Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Guide

Horizon Europe CSAs are evaluated on three main criteria, each scored 0–5 (half-points allowed). Thresholds: 4/5 for *Excellence*, 4/5 for *Impact*, 3/5 for *Quality & Efficiency* AND an overall minimum of 12/15. Proposals below thresholds are rejected. The call adds a *balanced-coverage rule* ensuring at least one high-quality grant per ESFRI project, provided thresholds are passed.

1. Excellence (weight 1/3)

What evaluators look for:

- Clarity and pertinence of objectives vs the specific early-implementation bottlenecks identified for the targeted ESFRI Project.

- Credibility of the proposed methodology, including risk management and KPI framework.

- Extent to which the work goes beyond the state of play, builds on preparatory-phase outputs and lessons from ESFRI monitoring.

- Quality of the consortium’s interdisciplinary, technical and governance expertise.

Tips to maximise score:

- Provide a *gap analysis table* linking each bottleneck to concrete tasks/deliverables.

- Reference prior EU projects and show how you will scale/industrialise their results.

- Showcase robust FAIR/e-infrastructure approach fully aligned with EOSC.

2. Impact (weight 1/3)

Key aspects assessed:

- Contribution to call-specific expected outcomes (faster implementation, ERA attractiveness, MS engagement, long-term RI investments, synergies).

- Credibility of the pathways to achieve these impacts, including key assumptions.

- Added value at EU level compared to national/regional efforts alone.

- Quality of the measures to exploit, disseminate, and communicate results, including open-science commitments, IPR, gender and inclusiveness.

- Involvement and commitment of policy-makers and funders (letters, MoUs).

Scoring levers:

- Quantified impact targets (e.g. “+6 Member States formally join by 2028”).

- Concrete sustainability plan with post-CSA funding table.

- Synergy matrix showing complementarities with existing ESFRI/ERICs and EU programmes.

3. Quality & Efficiency of the Implementation (weight 1/3)

Review focus:

- Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, WP structure, deliverables, milestones.

- Appropriateness of the management structures, decision-making and risk mitigation.

- Competence, complementarity, and commitment of partners (incl. funding agencies).

- Allocation of resources per WP vs objectives; realism of the lump-sum budget.

Boosting your mark:

- Provide a detailed Gantt, PERT and responsibility matrix (RACI).

- Show that each WP end-milestone can be objectively verified for lump-sum payment.

- Include a balanced gender & geographical distribution in key roles.

Additional Checks

- Operational & Financial Capacity (non-scored, pass/fail): track record, human resources, lump-sum logic.

- Ethics & Security Review where relevant.

- Balanced-coverage rule: If several high-scoring proposals target the same ESFRI Project, only the top one is funded until at least one proposal for every other ESFRI Project above threshold is selected.

Understanding these nuances and reflecting them explicitly in your proposal narrative, impact logic and budget justification will significantly increase your chances of being ranked at the top and selected for funding.

Strategic Application Guide

1. Positioning & Readiness Check

- Verify that your ESFRI Project is one of the 11 eligible. Map existing gaps vs the ESFRI monitoring reports (governance, funding, legal status, ICT, service offer, HR, etc.).

- Gather letters of commitment *before* drafting: ministries, funding agencies, future member institutions, international partners.

2. Build a Mission-driven Consortium

1. Core science partners – sites hosting key research facilities.

2. Mandated national authorities – essential for political & budgetary commitments.

3. e-Infrastructure / EOSC actors – to tackle data, interoperability, and FAIR compliance.

4. User communities & industry – demonstrate demand and innovation potential.

5. Management & legal experts – for ERIC set-up, procurement, HR, IPR.

Include at least one dedicated partner responsible for stakeholder engagement & impact maximisation.

3. Craft a Targeted Work Plan (36–48 months typical)

- WP1 Project Management & Lump-Sum Reporting. Define clear, verifiable milestones as payment triggers.

- WP2 Governance & Legal Entity. Deliver draft statutes, host-state agreement, decision-making rules.

- WP3 Financial Sustainability. Multi-annual business plan, MoUs, Member-state investment roadmaps, diversified revenue streams.

- WP4 Technical & Data Architecture. Interoperability layer with EOSC, implementation of FAIR-by-Design DMP.

- WP5 User Access & Service Portfolio. Pilot access calls, virtual access prototypes, KPI dashboard.

- WP6 International & ERA Integration. Alignment with other ESFRI/ERICs, global partners, UN SDGs.

- WP7 Communication, Training & Exploitation. Including gender equality, open-science, and IP policies.

4. Embed Impact Logic

Create a results chain: Activities → Outputs (statutes, business plan, data hub) → Outcomes (signed commitments, service uptake) → Impacts (earlier implementation, strengthened ERA). Quantify with *SMART* indicators.

5. Budgeting in Lump-Sum Mode

- Break down the lump sum per WP; each WP = one cost target.

- Provide a narrative budget: personnel months, subcontracting needs (legal advice), travel, equipment (minor office/IT only), communication.

- Keep internal margin (≈5 %) for risk but remain realistic – over-inflated lump sums are penalised.

6. Compliance & Administrative Excellence

- Use the latest Part B template (2025). Respect the 45-page limit (CSA).

- Upload all letters of commitment & support as Annexes.

- Address ethics, security, gender equality plan statements.

7. Timeline & Proposal Management

- April 2025: Internal Go/No-Go.

- May–June 2025: Co-draft narrative, refine work packages.

- July 2025: Collect and sign commitments, finalise budget, run internal review.

- August 2025: Mock evaluation, integrate feedback, polish diagrams.

- 10 Sept 2025: Freeze content; run validation checks and submit *at least 24 h* before the deadline.

8. Common Pitfalls to Avoid

- Vague deliverables without measurable success criteria.

- Consortium lacking decision-making power (no ministries).

- Treating the action as a research project – focus on *implementation* tasks instead.

- Overlooking EOSC/data management requirements.

- Ignoring previous EU-funded outputs (prep-phase grants).

9. Leverage Synergies & Visibility

- Reference ongoing Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, ERDF, or national projects that will co-invest.

- Demonstrate complementarities with existing ESFRI RIs to underline ecosystem structuring.

- Plan joint communication with the ESFRI Working Group and European Strategy Forum Secretariat.

A strong, politically backed, milestone-oriented CSA with credible financial & governance deliverables is most likely to score high and secure funding.