Evaluation Criteria Explained

Horizon Europe Innovation Actions are scored 0-5 under three equally weighted criteria. Minimum threshold: 3 per criterion and 10 overall.

1. Excellence (weight 1)

- Clarity and pertinence of objectives: Must directly answer every expected outcome; use measurable targets.

- Soundness of methodology: Detail strain-engineering pipeline, bioprocess scale-up plan, LCA protocol, SSH integration, gender dimension, open-science practices.

- Credibility of innovation: Demonstrate novelty vs state-of-the-art; include preliminary data, TRL mapping, risk mitigation (# & likelihood).

What reviewers will look for

- Clear link between CO₂ capture technology and food-grade product safety.

- Proof that scalability and regulatory hurdles were considered from day one.

2. Impact (weight 1)

- Contribution to expected outcomes & destinations: Quantified KPIs aligned to: cost-effective reactors, CO₂ reduction, living labs, SME scale-up.

- Credible pathways to market: Business models, IP strategy, regulatory roadmap (GMO, Novel Food), investor engagement.

- Measures to maximise impact:

• Dissemination (scientific, EOSC, standards)

• Exploitation (licensing, start-ups, regional rollout)

• Communication (citizen trust, food safety messaging)

- Sustainability of results: Post-grant governance for digital platform; integration with RIV4BFS.

Extra aspects assessed under Impact

- Climate relevance & LCA rigour (CO₂ removal quantified against baselines).

- International cooperation value add (e.g., US demo site, global standards alignment).

3. Quality & Efficiency of Implementation (weight 1)

- Work plan quality & resources: Coherent WPs, milestones, deliverables; resource allocation proportional to tasks.

- Consortium adequacy: Multi-actor balance, complementary expertise, clear roles (SMEs leading scale-up, RTOs analytics, NGOs engagement).

- Project management: Decision-making structure, risk & innovation management, IP rules, gender & ethics oversight.

Red flags for evaluators

- Missing dedicated task/budget for collaboration with sibling projects.

- Weak risk analysis for regulatory approvals or feed/food safety.

- Unbalanced budget (e.g., equipment heavy with limited funds for impact).

Scoring Tips

1. Embed Evaluation Form language verbatim (e.g., “The proposal convincingly contributes to the expected outcomes…”).

2. Provide evidence: letters of intent from pilot plant owners, investors, regional authorities.

3. Use a summary table cross-referencing each expected outcome to objectives, WPs, KPIs and risks.

Deliver a proposal that feels investment-ready, socially responsible and policy-aligned – that is what Horizon evaluators reward with scores of 14+ / 15.

Strategic Application Guide

1. Build a Mission-Ready Consortium

- Anchor industrial capacity: At least one food/biotech company owning or operating fermentation infrastructure.

- Empower SMEs & start-ups: Assign them WP leadership on innovative strains, digital platform modules or scale-up pilots to meet the SME participation KPI.

- Complement with experts: Engineering consultants (CAPEX/OPEX), LCA specialists, social scientists, IP lawyers.

- Quadruple helix balance: Include regional authorities (for RIV links) and consumer NGOs (food safety perception, citizen engagement).

2. Map Work Packages to Mandatory Activities

| Mandatory activity | Suggested WP |

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

| Cost & investment analysis | WP1 – Techno-economic & LCA baseline |

| Open platform & business toolbox | WP2 – Digital infrastructure (EOSC-compatible) |

| Industry & in-situ business models | WP3 – Living labs & business pilots |

| Sustainability & resilience evaluation | WP4 – Climate & One-Health assessment |

| Scale-up feasibility | WP5 – Pilot-plant design & demo runs |

| Coordination & clustering | WP6 – RIV4BFS, US collaboration, policy outreach |

| Management & ethics | WP7 |

Embed cross-cutting tasks on Gender, SSH, Open Science, Risk Management.

3. Excellence Section Tips

- Vision statement: Position project as enabler of "carbon-negative nutrient factories" aligning with Food 2030 Pathway 6 (Microbiome World).

- Innovative Edge: Highlight strain-engineering advances (e.g., CRISPR chassis), gas-fermentation bioprocess intensification, smart bioreactor control (AI/IoT).

- Interdisciplinarity: Detail integration of synthetic biology, process engineering, LCA, socio-economics.

4. Impact Section Tips

- KPIs & Targets (by 2030):

• ≥40 % CAPEX reduction vs 2024 benchmark.

• ≥1 kg CO₂ captured per kg nutrient produced.

• ≥3 start-ups created; ≥2 pilot sites upgraded to >TRL7.

- Exploitation plan: Outline licensing/IPR strategy, equity financing pathway, and how digital platform remains open after project (freemium/SaaS model).

- Policy contribution: Map to EU Bioeconomy Strategy, Green Deal, future EU Biotech Act; include policy brief deliverables.

5. Implementation Section Tips

- Gantt realism: 48-month duration, early parallelisation of strain optimisation & pilot engineering to reach TRL7 by month 36.

- Resource justification: Link budget lines to risk-weighted milestones; provide quotations for major equipment.

- Governance: Establish Exploitation & Ethics Board, Advisory Panel with RIV4BFS representatives.

6. Timeline Management

- Nov 2024: Consortium MoU & concept note

- Jan 2025: First draft Part B + partner data collection

- Mar 2025: Internal review / mock evaluation

- Apr 2025: Final budgets, ethics self-assessment, gender plan

- 6 May 2025: Portal opens – upload early version for automatic checks

- 16 Sept 2025: Submit at least 24 h before deadline

7. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

- Underestimating GMO regulatory pathway & EFSA novel food approval timelines.

- Lack of concrete scale-up metrics or TRL evidence.

- Generic dissemination plan without tailored stakeholder mapping.

- Insufficient budget for data management and EOSC integration.