20151202_Infoday RS2_Alfonso Jiménez

1. Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis Research Group
Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis
Research Group
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Sciences
Faculty of Sciences
University of Alicante
Campus Sant Vicent
P.O. Box 99
E-03080, Alicante

2. REMOTE
EVALUATION
•Individual
assessment
•Remote consensus
CENTRAL
EVALUATION
•Consensus Meetings
•Quality Checks
•Thematic Panel
Review
PANEL REVIEW
•Final ranked list by
activity
Call deadline
15 November 2014
1387 proposals submitted
[] ineligible proposals & [] withdrawn
December-
January January – February Brussels
EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS

3. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 REMOTE
 Each proposal is assessed independently and individually by 3 experts
against 3 pre-determined evaluation criteria
 Individual opinions are recorded in an Individual Assessment Report (IAR),
giving scores and comments against the evaluation criteria
 Once all IARs are finalized, a fourth expert intervenes, the rapporteur
 She/he is in charge of arriving at a consensus between the individual views
of the evaluators who will discuss the proposal between themselves and
drafting a consensus report (CR)
 CENTRAL
 If no consensus can be reached remotely, the proposal is discussed during
a meeting in Brussels.
 The meeting is moderated by an EU official (the Project Officer), with the
help of the rapporteur

4. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATORS RAPPORTEURS
MISSION • Read and assess the
proposal
• Write an individual
assessment report
(IAR)
• Participate actively to
reach consensus, in
remote and/or central
• Quality check of IARs
• Lead the process to arrive at a
consensus between the
individual views of the
evaluators once their IARs are
finalized
• Draft the consensus report (CR)
• Participate and help in
consensus meeting
• Finalize the consensus report
after the consensus meeting
NO OPINION

5. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 EVALUATORS ROLE
 Assess each proposal and record individual opinion in an Individual
Assessment Report (IAR), giving scores and providing comments
against the evaluation criteria
 Draft the IAR and submit it for review to the rapporteur (who can
request clarifications but cannot challenge the opinion of the
evaluator)
 If applicable, revise IAR based on rapporteur’s comments
 Once the CR is drafted by the rapporteur, approve or reject it
 In case of rejection, the decision needs to be motivated and justified
(with comments)
 Multiple versions of a CR can be drafted; and in case no consensus can
be reached remotely, the proposal is discussed in Brussels
Respect given deadlines

6. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 RAPPORTEURS ROLE
 Lead the process to arrive at a consensus between the individual
views of the evaluators (once IARs are finalized and checked)
 Draft the consensus report (CR) based on the assessment made by
each evaluator & score the proposal based on the comments (NO
OPINION)
 Open the discussion with the evaluators with a view in reaching a
consensus
 If no consensus can be reached during the remote evaluation, the
proposal is discussed in Brussels
 Prepare the points that need to be discussed during the consensus
meeting and inform the REA Officer
 Once a consensus is reached, the rapporteur drafts the final version of
the CR

7. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 Part A
 A1 : snapshot of the proposal
 A2 : partners administrative information
 A3 : deals with budgetary matters
 Part B:
 Section 1: Scientific and/or technological
excellence
 Section 2: Implementation, management,
consortium, resources
 Section 3: Impact - The potential impact
through the development, dissemination
and use of project results
 Section 4: Ethical issues
 Section 5: Consideration of gender
aspects
Enforce page
limitation
(excessive
pages must be
disregarded)
Proposals have
2 parts
Both parts need
to be assessed

8. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 Evaluation criteria for RIA
 Each proposal will be assessed independently by 3 experts against 3
evaluation criteria

9. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 Evaluation criteria for DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
 The evaluation criteria are the same as for SME & SME AGs, except for
one sub-criterion
 Apply each sub-criterion to assess the DEMO activity keeping in mind
its objectives as specified in the Work Programme

10. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 Scoring definition:
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 inadequate
manner, or there are significant 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.
Each criterion will
be scored out of 5.
Half marks are
possible.
USE THE FULL
RANGE OF
SCORES

11. EVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESS
 IPR principle:
 The default regime is full ownership of all
project results ("foreground") and IPRs by
the SMEs or SME Associations.
 The consortium may however reach a
different agreement, provided that:
- Companies are provided with all the rights
that are required for their intended use and
dissemination of project results;
- value of the IPR is clearly reflected in the
price of services provided by RTD performers
(Transaction);
- the commercial interest of the companies is
safeguarded.
Contents:
Main objectives
Activities – SME
Activities – SME-AG
Activities – Demo
SME&AG – Actors
SME&AG – Transaction
SME&AG – Impact
SME&AG – IPR
Demonstration

12. Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis Research Group
Gracias / Thank you
EVALUATION PROCESS