Evaluation Criteria & How to Score High

The call uses the standard Horizon Europe RIA criteria (Excellence, Impact, Quality & Efficiency of Implementation) plus access-specific sub-criteria. Each criterion is scored 0-5; threshold 4/5 for Excellence, 3/5 for the others; overall threshold 10/15. Ties resolved via predefined procedure (Excellence ➜ Impact ➜ gender balance of staff, etc.). A balanced portfolio rule ensures at least one funded project per area.

1. Excellence (Weight ≈ 50 %)

* Concept & objectives (clarity, pertinence, ambition) – Must be tightly linked to one of the four areas.

* Access provision quality

* State-of-the-art nature of RIs; benchmarking vs global leaders.

* Scientific & technical quality of services; robustness of access workflows.

* Adequacy of user-support, training, remote/virtual access capacity.

* Integration & innovation potential – How the action improves/customises services, harmonises standards, and fosters interdisciplinary synergies.

* Soundness of methodology – FAIR data strategy, EOSC connectivity, gender & diversity considerations (desirable though not mandatory).

👉 Tips to maximise score:

* Provide evidence (KPIs, TRLs, performance metrics) that services are genuinely cutting-edge.

* Include risk analysis and mitigation for service downtime or data-security issues.

2. Impact (Weight ≈ 30 %)

* Contribution to expected outcomes of the chosen area (explicit cross-mapping table recommended).

* Wider societal, economic & policy impacts – Green Deal, SAMIRA, Climate Law, ReFuelEU.

* Measures to maximise impact

* Dissemination & exploitation (even though plan not mandatory, still evaluated).

* Outreach to Widening countries and industry/SMEs.

* Long-term sustainability & scalability of services beyond project end (business models, national roadmaps, ERIC integration).

👉 Tips:

* Quantify impact with baseline & target values (e.g. +30 % user diversity, 100 TB FAIR data ingested to EOSC, 20 ASTM D4054 Tier-2.5 test campaigns, etc.).

* Include policy-feedback loops (white papers, standardisation committees, IPCC data submissions).

3. Quality & Efficiency of Implementation (Weight ≈ 20 %)

* Work plan & resources – Coherent, realistic, detailed Gantt & PERT charts; ≥50 % budget on access provision.

* Consortium suitability – Complementarity, pan-European coverage, inclusion of at least one ESFRI/ERIC.

* Management structures & risk management – Clear governance, user selection boards, data-protection officer, industrial advisory group.

* Access unit cost justification – Transparent calculation aligned with Commission decision on unit costs.

👉 Tips:

* Use a matrix linking partners ↔ tasks ↔ budget to prove efficient resource allocation.

* Present a concise yet robust risk register with mitigation strategies and contingency funds.

---

Common Reasons for Low Scores & How to Avoid Them

1. Weak linkage to expected outcomes – Address each bullet in the Work Programme explicitly.

2. Insufficient access capacity – Offer realistic but generous units; oversubscription plans.

3. Fragmented consortium – Integrate through single entry point, shared KPIs, joint branding.

4. Over-emphasis on research, under-emphasis on access – Maintain the >50 % rule.

5. Vague sustainability plan – Detail funding commitments, service fees, ERIC integration.

Application Strategy

1. Select & Focus Early

* Choose ONE area explicitly; align every objective, partner and KPI with that area’s expected outcomes.

* Map existing Horizon Europe and national projects to avoid overlap and show complementarity.

2. Build a ‘Gold-Standard’ Consortium

* Start with the ESFRI Landmark/ERIC as anchor; add complementary RIs covering the full service workflow (e.g. sample prep ➜ characterisation ➜ data analytics ➜ modelling ➜ demonstration).

* Involve:

* User organisations (universities, RTOs, companies, especially SMEs) to co-design services.

* Widening-country nodes to boost EU cohesion.

* Digital-infrastructure partners (EOSC, HPC centres) for data & compute layers.

* Optional: EC-JRC facilities cited in the topic text to strengthen policy relevance.

3. Design an Ambitious Yet Realistic Access Programme

* Provide a service catalogue with clear technical specs, access units, and annual capacity.

* Implement a single entry point portal, harmonised application forms, transparent peer-review for user selection, and fast-track options for industry or urgent missions.

* Plan user-training packages (on-boarding webinars, in-person courses, e-learning).

4. Integrate Short-Term Service Improvements

* Allocate ~15–20 % of budget to joint R&D that enhances existing services (e.g. AI-powered workflows, interoperability standards, advanced sensors) and is delivered within project runtime.

* Demonstrate long-term sustainability (business models, service fees, national commitments) for any new service.

5. Data, EOSC & FAIR-by-Design

* Draft a robust Data Management Plan aligned with FAIR principles.

* Connect data services to EOSC and adopt open standards (e.g. GA4GH, OGC, ISO) where relevant.

* Address cybersecurity, GDPR and ethics compliance.

6. Impact & Policy Alignment

* Quantify expected impact using SMART indicators: number of user projects, publications, new products, patents, policy briefs.

* Explicitly link to EU priorities: Green Deal, SAMIRA, Climate Law, ReFuelEU, etc.

* Include a policy–science interface work package (briefings, contributions to IPCC/ASTM/ISO).

7. Outreach & Exploitation

* Develop a multi-channel communication and engagement plan: conferences, roadshows, targeted calls, social media, stakeholder boards.

* Reserve access quotas (≥10–15 %) for newcomers, SMEs, and Widening countries.

8. Proposal Writing Tips

* Respect the 100-page limit; use annexes wisely (service tables, letters, ethics).

* Clearly allocate resources: ≥50 % budget on access provision; justify any deviation.

* Use work package mapping tables to show traceability from objectives ➜ tasks ➜ deliverables ➜ KPIs.

* Prepare early for the unit-cost calculation sheets for access.

9. Internal Review & Dry-Run Evaluation

* Conduct mock evaluations against all Horizon criteria + specific ‘access quality’ aspects.

* Engage external advisors (e.g. past INFRA coordinators) for critical reading.