILURE (4)
• BUDGET
• oversized compared to work and outcomes
• cost not justified at all
• unjustified unbalanced budget between partners.

22
STATISTICS OF JUNE 1999 EVALUATION
No. of eligible proposals 1.694 No. of
clusters 26 No. of participants 13.454 Avge.
No. of partners 7,9 Avge EU contribution
(M) 1,81 IND participation in 1 out of 2
proposals