Fillable Printable Self-evaluation Form Sample
Fillable Printable Self-evaluation Form Sample
Self-evaluation Form Sample
Self-evaluation form
Form 1: Research and innovation actions
Innovation actions
Form 2: Coordination & support actions
Version 1.2
10 March 2014
History of changes
Version Date Change Page
1.1 27.02.2014 Information on Evaluation added - scoring of proposals as
they were submitted, rather than on their potential if certain
chan ges to be ma de
1
1.2 10.03.2014
evaluation form not any more applicable to the
SME instru m en t which has a spec ific ev a luation form
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 iden tify 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
wha ts oever on the con duct of the e valua tion.
Scoring
Scores must be in the range 0-5. Half mar ks ma y 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 ar e minor.
Thresholds
The threshold for individual c riteria is 3. T he overall threshold , applying to the sum o f the three individual sco res,
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. T he thre shold 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 ‘impa c t’ wi ll 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 fo llowing asp e c ts will b e taken into account, to the ex te nt 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 p
roposed 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 fo llowing asp e c ts will b e 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;
• Enha ncing in novati on capacity and integration of new kno wle d ge;
• Strengthe ning the co mpetitive ness and growth of companie s by developing innovations
meeting the needs of European and global markets, and where relevant, by delivering
such i nnovations to the mar kets;
• 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;
• Complementa r ity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant);
• Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and
inno vat io n ma nageme nt .
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 propo sals.
The forms used by the experts for their evaluation reports will be broadly similar, altho ugh the detail and la yout
may differ.
These forms are based on the standard criteria, scores and thr esholds. Check whether special schemes apply to the
top ics o f i ntere s t to you. The definitive evalua tion sc hemes ar e given in t he work programme.
A sel f-evaluatio n, if carried o ut, is not to be sub mitted to the Co mmission, and has no b earing whatsoever on t he
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 c riteria is 3. T he overall threshold , applying to the sum o f the three individual sco res,
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. T he thre shold 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 ‘impa c t’ wi ll 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 pr oposed appr oach;
• Soundness o f the co nc ept;
• Quality o f the proposed coo rdinatio n and/or sup port 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
(incl udi ng ma nagement of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage res earch
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;
• Complementa r ity of the par tic ipant s wit hin the consorti um (when r elevant);
• Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and
inno vat io n ma nageme nt .
Comments
:
Score 3:
Threshold 3/5
Total score (1+2+3)
Threshold 10/15
