1. FP7 “People” Programme : The Marie Curie Actions
Proposals: from submission to completion
Training for NCPs
Research Executive Agency
Brussels,
COVE A2 2/187

2. Legal basis

3. Management structure Marie Curie Actions
Legal basis
Management structure Marie Curie Actions

4. Legal basis Comitology
It is the task of the Commission to implement legislation at Community level. In this context, the Treaty provides for the Commission to be assisted by a committee, in line with the procedure known as "comitology".
The committees are forums for discussion, consist of representatives from Member States and are chaired by the Commission. They enable the Commission to establish dialogue with national administrations before adopting implementing measures.

5. Legal basis People Programme Marie Curie Actions:
DG Education and Culture (EAC) for policy,
Research Executive Agency for evaluation and implementation of projects
EURAXESS , the European Charter for researchers and the Code for the recruitment of researchers
DG Research, Unit C4 (Universities and researchers)
Researchers’ Nights
DG EAC for policy,
REA for evaluation and implementation of projects

6. PEOPLE programme: Legal Basis I
Treaty of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon)
Title XIX - Research and technological development and space - Articles
The Treaty of Lisbon puts at the heart of its research policy the establishment of a European Research Area in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely. At a time when new world players are emerging with a keen interest in establishing space projects, the Treaty also creates a new legal basis for a coherent space policy: a clear acknowledgement that Europe can not afford to overlook the economic and strategic benefits of a space policy.
Articles multiannual framework programme

7. Legal basis
The framework programmes for research and technological development (an obligation since the Treaty of Amsterdam).
These multi-annual programmes, introduced in 1984, encompass more specific programmes covering fields as varied as information and communication technologies, the environment, biotechnology, energy (including nuclear power), transport and mobility of researchers.
The Seventh Framework Programme (2007–13) has the largest budget since the creation of a European research identity. It responds to the needs of industry and of European policies, placing knowledge at the service of economic, social and environmental progress.
First Framework Programme 1984–1988 (M€3,750)
Second Framework Programme 1987–1991 (M€5,396)
Third Framework Programme 1990–1994 (M€6,600)
Fourth Framework Programme 1994–1998 (M€13,215)
Fifth Framework Programme 1998–2002 (M€14,960)
Sixth Framework Programme 2002–2006 (M€17,883)
Seventh Framework Programme 2007–2013 (M€53,000)

8. PEOPLE programme: Legal Basis II
7th Framework Programme
Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities ( ) - total budget M€
Adopted by the Council and the European Parliament (co-decision procedure)
People Specific Programme
Council Decision of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme People implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) 
Adopted by the Council
Other thematic programmes: Cooperation, Capacities, Ideas
All documents are available on Cordis under FP7 legal basis

9. PEOPLE programme: Legal Basis III
Rules for participation
Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results ( )
Adopted by the Council and the European Parliament (co-decision procedure)
Legal documents for implementation
Rules of the submission of proposals, and the related evaluation selection and award procedures
REA model Grant Agreement

10. PEOPLE programme: Financing decision
Legal basis
PEOPLE programme: Financing decision
Work programme
A work programme is a plan drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the Member States (Programme Committee) for the implementation of a Specific Programme. In accordance with the Rules for Participation, the Commission is obliged to draw up one work programme per Specific Programme. The Rules for Participation and the Specific Programmes provide information on what must be included in a work programme. In the previous FP we had a WP for the whole duration with many updates.
Since FP7 and according to the financial regulation of the European Communities, the Work Programme constitutes a financing decision for the budget of the same year.

11. Elaboration of the Work programme
Legal basis
Elaboration of the Work programme
Every year (n) in July the Commission adopts the Work programme of the next year (n+1). This allows the publication of the calls for proposals in the Official Journal of the European Union.
(Example) Timetable for the adoption of the 2012 WP:
October 2010: strategy paper for the 2012 WP
March 2011: Draft work programme to DG RTD (leader of the Research family: EAC, ENV, ENTR, MARE, TREN ENER)
April to June 2011: Interservice consultation (DGs Research family + Budget + Legal service +General Secretary)
July- August 2011: Official consultation of the Programme Committee
Launch of the procedure of adoption by the Commission
Publication of first calls

12. Legal basis REA Grant agreement
Core text for mono-beneficiaries and multi-beneficiaries
Annex I (Description of work or Technical Annex, subject to negotiations between the coordinator of the project and the responsible project officer in REA)
Annex II (General conditions for mono-beneficiaries and multi-beneficiaries)
Annex III (Specific provisions) different for each action
This Annex has to be updated after the adoption of a new work programme
No details today - Discussion in the NCP meeting tomorrow

13. Funding decision (selection of proposals)
Legal basis
Funding decision (selection of proposals)
After the end of the negotiation and the finalisation of the project budget, the Commission proceeds to the funding decision (selection of the projects).
For projects with budget over € the People Programme Committee is consulted before the Commission decision.
Exception: projects needing an Ethics review (no budget limit).
The projects that are not selected for funding are rejected by a Commission decision.

14. Co-decision procedure
Legal basis
Co-decision procedure
The co-decision procedure (Article 251 of the EC Treaty) was introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, simplified by the Treaty of Amsterdam and developed by the Treaty of Nice.
It gives the European Parliament the power to adopt instruments jointly with the Council of the European Union.
The procedure comprises one, two or three readings. It has the effect of increasing contacts between the Parliament and the Council, the co-legislators, and with the European Commission.
In practice, it has strengthened Parliament's legislative powers in the following fields: the free movement of workers, right of establishment, services, the internal market, education (incentive measures), health (incentive measures), consumer policy, trans-European networks (guidelines), environment (general action programme), culture (incentive measures) and research (framework programme).

15. Call for proposals

16. Call for proposal Calls for proposals
Following the schedule set out in the Work Programme, Calls for Proposals are published on both
CORDIS (
Participant Portal (
It is very important for NCPs to be familiar with the material published, and with the calls in general as it is likely they will start to receive phone calls and s as soon as the call goes live
The published call for proposals contains several parts: the call fiche, the Work Programme, the Guide for Applicants together with some standard information, e.g. The Rules for Submission and Evaluation of Proposals, the legal basis
The call page also includes a link to EPSS – the Electronic Proposal Submission Service 16

17. Call for proposal Guide for Applicants
The Guide for Applicants gives a less formal description of the call than the Work Programme
It will include examples of, e.g., the interpretation of eligibility criteria, financial calculations etc…
It may also, if this is stated in the Work Programme, contain extra rules – for example the page limits on proposals
While the WP is drafted by the Commission, the Guide is the responsibility of the REA.
However, the Commission has to adopt the final version and normally only does this after consulting NCPs 17

18. Submission of Proposals
Call for proposal
Submission of Proposals
Submission of proposals is always via EPSS (to be replaced in the future by SEP)
It is possible, in extreme circumstances, to be allowed to submit on paper – but the only reason likely to be accepted is lack of access to the internet throughout the entire period of the call being open. In practice this has never happened – and lack of access in the last few days before a deadline is not accepted.
The deadline is absolute – the system closes at the advertised time. Proposers must be advised to submit well in advance of the deadline, most calls are open for 3-5 months.
After the call closes everyone who has successfully submitted a proposal receives (via ) and AoR (Acknowledgement of Receipt)
within 5 working days of call closure the REA supplies the CALL SUBMISSION INFORMATION to EAC, stating the number of proposals received and the dates of the evaluation. This is then passed on to PC and NCPs 18

19. PIC – Participant Identity Code
Call for proposal
PIC – Participant Identity Code
In order to avoid people having to give the same information about hosts each time a proposal is submitted we have introduced the PIC
If a proposer use the PIC much data about the host is prefilled in the forms – there is a searchable database of PICs in the Participant Portal
Please note that only one person in each organisation – the LEAR (Legal Entity Appointed Representative) can apply for a PIC and give the data
Not having, or not knowing, the PIC never prevents submission of a proposal, but proposers should be strongly encouraged to use it
If an organisation does not have a PIC then the submission of a proposal triggers the process 19

20. Evaluation

21. Registration of experts in EMM/EMPP
Evaluation process
Registration of experts in EMM/EMPP
Selection of independent experts:
Ca. 2 months before deadline
REA prepares a list of potential independent experts (evaluators)– statistically representative
Approval of the pool by the Director
Ca. 1 month before deadline
Appointment Letter sent to all experts (confidentiality disclaimer and CoI)
NCPs can suggest independent experts for future evaluations 21

22. Proposals allocation to independent experts
Evaluation process
Proposals allocation to independent experts
1-3 weeks after deadline
Experts use EMEX tool to express their preferences and indicate proposals they could evaluate
Chair/Vice-chairs check the quality (the best possible expertise) of the allocation of proposals 22

23. Proposals eligibility check
Evaluation process
Proposals eligibility check
1-2 weeks after deadline
REA project officers check the eligibility conditions of the proposals (based on the WP)
When eligibility is in doubt, an eligibility committee is convened
(Eligibility Committee independent to the operation unit, consists of the call coordinator, EPSS representatives, REA legal officers, etc.) 23

24. Role of Chairs/Vice-chairs
Evaluation process
Role of Chairs/Vice-chairs
The C/VC assist REA in the management process of the evaluation in order to achieve the highest possible level of quality. They closely work with the REA Project officers (PO), who are responsible for managing the evaluation process.
Their main tasks of C/VC are the following:
To support the organisation of the consensus meetings and ensure that the time table of the meetings is respected;
To ensure a common understanding and interpretation of the evaluation criteria and aims of the schemes and marking range which will enable the group of experts to reach a consensus on a proposal;
Throughout the process, to be receptive to questions and suggestions from expert evaluators and to take appropriate action;
To check the quality and consistency of the Consensus Reports (CR) produced by the Rapporteurs;
To chair the Plenary Panel meeting sessions for approval of the final ranked list. 24

25. Evaluation process Role of Rapporteurs
Every expert will be assigned as a Rapporteur for one or more of the proposals they are evaluating.
Rapporteurs are fully responsible for the smooth administration of the Consensus Meeting and for the production of a high quality Consensus Report.
S/He chairs and moderates the discussion in order to achieve consensus amongst other evaluators based on all the Individual Assessment Report (IAR), being one among equals. 25

26. Evaluation process Evaluation logistics
Remote evaluation phase (week 3-8 after deadline, depending on the call)
Experts selected for the evaluation use RIvET to assess proposals and draft the Individual Assessment reports (IAR)
A briefing for new experts is organised at the beginning of the remote phase 26

27. Evaluation process Evaluation logistics
Central - Consensus meetings evaluation phase (normally 5th-10th week after deadline, depending on the call)
Experts are invited to Brussels for consensus meetings, for the preparation of
the Consensus Reports (CR)
Evaluations are managed by panels.
Consensus meetings take place in COVE building during ca. 1 week (for Individual actions 2-3 weeks)
The final ranked list of proposals is accepted in a final panel meeting 27

28. Post - evaluation

29. Post - evaluation procedure
The ESRs and submission data are ‘cleaned’ by the REA Project Officers, often with the help of independent experts. For example, personal references or potentially abusive remarks by evaluators are removed. Often some data in the forms is wrong, for example in IOF the third country and European host could be swapped.
Within 10 working days after evaluations finish the REA publishes the FLASH INFO on CORDIS – this comprises the list of proposals above and below threshold. There is no indication of whether an above-threshold proposal will be funded. 29

30. Post - evaluation procedure
Within 20 working days after evaluations finish the REA provides the QUICK CALL INFO to EAC
This comprises the list of ineligible proposals, list of proposals passing all thresholds, list of proposals having failed one or more thresholds, track list of all proposals, and all the ESRs. (Known colloquially as ‘the brick’)At this stage, limited information will be provided about the requested budget: For calls where the requested budget is stated explicitly in the proposals' administrative forms (the 'Part A' forms) this figure will be provided for all proposals. This is currently the case for IRSES and COFUND. For all other calls, where the requested budget is not stated explicitly in the part A forms, an estimate of this figure will be provided for all proposals on the Main list and Reserve list.
This data is provided to the PC and NCPs 30

31. Post - evaluation procedure
As soon as the PC and NCPs have the QUICK CALL INFO the applicants are sent the ESRs – note that this still does not contain information about likelihood of funding.
Sending the ESRs triggers the opening of the redress period – the applicants have 4 weeks to register a complaint about the REA not following published procedures or clear errors in the evaluation (for example missed information). Please note that redress is not about whether or not the proposers agree with evaluators and such complaints will always be rejected.
At the same time the REA prepares the Interservice Consultation (CIS) and DG EAC launches the procedure – the results are scrutinised by several DGs (Research family – RTD, EAC, TREN, ENER, INFSO, MARE, JRC, ENV + DG Budget, DG EMPL, Legal Service, SG) for anomalies before any formal funding decision can be taken. This takes about a month and finishes at roughly the same time redress closes. 31

32. Post - evaluation procedure
2 working days after both the redress periods and the CIS have closed REA supplies to CORDIS the INDICATIVE FUNDING DECISION
This is a refined version of Flash Info, with proposals placed in groups
A- Main list,
B- Reserve list,
C- above threshold but not funded,
D- below threshold.
At roughly the same time the REA project officers enter into negotiation with successful candidates. 32

33. Post - evaluation procedure
10 working days after both CIS and redress period have closed, the REA supplies to EAC the EVALUATION REPORT which is then supplied to the PC and NCPs
The EVALUATION REPORT provides all known information about both the proposals and the evaluation, including ‘political’ details like gender balance and mobility patterns. It also includes the report of the Independent Observer on the conduct of the evaluation.
Evaluation report consists of the report, call specific annexes in form of statistics
Evaluation report is published on CIRCA for the PC and NCPs, but only NCPs national coordinators have access to CIRCA and it is their obligation to communicate these results to thematic NCPs; Other Third Countries do not have access to CIRCA. 33

34. Post - evaluation procedure
One more procedure takes place long after the call closure:
For calls in year n, by the end of year n+1, the REA provides CALL OVERVIEW DATA to the PC and NCPs
Overview statistics by closed call and by year
All data is also published on CIRCA, NCPs national coordinators have access 34

35. Negotiation

36. Opening the negotiation
After
Inter-service consultation is finalized and call budget is committed (global commitment)
Quick info is sent to applicants
People Programme Committee and NCPs are informed
with the instructions:
Deadline for first drat of Annex I, Contact for nego (PO), Instructions for Annex I and NEF
Attachments:
Negotiation mandate
Negotiation guidelines
ESR
Template for Annex I
Declaration on the impossibility to open an interest bearing account
Financial identification form
NEF is normally opened the same day by the PO

37. Negotiation guidelines I
Specific for each action and each call negotiation – sent ONLY by , not an official document, not on CORDIS
1 - PREPARATION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Role of the Coordinator, role of Project Officer, Validation of legal entities, Support during Negotiations
2 - THE NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS
Technical Negotiations, Financial and Legal Negotiations, Completion of negotiations, Applicable law, Frequently asked Negotiation questions (FAQs)
3 - GRANT AGREEMENT PREPARATION FORMS (GPF'S)
Explanation of forms

38. Negotiation guidelines II
4 - THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK – ANNEX I TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT
Detailed explanation of the document
5 - GRANT AGREEMENT
Grant agreement signature, Start of the project, Pre-Financing, Mid-term review (if applicable)
6 - APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – General Layout of Negotiation Mandate
Appendix 2 – Negotiation of ethical issues
Appendix 3 – Consortium Agreement
Appendix 4 – Negotiation checklist template
Appendix 5 – Description of work - Annex I to the Grant Agreement
Appendix 6 – Subcontracting in FP7
Appendix 7 – How to consider gender aspects in projects
Appendix 8 - Grant Agreement Preparation Forms (GPFs)

39. Negotiation Validation of beneficiaries
PDM-URF (Participant Data Management – Unique Registration Facility)
LEAR – Legal Entity Appointed Representative
person is responsible for managing the legal entity data stored in the central database
LEAR has online access to the PDM-URF, for reading the data stored for the entity and for initiating change requests, if necessary
Only 1 LEAR per beneficiary
The REA central validation team starts contacting beneficiaries once provisional ranked lists for a call are available, so that validation of the participants - in parallel to the negotiations.
The legal status validation - separated from the negotiation of individual grants
Each validated entity - PIC (Participant Identification Code), to be used for identifying the participant in proposals and negotiations.
« FP7 validated » – once for FP7
Important – SME flag – for IAPP, public/private for other calls
+ for financial viability check

40. Financial viability check (IAPP, ITN, COFUND)
Negotiation
Financial viability check (IAPP, ITN, COFUND)
- Private Coordinator - always
- any other private beneficiaries with an EU contribution exceeding €500,000
"Rules to ensure consistent verification of the existence and legal status of participants, as well as their operational and financial capacity"
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/rulesverif_en.pdf
If beneficiary is financially weak:
1 – they can participate but not as a coordinator – change of coordinator within consortium
2 – cannot participate at all – change of beneficiary

41. Signature of the grant agreement I
Negotiation
Signature of the grant agreement I
After
Successful finalization of negotiation (Annex I and GPFs approved by PO and by consortium)
successful validation of all beneficiaries
successful financial viability (if applicable)
Consortium is requested to send to the REA originals signed
A2.5 – all beneficiaries including coordinator
A2.6 – only coordinator
A4 bank form (stamped by coordinator as well as by bank)
(1) If final budget is more than Euro – Programme Committee consultation (2 weeks), consequently Selection decision – Individual commitment
(2) If budget is less than Euro , no need for PC consultation (except for ethics cases), directly Selection decision (DG EAC)

42. Signature of the grant agreement II
Negotiation
Signature of the grant agreement II
Grant agreement is sent to the coordinator by for its signature, incl. all annexes + procedure explaining the signature process, declaration about changes
REA needs 2 original documents signed
As soon as signed GA is back to the REA – REA starts circulation of the GA for signature
GA is signed by REA and sent to the coordinator

43. Project Implementation

44. Project implementation
Duration months for Individual GA, 48 months for Host
Kick-off meeting:
Normally for Host driven actions – ITN and IAPP
Without REA participation
Consortium set-up all the rules for the project implementation, financial guide from Coordinator side, etc (Reporting guide is sent in advance)
Mid-term review meeting:
For IAPP and ITN contractual obligation (article 7 of the GA)
REA PO + external reviewer present
All beneficiaries must attend
Organized by partners – any place - also Bxl is possible
All fellows recruited/seconded during that time must be present
1 day meeting
before the P1 periodic report is submitted (month 18-22)
Final meeting:
Conclusion and further collaboration
Without REA presence

45. Project implementation
ITN example:
Reports
(via Participant Portal)
within 30 days after 12 months
at least 30 days before Mid-Term Review
within 60 days after 24 months
within 30 days after 36 months
within 60 days after 48 months
within 30 days after Final payment
Progress report x
Periodic report:
• Periodic report
(by Coordinator)
• Financial Statements (Forms C) (by each beneficiary)
• Summary Financial report (by Coordinator)
• Certificates (if required) (by mail only)
(by each beneficiary)
Final Report
Distribution report

46. Project implementation
Financial Issues During Project Life Cycle
Contract Signature
Interim Report
(after the 2 first years)
Final Report
Project duration: 4 years
Prefinancing
Interim Payment
Final Payment

47. TOTAL EU CONTRIBUTON = 100%
Project implementation
TOTAL EU CONTRIBUTON = 100%
Prefinancing = 65%
60% for project
5% for Guarantee fund
Interim Payment = 25%
Final Payment = 10%
Guarantee Fund reimbursement = 5%

48. Some Examples Project implementation
Project total value = €
Prefinancing paid = €
Coordinator receives €
Guarantee Fund receives €50.000
Submits Period 1 cost claim for €
Maximum amount payable for interim period = € i.e. 25% of EU contribution
Balance remaining payable = €
Submits Period 1 cost claim for €
Maximum amount payable for interim period = € i.e. amount claimed
Balance remaining payable = €

49. Project implementation
Certificates on Financial Statements (CFS)
Partner 1
Costs claimed period 1: €
CFS not required
Costs claimed period 2: € –
total uncertified costs claimed = period 1 + period 2 = €
CFS required
Partner 2
Costs claimed period 1: €
Costs claimed period 2: €
total uncertified costs claimed = period 2 only
no CFS required as uncertified amount < €

50. Project implementation
Questionnaires
Three types of questionnaire to be submitted by MCA-fellows to assess integration into the research & training, career progress, etc.:
Mid-term assessment questionnaire
WHEN - at Mid-term review stage
Evaluation questionnaire
WHEN - at the end of fellowship
Follow-up questionnaire
WHEN - 2 years after fellowship
HOW
via Participant Portal (PP)

51. Declaration on the Conformity
Project implementation
Declaration on the Conformity
To be submitted by each beneficiary for each recruited and seconded researcher to Coordinator
Coordinator checks it and submits to REA
Declaration on Conformity is required ASAP after appointment of researcher
Print-out copy of Declaration on Conformity must be duly signed by both researcher & host institution and sent by mail to the REA
HOW
via PP

52. Host institution
Name of researcher
Type of contract
Both signatures

53. Project implementation
Notifications
Notification of effective starting date of the project,
if applicable (Art. 3)
Only coordinator
Notification of change of scientist-in-charge
Each beneficiary
Other types of Notifications (via PP):
Change of institution name
Change of institution address
Change of authorized representatives to sign the GA
Universal Transfer of Rights and Obligations
Other notifications are also possible (not included in PP yet), see Amendment guidelines

54. Requests for Amendments
Project implementation
Requests for Amendments
Amendments (e.g. change of consortium, modification of Annex I, etc) only on prior agreement with Project Officer
Must be submitted via PP with attached scanned copy of all supporting documents specified in the Guide for Amendments
The original set of documents (including print-out copy of PP request) must be sent to the REA per post
Normally NO extension of project duration ! Only case of maternity leave or serious sickness of the fellow
Change of researcher (Individual actions) – not possible
Change of Host (Individual actions) – ONLY exceptional cases

55. Open vacancies publication by each beneficiary
Project implementation
Vacancies (Host driven actions)
Open vacancies publication by each beneficiary
"EURAXESS jobs" portal accessible from MCA web page
In addition any other sources should be used

56. Project implementation
Dissemination of the project results
During the Project duration
Events organized by partners within the project, open for external scientific community
Fellows attending any other events out of the consortium
patents, publications
!!! MCA funding must be visible !!!
End of the project
Final conference, any other final events

57. Project implementation
IPR issues
The Intellectual Property Helpdesk
The IPR‑Helpdesk is available to assist potential and current beneficiaries taking part in EU funded projects on Intellectual Property Rights issues. It operates a free helpline offering a first line assistance on IPR related issues. The helpline is run in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Polish. The contact details are as follows:
Telephone:
Telefax:
Website:
Intellectual properties issues
Applicants will find an overview of the FP7 intellectual property (IPR) provisions in the
Guide to Intellectual Property Rules for FP7 projects - This document is intended to act as a guide to the various issues and pitfalls that participants may encounter – available on Cordis.