Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Guide

Under Horizon Europe CSA calls the proposal is scored on three criteria, each 0-5. Thresholds: Excellence ≥ 3, Impact ≥ 4, Implementation ≥ 3, overall ≥ 10.

1. Excellence (Weight 1)

* Clarity & pertinence of objectives – Are they SMART and fully aligned with the four Expected Outcomes?

* Soundness of the proposed methodology – Quality of mapping approach, stakeholder engagement, foresight tools, data management, consideration of minor crops & organic systems.

* Credibility of the concept – Integration of SSH, gender, RRI; justification of using a CSA and lump-sum model.

* Extent to which the proposal goes beyond the state of the art – Novel networking mechanisms, digital platforms, financing models.

❗ Tip for applicants: provide a diagram showing how each objective maps to tasks and deliverables; cite recent Horizon 2020/Europe projects to demonstrate awareness and advancement.

2. Impact (Weight 1)

* Contribution to Expected Outcomes – Quantified, evidence-based and covering all four outcomes.

* Scale and significance of the project’s long-term effects – EU competitiveness, resilience, sustainability.

* Measures to maximise impact – Clear exploitation/commercialisation pathway for the EU Breeding Innovation Network; communication & dissemination tailored to farmers, SMEs, policy makers.

* Credibility of pathways to impact – KPIs, monitoring framework, risk mitigation, sustainability plan post-funding.

* Cross-cutting impacts – Climate neutrality, biodiversity, ABS compliance, widening, gender equality, open science.

❗ Horizon rule: Impact receives the highest threshold (4); reviewers look for quantification and policy integration.

3. Quality and Efficiency of Implementation (Weight 1)

* Coherence & effectiveness of work plan – Logical WPs, milestones, deliverables, Gantt chart.

* Appropriate allocation of resources – Personnel, travel, subcontracting; justification within lump-sum model.

* Quality of consortium – Complementarity, EU-27 coverage, involvement of private breeders & SMEs, decision-making structure.

* Risk management – Technical, legal (ABS, data), operational; mitigation measures.

* Budget justification – Transparent lump-sum splitting, value for money.

❗ Reviewers will check alignment between tasks, person-months and lump-sum amounts; avoid over-complexity (≤ 8 WPs is advisable).

4. Tiebreakers

If proposals score the same, evaluators apply tiebreakers in this order:

1. Higher score on Impact

2. Higher score on Excellence

3. Prioritisation of proposals that address widening countries or gender balance in leadership

---

Golden Rules for Scoring 5/5

* Demonstrate systemic vision spanning policy, science, and market.

* Provide evidence of stakeholder buy-in (MoUs/letters from ministries, seed offices, farmer unions).

* Show replicability & scalability beyond the project.

* Keep the proposal concise, consistent and visually clear – reviewers have limited time.

---

Application Strategy

1. Build a High-Impact Consortium

* Tripod structure

1. Knowledge providers: leading universities/RTOs on genomics, phenotyping, socio-economics.

2. End-users & market actors: SME breeders (at least 6 covering major & minor crops), farmers’ & seed-testing agencies, organic sector.

3. System integrators: research infrastructures, funding agencies and policy think-tanks.

* Ensure geographical coverage of all 27 MS (associate partners or linked third parties if needed).

* Secure SSH, gender & youth expertise to fulfil multi-actor and inclusiveness criteria.

2. Craft a Convincing Logic Frame

"Needs ➔ Activities ➔ Outputs ➔ Outcomes ➔ Impacts"

* Map each Expected Outcome in the topic text to at least one work package, KPI and deliverable.

* Include minor/underutilised & permanent crops and both conventional and organic systems.

3. Suggested Work Package (WP) Architecture

| WP | Title | Core Tasks | Timing |

|----|-------|-----------|--------|

| 1 | Project coordination & lump-sum management | Governance, GA reporting, ethics, data mgmt | M1-48 |

| 2 | Comprehensive EU mapping | Desk study, surveys, interactive GIS portal | M1-18 |

| 3 | Funding landscape & financing models | Case studies, cost-benefit, PPP blueprints | M4-24 |

| 4 | Participatory gap analysis & infrastructure plan | 27 national co-creation workshops, foresight | M10-30 |

| 5 | EU Breeding Innovation Network (EBIN) set-up | MoUs, interoperability standards, pilot exchanges | M8-36 |

| 6 | Strategic R&I Roadmap & policy toolkit | Roadmap 2030-40, regulation briefs, ABS guidance | M24-44 |

| 7 | Communication, dissemination & exploitation | Multi-lingual hub, hackathons, policy roundtables | M1-48 |

4. Excellence Tips

* Methodological novelty: Mixed-methods foresight + system-dynamics modelling of breeding pipelines.

* Open Science: FAIR data, open-source dashboards, Zenodo repository.

* Interdisciplinarity: life sciences, economics, behavioural science, digital.

5. Impact Maximisation

* Concrete KPI examples: ≥ 1500 stakeholders engaged; ≥ 10 joint transnational pilot projects launched; adoption of roadmap by ≥ 12 national funders.

* Exploitation plan: sustainability model for the EBIN network beyond project end (membership fees + national co-funding).

* Align with EU Missions and CAP Strategic Plans; reference how outcomes feed into next FP10 agenda-setting.

6. Implementation & Lump-Sum Budgeting

* Break down the lump sum into annual payments linked to key deliverables (D2.3 Map portal online, D5.1 Network operational, D6.2 Roadmap adopted).

* Provide contingency plan for deliverable delays and clear internal payment rules.

* dedicate ≥ 10 % of budget to Widening & Outreach activities (Central/Eastern Europe, outermost regions).

7. Submission Checklist

* Use part B page limit (45 pages) wisely – focus on impact & credibility.

* Complete lump-sum Excel table (internal cost breakdown not submitted but kept for audits).

* Check ethics & ABS compliance (Nagoya Protocol statement).

* Upload letters of commitment from key infrastructures & ministries.

---