Eligibility and evaluation criteria

Eligibility

A proposal will only be considered eligible if it meets all of the following conditions

• It is received before the deadline in the fiche: 23 November 2011, at 17.00 Brussels local time.
• It involves at least the minimum number of participants given in the call fiche. (At least 3 independent legal entities)
• It is complete (i.e. both the requested admin forms and the proposal description are present). Part B of the proposal must be readable, accessible and printable
• The content of the proposal relates to the topic(s) and funding scheme(s), including any special conditions set out in the work programme

Note that where a page limit has been imposed, the experts will be instructed to disregard any excess pages.

Evaluation

Scores will be awarded for each of the three following criteria, and not for the sub-criteria. Each criterion is scored out of 5 (half marks can be given); no weightings will apply. The threshold for individual criteria will be 3; the overall threshold (applying to the sum of all scores) will be 10.

Criterion 1: S/T QUALITY: Scientific and/or technological excellence (award criterion)

1. Soundness of concept and quality of objectives
2. Contribution to the coordination of high quality research
3. Quality and effectiveness of the joint programme of activities and associated work plan

Criterion 2: IMPLEMENTATION: Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management (selection criterion)

1. Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures
2. Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
3. Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
4. Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment)

Criterion 3: IMPACT: Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results (award criterion)

1. Contribution, at the European [and/or international] level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity
2. Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results, and disseminating knowledge, through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large

Relevance of the proposal

The relevance of a proposal will be considered in relation to the topic(s) of the work programme and to the objectives of the call. These aspects will be integrated in the application of the criterion "S/T quality", and the first sub-criterion under "Impact" respectively.

When a proposal is partially relevant because it only marginally addresses the topic(s) of the call, or if only part of the proposal addresses the topic(s), this condition will be reflected in the scoring of the first criterion. Proposals that are clearly not relevant to a call ("out of scope") will be rejected.

Expected impact

Support measures are expected to strengthen the development of a consistent and dynamic European policy for research infrastructures including the data produced by this infrastructure.

Support should help to address specific needs of international cooperation in the field of scientific data management, thus achieving critical mass and driving global policies. These bilateral collaborations would speed up the development of a common vision for the next decades, identifying existing gaps and creating the opportunities to better face global challenges. Thereby they will contribute to the Innovation Union commitment to step up European Union cooperation on the roll-out of the global research infrastructures.

Innovation dimension

The innovation dimension of a proposal will be evaluated under the evaluation criterion 'impact'.

Evaluation Procedure Notes

Indicative Timetable

• Closure date: 23 November 2011
• Evaluation of proposals: Mid-December 2011 to mid-February 2012
• Evaluation summary reports: Sent to proposal coordinators March 2012
• Evaluation results: estimated to be available within 4 months after the closure date (23 March 2012)
• Invitation letters to successful coordinators to launch grant agreement negotiations May 2012
• Grant agreement signature: estimated the first agreements will come into force before the end of 2012

Procedure summary

• Proposals will be assessed independently by at least three experts, against the three above criteria. Outcome: Individual Evaluation Report.
• Experts meet to form a consensus. Outcome: Consensus Report (CR)
• Panel review. Experts examine and compare CRs in a given area. Panel comprises experts from the Consensus step. The panel draws up a ranked list for every indicative budget as shown in the call fiche. Outcome:
  • Evaluation summary report for each proposal
  • A list of proposals passing all thresholds, their final score and the Panel's recommendation for priority order

Ranking lists

A separate ranking list (based on evaluation scores) will be established for each of the indicative budgets. Proposals will be selected within each ranking list according to their ranked order, and provided that the proposal has a score above threshold, until the available budget is committed.

Equal scores

The procedure for prioritising proposals with equal scores is summarised below.

1. Proposals that address topics not otherwise covered by more highly-rated proposals will be considered to have the highest priority.
2. These will themselves be prioritised according to their impact scores. If necessary, further prioritisation will be based on characteristics determined by the panel, related to the contribution to the European Research Area and/or general objectives mentioned in the work programme.

Dissemination

INFRA-2012-3.2 will include the special clause on the Open Access Pilot in FP7. Beneficiaries are required to make their best efforts to ensure free access to peer-reviewed articles resulting from projects via an institutional or subject-based repository.

-- MikeKenyon - 25-Oct-2011