Evaluation Criteria & How to Score High

The proposal will be scored on a 0–5 scale for each criterion. Threshold: 4/5 on each criterion AND ≥12/15 overall.

1. Excellence (Weight ×1)

* Quality of Objectives

* Show precise, measurable objectives aligned with every bullet in the scope.

* Credibility of Methodology

* Present a robust management plan with clear workflows for routine vs emergency modes.

* Include state-of-the-art practices in data sharing, clinical-trial coordination, science-to-policy translation.

* Interdisciplinarity & Gender Dimension

* Integrate social sciences, ethics, and sex/gender analysis in outbreak research preparedness.

* Quality of Consortium

* Demonstrate complementary excellence: funders, scientists, communicators.

👉 Maximiser tip: Use a logic model diagram linking inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes → impacts.

2. Impact (Weight ×1)

* Credible Pathway to Expected Outcomes

* Map deliverables to the three expected outcomes listed in the topic.

* Scale & Significance of Impacts

* Quantify benefits (e.g. faster funder coordination, % increase in harmonised trials).

* Measures to Maximise Impact

* Detailed dissemination, exploitation & communication (DEC) plan including KPIs, target audiences, open-access policy.

* Barriers & Mitigation

* Risk table covering political, operational, outbreak-related uncertainties and mitigation strategies.

👉 Maximiser tip: Include letters of commitment from WHO, CEPI, regional funders showing intended use of results.

3. Quality & Efficiency of Implementation (Weight ×1)

* Work Plan & Resources

* Coherent WPs, realistic timeline, justified person-months.

* Management Structures, Governance & Decision-Making

* Clear hierarchy: Board → Secretariat → WGs → Regional hubs.

* Consortium Competence & Capacity

* CVs illustrating previous delivery of large-scale international coordination (e.g. COVID-19 research response).

* Lump-Sum Coherence

* Milestone/Work Package payment schedule logically aligned with deliverables; contingency fund explained.

👉 Maximiser tip: Attach a RACI matrix to visualize roles & responsibilities; evaluators appreciate clarity.

---

Meeting or exceeding the above elements—and evidencing them with concrete, verifiable data—will position the proposal to reach ≥4.5 on every criterion and secure funding.

Application Strategy

1. Build a Mission-Driven Consortium

* Lead beneficiary: organisation with proven track record in managing international research networks (e.g. existing GloPID-R host, major funding agency, or European infrastructure coordinator).

* Key profiles to include:

* Large public funders (NIHR, ANRS-MIE, BMGF, CEPI)

* Regional hubs (Africa CDC, Fiocruz, ASEAN partners)

* Outbreak-science experts (clinical trials, social sciences, data sharing)

* Professional secretariat/association-management body

* Communication & digital-platform specialists

* Draft a Consortium Agreement clarifying roles in routine vs emergency modes.

2. Co-Design the Work Packages (WPs)

| WP | Core Aim | Ownership |

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

| WP1 | Governance & Secretariat Operations | Coordinator |

| WP2 | Scientific Foresight & Rapid Evidence | Leading research institute |

| WP3 | Working Groups & Regional Hubs Facilitation | Regional leads |

| WP4 | Data, Digital Tools & Interoperability | e-infrastructure partner |

| WP5 | External Communication & Stakeholder Engagement | Comms specialist |

| WP6 | Impact, Monitoring & Adaptability Framework | Independent evaluator |

3. Embed Agility & Pandemic-Mode Triggers

* Define "surge protocols" (e.g. 48-hour mobilisation of additional staff, emergency meetings within 72 h).

* Allocate contingency resources (≈10 %) earmarked for outbreak activation.

4. Craft a Compelling Impact Narrative

* Map each expected outcome to SMART KPIs (e.g. “Time from WHO PHEIC declaration to first joint-funder call reduced from 90 days (baseline) to ≤30 days by 2028”).

* Show contribution to EU strategic plans (HERA, GHSA) and UN SDG 3.

5. Facilitate Policy Uptake & Synergies

* Plan formal interfaces with EC DG-RTD, ECDC, HERA, ERA4Health, Cluster 3 projects.

* Include budget lines for joint workshops & cross-cluster task forces.

6. Respect the Lump-Sum Logic

* Develop a granular internal budget but present to EC as work-package-based lump-sum milestones.

* Align payment triggers with annual work plans & Board-approved deliverables.

7. Timeline to Submission

1. May–June 2025: Consortium finalisation; draft excellence section.

2. July 2025: Full proposal writing sprint; internal review against HE criteria.

3. Early Aug 2025: External mock evaluation; refine impact KPIs.

4. Late Aug 2025: Budget freeze & lump-sum table upload.

5. 16 Sep 2025: Submit before 12:00 Brussels time to avoid last-minute portal issues.

8. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

* Treating the action as a pure administrative grant—must demonstrate scientific added value.

* Vague contingency planning; evaluators look for tested frameworks.

* Under-representing LMIC funders; global scope is essential.