ANNEX

RULES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, AND THE RELATED EVALUATION, SELECTION AND AWARD PROCEDURES

(Version 4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Context and scope

1. Introduction

2. Submission

2.1. Calls for proposals

2.2. Pre-proposal checks

2.3. Submission of proposals

2.4. Reception by the Commission

2.5. Eligibility check

2.6. Eligibility review committee

3. Evaluation of proposals

3.1. Role of experts

3.2. Appointment of experts

3.3. Terms of appointment, code of conduct and conflict of interest

3.4. Independent observers

3.5. Evaluation criteria

3.6. Proposal scoring

3.7. Thresholds and weighting

3.8. Detailed description of proposal evaluation

3.9. Feedback to applicants

4. Finalisation of the evaluation results

4.1. Commission ranked list

4.2. Commission reserve list

4.3. Commission rejection decisions

5. Negotiation and award

5.1. Negotiation of proposals

5.2. Award of grant

5.3. Assistance, enquiries and redress

5.4. Reporting on the outcome of calls for proposals

Annex A — Ethical review procedures

Annex B — Handling security-sensitive RTD actions

Annex C — Two-stage proposal submission and evaluation procedures

Annex D — Continuous submission schemes

Annex E — Procedures for proposal submission on paper

Annex F — Appointment letter for independent experts

Annex G — Evaluation of proposals submitted to the “People” specific programme

CONTEXT AND SCOPE

This document establishes the Commission (1) rules for the proposals submission, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures (hereafter “the Rules”), in relation to the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community (2) for research, technological development and demonstration activities and the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (3) (hereafter “FP7”), as required by their respective rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programmes and for the dissemination of research results (4) (hereafter “EC Rules for Participation” and “Euratom Rules for Participation”). It describes the basic procedures that the Commission will follow in accordance with the Rules for Participation, the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (hereafter “Financial Regulation”), and its Rules of Procedure (6).

These Rules do not apply to (a) public procurement procedures (7); (b) a joint undertaking or any other structure set up pursuant to Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), or pursuant to Article 185 of the TFEU or Article 45 of the Euratom Treaty; (c) direct actions undertaken by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; and (d) the specific programme “Ideas”.

1. INTRODUCTION

Applications for financial support under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) are generally made in the form of proposals submitted to the Commission. Proposals set out details of planned work, who will carry them out, and how much they will cost.

The Commission evaluates proposals in order to identify those whose quality is sufficiently high for possible funding. The Commission shall appoint independent experts (hereafter “experts”) to assist with the evaluation of proposals.

The Commission enters into a negotiation with the coordinators of proposals that successfully pass the evaluation stage, and for which there is budget available.

If negotiations are successfully concluded, the project is selected and a grant agreement providing for a European Union or Euratom financial contribution is established with the applicants.

These rules rest on a number of well-established principles:

(i) Excellence: Projects selected for funding must demonstrate a high quality in the context of the topics and criteria set out in the calls (8).

(ii) Transparency: Funding decisions must be based on clearly described rules and procedures, and applicants should receive adequate feedback on the outcome of the evaluation of their proposals.

(iii) Fairness and impartiality: All proposals submitted to a call are treated equally. They are evaluated impartially on their merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants.

(iv) Confidentiality: All proposals and related data, knowledge and documents communicated to the Commission are treated in confidence (9)

(v) Efficiency and speed: Evaluation, award and grant preparation should be as rapid as possible, commensurate with maintaining the quality of the evaluation, and respecting the legal framework.

(vi) Ethical and security considerations: Any proposal which contravenes fundamental ethical principles (10), or which fails to comply with the relevant security procedures (11) may be excluded at any time from the process of evaluation, selection and award (see Annexes A and B).

The work programmes implementing the specific programmes may set out specific evaluation criteria or provide further details on the application of the evaluation criteria, which will be reflected in the call for proposals.

The call and associated Guide for Applicants may spell out in more detail the way in which these rules and procedures will be implemented and, where relevant, which options are to be followed.

The various steps involved in the proposal, submission, evaluation and selection procedures are summarised in the following diagram:

2. SUBMISSION

2.1. Calls for proposals

Proposals are submitted in response to calls for proposals (“calls”) (12). The content and timing of calls are set out in the work programmes. Notifications of calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The “call texts” are published on Commission website(s), and include references to the work programme topics against which proposals are invited, indicative call budgets, available funding schemes, deadlines for submission, and links to the Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) (see section 2.3). This website provides access to all the necessary information for those wishing to apply to calls. In particular, one or more guides for applicants are produced for every call. These guides explain the submission process, and how the applicants can seek assistance or information on any matter related to a call. Contact details are provided for National Contact Points, and the Commission’s FP7 Enquiry service. A dedicated help desk is provided for issues related to the EPSS.

Calls are considered “open” until the specified deadline.

Depending on the objectives of the call, the work programme and call may make a distinction between different types of collaborative project, different forms of the scheme “Research for the support of specific groups”, and between types of coordination and support actions.

A call will also specify whether a single or two-stage submission and evaluation procedure is to be followed. For the latter case, applicants first submit reduced or outline proposals. Only those whose proposals were evaluated positively at the first stage are invited to submit complete proposals in a second stage (13) (see Annex C for details of this procedure).

The responsible authorising officer by sub delegation appoints a “call coordinator” for every call. This person acts as a contact point for practical questions associated with the call, and ensures the overall planning and organisation of the proposal reception and evaluation process.

In addition, one or more Commission officials shall be nominated, who will be responsible for giving directions on how to deal with any sensitive questions that may arise during the course of the submission and evaluation process, including those related to possible conflicts of interest (see section 3.3).

2.2. Pre-proposal checks

When warranted by the nature of a particular call, an informal advisory pre-proposal check service may be offered by the Commission. The purpose is to advise potential applicants on whether proposals appear to be eligible and within the scope of the call. If applicable, details of the procedure for pre-proposal checks will be set out in the relevant Guide for Applicants.

2.3. Submission of proposals

Proposals are submitted electronically (14) via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS).

Among the applicants in a proposal consortium, only the proposal coordinator (identified by user id and password) is authorised to submit a proposal.

The preparation and uploading of all the proposal data, and the applicants’ agreement to the conditions of use of the system and of the evaluation must take place prior to the attempt to submit the proposal.

The EPSS will carry out a number of basic verification checks, including that of completeness of the proposal, internal data consistency, absence of virus infection and conformity to the file types and size limitations which are specified. Only upon completion of these checks, which do not replace the formal eligibility checks described in section 2.5, will the EPSS allow the applicant to submit. Submission is deemed to occur at the moment when the proposal coordinator initiates the final submission process, as indicated by the EPSS, and not at any point prior to this.

The proposals submitted via the EPSS are entered into databases after the call closure. The Commission has no access to the proposal until the call deadline has passed (or until after the interim cut-off date, in the case of continuous submission schemes, as described in Annex D).

Versions of proposals sent on paper (except following the procedure and in the cases described in Annex E), removable electronic storage medium (e.g. CD-ROM, diskette), by e-mail or by fax will not be regarded as having been received by the Commission.

A procedure for the withdrawal of a proposal by its coordinator is given in the guide for applicants. A withdrawn proposal will not subsequently be considered by the Commission.

If more than one copy of the same proposal is received before the call deadline, only the most recent version is considered for checking eligibility and possible evaluation.

Proposals are archived under secure conditions at all times. After completion of the evaluation and any subsequent negotiation, all copies are destroyed other than those required for archiving and/or auditing purposes.

2.4. Reception by the Commission

The date and time of receipt of the last version of submitted proposals are recorded. After the call closure (or interim cut-off date in the case of continuous submission schemes), an acknowledgement of receipt is sent to the proposal coordinator by e-mail containing:

— proposal title, acronym and unique proposal identifier (proposal number),

— name of the programme and/or activity/research area and call identifier to which the proposal was addressed,

— date and time of receipt (which is set to the time of the call deadline for proposals submitted electronically).

There is normally no further contact between the Commission and applicants on their proposal until after completion of the evaluation, except for proposals which are subject to hearings (see section 3.8). The Commission may, however, contact an applicant (usually through the coordinator) in order to clarify matters such as eligibility (see section 2.5).

2.5. Eligibility check

Proposals must fulfil all of the eligibility criteria if they are to be retained for evaluation. These criteria are rigorously applied. In the case of two-stage proposal submission, each stage is subject to an eligibility check. The following eligibility criteria apply to all proposals submitted under a call (15):

— receipt of proposal by the Commission before the deadline date and time established in the call, if applicable,

— minimum conditions (such as number of participants), as referred to in the call for proposals,

— completeness of the proposal, i.e. the presence of all requested administrative forms and the proposal description (NB: the completeness of the information contained in the proposal will be for the experts to evaluate; the eligibility checks only apply to the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal),

— scope of the call: the content of the proposal must relate to the topic(s) and funding scheme(s) set out in that part of the work programme open in the call. A proposal will only be deemed ineligible on grounds of “scope” in clear-cut cases.

If it becomes clear before, during or after the evaluation phase that one or more of the eligibility criteria have not been fulfilled, the proposal is declared ineligible by the Commission, and is withdrawn from any further examination. Where there is a doubt on the eligibility of a proposal, the Commission reserves the right to proceed with the evaluation, pending a final decision on eligibility. The fact that a proposal is evaluated in such circumstances does not constitute proof of its eligibility.

2.6. Eligibility review committee

If the question of eligibility is not clear-cut and a more comprehensive review of the case is deemed necessary, the call coordinator may convene an internal eligibility review committee.

The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent legal interpretation of such cases and equal treatment of applicants.

This committee, composed of Commission staff having the requisite expertise in legal matters, S & T content, and/or information systems, is chaired by the call coordinator. It examines the proposal and, if necessary, the circumstances surrounding its submission; and provides specialist advice to support the decision on whether to allow a proposal to be evaluated, or on whether or not to reject it on eligibility grounds. The committee may decide to contact the applicant in order to clarify a particular issue.

3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

3.1. Role of experts

The Commission evaluates proposals with the assistance of independent (16) experts to ensure that only those of the highest quality are selected for funding. Because of the breadth and diversity of research domains covered by the framework programmes, these experts are external to the Commission.

Experts may be invited to carry out the evaluation fully or partially at their home or place of work (“remote evaluation”), or on Commission premises.

Occasionally, when relevant specialised knowledge is held in-house, Commission staff may work as experts alongside external experts. Any such internal experts will work in addition to the minimum number required for the call (see section 3.8(b)) (17).

The sole exception to the use of experts is in the case of coordination and support actions referred to in Article 14 of the EC Rules for Participation, and Article 13 of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation, where independent experts are only appointed if the Commission deems it appropriate (18).

3.2. Appointment of experts

Experts are required to have skills and knowledge appropriate to the areas of activity in which they are asked to assist. They must also have a high level of professional experience in the public or private sector in one or more of the following areas or activities: research in the relevant scientific and technological fields; administration, management or evaluation of projects; use of the results of research and technological development projects; technology transfer and innovation; international cooperation in science and technology; development of human resources. Experts may be citizens of countries other than the Member States or countries associated to the framework programmes.

The Commission establishes a database of experts containing the details of suitable candidates on the basis of calls for applications published in the Official Journal of the European Union. One call will be addressed to individuals and another to relevant organisations such as national research agencies, research institutions and enterprises.

The Commission may at any time include in the database, if appropriate, any individual with the appropriate skills from outside the lists obtained through the above-mentioned calls. Experts in the database may be invited to assist the Commission in relation to activities other than the evaluation of research proposals, if they have indicated their willingness to be considered for such tasks. The database may be made available, on request, to research funding bodies with a public service mission, in the Member States and countries associated to the framework programmes, and to other structures implementing EU research activities, created in line with the provisions of the Treaty. Decisions on granting such access will be made by the Director-General for DG Research and Innovation or by his/her representative(s). The database may also be used by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre for the selection of experts in support of research activities carried out as direct actions (19).

To evaluate the proposals submitted in response to a call, the Commission draws up a list of appropriate experts (including, if necessary, a reserve list). The lists are drawn up primarily using the selection criteria:

— a high level of expertise,

— an appropriate range of competencies.

Providing the above conditions can be satisfied, other criteria are also taken into consideration:

— an appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users,

— a reasonable gender balance (20),

— a reasonable distribution of geographical origins (21),

— regular rotation of experts (22).

In constituting the lists of experts, the Commission also takes account, as necessary, of their abilities to appreciate the industrial and/or societal dimension, and policy relevance, of the topics covered by the call. Experts must also have the appropriate language skills required for the proposals to be evaluated.

In cases where experts will have to deal with classified information, the appropriate security clearance shall be required before appointment (23).

The list of experts to be used for evaluation sessions is decided by the relevant authorising officer by sub delegation or duly appointed delegates. The names of the experts assigned to individual proposals are not made public. However, once a year, the Commission publishes on the Internet the list of experts used for the framework programmes and in each specific programme.

3.3. Terms of appointment, Code of conduct and Conflict of interest

The Commission shall conclude an “appointment letter” with each expert, based on the model given in Annex F.

The appointment letter binds the expert to a code of conduct, establishes the essential provisions regarding confidentiality, and, specifies in particular, the description of work, the conditions of payment, and reimbursement of expenses (see Annex F).

When appointing experts, the Commission (24) must take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not faced with a conflict of interest in relation to the proposals on which they are required to give an opinion. To this end, experts are required to sign a declaration that no such conflict of interest exists (see Annex F) at the time of their appointment and that they undertake to inform the Commission of both the existence and its nature should one arise in the course of their duties. When so informed, the Commission takes all necessary actions to remove the conflict of interest. In addition, all experts are required to confirm that they have no conflict of interest for each proposal that they are asked to examine at the moment of the evaluation.

The declaration makes a distinction between “disqualifying” and “potential” conflicts of interest.

When a disqualifying conflict of interest is reported by the expert or established by the Commission on the basis of any available source of information, the expert shall not evaluate the proposal concerned (consensus group), nor take part in any panel review (including possible hearings) where the proposal is under consideration (25).

Experts who are employed by one of the applicant organisations in a proposal are normally considered as facing a “disqualifying” conflict of interest. However, when justified by the requirement to appoint the best available experts and by the limited size of the pool of qualified experts, the Commission may decide to invite such experts to take part in the panel review session, if the expert works in a different department/laboratory/institute from the one where the work is to be carried out, and if the constituent bodies operate with a high degree of autonomy. In this case, the expert shall abstain from the discussion (or electronic forum) if the panel discusses in detail the proposal involving the organisation concerned. Such experts will not take part in any hearings, if the proposal concerned reaches the hearing stage.

In exceptional duly justified cases, experts in the circumstances described above may also participate in the consensus group for the proposal in question. The Commission will inform the other experts in the group of the affiliation of the expert concerned.

When a potential conflict of interest is reported by the expert or brought to the attention of the Commission by any means, the Commission will consider the circumstances of the case and will decide, on the basis of the objective elements of information at its disposal, on the existence of an effective conflict of interest (26). If such an effective conflict is established, the expert will be excluded in the same manner as for a disqualifying conflict. In other cases, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and taking due account of the associated risks, the Commission may decide to allow the expert to evaluate. The expert must sign a declaration confirming that they will act in an impartial manner.

The Commission may take any appropriate measures to prevent a conflict of interest. The role of the expert may be restricted to the panel review. In this case, the expert shall leave the room (or electronic forum) if the panel discusses the individual case of the proposal where any conflict exists.

If a hitherto unsuspected conflict becomes apparent during the course of the evaluation, the expert must announce the fact immediately to a Commission official. If the conflict is found to be a disqualifying one, the expert must abstain from further evaluation involving the proposal concerned. Any comments and scores made earlier by that expert for the proposal concerned will be discounted. If necessary, the expert will be replaced.

If an expert knowingly conceals a disqualifying or potential conflict of interest, and this is discovered during the evaluation, the expert will be immediately excluded, and the sanctions indicated in the appointment letter and/or in the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules will apply. Any consensus group in which he or she has participated will be declared null and void, and the proposal(s) concerned will be re-evaluated.

By analogy with Article 265a§3 of Implementing Rules to the Financial Regulation, a breach of the code of conduct or other serious misconduct by the expert may be qualified as grave professional misconduct and may lead to the exclusion of this expert from the list drawn up following the call for expression of interest provided for in Article 179a of the Financial Regulation. Pursuant to such exclusion, the expert will be removed from the database and barred from re-registering for the duration of the exclusion.

3.4. Independent observers

With a view to ensuring a high degree of transparency, the Commission may appoint independent experts to act as observers (hereafter “observers”) of the evaluation process from the point of view of its working and execution. Their role is to give independent advice to the Commission on the conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation sessions, on ways in which the expert evaluators apply the evaluation criteria, and on ways in which the procedures could be improved. As such, they shall verify that the procedures set out or referred to in these Rules are adhered to, and report their findings and recommendations to the Commission. They are also encouraged to enter into informal discussions with the Commission officials involved in the evaluation sessions and to suggest to the Commission any possible improvements that could be put into practice immediately. However, in the framework of their work, they should not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.

To this end, it is not necessary that the observers have expertise in the area of the proposals being evaluated. Indeed, it is considered advantageous to avoid having observers with too intimate knowledge of the particular S & T area in order to avoid conflicts between their opinions on the outcome of the evaluations and the functioning of the sessions. In any case, they will not express views on the proposals under examination or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.

The observers are invited to be present from the beginning of the evaluation sessions when the experts are briefed by the Commission. When part of an evaluation takes place away from the Commission premises (“remote evaluation”), the observer may assess that stage after the event on the basis of discussion with the experts once they have gathered in Brussels (or other central evaluation site).

The Commission shall inform the programme committees of the choice of experts as observers, and their terms of reference as well as of the observers’ findings and may make available publicly a summary of their report.

Observers are required to respect the same obligations as the experts with regard to confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest, and they sign the same declaration to that effect (see Annex F). They are not permitted to divulge details of the proposals, the experts assigned to examining the proposals, nor the discussions in the evaluation panels. The observers have to respect a code of conduct annexed to their letter of appointment.

3.5. Evaluation criteria

All eligible proposals are evaluated by the Commission, assisted by experts where provided for, to assess their merit with respect to the evaluation criteria relevant for the call.

The detailed evaluation criteria and sub-criteria (27), and associated weights and thresholds, are set out in the work programmes, based on the principles given in the specific programmes, and on the criteria given in the Rules for Participation. The criteria consist of selection and award criteria in the meaning of the Financial Regulation (Article 115) and its implementing rules (28) (Articles 176 and 177).

The manner in which they will be applied will be further explained in the call for proposals and associated Guide for Applicants.

3.6. Proposal scoring

Experts examine the issues to be considered comprising each evaluation criterion, and score these on a scale from 0 to 5. Half point scores may be given.

For each criterion under examination, score values indicate the following assessments:

0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information;

1 — Poor: The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses;

2 — Fair: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses;

3 — Good: The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary;

4 — Very Good: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible;

5 — Excellent: The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

3.7. Thresholds and weighting

Thresholds

Thresholds are set for some or all of the criteria, such that any proposal failing to achieve the threshold scores will be rejected. In addition, an overall threshold may also be set. The thresholds to be applied to each criterion as well as any overall threshold are set out in the work programme and call.

If the proposal fails to achieve a threshold for a criterion, the evaluation of the proposal may be stopped.

It may be decided to divide the evaluation into several steps with the possibility of different experts examining the different criteria. Where the evaluation is carried out in several successive steps, any proposal failing a threshold score may not progress to the next step. Such proposals may immediately be categorised as rejected.

Weighting

According to the specific nature of the funding schemes and the call, it may be decided to weight the criteria. The weightings to be applied to each criterion are set out in the work programme and call.

3.8. Detailed description of proposal evaluation (29)

(a) Briefing of the experts

The Commission is responsible for the briefing of experts before evaluation sessions. The briefing of the experts covers the evaluation processes and procedures as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied, and the content and expected impacts of the research topics under consideration. Specific warnings about confidentiality, impartiality and concealment of conflict of interest will be included.

Particular attention will be given to the briefing of experts who will work remotely, when specially adapted material may be needed (e.g. CD-ROMs, on-line presentations). Close contact is maintained with the individual experts to assist them on any query.

(b) Individual evaluation of proposals

Proposals are evaluated by a minimum of three experts. A minimum of five experts will apply to proposals for Networks of Excellence, and in other cases when specified in the relevant Guide for Applicants.

In the initial phase of the evaluation each expert works individually, and gives scores and comments for each criterion as described in the work programme and call.

They also indicate if the proposal:

— falls entirely out of the scope of the call for proposals,

— deals with sensitive ethical issues,

— requires further scrutiny with regard to security considerations (see Annex B).

When remote evaluation is used, the Commission forwards copies of the proposals to be examined to each individual expert. This may be done by sending paper copies by post or courier service or by making the proposal available electronically.

Justification of scoring

Experts are required to provide comments to accompany each of their scores. These comments must be consistent with any scores awarded and serve as input to any consensus discussion and related consensus report.

Outcome of the individual evaluation

After the individual evaluation of a proposal, the expert completes an individual evaluation report confirming his/her individual reading and assessment. In the case of remote evaluation, the results are communicated to the Commission by post or electronically. The expert’s individual evaluation report shall not subsequently be changed. In signing (or approving by electronic means) the individual evaluation report, each expert confirms that he/she has no conflict of interest with respect to the evaluation of that particular proposal.

In some instances, experts may be asked to perform only the individual evaluation. In this case, their individual evaluation report are forwarded to the experts involved in the consensus phase (see below) to be taken into account in the preparation of the consensus report.

If a proposal is considered to be out of scope by all individual experts, it may be considered to be ineligible and may not be passed on to the consensus stage.

(c) Consensus

Once all the experts to whom a proposal has been assigned have completed their individual assessments, the evaluation progresses to a consensus assessment, representing their common views.

This normally entails a consensus meeting (or electronic forum) to discuss the scores awarded and to prepare comments.

The consensus discussion is moderated by a Commission representative (“the moderator”). The role of the moderator is to seek a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved, and to ensure a fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria.

The moderator for the group may designate an expert to be responsible for drafting the consensus report (“rapporteur”).

The experts attempt to agree on a consensus score for each of the criteria that have been evaluated and suitable comments to justify the scores. Comments should be suitable for feedback to the proposal coordinator. Scores and comments are set out in a consensus report.

If applicable, they also come to a common view on the questions of scope, ethics and security, as mentioned under step (b) above.

If during the consensus discussion it is found to be impossible to bring all the experts to a common point of view on any particular aspect of the proposal, the Commission official in charge of the evaluation may ask up to three additional experts to examine the proposal.

Outcome of consensus

The outcome of the consensus step is the consensus report, signed (or approved by electronic means) by the moderator and all the experts, or as a minimum, by the moderator and the “rapporteur”. The moderator is responsible for ensuring that the consensus report reflects the consensus reached, expressed in scores and comments. In the case that it is impossible to reach a consensus, the report sets out the majority view of the experts but also records any dissenting views, possibly in annex, from any particular expert(s).

The Commission will take the necessary steps to assure the quality of the consensus reports, with particular attention given to clarity, consistency, appropriate level of detail. If important changes are necessary, the reports will be referred back to the experts concerned.

The signing (or electronic approval) of the consensus report completes the consensus step.

Evaluation of a resubmitted proposal

In the case of proposals that have been submitted previously to the Commission in FP7, the moderator gives the experts the previous evaluation summary report (see below) at the consensus stage, if the previous evaluation took place under comparable conditions (e.g. broadly similar work programme topics and criteria). If necessary, the experts will be required to provide a clear justification for their scores and comments should these differ markedly from those awarded to the earlier proposal.

(d) Panel review

This is the final step involving the experts. It allows them to formulate their recommendations to the Commission having had an overview of the results of the consensus step. The practical arrangements are determined in the light of the nature of the call and number of proposals submitted to it.

For a particular call, or part of a call, it may be possible to arrange for all the experts to examine all the proposals, and carry out their final review at the same time as they prepare the consensus reports. These experts are thus considered to constitute the panel.

Otherwise, a new panel is created that may comprise experts involved at the consensus step, new experts, or a mixture of the two. There may be one panel covering the whole call or several panels covering different activities, topics, or funding schemes.

Role of the panel

The main task of the panel is to examine and compare the consensus reports in a given area, to check on the consistency of the marks and comments applied during the consensus discussions and, where necessary, propose a new set of marks or revision of comments.

The tasks of the panel may also include:

— hearings with the applicants of those proposals that have passed thresholds (see below),

— resolving cases where a minority view was recorded in the consensus report,

— recommending a priority order for proposals with the same score (only if necessary, taking into account the available budget, or other conditions of the call set out in the work programme),

— making recommendations on possible clustering or combination of proposals.

The panel is either chaired by the Commission, or by an expert appointed by the Commission. In either case, the Commission will ensure fair and equal treatment of the proposals in the panel discussions. A panel “rapporteur” (who may also be the panel chairperson) may be appointed to draft the panel’s advice.

Hearings with applicants

Hearings with applicants may be organised as part of the panel deliberations. Hearings may be particularly useful in calls, or parts of calls, that attract large scale integrating collaborative projects and/or Networks of Excellence.

When hearings are held, invitations are sent to the coordinators of those proposals having consensus scores above the individual and overall thresholds. In some calls it may be decided to extend the invitation to representatives of those proposals that passed the individual thresholds, but that failed the overall threshold.

In either case, the condition for issuing invitations shall be applied consistently in relation to all proposals submitted to a call, or part of the call under a particular indicative budget line in the work programme).

Hearings provide input to clarify further the proposals and to help the panel to establish their final rating and scores for the proposals. They are intended to improve the understanding of the experts of the proposal but not to modify or improve in any way the proposal itself. The applicants will, thus, not be invited to present their proposal, but to provide explanations and clarifications to questions submitted to them in advance.

Any particular issues raised by individual proposals requiring specific expertise may be dealt with by inviting appropriate extra experts to the hearings for those proposals. In this case, the extra experts are only invited to comment on the particular issue on which they have expertise and not on the proposal as a whole.

If a consortium submitting a proposal does not attend the hearing, but replies in written form to the questions which were sent, their written responses will be taken into account. If a consortium both fails to reply to the questions and also to attend the hearing, the panel will arrive at a final score and comments for the proposal on the basis of the originally submitted material only.

In some circumstances a hearing may be conducted entirely through a written procedure.

Hearings may alternatively be organised via telephone, or by using video-conference facilities.

Specific arrangements for hearings will be described in the Guide for Applicants.

Outcome of panel review

The outcome of the panel review is a report recording, principally:

— an evaluation summary report (ESR) for each proposal, including comments and scores, taking account of any hearings. Where relevant, any ethical issues and any security considerations are reported,

— a list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final score for each proposal passing the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order,

— a list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds,

— a list of any proposals having been found ineligible during the evaluation,

— a record of the hearings (if applicable),

— a summary of any other recommendations of the panel.

If the same panel has considered proposals submitted to various parts of a call (for example, different funding schemes, or different topics that have been allocated distinct indicative budgets in the work programme), the report may contain multiple lists accordingly.

The Evaluation Summary Reports agreed by the panel experts may include recommendations for further improvements to a proposal that is already highly rated.

These recommendations will aim for a more efficient implementation of the proposed work, for example, by modifying details of the methodology, or by removing superfluous work packages. The experts will indicate the likely impact in effort and equipment, and may indicate the impact on budget, of any such changes. The experts may also suggest a reduction in effort and/or budget without a change in content, if the reasons for such a reduction are well founded.

In duly justified cases, the panel may recommend a merging of proposals, or funding up to a certain milestone with the possibility to grant complementary funding following a subsequent call for proposal.

If applicable, the experts will make a recommendation for the funding of projects requesting a higher level of reimbursement for security-related research and technological development activities, where this is justified by the development of capabilities in domains with very limited market size and a risk of “market failure” and for accelerated equipment development in response to new threats (30).

The panel report is signed by at least three panel experts, including the panel “rapporteur” (if an expert was so appointed), and the chairperson.

3.9. Feedback to applicants

The Commission sends electronically a letter (“initial information letter”) to the coordinator of each evaluated proposal. The letter is accompanied by an ESR, except in the case of successful first stage applicants in a two-stage procedure, as described in Annex C. The letter and ESR may also be sent by paper. The aim is to give the applicants a prompt indication of how their proposals fared in the evaluation by experts. However, at this stage, the Commission cannot make a commitment as regards possible selection and funding.

The Guide for Applicants will indicate the expected date for the dispatch of these letters (31).

The Commission will not change the ESRs that form part of the panel report, except if necessary to improve readability or, exceptionally, to remove any factual errors or inappropriate comments that may have escaped earlier proof-reading. The scores will never be changed. The ESR reflects the consensus reached by the experts, including the final review by the panel. It contains comments and scores on each criterion and an overall score, as well as providing overall comments when appropriate. The comments recorded must give sufficient and clear reasons for the scores and, if appropriate, any recommendations for modifications to the proposal should the proposal be retained for negotiation. In exceptional cases, possibilities for clustering or combination with other proposals may be indicated.

For those proposals rejected after failing an evaluation threshold, the comments contained in the ESR may only be complete for those criteria examined up to the point when the threshold was failed.

Coordinators of proposals found to be ineligible will be informed of the grounds for such a decision.

Coordinators of proposals rejected because of security considerations will be informed of the grounds for such a decision.

4. FINALISATION OF THE EVALUATION RESULTS

At this stage, the Commission staff review the results of the evaluation by experts, and make their own assessment of the proposals, in particular a review of the Union or Euratom financial contribution, based on the advice from these experts.

4.1. Commission ranked list

Proposals shall be ranked according to the evaluation results. Funding decisions shall be made on the basis of this ranking (32).

The responsible department draws up the final list of proposals for possible funding from those that passed the evaluation thresholds, on the basis of the results of the evaluation by experts. Due account is taken of the scores received and of any advice from the experts. It will also take account of the available budget, the strategic objectives of the programme, the Union or Euratom policies, as well as the overall balance of proposals to be funded.

The number of proposals in the list depends upon the available budget. Proposals are ranked in priority order, unless there is sufficient budget to fund all proposals having passed the necessary thresholds.

As a general rule, the Commission follows the priority order of proposals suggested by the experts. In exceptional cases, duly justified and authorised at an appropriate level, a proposal may be placed in a different order than the one suggested by experts. The reasons for arriving at the order are set out.

A suggested Union or Euratom financial contribution is determined for each of these proposals, based on the comments of the experts, and on the department’s own analyses. Budget cuts are possible, but will not be made for the purpose of supporting additional projects that would not otherwise be funded.

The responsible department then consults the other interested departments and directorates-general on the list of proposals it intends to select for funding, including the suggested Union or Euratom financial contribution for each proposal. A reserve list may be indicated (see below).

The internal consultation also addresses any aspects that would need to be modified during negotiation, based on the advice of the experts. This might include special conditions regarding the merging of proposals, or conditional funding suggested by the experts (see section 3.8).

Following this internal consultation, the final Commission ranked list and negotiation mandates are established. If the consultation reveals that very similar work is already funded elsewhere, or if a proposal would result in work that is manifestly contrary to established Union or Euratom policies, it is possible that a project that had originally been put forward for funding by the responsible department does not appear on the final Commission ranked list.

4.2. Commission reserve list

The list of proposals to be retained for negotiation takes into account the budget available (as indicated in the call for proposals). A number of proposals may be kept in reserve to allow for eventualities such as the failure of negotiations on projects, the withdrawal of proposals, budget savings agreed during negotiation, or the availability of additional budget from other sources.

The coordinators of any proposals held in reserve receive confirmation that negotiations with a view to preparing a grant agreement may be offered, but only if further funding becomes available. This confirmation may also indicate a date after which no further offers of negotiations are likely to be made.

When the budget for the particular call has been used up, the coordinators of unfunded proposals remaining from the “reserve” will be informed, and the proposals will be rejected (see below).

4.3. Commission rejection decisions

The Commission formally decides to reject those proposals found to be ineligible (whether before, or during the course of the evaluation), failing any of the thresholds for evaluation criteria, and those which, because they fall below a certain ranking, cannot be funded because the available budget is insufficient. The Commission may reject all proposals below a certain rank, regardless of the availability of budget and the comments of experts, if it considers that the level of quality is insufficient to merit support. The Commission may also reject proposals on ethical grounds following an ethics review (see Annex A), or on security grounds following the procedure described in Annex B.

After a rejection decision, coordinators of rejected proposals are informed in writing of the Commission’s decision. The letter informing them also includes an explanation of the reasons for rejection.

The Commission will not reject proposals that are the subject of an ongoing redress procedure (see section 5.3).

5. NEGOTIATION AND AWARD

5.1. Negotiation of proposals

The coordinators of proposals that have not been rejected, and for which funding is available, are invited to begin negotiations. If this takes place before the Commission ranked list and negotiation mandates have been finalised, the invitation will make clear that negotiations may have to be terminated, or the negotiation mandate modified, if so required following the results of the consultation of other departments.

The Commission may be assisted by experts during the negotiation, possibly including those involved during the evaluation stage.

In addition to any points raised in the ESR, the applicants may receive requests for further administrative, legal, technical and financial information necessary for the preparation of a grant agreement (33). The Commission may request changes, possibly including modifications to the budget, in line with the negotiation mandate mentioned above (section 4.1). The Commission will justify all requested changes.

Changes to the managerial and scientific aspects would cover, in particular, revisions to the proposed work as established in the negotiation mandate described in section 4.1. The legal aspects would cover, in particular, the verification of the existence and legal status of the participants, review of any special clauses in the grant agreement, or conditions required for the project, and other aspects relating to the development of the final grant agreement (including date of start of project, timing of reports and other legal requirements). The financial aspects would cover the establishment of the EC contribution, up to a set maximum, the amount of the pre-financing, the estimated breakdown of budget and Union or Euratom financial contribution per activity and per participant, and the assessment of the financial capacity of the coordinator and any other participants, if needed.

Grants may not be awarded to potential participants who are, at the time of a grant award procedure, in one of the situations referred to in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation (relating, for example, to bankruptcy, convictions, grave professional misconduct, social security obligations, other illegal activities, previous break of contract, conflicts of interest, misrepresentation).

Any potential participant who has committed an irregularity in the implementation of any other action under a Union or Euratom Programme may be excluded from the selection procedure at any time, with due regard being given to the principle of proportionality. Any proposal that contravenes fundamental ethical principles or which does not fulfil the conditions set out in the work programme or in the call for proposals shall not be selected (34).

In line with Article 54(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, an expenditure co-financed by FP7 shall not receive assistance from the Structural Funds.

Any arrangements for merging projects are also dealt with in this phase, and ethical issues (see Annex A) or security considerations (see Annex B) are clarified and addressed, if necessary.

If it proves impossible to reach agreement with a coordinator, acting on behalf of the consortium, within a reasonable deadline that the Commission may impose on any matter covered during the negotiation stage, negotiations may be terminated and the proposal rejected by Commission decision.

The Commission may terminate negotiations if the coordinator proposes to modify the project in terms of its objectives, S & T content, consortium composition or other aspects, to the extent that it becomes significantly different from the proposal that was evaluated, or in a manner that is not in line with the negotiation mandate.

Negotiation of proposals from the reserve list may begin once it is clear that sufficient budget has become available to fund one or more of these projects. Subject to budget availability, negotiations should begin with the proposals at the top of the reserve list and should continue in the order of the final ranking.

5.2. Award of grant

If negotiations are successful (that is, once the details of the grant agreement have been finalised with the applicants and all the necessary checks carried out), the Commission completes its internal financial and legal procedures, the procedure for consulting the programme committee provided for in the specific programme and adopts the respective selection decision. Once the selection decision has been adopted, a grant for funding is awarded, by means of a formal grant agreement between the Commission, and the coordinator and the other participants.

5.3. Assistance, enquiries and redress

The Guide for Applicants will explain how applicants can seek assistance or information on any matter related to a call for proposals and subsequent procedures. Contact details will be provided for both National Contact Points, and a Commission help desk. A dedicated help desk will be provided for issues related to the EPSS.

Further, the “initial information letter” referred to under section 3.9 will indicate an address for any questions concerning the results of a particular evaluation.

The letter will also provide an address to be used if the coordinator believes there have been shortcomings in the handling of his or her proposal, and that these shortcomings have jeopardised the outcome of the evaluation process. The letter will specify a deadline for the receipt of any such complaints, which will be 1 month from the date of dispatch of the Commission’s letter. The coordinator should provide the name and identifier of the call, the number (if any), name and acronym of the proposal, and a full description of the alleged shortcomings. The method for submitting the complaint shall be described in the letter (e.g. via a dedicated website).

An internal evaluation review committee (“redress committee”) will then be convened to examine those cases that have been submitted by coordinators, before the deadline mentioned above, using the method described in the initial information letter. Complaints that do not meet these conditions, or do not deal with the evaluation or eligibility checking of a specific proposal, will not be considered.

The committee may meet in different configurations, according to the calls under consideration. The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent legal interpretation of such requests and equal treatment of applicants. It provides specialist opinions on the implementation of the evaluation process on the basis of all the available information related to the proposal and its evaluation. It works independently. The committee itself does not evaluate the proposal. If the committee considers that there has been a failing in the eligibility checking or evaluation process that is likely to have jeopardised the decision whether or not to fund the proposal, it may suggest a further evaluation of all or part of the proposal by independent experts. The committee will not call into question the judgement of appropriately qualified groups of experts.

The committee is composed of Commission staff having the requisite expertise in legal and procedural matters, S & T content, and/or information systems, varying according to the cases it is asked to consider. It is chaired by an official from a department other than the one responsible for the call. The call-coordinator (or other designated person from the department responsible for the call) is a member of the committee.

If the committee is required to consider eligibility issues, it may seek the advice of (or co-opt members from) the eligibility review committee mentioned in section 2.6.

In the light of its review, the committee will recommend a course of action to the authorising officer responsible for the call.

An initial reply will be sent to complainants no later than three weeks of the deadline for redress requests, mentioned above. This initial reply will indicate when a definitive reply will be provided.

The redress procedure does not replace the channels applying to all Commission actions, viz: the Secretariat-General of the Commission for breach of the code of good administration (relations with the public); the European Ombudsman for “maladministration”; the European Court of Justice for a decision affecting a person or legal entity. These channels are also available to applicants who wish to register a complaint after the deadline mentioned above.

5.4. Reporting on the outcome of calls for proposals

The Commission will provide statistical information on the outcome of calls for proposal to the programme committee in accordance with Annex V of the specific programmes “Cooperation” and “Capacities”, and with Annex II of the specific programme “People”.