Talk by Dr. Peter Breger of European Commission's Space Research Program, at Stanford University, July 21 2010. How US Organizations can apply for FP7 funding, intellectual property provisions, proposal process, etc.

1. The FP7 submission
process and award of
grants
Dr. Peter Breger
Space Research and Development Unit (H3)
Slide 1

2. Overview
• Participation in FP7
• The EU Grant Agreement structure
• Basis of reimbursement of costs
• From proposal to project
Submission
Evaluation
Negotiation
• Options for US partners
Slide 2

3. Participation in FP7
Slide 3

4. Types of Participants
• EU Member States (27) and FP7 Associated
States (12)
• International Cooperation Partner Countries
(ICPC) – 146 countries in three categories
according to income per capita based on World Bank
criteria
• Countries with specific S&T Cooperation
Agreements - special provision in annual Work
Programme (e.g. US, Canada)
Slide 4

5. The EU Grant Agreement structure
Slide 5

6. Types of grant agreements
• Small studies and coordination efforts:
Coordination and Support Actions (CSA)
With funding up to 100%
• Research and Development projects:
Collaborative Projects (CP)
Shared cost funding (50 or 75%)
• Special infrastructure projects:
Combined CP-CSA
Slide 6

7. Contractual relations
Participant 1
EU Grant Agreement
(Coordinator)
Consortium
Participant 2 Agreement
European
Mandatory
Commission
Participant 3
Participant n Bilateral Contract
Limited
Signature Subcontractor
of Form A
Slide 7

8. Subcontracting
• Any subcontract must be awarded to the bid
offering best value for money, under conditions
of transparency and equal treatment
• Responsibility of the participant who enters in
subcontract remains.
• The participant must ensure that any
intellectual property from the subcontracted
work belongs to the participant
Slide 8

9. Reimbursement of costs
Slide 9

10. Reimbursement of shared costs of
signatories of Grant Agreement
• 75% of costs - Non-profit public bodies,
secondary and higher education
establishments, research organisations and
SMEs
• 50% of costs - All other organisations
• Costs can include
Direct and Overhead costs, covering
Personnel costs, travel and subsistence,
management costs, other
Subcontracting costs
Slide 10

11. Annual cost reimbursement via
coordinator through cost claims
To be eligible costs must be :
actual, economic and necessary for the project;
determined in accordance with the usual accounting
principles of the contractor;
incurred during the duration of the project;
recorded in the accounts of the contractor and must exclude
indirect taxes, duties, interests, costs reimbursed in respect
of another Community project;
Without any profit.
Slide 11

12. From Proposal to Project
Slide 12

13. Participation opportunity
• On basis of annual calls for proposals by
each of the different programme parts – in
this case FP7 SPACE
• Published on web
Cordis (= general web repository of FP7 material)
FP7 Participants Portal
• Outlines specific areas and topics, the budget
available, max. project size and further
eligibility criteria/conditions
Slide 13

14. Step 1 – submission of proposal
• Coordinator assembles team and takes lead
• All participants have to register with Unique
Registration Facility (URF)
• Provides unique Participant Identification Code (PIC)
for all FP7 proposals and participations
• Drafting and submission through online submission
tool (Electronic Proposal Submission System –
EPSS)
• Allows for joint text preparation
• Coordinator responsibility to submit before deadline
Slide 14

15. Step 2 – Independent Evaluation
• Performed by an independent panel put
together by the Commission
• Three steps – individual assessment,
followed by consensus finding, and
overall ranking to use available budget
Slide 15

16. Evaluation criteria
• Criteria adapted to each funding scheme
and each thematic area
specified in the work programme
• Three main criteria:
S&T Quality (relevant to the topic of the call)
• Concept, objective, work-plan
Implementation
• Individual participants and consortium as a whole
• Allocation of resources
Impact
• Contribution to expected impacts listed in work
programme
• Plans for dissemination/exploitation Slide 16

17. Research project criteria
E v alu atio n c riteria a p p lica b le to
C o llab o rative p ro ject p ro p o sals
S /T Q U A L IT Y IM P L E M E N T A T IO N IM P A C T
“S cien tific an d /o r “Q u a lity a n d e fficie n c y o f th e “P o ten tia l im p a ct th ro u g h
tec h n o lo g ica l ex c e lle n c e im p lem e n tatio n an d th e th e d ev elo p m en t,
(re le va n t to the to p ic s m an ag em e n t” d is se m in a tio n a n d u s e o f
a d d re s se d b y th e c a ll)” p ro jec t res u lts ”
• S o u n d ne ss o f con cep t, an d • A p p ro p ria ten e ss o f th e • C o n trib ution , a t th e E u ro pe a n
q u a lity o f ob jective s m a n ag e m e n t structu re a nd [a n d /o r in te rn a tio na l] le ve l, to
p ro ced u res th e e xp e cte d im p acts liste d in
• P ro g re ss be yo n d th e sta te -o f- th e w o rk p rog ra m m e u n de r
th e -a rt • Q u a lity a nd re le va n t th e rele va n t to p ic/activity
e xp e rie n ce o f the ind ivid ua l
• Q u a lity a nd e ffe ctive n e ss of p a rticip an ts • A p p ro p ria ten e ss o f m ea su re s
th e S /T m e th o d olo g y an d fo r th e d issem in a tio n an d /o r
a sso cia te d w o rk p lan • Q u a lity o f th e co nso rtiu m a s a e xp lo ita tion o f p ro je ct re sults,
w h o le (in clu din g a n d m a n ag e m e n t o f
co m p lem e n ta rity, ba lan ce ) in te llectu al p rop e rty.
• A p p ro p ria ten e ss o f th e
a lloca tio n a n d ju stifica tio n o f
th e resou rces to b e com m itte d
(b u d g et, sta ff, e q uipm e n t)
Slide 17

18. Options for US partners
Slide 18

19. How to participate and submit
• Projects have minimum EU partner
rules
e.g. at least 3 independent partners from
different EU Member States and
Associated States
• Establish close link to a EU consortium
wishing to submit a proposal
Slide 19

20. Options open
• Signatory to the EU-Grant Agreement (GA)
and Consortium Agreement
Obligation to accept all EU contractual rules
Potentially recipient of EU – funding could be as
high as 50% or 75% level of costs
Zero EU funding allows for application of special
clauses, which can ease US participation
• Signatory to Consortium Agreement only
Participation tasks outlined in technical Annex I of
GA
No funding received from EU (except limited travel
costs)
• Sub-contractor
Slide 20

21. EU
Participation option
Partner 1
Consortium
Partner 2 Agreement
Proposal Partner 3 US Partner
Coordinator
Partner n
Grant
Agreement
Slide 21

22. Intellectual Property Rights
Slide 22

23. Main principles in Grant Agreement
• As general rule, the Commission does not become
owner of the IPR
• Ownership: each participant owns the foreground it
generates
• to facilitate the implementation of the project and the
use of its results
• to provide a minimum self-sustainable framework
while allowing participants flexibility to determine
additional rules specific for their cooperation
Slide 23

24. Note for applicants:
• Participants may agree to additional or more favourable access rights
than those provided for in the grant agreement (e.g. in the consortium
agreement)
• Thus:
Consult on specific issues with Coordinator during preparation
Coordinator can consult Commission when proposal concept
stands and partnership is clear
Develop principles and strategies for proposal text and consortium
agreement
Slide 24

25. Further information and links
• Cordis - find a call (see also last slide in extra slides attached)
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
• Cordis - find a document
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html
• How to register as participant
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/pp_en.html
• Participant portal
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal
• Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS)
https://www.epss-fp7.org/epss/welcome.jsp
• Our own homepage on Space Research and Development
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/research/index_en.htm
Slide 25

26. Thank you for your attention
Dr. P. Breger
Space Research and Development Unit
peter.breger@ec.europa.eu
Slide 26

27. Appendix:
Extra slides of further details
Slide 27

28. Coordination actions
Evaluation criteria applicable to
Co-ordination and support actions (Co-ordination)
S/T QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT
“Scientific and/or “Quality and efficiency of the “Potential impact through
technological excellence implementation and the the development,
(relevant to the topics management” dissemination and use of
addressed by the call)” project results”
• Soundness of concept, and • Appropriateness of the • Contribution, at the European
quality of objectives management structure and [and/or international] level, to
procedures the expected impacts listed in
• Contribution to the co- the work programme under
ordination of high quality • Quality and relevant the relevant topic/activity
research experience of the individual
participants • Appropriateness of measures
• Quality and effectiveness of for spreading excellence,
the co-ordination • Quality of the consortium as a exploiting results, and
mechanisms, and associated whole (including disseminating knowledge,
work plan complementarity, balance) through engagement with
stakeholders, and the public
• Appropriateness of the at large.
allocation and justification of
the resources to be committed
(budget, staff, equipment)
Slide 28

29. Studies and other support activities
Evaluation criteria applicable to
Co-ordination and support actions (Support)
S/T QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT
“Scientific and/or “Quality and efficiency of the “Potential im pact through
technological excellence im plem entation and the the developm ent,
(relevant to the topics m anagem ent” dissem ination and use of
addressed by the call)” project results”
• Appropriateness of the • Contribution, at the European
• Soundness of concept, and m anagement structure and [and/or international] level, to
quality of objectives procedures the expected impacts listed in
the work programm e under
• Quality and effectiveness of • Quality and relevant the relevant topic/activity
the support action experience of the individual
m echanism s, and associated participants • Appropriateness of m easures
work plan for spreading excellence,
• Quality of the consortium as a exploiting results, and
whole (including disseminating knowledge,
complem entarity, balance) through engagem ent with
NB: “coordination of [only if relevant] stakeholders, and the public
research” is not at large.
• Appropriateness of the
evaluated! allocation and justification of
the resources to be comm itted
(budget, staff, equipm ent)
Slide 29

30. FP7 Space projects so far include:
• University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
• UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
• New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
• UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
• University of New Hampshire
• California Institute of Technology
Slide 30

31. Some IPR specifics
• Foreground = all results of the project (incl. inventions, software,
databases, cell lines, …) and attached rights
• Background = information and attached rights
which is held by participants prior to their accession to the grant agreement
(no sideground)
which is needed for carrying out the project or for using its results
which may be defined by the participants
• Joint ownership - when foreground is generated jointly and it is
impossible to determine the respective share of the work, in which case
the joint owners must reach an agreement
in absence of a specific agreement, FP7specific clauses apply to maintain
fair and non-discriminatory relations between participants
Slide 31

32. Access rights
• Under certain conditions, a participant in a project must grant
the other participants access rights to its foreground or
background if this is needed for implementation of use
• However, participants may define the background needed in any
manner, and may exclude specific background (not necessarily
prior to signature of EC grant agreement)
• Requests for access rights for use purposes: within one year
after termination (or another period to be agreed)
• Possible to grant exclusive licences to background and
foreground if the other participants waive their access rights
• In rare cases: the Commission may object to exclusive licences
being granted to third parties established in non-associated third
countries for ethical, competitiveness or security reasons (where
appropriate, a requirement to notify the Commission will apply)
Slide 32

33. FP7 Participant Portal
• single entry point of interaction with the
Research Directorates-General of the
European Commission
• hosts a full range of services that facilitate
the monitoring and the management of
your proposals and projects throughout
their lifecycle.
Slide 33

34. Link to call documents as
published on web on 20 July 2010
• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP7DetailsCallPage&call_id=334
Slide 34