Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)"

Whitney Osborne
5 years ago
Views:

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) UK National Contact Point for Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions mariecurie uk@bbsrc.ac.uk COFUND Information Session 10.30 Registration and coffee 11.

1 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) UK National Contact Point for Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions mariecurie COFUND Information Session Registration and coffee Introduction to Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes (COFUND), financial matters Mr Alan Craig (Head of Sector, COFUND, Research Executive Agency) Q&A session Successful COFUND project case study Mr Paul Knobbs (European Funding Manager, Aston University) Lunch break COFUND proposal submission and evaluation process Mr Ian Devine (MSCA UK NCP, UK Research Office) COFUND evaluation criteria and how to address for success Mr Alan Craig (Head of Sector, COFUND, Research Executive Agency) Q&A session End 1

2 UKRO & MSCA UK Help Desk About the UK Research Office (UKRO) UKRO is the office of the seven UK Research Councils in Brussels and delivers a subscription based advisory service for around 150 research organisations in the UK and beyond. UKRO also provides the MSCA and ERC National Contact Point services on behalf of the UK Government. Our mission is to maximise UK engagement in EU funded research, innovation and higher education. 2

UKRO National Contact Points Advice on the European Research Council and the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions Websites www.ukro.ac.uk/erc www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie Helpdesk erc uk@bbsrc.

3 UKRO National Contact Points Advice on the European Research Council and the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions Websites Helpdesk erc Phone: mariecurie Phone: Funded by COFUND Proposal submission 3

COFUND Main Documents MSCA 2016 17 Work Programme http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2 016_2017/main/h2020 wp1617 msca_en.pdf COFUND 2016 Guide for Applicants http://ec.

4 COFUND Main Documents MSCA Work Programme 016_2017/main/h2020 wp1617 msca_en.pdf COFUND 2016 Guide for Applicants 0/msca cofund 2016/ guide_for_applicants_en.doc Horizon 2020 Guide to Submission and Evaluation s_manual/pse/h2020 guide pse_en.pdf Participant Portal 4

5 Participant Portal - ECAS Participant Portal Funding Opportunities 5

6 Participant Portal Funding Opportunities Participant Portal Funding Opportunities 6

7 Participant Portal Funding Opportunities Topic Conditions and Documents 7

8 Participant Portal Create Proposal Participant Portal Create Proposal 8

9 Participant Portal Create Proposal Participant Portal - Part A 9

10 Participant Portal - Part A ID(2 Participant Portal - Part A Plus letter of commitment for partners in Part B 10

11 Slide 20 ID(2 Ian Devine (UKRO), 23/05/2016

Participant Portal - Part B Approaching Proposal Submission Register in the Participant Portal and create an ECAS account Get in touch with your research support

12 Participant Portal - Part B Approaching Proposal Submission Register in the Participant Portal and create an ECAS account Get in touch with your research support office Add relevant contact people to the online application Submit early and often latest version will be accepted Keep the Guide for Applicants in front of you!!! 11

13 COFUND Proposal evaluation process Evaluation Process 1. Proposal Submission Via Participant Portal Admissibility/eligibility checks 2. Remote Evaluations 3. Consensus Meetings 4. Ranked list of proposals At least 3 evaluators Individual reports produced Consensus reports produced Agreement on comments/score Lists by panel Projects funded in priority order until budget is exhausted Max. 5 months to outcome overall max 8 months to sign the Grant Agreement Deadline 29 September 2016 Outcomes March 2017 Grant Agreements signed May

14 Evaluation Admissibility & Eligibility Admissible if: It is submitted in the electronic submission system before the call deadline; It is readable, accessible and printable. Eligible if: It involves one beneficiary from a MS or AC that funds or manages Doctoral Programmes or Fellowship Programmes for researchers; The content of the proposal corresponds to the topic(s) and funding scheme(s), including the specific conditions set out in the relevant parts of the MSCA Work Programme. Taken from Guide for Applicants Evaluation Independent Experts Independent Experts Perform evaluations on a personal basis, not on behalf of their organisation or country Are independent, impartial and objective Evaluate on their own and in strict confidence Must declare conflicts of interest Furthermore An Independent Observer oversees the process to: Provide feedback to the REA Comment on the conduct and fairness of the evaluations Recommend improvements to the process Note: The Independent Observer does not express views on the evaluators views or the proposals themselves 13

15 Evaluation Evaluators & Score Descriptors At least 3 Independent Evaluators per proposal think about key words! Chosen from the pool of experts taking part in this evaluation One Evaluator assigned as rapporteur taking responsibility of that proposal 0 Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1 Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2 Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3 Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4 Very Good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5 Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor. Become an evaluator! 14

16 Evaluation Selection Criteria Operational Capacity Assessed at the proposal stage Do the organisations involved have the basic operational resources and capacity to implement the action and proposed activities? Assessment based on: The description of administrative, technical and human resources to implement the programme The description of any partner organisations (when known) that will be contributing to the action by implementing a Doctoral or Fellowship programme (including recruitment of researchers). Note: If the experts evaluating the proposal reach a consensus that the applicant lacks sufficient operational capacity, then the proposal would be rejected. Evaluation Award Criteria Excellence Impact Quality and efficiency of the implementation Quality of the selection / recruitment process for the researchers (transparency, composition and organisation of selection committees, evaluation criteria, equal opportunities) Quality of the research options offered by the programme in terms of science, interdisciplinarity, intersectorality and level of transnational mobility Quality of career guidance and training, including supervision arrangements, training in transferable skills Enhancing the potential and future career perspectives of researchers; Strengthening human resources on regional, national or international level Aligning practices of participating organisations with the principles set out by the EU for human resources development in research and innovation Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the results Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the results to different target audiences Coherence, effectiveness and appropriateness of the work plan Appointment conditions of researchers Competence of the participant to implement the programme Weighting 50% 30% 20% Priority in case of ex aequo An overall threshold of 70% will be applied to the total weighted score 15

17 Thank You 16

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions in H2020

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions in H2020 Funding opportunities for individual researchers Stefano D'Orilia Call Coordinator Research Executive Agency Heraklion, 03/05/18 SUMMARY 1. Marie Skłodowska-Curie