Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- bid:evaluation [2015/03/12 10:35] – jcsuarez
+++ bid:evaluation [2015/03/14 07:59] (current) – jcsuarez
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+|**This information is extracted from section C & H of General Annexes available at **  \\  **[[https://cloud.iaa.csic.es/public.php?service=files&t=bc6835e111a7f319b18badc65778bc69|/WorkDir/H2020/]]**  |
+----
+=== Standard Eligibility Criteria ===
+A proposal will only be considered eligible if:
+(a) its content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description against which it is submitted, in the relevant work programme part;
+(b) it complies with the eligibility conditions set out below
+^Action type ^Eligibility Conditions |
+^RIA |At least three legal entities. Each of the three shall be established in a different Member State or associated country, and shall be independent of each other. |
+===  ===
+=== Selection Criteria ===
+    * Financial capacity: In line with the Financial Regulation and the Rules for Participation. At the proposal stage, coordinators will be invited to complete a self-assessment using an on-line tool.
+    * Operational capacity: As a distinct operation, carried out during the evaluation of the award criterion ‘Quality and efficiency of the implementation’, experts will indicate whether the participants meet the selection criterion related to operational capacity, to carry out the proposed work, based on the competence and experience of the individual participant(s).
+=== Award Criteria ===
+Experts will evaluate on the basis of the criteria ‘excellence’, ‘impact’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’. The aspects to be considered in each case depend on the types of action as set out in the table below, unless stated otherwise in the call conditions. (The provisions applying to calls under Marie Skłodowska –Curie are set out under that chapter of the work programme).
+{{http://dfe.iaa.csic.es/persia/wiki/lib/plugins/fckg/fckeditor/editor/images/smiley/msn/lightbulb.gif?nolink&}}//Evaluation scores will be awarded for the criteria, and not for the different aspects listed in the above table. For full proposals, each criterion will be scored out of 5. The threshold for individual criteria will be 3. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, will be 10.   //
+^Type ^Excelence ^Impact ^Quality & Efficiency of implementation |
+|ALL |Clarity & pertinence of the objectives      \\   \\ Credibility of the proposed approach |The expected impact listed in the work program under relevant topic |Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources;    \\   \\ Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant);          \\ Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management |
+|RIA |Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches) |Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge; Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets; Any other environmental and socially important impacts (not already covered above); Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant. |  |
+=== Priority ===
+As part of the evaluation by independent experts, a panel review will recommend one or more ranked lists for the proposals under evaluation, following the scoring systems indicated above. A ranked list will be drawn up for every indicative budget shown in the call conditions.
+If necessary, the panel will determine a priority order for proposals which have been awarded the same score within a ranked list. Whether or not such a prioritisation is carried out will depend on the available budget or other conditions set out in the call fiche. The following approach will be applied successively for every group of //ex aequo //     proposals requiring prioritisation, starting with the highest scored group, and continuing in descending order:
+    * (i) Proposals that address topics not otherwise covered by more highly-ranked proposals, will be considered to have the highest priority.
+    * (ii) These proposals will themselves be prioritised according to the scores they have been awarded for the criterion //excellence//. When these scores are equal, priority will be based on scores for the criterion //impact. //     In the case of Innovation actions, and the SME instrument (phases 1 and 2), this prioritisation will be done first on the basis of the score for //impact//, and then on that for //excellence//. If necessary, any further prioritisation will be based on the following factors, in order: size of budget allocated to SMEs; gender balance among the personnel named in the proposal who will be primarily responsible for carrying out the research and/or innovation activities.
+    * (iii) The method described in (ii) will then be applied to the remaining ex-aequos in the group
+\\