Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Model Grant Agreement vs Consortium Agreement
Jana KRATĚNOVÁ, TC AS CR Gonzalo AREVALO, ISCIII Rome, 28th October 2015 Legal and Financial Framework in H2020 Proposals
2
TOPICS TO BE COVERED MGA MGA vs CA MGA generally MGA – Amendment CA
CA HNN 2.0 Rome 10/28/2015
3
Model Grant Agreement vs Consortium Agreement
GA and CA are differnt documents, But they are very related and somehow should tend to be mimetic 11/24/2018
4
Model Grant Agreement vs Consortium Agreement
Internal arrangements between beneficiaries —Consortium agreement The beneficiaries must have internal arrangements regarding their operation and coordination to ensure that the action is implemented properly. These internal arrangements must be set out in a written ‘consortium agreement’ between the beneficiaries, which may cover: internal organisation of the consortium; management of access to the electronic exchange system; distribution of EU funding; additional rules on rights and obligations related to background and results settlement of internal disputes; liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries. The consortium agreement must not contain any provision contrary to the Agreement. Art 41.3 MGA Rome 10/28/2015
5
GA prevails over the CA In case of discrepancy GA clauses prevails over the CA articles. Within the GA the prevalence order is: GRANT AGREEMENT: TERMS AND CONDITIONS ANNEX II ANNEX I CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT 11/24/2018
6
From the Proposal to the GA
Title, Acronym, CoCo, Duration,… A-2 PaCo’s, % Funding rate, Info for access forms A-3 Annex 2: Estimated Budget Proposal Part B Annex 1: Description of the Action 11/24/2018
7
From the GA to CA Beneficiaries Signatories of the CA
2.2 Measures to max Impact 2.2.a Exploitation and Communication Section 9: Results Section 10: Access Rights 3.1 Work Plan: WPx Coordination WPy Exploitation and Comm Sections: 4. Responsibilities of Parties 6. Gov Structure 3.2 Mgmt structure & Procedures: 3.2.1 Organisation structure 3.2.2 Decision Making 3.2.3 Comm & Reporting 3.4 Resources to be commited: Sections: 4. Responsibilities of Parties 6. Gov Structure 8. Financial Provisions 11/24/2018
8
Grant Agreement Main Structure
TERMS AND CONDITIONS Annex I: Description of the action Annex II: Estimated budget Annex III: Accession Forms Annex IV: Model Financial statements Annex V: Model Certificate on the financial statements Annex VI: Model Certificate on the methodology 11/24/2018
9
Grant Agreement Main Structure
TERMS AND CONDITIONS There is not any longer special clauses to add, but: Different MGAs, IE: RIAs & IAs, EJPs, PCP&PCI, SME Instrument (linked to the topic) Some specific articles/clauses are activated (action needed during the grant preparation!) Annex I: Description of the action Annex II: Estimated budget Annex III: Accession Forms Annex IV: Model Financial statements Annex V: Model Certificate on the financial statements Annex VI: Model Certificate on the methodology 11/24/2018
10
Amendments to the GA 11/24/2018
11
Amendment conditions Amendments may not result in changes that — if known before awarding the grant — would have had an impact on the decision to award it. Those are mostly changes that: may have had an impact on the assessment of the applicant with regard to the eligibility and selection criteria breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants involve modifications in the action and/or budget which may have affected the assessment with regard to the award criteria established in the call do not comply with the FR, RAP, RforP, or provisions of the GA itself 11/24/2018
12
When? Generally before the end of the action
Amendments (more) When? Generally before the end of the action Who? Generally the Coordinator How? Through the Part. Portal 11/24/2018
13
Typical Cases that need an Amendment
Removal of a beneficiary whose participation is terminated Adding a new beneficiary Change of beneficiary due to a partial takeover Removal or addition of a linked third party Coordinator changes: Coord, bank data, Auth to administer, .. (Substantial) Change in Action Implementation: Annex 1, Title, Starting, Duration, progress reports, … (Substantial) Budget Changes: Form of Costs, Significaticant budget shifts Gonzalo, concerning bank data it is only – bank account and IBAN, not e.g. bank address, branch address, etc. I am writing it here just because I added this issue as a question within exercise. 11/24/2018
14
Typical Cases that do not need an Amendment
Budget transfers amongst beneficiaries and cost categories (1) (2) Name or address of Coord/beneficiary Changes due to an UTRO (except Coordinator) Some bank details (name, address, Acc holders) Without changing the nature of the action If they do not imply change of costs model (ie actual costs to unit costs) 11/24/2018
15
Typical Cases that do not need an Amendment
Budget transfers amongst beneficiaries and cost categories (1) (2) Name or address of Coord/beneficiary Changes due to an UTRO (except Coordinator) Some bank details (name, address, Acc holders) Without changing the nature of the action If they do not imply change of costs model (ie actual costs to unit costs) As far as changes are bigger, the recommendation to inform/check with the PO is stronger 11/24/2018
16
requests additional info/docs
Amendment procedure HOW? agrees via PP The other party within 45D disagrees Change of request? requests additional info/docs Request for amendment via PP new 45D deadline applies does not react X FP7 rejection EC(Agency.)/ Coo (Beneficiary) 11/24/2018
17
Amendment Request to amend GA shall include
Reasons, supporting docs, in some cases Coo opinion Enters into force = becomes binding Day of signature by the receiving party Takes effect = starts to be applicable as amended The same day as enters into force, or Later as indicated (agreed) in the amendment Earlier (retroactivity) as indicated (agreed) in the amendment. (recomm. check with the PO beforehand) 11/24/2018
18
EXERCISE I. Change of Beneficiary’ s bank details
AMENDMENT IS/IS NOT NEEDED IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS: Y/N Change of Beneficiary’ s bank details Change of beneficiary’s address/location to South Korea, thus not being eligible for EU funding anymore Change of Coo Change of the name of the bank where Coo has its account Minor change of the action tasks Transfer of budget from Coo to Beneficiary which has significant impact on DoA Introduction of new subcontracting costs not foreseen originally Rome 10/28/2015
19
MGA Rome 28/10/2015
20
EXERCISE II. H2020 project HealthCon started on 1st February 2014 and shall last for 36 months. Consortium is in delay with fulfilling action tasks and thus whishes to prolong the action so that the action shall last for 39 months in total. Why is amendment necessary? A couple of consortium partners whishes that Beneficiary ABC submits an amendment request to the EC on behalf of the consortium. Is it possible? Rome 10/28/2015
21
EXERCISE II. After submitting am. request and before EC decision on it the consortium finds out even 39 months will not be enough to finish the action and would like to prolong the action in other 3 months, i.e. 42 months in total. How can the consortium proceed? Provided EC does not agree with the action prolongation, how the EC can act in this situation. EC signs am. request on 15th Jan There is mentioned later applicability of amended GA, in particular as of 1st Feb When exactly does the GA become binding and when does the GA take effect? Rome 10/28/2015
22
Consortium Agreement WHAT
Written contract among beneficiaries to cover internal arrangements regarding action operation and coordination WHY MGA requires – art. 41.3 Exception – otherwise stipulated in the WP WHEN Should be before the signature of the GA Rome 10/28/2015
23
Consortium Agreement WHAT
Written contract among beneficiaries to cover internal arrangements regarding action operation and coordination WHY MGA requires – art. 41.3 Exception – otherwise stipulated in the WP WHEN Should be before the signature of the GA Rome 10/28/2015
24
Consortium Agreement WHAT
Written contract among beneficiaries to cover internal arrangements regarding action operation and coordination WHY MGA requires – art. 41.3 Exception – otherwise stipulated in the WP WHEN Should be before the signature of the GA HOW Paper version, not via PP Using models is possible Rome 10/28/2015
25
Consortium Agreement Models
DESCA MCARD EUCAR Rome 10/28/2015
26
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
DESCA General provisions – liability, appl. law, disputes settlement, confidentiality,… IPR – background and results Finances – distribution of EU funding Project management , governance structure Rome 10/28/2015
27
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Project management – dealt with in HNN 2.0 CA – esp. section 6, also section 4 GA Art gen. obligation to properly implement the action; Art full responsibility of beneficiaries for implementing the action including joint and several liability for technical implementation of the action; Art 41.2 – each beneficiary obligations (e.g. inform Coo on any circumstances likely to affect/delay the action) and Coo’ s obligations (e.g. monitor proper implementation, request/review/verify completeness and correctness of any documents or information) Rome 10/28/2015
28
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Project management – dealt with in GA –Annex I. 2.3.2 Management structure and procedures (proposal section 3.2) Organizational structure and distribution of responsibilities – Consortium, Core Consortium (WPLs), Coo and project manager, Board of SC1 NCPs Decision making and management procedures Project communication and reporting Quality assurance and assessment of progress and results Rome 10/28/2015
29
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Definition Members Consortium Main ultimate-decision making body All Core Consortium Supervises the action, reports to Consortium Coo + WPLs Coo and PM Project management, monitoring progress,… PM to be hired by Coo Board of SC1 NCPs Consultative body, supports activities of the action Non-consortium members appointed by Core Consortium Rome 10/28/2015
30
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Consortium - decides on all proposals of Core Consortium, its own proposals and: Rome 10/28/2015
31
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
A party breaching its obligations under CA/GA (Art 4.2): Identification of breach by Consortium Written notice from Coo – 30 cal. Days Breach is substantial + not remedied/not capable of remedy A Party may be declared to be a Defaulting Party Consequences Consortium - decides on all proposals of Core Consortium, its own proposals and: Rome 10/28/2015
32
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Core Consortium Prepares meetings Proposes decisions Collects info at least every 6 months on the progress of the project Appoints Board of SC1 NCPs, … Rome 10/28/2015
33
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Coo Monitors fulfilment of obligations by parties Collects, verifies, submits reports Administers fin. contribution Shall not be entitled to act or to make legally binding declarations on behalf of any other Party or of the consortium, unless explicitly stipulated otherwise in GA or CA Rome 10/28/2015
34
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Decision making process 1 member = 1 vote Quorum = 2/3 of all members Adopting decision = consensus or 2/3 of (present/represented) votes If the quorum is not reached, the chairperson of the Consortium Body shall convene another ordinary meeting within 15 calendar days. If in this meeting the quorum is not reached once more, the chairperson shall convene an extraordinary meeting which shall be entitled to decide even if less than the quorum of Members are present or represented.” Rome 10/28/2015
35
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Decision adopting During meetings In person, teleconference,… Without meetings ( ) Different rules – written document to circulate, … 2/3 of all Members … Rome 10/28/2015
36
Consortium Agreement HNN 2.0 project
Veto right Rome 10/28/2015
37
EXERCISE III. Which of the decisions taken by the Consortium (Art HNN 2.0 CA) need to be approved by the EC, i.e. amendment needs to be introduced? Rome 28/10/2015
38
EXERCISE IV. Partner A in Horizon 2020 project submits its deliverable in time. After reviewing the deliverable, the Coo claims the technical information presented in the deliverable does not concern Partner A tasks as described in Annex I and thus it is unrelated to the action. Partner A does not agree and is not willing to re-draft the deliverable. Is Coordinator allowed to withhold advance payment to Partner A? Why yes/not? (8) Relevant consortium body decides the Partner A acting is a substantial breach of CA and GA. Can Partner A´s participation be terminated in the project? (4, 6) Can the budget for the respective work of Partner A be removed and transferred to Partner B in order to prepare proper deliverable? (6) Please use HNN 2.0 CA to answer the questions. Rome 28/10/2015
39
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Gonzalo Arevalo Jana Kratěnová This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 11/24/2018
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.