Preparation Check-List 1 Project Title Enabling Environment Enabling legislation Legislation exists to enable the project to proceed Comment: Yes No Regulatory framework Regulatory environment defined and supportive of project implementation Comment: Institutions to enable the project Roles and responsibilities clearly defined for policy, implementation and regulation and there is no overlap Comment: Capacity to implement the project Capacity exists at all stakeholder levels to ensure effective project implementation Comment: Consensus building There is consensus within government and with wider stakeholder community that the project should proceed Comment: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Transcript
Preparation Check-List
1
Project Title
Enabling Environment
Enabling legislation
Legislation exists to enable the project to proceed
Comment:
Yes No
Regulatory framework
Regulatory environment de�ned and supportive of project implementation
Comment:
Institutions to enable the project
Roles and responsibilities clearly de�ned for policy, implementation and regulation and there is no overlap
Comment:
Capacity to implement the project
Capacity exists at all stakeholder levels to ensure e�ective project implementation
Comment:
Consensus building
There is consensus within government and with wider stakeholder community that the project should proceed
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
2 Project De�nition
Identi�cation of desired outputs
Project outputs clearly de�ned
Agreement and clear de�nition of how the project will be structured - public, fully private or PPP
Comment:
Yes No
Prioritization established
Project is a clear priority above other options for delivery
Project is consistent with national and regional strategies, and o�taker infrastructure exists
Comment:
Identi�cation of project champions
Project partners identi�ed, including identifying their scope for helping support promotion and development
Comment:
Action Planning
Project action plan developed - e.g. key milestones, project champion, etc
Comment:
Pre-feasibility study
Existing studies identi�ed and reviewed
Pre-feasibility study complete that clearly presents rationale and identi�es technical and �nancial challenges
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
3 Project Feasibility
Organizational/administrative
Organisational and administrative capacity exists at all levels to sponsor the project
Risk management strategy complete
Capacities, quality and track record of project management partners have been con�rmed
Comment:
Yes No
Financial modelling
Financial modelling complete, including de�nition of requirements for support to design, build and operate the project
Comment:
Economic
Economic Appraisal complete, including assessing other options and the project’s impact on the economy
Comment:
Social
Level of subsidy required de�ned and consensus amongst governments and other project �nanciers that this is acceptable
Social assessment complete, including the project’s externalities on employment and /or displacement/resettlement Comment:
Technical/engineering
Technical / engineering issues fully assessed, including optimising project design and location
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Environmental studies
Environmental Impact Assessment complete addressing issues such as climate change, biodiversity and land degradation
Comment:
Yes No
4 Project Structuring
Organizational/administrative
Procurement plan is in place
Comment:
Yes No
Public/private options assesment
Public and Private options assessment complete, including PPP Value for Money checks
Comment:
Technical/engineering
Technical and engineering aspects of the project structures have been assessed, incl. impact on �nancing options
Comment:
Project Finance
Project �nancing models complete - e.g availability and terms of �nance, revenue streams, and/or insurance or guarantees
Evidence there has been robust market testing for the model being proposed
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Legal Structuring
Legal structuring complete and clearly shows project can proceed
Comment:
Yes No
5 Transaction closure
Project Finance
Project �nancing - have the best terms and conditions been obtained
Comment:
Yes No
Technical/engineering
All technical / engineering issues have been �nalised and agreed (including links back to leagal and �nancial issues)
Comment:
Legal structuring
Legal structuring agreed
Comment:
Procurement
Procurement being managed through competitive and transparent process
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Negotiation
Negotiations closed and agreed between all project partners
Comment:
Yes No
Post-signing �nancial agreements
All documents signed by all parties
Comment:
Yes No
6 Project Implementation
Monitoring
Monitoring strategy exists and su�cient resources and skills have been allocated to deliver on it
Comment:
Yes No
Evaluation
Evaluation strategy in place with su�cient resources in place to deliver on it
Comment:
Renegociation/re�nancing
Renegotiation and re�nancing strategy exists to ensure project can adapt to changing circumstances
Comment:
Yes No
Yes No
Proposal WP0
1
1.1 What problem does your product/service solve? x x
1.2 Which customer need does it satisfy ? x x
2
2.1 How the macro-environmental factors affect your product? B D
2.2Describe the value chain related to your product/service. Are the different players available
and connected? x x
2.3Does the value chain need changes in order to introduce your products/ services? If yes, how
do you expect to deal with it?x
3
3.1 Current market size and growth in next 5 years x x
3.2 Market structure and market share (%) x
3.3 Market trends (5 years period) and % of growth (by technology and geography) x
3.4 How large will be the Total Addressable Market (TAM) be in the following 5 years? B D
3.5 Who are your customers and what are their characteristics? Customer analysis x x
3.6 Which are their needs in relation to the product/service? How are they currently covered? D
3.7 Which market segments do you identify? x
3.8 Which market segments do you target? x
3.9 Are there similar products in the market? Please specify your competitive advantage. x x
3.10 Which are the key players (competitors) in the different market segments? x
3.11 Comparison of the competitors' key products by characteristics x
3.12Define the positioning mapping according to the variables that differentiate yourself from
competitors and that are valuable for your customers x
3.13 Threat of substitute products/ services x
3.14 Threat of new entrants . Are you aware about other similar products under development? x
4
4.1 Why will the customer buy your solution and what will he sacrifice? B x
4.2 Quantify the impact of your product/service for the customer x
5
5.1
Specify and quantify the characteristics and attributes of the product/service to be
developed in terms of cost, performance, efficiency, etc. When relevant, quantify process
overall energy / mass balance.
B D
5.2What is innovative about the product/service? What are the differentiating features of my
product/service? To what extent is it unique?x
5.3 What will be the state of development of the product at the end of the project? x
5.4 Proposed technology solution for product or service? B D
6
6.1 Provide background IP B D
6.2 How do you intend to protect foreground IP developed in your project? D
6.3 Provide "freedom to operate" analysis x
7
7.1 Exploitation strategy definition x
7.2 Initial Business Model x
8
8.1 What investments are needed? B D
8.2 How do you plan to get such an investment? x x
8.3 Expected P&L for the company and ROI for KIC x x
9
9.1 Project duration x x
9.2 List of partners x x
9.3 Project organization (Gantt chart) including Gate reviews (Go/No Go) x x
9.4 List of milestones and deliverables x x
9.5 Budget x x
9.6 Risk analysis with mitigation plan B D
x: To be delivered
B: To be delivered as a result of basic analysis
D: To be delivered as a result of in-depth analysis
Investment and financial return
Project plan
Product / Service definition
IPR Protection
Initial Business Model
Segmentation- Targeting
Competitive analysis
Value proposition for customer
Value chain analysis
Market analysis
Market research
What problem does my product/service solve?
Macro- Environment and system analysis
Macro- Environment analysis
Self-evaluation form
Research and innovation actions
Innovation actions This form is made available to applicants who may themselves wish to arrange an evaluation of their proposal (e.g. by an impartial colleague) prior to final editing, submission and deadline. The aim is to help applicants identify ways to improve their proposals.
The forms used by the experts for their evaluation reports will be broadly similar, although the detail and layout may differ.
These forms are based on the standard criteria, scores and thresholds. Check whether special schemes apply to the topics of interest to you. The definitive evaluation schemes are given in the work programme.
A self-evaluation, if carried out, is not to be submitted to the Commission, and has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the evaluation.
Scoring
Scores must be in the range 0-5. Half marks may be given. Evaluators will be asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned.
Interpretation of the scores
0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
1 — Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2 — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion.
Any shortcomings are minor. Thresholds
The threshold for individual criteria is 3. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, is 10.
Two-stage submission schemes
The scheme below is applicable to a full proposal. For the evaluation of first-stage proposals under a two-stage submission procedure, only the criteria ‘excellence’ and ‘impact’ will be evaluated. Within these criteria, only the aspects in bold will be considered. The threshold for both individual criteria will be 4. Weighting
For Innovation actions and the SME instrument (phases 1 and 2), to determine the ranking, the score for the criterion ‘impact’ will be given a weight of 1.5.
* Experts will also be asked to assess the operational capacity of applicants to carry out the proposed work.
2
1. Excellence Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work
corresponds to the topic description in the work programme:
• Clarity and pertinence of the objectives; • Credibility of the proposed approach; • Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where
relevant; • Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond
the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches). Comments:
Score 1: Threshold 3/5
2. Impact Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent to which the outputs of the
project should contribute at the European and/or International level:
• The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic; • Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge; • Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations
meeting the needs of European and global markets, and where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets;
• Any other environmental and socially important impacts; • Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
(including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant. Comments:
Score 2: Threshold 3/5
3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation* Note: The following aspects will be taken into account:
• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources;
• Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant); • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and
innovation management. Comments:
Score 3: Threshold 3/5
Total score (1+2+3) Threshold 10/15
Self-evaluation form
Coordination & support actions
This form is made available to applicants who may themselves wish to arrange an evaluation of their proposal (e.g. by an impartial colleague) prior to final editing, submission and deadline. The aim is to help applicants identify ways to improve their proposals.
The forms used by the experts for their evaluation reports will be broadly similar, although the detail and layout may differ.
These forms are based on the standard criteria, scores and thresholds. Check whether special schemes apply to the topics of interest to you. The definitive evaluation schemes are given in the work programme.
A self-evaluation, if carried out, is not to be submitted to the Commission, and has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the evaluation.
Scoring
Scores must be in the range 0-5. Half marks may be given. Evaluators will be asked to score proposals as they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain changes were to be made. When an evaluator identifies significant shortcomings, he or she must reflect this by awarding a lower score for the criterion concerned.
Interpretation of the scores
0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
1 — Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2 — Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion.
Any shortcomings are minor. Thresholds
The threshold for individual criteria is 3. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, is 10.
Two-stage submission schemes
The scheme below is applicable to a full proposal. For the evaluation of first-stage proposals under a two-stage submission procedure, only the criteria ‘excellence’ and ‘impact’ will be evaluated. Within these criteria, only the aspects in bold will be considered. The threshold for both individual criteria will be 4. Weighting
For Innovation actions and the SME instrument (phases 1 and 2), to determine the ranking, the score for the criterion ‘impact’ will be given a weight of 1.5.
* Experts will also be asked to assess the operational capacity of applicants to carry out the proposed work.
2
1. Excellence Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work
corresponds to the topic description in the work programme:
• Clarity and pertinence of the objectives; • Credibility of the proposed approach; • Soundness of the concept; • Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures.
Comments:
Score 1: Threshold 3/5
2. Impact Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent to which the outputs of the
project should contribute at the European and/or International level:
• The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic; • Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results
(including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant. Comments:
Score 2: Threshold 3/5
3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation* Note: The following aspects will be taken into account:
• Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources;
• Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant); • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and
