Horizon Europe Evaluation Form (HE RIA and IA)

Version 2.0

26 April 2022

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Scoring:

Scoring must be in the range from 0-5. Half-marks may be given.

1. — The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

2. — Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

3. — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

4. — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

5. — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

6. — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion.

Any shortcomings are minor.

Thresholds & weighting:

The threshold for the individual criteria is 3. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the 3 individual scores, is 10 points.

Scores are normally NOT weighted. (Weighting is only used for some types of actions — and only for the ranking (not to determine if the proposal passed the thresholds).

Specific calls or topics may have different rules regarding threshols and weighting.

Specific cases:

Two-stage calls

For stage 1 proposals, only the criteria Excellence and Impact will be evaluated and within those criteria only the aspects indicated in bold in General Annex of the Main Work Programme. The threshold for each of the two individual criteria is 4.

After the evaluation, the call coordinator will then fix an overall threshold, to limit the proposals that will be invited to stage 2. (This overall threshold will be set at a level which ensures that the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 is as close as possible to three times the available budget, and in any case, not less than 2.5 the available budget. The actual level will therefore depend on the volume of proposals received. The threshold is expected to normally be around 8 or 8.5.)

EVALUATION FORM (RIA IA)

1. EVALUATION

   
   

   Applications must be evaluated as they were submitted, NOT on their potential if certain changes were made. Therefore, do NOT recommend any modifications (e.g. consortia composition, resources or budget, or inclusion of additional work packages). Shortcomings should be reflected in lower score.
   If an application is partly out of scope, this should be reflected in the scoring and explained in the comments.

   
   

   
   

   The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
   Comments:
   Score 1 (0-5): Threshold: 3/5
   The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:

   1. Excellence

      • Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state of the art.

      • Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate.

   1. Impact

      • Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from to the project.

   
   

   
   

   Comments:
   Score 2 (0-5): Threshold: 3/5
   The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
   Comments:
   Score 3 (0-5): Threshold: 3/5
   Total score Overall threshold /15

   • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities.

   1. Quality and efficiency of the implementation

      • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall.

      • Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.

   
   

   
   

2. OTHER QUESTIONS

   
   

   Opinion on additional questions

   Scope of the application

   Based on the information provided, this application is:

   
   

   
   

   ‘in scope’ because it corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description against which it has been submitted ‘out of scope’ because: [Comment box]

   Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why.

   Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: [Comment box] Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: [Comment box]

   Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)

   Does this proposal involve the use of hESC? No Yes If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. [Comment box]

   Use of human embryos

   Does this proposal involve the use of human embryos? No Yes If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. [Comment box]

   Activities excluded from funding

   Activities that: No

   • aim at human cloning for reproductive purposes, or

   • intend to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable (with the exception of research relating to cancer treatment of the gonads, which may be financed), or

   • intend to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or

   • lead to the destruction of human embryos (for example, for obtaining stem cells)? are excluded from funding. Does the proposal include any of these activities?

   
   

   
   

   Yes If YES, please explain. [Comment box]

   Do no significant harm principle

   Is this proposal compliant with the ‘Do no significant harm’ principle? Not applicable Yes. Partially No Cannot be assessed If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain. [Comment box]

   Exclusive focus on civil applications

   Do the activities proposed have an exclusive focus on civil applications (activities intended to be used in military application or aims to serve military purposes cannot be funded)? No Yes If NO, please explain. [Comment box]

   Artificial Intelligence

   Do the activities proposed involve the use and/or development of AI-based systems and/or techniques? No Yes If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.

   
   

3. COMMENTS

]

[additional OPTION for CR:

]

[additional OPTION for ESR (for internal use – will not be included in the ESR sent to applicants):

]