The document contains evaluation forms for proposals submitted to the ICT Call 11 (FP7-ICT-2013-11). There are evaluation report forms for different types of proposals including Integrated Projects, STREPs, Coordination Actions, Support Actions, CP-CSA proposals in Pre-Commercial Procurement, and ERANET actions implemented as Coordination Actions in FET Flagships. The forms include criteria for evaluation such as scientific and technological excellence, quality of implementation and management, and potential impact. Experts will use these forms to evaluate the proposals received for the call.

1. EVALUATION FORMS
Information and Communication Technologies
ICT
FP7-ICT-2013-11

2. 2
The following forms exemplify those which will be issued to independent experts
employed as evaluators in the evaluation of proposals received in
ICT Call 11 (FP7-ICT-2013-11)
In this call there will be strong competition. Therefore, edit your proposal tightly,
strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself in the place of an expert evaluator;
refer to the evaluation criteria and procedure given in annex 2 of the Guide for
Applicants. Arrange for your draft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use
their advice to improve it before submission.
CONTENTS
EVALUATION REPORT FOR AN INTEGRATED PROJECT ............................................................ 3
EVALUATION REPORT FOR A STREP .................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION REPORT FOR A COORDINATION ACTION OR ERANET PLUS ACTION .................... 7
EVALUATION REPORT FOR A SUPPORT ACTION ..................................................................... 9
EVALUATION REPORT FOR A CP-CSA PROPOSAL IN PRE-COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT .........11
EVALUATION REPORT FOR AN ERANET ACTION IMPLEMENTED AS A COORDINATION ACTION IN
FET FLAGSHIPS .................................................................................................................13
FP7-ICT-2013-11 Evaluations forms
18/09/12 v1

3. 3
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
 Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
 Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1)
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
 Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
 Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
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.

4. 4
Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
 Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property.
Remarks Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.

5. 5
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for a STREP
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
 Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
 Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1)
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
 Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
 Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
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.

6. 6
Evaluation Report for a STREP p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
 Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property.
Remarks Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.

7. 7
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for a Coordination Action or ERANET Plus action
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
 Contribution to the coordination of high quality research
 Quality and effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
 Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1)
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
 Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
 Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
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.

8. 8
Evaluation Report for a Coordination Action or ERANET Plus action p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
 Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating
knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large
Remarks Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.

9. 9
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for a Support Action
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
 Quality and effectiveness of the support mechanisms and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
 Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1)
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
 Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) [only if relevant]
 Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
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.

10. 10
Evaluation Report for a Support Action p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
 Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating
knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large
Remarks Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.

11. 11
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for a CP-CSA proposal in Pre-commercial
Procurement
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Soundness of concept and quality of objectives.
 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art (relevant only to CP part of the proposal).
 Contribution to the coordination of high quality research (relevant only to CSA part of the
proposal).
 Quality and effectiveness of the CSA mechanisms (mechanisms proposed to achieve the
objectives of the networking and coordination CSA part of the project), and associated work
plan
 Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan (relevant only to
CP part of the proposal).
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
 Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures. (Threshold 3/5;
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants. Weight 1)
 Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance).
 Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment …).
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.

12. 12
Evaluation Report for a CP-CSA in PCP p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
 Contribution at the European level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme
under relevant topic/activity.
 Appropriateness of measures for the exploitation of project results, dissemination of
knowledge, through the engagement with stakeholders and the public at large, and the
management of intellectual property and for spreading excellence
Remarks Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.

13. 13
ICT Theme IER
Evaluation Report for an ERANET action implemented as a
Coordination Action in FET Flagships
Proposal No. : Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:
call) (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 40%)
 Clarity of objectives
 Contribution to the coordination of high-risk and high -impact research, for new or emerging
areas or horizontally
 Quality and effectiveness of the coordination activities
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
 Quality of workplan and management Weight 20%)
 Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
 Quality of the consortium
 Appropriate management of the resources to be committed (person months, equipment,
budget)
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.

14. 14
Evaluation Report for an ERANET Coordination Action in FET Proactive p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score:
results (Threshold 3/5;
Weight 40%)
 Transformational impact on the communities and/or practices for high-risk and high impact
research
 Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, use of results and dissemination of
knowledge, including engagement with stakeholders
Remarks Overall score:
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
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.