Annex 2 Evaluation criteria for the Call Pre-Application Research for ITI formal check. brief main source of information. Evaluator / MS2014+

Transcription

1 Anne 2 Evaluation for Call Pre-Application Research for ITI formal check Project quality name position correctable / non-correctable (yes/no, irrelevant) brief instructions for s/sub-scales F1 The has been submitted in eclusionary non-correctable yes/no required form. Check is made wher application was finalized in electronic form in - automatic check when IS KP14+. submitting application; may only be submitted electronically. F2 All required fields in are eclusionary correctable yes/no filled. Check is made wher data in field correspond to field s substantive focus. (a) automatic check of fields set as required (b) Evaluator check of fields that are marked as required in call / follow-up documentation, including a check of demonstration of ownership structure F3 All annees have been submitted in required form eclusionary correctable yes/no internal / annees to (a) a check is made wher all relevant mandatory/elective annees (a) check wher specified in Call have been submitted. mandatory annees have been filled, anne numbering present in IS KP14+ (b) a check is made wher all annees (mandatory/elective/optional) have been submitted in form specified by call. An assessment is (b) check wher elective made wher or not document is empty and wher document annees have been submitted, check of content corresponds to its name. ir form, i.e. according to call specification (anne format, model, basic (c) A check is made wher all attachments are numbered according structure / outline, etc.). to IS KP14+. F4 was submitted in language eclusionary correctable yes/no internal / (a) a check is made wher application incl. all annees has been (a) The is met if application determined by call submitted in language determined by call, i.e. always in Czech. for including all annees has been submitted in Czech. annees to (b) a check is made wher has also been The is met if submitted in English. The duty to submit EN version will be stated in including all relevant annees has tet of call / follow-up documentation, incl. specification of parts also been submitted in English. of / annees to which must be submitted in English. (b) The is not met if or some of its annees have not been submitted in Czech and English. F5 Identification data of applicant are in accordance eclusionary correctable yes/no internal / with etract from register in which applicant is registered. A check is made wher all required identification data of (a) a check wher project applicant (name of governing body or representative(s) of required fields are filled out entities governing body and ir positions) are specified in and are in accordance with etract from register in which (b) a check for compliance annees to applicant is registered. with etracts from registers (a) A check is made wher includes identification data of applicant. (c) check for compliance with etracts from registers if this is impossible (b) A check is made wher applicant's identification data are in line through with etract from register (e.g. a register of schools and school facilities, commercial register, trade register, company register, etc.). F6 Identification data of partner are in accordance eclusionary correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal / with etract from register in which partner is registered. A check is made wher all required identification data of each of (a) a check wher project partners (name of governing body (bodies) or representative(s) of required fields are filled out entities governing body (bodies) and ir positions) are specified in and are in accordance with etract from (b) a check for compliance annees to register in which partner is registered. with etracts from registers (a) A check is made wher includes (c) check for compliance with identification data of partner(s). etracts from registers if this is impossible through (b) A check is made wher partners identification data are in line with etract from register (e.g. a register of schools and school facilities, commercial register, trade register, company register, etc.). F7 The has been signed by eclusionary correctable yes/no internal / A check is made wher all documents containing bo for (a) an automatic check, governing body of applicant/partner. signature and name/identification of applicant/partner have been cannot be electronically signed by governing body or representative(s) of submitted to MA without a signature annees to governing body. (b) checks signature relevance A check is made wher application has been electronically signed by governing body or an authorized person authorised by Elements of a power of attorney: governing body of applicant/partner s entity, i.e. wher uniquely identifies principal signature matches governing body / authorized person of person who grants power of attorney applicant/partner s entity. uniquely identifies agent person who receives power of The documents can also be signed by: attorney specification of a juridical act or acts for (1) anor person authorized by a power of attorney in relation a which principal authorizes agent specific The applicant submits power of attorney in electronic period for which authorization is form in IS KP14+ (requires el. signature of principal and agent) or valid original/notarized copy in electronic/scanned form under Power of date and place of signing power of attorney tab or key in form in IS KP14+. This attorney power of attorney contains all elements of a power of attorney. signatures of principal and agent (2) a person authorized based on a mandate to be represented by governing body of applicant/partner s entity to make juridical acts on behalf of applicant s entity. The mandate is submitted in a scanned form as an original/notarised copy on Power of attorney tab or button in form in IS KP14+. F8 Estimated time of project implementation is in eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal / A check is made wher project duration (e.g. number of months) (a) The is met if project accordance with terms of call and project period (from-to) correspond to duration is in line with project duration specified in call, and annees to simultaneously project period is in line with call. (b) The is not met if project duration is not in line with project duration specified in call, or project period is not in line with call. F9 The project respects and maimum limit eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal / A check is made wher amount of total eligible ependiture (a) The is met if required of total eligible ependiture specified by call correspond to conditions of call / follow-up call amount of financial is within and maimum amount of financial for particular call. annees to (b) The is not met if required amount of financial assistance is not within and maimum amount of financial for particular call, i.e. claimed funds are lower or higher than or maimum limit for call. F10 The project respects financial limits of budget eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal / A check is made wher application respects financial limits of (a) The is met if budget is set for particular call budget set by call / follow-up call in accordance with all fin. limits according to (b) The is not met if setting of budget is not in accordance with any of fin. limits in call. F11 The amount of applicant s own funds in eclusionary correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal / A check is made wher includes (a) The is met if amount of funding overview is stated in accordance with call, annees applicant s own funds (if relevant for particular type of applicant/call own funds meets conditions of a statutory in accordance with call / follow-up call call. declaration on applicant s own (b) The is not met if amount funds of own funds fails to meet conditions of call. F12 Financial stability / turnover of applicant for two consecutive (closed) accounting periods eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal annees to A check is made wher annual turnover / fin. stability if (a) The is met if applicant has applicant s entity meets conditions of call / follow-up call demonstrated fin. stability / turnover in accordance with conditions of call. For additional duties and conditions concerning demonstration of annual turnover / fin. stability, see Rules for Applicants and Beneficiaries (b) The is not met if Specific Part, Chapter applicant has failed to demonstrate fin. stability / turnover in accordance with F13 The number of applications for is equivalent to eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal number set by call. An assessment is made wher applicant has respected ma. number of applications per applicant in call. The ma. number of applications for in call which can be submitted by one applicant is set by call / follow-up call (a) The is met if number of applications for submitted by applicant is in accordance with call. (b) The is not met if number of applications for submitted by applicant is not in accordance with call.

2 name P1 efficiency The focus of is in accordance with activities of call Anne 2 Evaluation for Call Pre-Application Research for ITI eligibility check brief correctable / position instructions for s/sub-scales non-correctable (yes/no, irrelevant) eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal An assessment is made wher project activities are consistent with (a) The is met if project (activities/stages) is not in conflict with activities of call. The to carry out specific objectives activities is not in conflict with conditions for An assessment is made wher applicant has specified all required implementation of project set in call. activities according to tet of call. An assessment is made wher or annees to not contains any of ecluded activities (b) The is not met if it is in conflict with activities of according to tet of call and follow-up call call, or manner to implement activities is in conflict with conditions for implementation of project set in call and in accordance with conditions in Rules for Applicants and Beneficiaries Specific Part. P2 efficiency Target groups are in accordance with eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal A check is made wher target groups in are (a) The is met if target groups are in accordance call target groups in accordance with eligible target groups in call / follow-up with eligible target groups defined in call. annees to (b) The is not met if target groups are in conflict with eligible target groups defined in call. P3 feasibility The applicant meets definition of eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal an eligible applicant defined in call / An assessment is made wher applicant s entity meets conditions Project entities and set out in call / follow-up annees to (a) The is met if applicant can be identified as an entity defined by call (e.g. a research organization, legal person) and also meets conditions set by call. (b) The is not met if applicant cannot be identified as an entity defined by call (e.g. a research organization, legal person) or fails to meet conditions set by call. ISKP14+ is connected with insolvency register to check insolvency of applicants. P4 feasibility Project partner meets conditions for eligibility of partner eclusionary non-correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal An assessment is made wher partner entity meets conditions and (a) The is met if partner can be identified as an / Project entities for eligibility and partnerships set in call / follow-up call entity defined by call (e.g. a research organization, legal person) and also meets conditions set by call. annees to (b) The is not met if partner cannot be identified as Principles of partnership an entity defined by call (e.g. a research organization, legal Partnership agreement person) or fails to meet conditions set by call. P5 feasibility The place of project implementation and impact is in compliance with P6 feasibility/effectiv Project activities are unique for eness applicants/partners eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal / eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal An assessment is made wher place of project implementation and (a) The is met if project impact is eclusively on Location impact are in accordance with conditions set in call (follow-up territory under call and place of implementation Key activities conditions of call). corresponds to Project The applicant selects place of impact/implementation from list (b) The is not met if project impact is not eclusively An assessment is made wher ing project does not result in (a) The is met if project activities are unique for Project funding identical outputs, for which applicant/partners have received applicant/partners, i.e. ing project does not result in Key activities from anor OP RDE The content of se outcomes must funding identical outputs, for which applicant/partners have always be different or related. A check is made via IS KP14+ or received from an OP RDE or anor OP EC / OP RDI annees to database of outputs from OP EC / OP RDI. A check is made wher ing project does not result in funding (b) The is not met if project activities are not unique (, database of identical outputs, for which applicant/partners have received for applicant/partners, i.e. ing project results in outputs from OP EC / OP RDI) from anor OP EC / OP RDI The content of se funding identical outputs, for which applicant/partners have activities/outcomes must always be different or related. Verification will take received from an OP RDE or anor OP EC / OP RDI place via checking outcomes in entities in capacity of beneficiaries in database of outputs from OP EC / OP RDI. P7 feasibility Involvement of a partner has been eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal An assessment is made wher conditions for involvement of a (a) The is met if involvement of partner meets demonstrated in accordance with partners are in accordance with call / follow-up call call annees to (b) The is not met if partnership is not set in Principles of partnership / accordance with Partnership agreement P8 efficiency The project is in line with State aid eclusionary correctable yes/no internal An assessment is made: (a) is met if project does not cumulatively (a) wher call allows not constituting State aid, wher constitute State aid. annees to project does not cumulatively constitute elements of State aid. If project cumulatively constitutes elements of State aid, a check is made wher any (b) is not met if project constitutes State aid. of eemptions allowed by call has been applied to project (e.g. de minimis) and wher project respects limits of eemption set by call / Rules for Applicants and Beneficiaries; (b) where call sets/allows application of an eemption (de minimis, SGEI, GBER), wher project respects limits of eemption set by call / Rules for Applicants and Beneficiaries. The check is based on applicant s declaration (anne to ), which is used to evaluate wher or not project cumulatively constitutes State aid and wher or not any of eemptions concerning compatible State aid will be applied to The verification is recorded in a checklist. Different options depending on scheme: - not constituting State aid within meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (Treaty on Functioning of European Union). Check according to checklist to verify (based on applicant s declaration) wher or not project cumulatively constitutes State aid - de minimis in accordance with Regulation No 1407/ services of general economic interest pursuant to Decision 2012/21/EU - in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 P9 necessity/efficienc The place of project impact is on eclusionary non-correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal - ITI strategy of Pilsen An assessment is made of impact on territory of region or YES The impact of project is on territory of y territory of Pilsen metropolitan of metropolitan area / Olomouc agglomeration defined in ITI Strategy. respective region/agglomeration area / Olomouc agglomeration / agglomeration / Ostrava NE The impact of project is not on territory of Ostrava agglomeration / Hradec- agglomeration / Hradec- respective region/agglomeration Pardubice agglomeration / Ustí- Pardubice agglomeration / Chomutov agglomeration, and is Ustí-Chomutov agglomeration consistent with ITI Strategy - P10 necessity The is eclusionary correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal consistent with project to which of an opinion was issued by ITI Steering Committee of Pilsen metropolitan area / Olomouc agglomeration / Ostrava agglomeration / Hradec-Pardubice agglomeration / Ustí-Chomutov agglomeration. - - opinion of ITI SC - project An assessment is made wher is consistent YES is consistent with following with following parameters of project to which an opinion was issued parameters of project to which an opinion was issued by by SC ITI and wher it is within scope of this opinion: applicant, SC ITI and is within scope of this opinion: applicant, project project, indicator values, and simultaneously required, indicator values, and simultaneously required amount of EU grant specified in does not eceed amount of EU grant specified in does amount specified in not eceed amount specified in An assessment is made of compliance of approved project with NO is not consistent with. following parameters of project to which an opinion was issued by SC ITI and is not within scope of this opinion: applicant, project, indicator values, and simultaneously required amount of EU grant specified in eceeds amount specified in P11 efficiency/feasibili The project is in accordance with eclusionary non-correctable yes/no/irrelevant internal - ITI strategy of Pilsen An assessment is made wher project is in accordance with YES The project is in accordance with matic focus of ty matic focus of ITI strategy of of metropolitan area / Olomouc matic focus of ITI strategy ITI strategy, strategic objective and some of its specific Pilsen metropolitan area / agglomeration / Ostrava objectives, measures and sub-measures to be financed from OP Olomouc agglomeration / Ostrava agglomeration / Hradec- RDE. agglomeration / Hradec-Pardubice Pardubice agglomeration / agglomeration / Ustí-Chomutov Ustí-Chomutov agglomeration NO The project is not in accordance with matic focus of agglomeration, its strategic objective - call of owner ITI strategy, strategic objective and some of its specific and some of its specific objectives, - call of MA OP RDE objectives, measures and sub-measures to be financed from OP measures and sub-measures to be - Rules for Applicants and RDE. financed from OP RDE Beneficiaries of OP RDE - - opinion of SC ITI P12 efficiency/feasibili The project is in accordance with eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal - call of owner An assessment is made wher project is in accordance with call of YES project is in accordance with parameters of ty call of owner of Pilsen of - call of OP RDE owner of relevant agglomeration, particularly in relation to owner s call metropolitan area / Olomouc - Rules for Applicants and following parameters: agglomeration / Ostrava agglomeration Beneficiaries of OP RDE - schedule NO project is not in accordance with parameters of / Hradec-Pardubice agglomeration / - - owner s call Ustí-Chomutov agglomeration. - opinion of SC ITI - activities - eligibility of applicant - limits of total eligible costs set by call

3 Anne 2 Evaluation for Call Pre-Application Research for ITI epert - step 1 name score range score in of s (yes/no, case of for arbitrator (yes/no, score) score) combined involvement root root brief instructions for s/sub-scales V1.1 feasibility Overlap of applications for, submitted in eclusionary yes/no internal calls An assessment is made wher or not identical applications for project entities have been submitted in call for ITI projects project and call outside ITI projects. Annees to An assessment is made wher or not identical applications for have YES no identical applications have been submitted in/outside an ITI call. been submitted in call for ITI projects and call outside ITI projects. The checks wher or not applicant has submitted identical NO identical application have been submitted in/outside an ITI call. applications in calls, not only in terms of title, but also actual content. V1.2 efficiency Verification of assessment process eclusionary yes/no/irrel internal evant An assessment is made wher process was conducted properly and correctly. Annees to An assessment is made wher process was conducted properly YES formal requirements and eligibility were evaluated properly and and correctly. An assessment is made of overall correctness of correctly. The process is in accordance with set procedures. process, i.e. wher formal requirements and eligibility were prepared in accordance with relevant rules and defined procedures. NO formal requirements and eligibility were not evaluated properly and correctly. The process is not in accordance with set procedures.

4 root name name (yes/no, score) root (yes/no, score) score in case of combined score range of s for arbitrator involvement root brief instructions for s/sub-scales V2.1 feasibility The structure and size of administrative team (FTEs, including possible outsourcing) 5 An assessment is made of structure and size of administration team / FTEs, including any outsourcing, with regard to character and scope of activities and project size. Annees to An assessment is made of structure and size of administration team, FTEs, including any outsourcing, with regard to character and scope of activities and project size. The administrative team consists of positions such as project manager, financial manager and or positions responsible for project administration. The states its objections and reduces score if structure and size of administrative team is overvalued or undervalued. The does not evaluate rates (evaluated under V5.1 Appropriateness and consistency of budget in relation to content and scope of project), but only size, structure and, where relevant, composition of project team. The applicant describes structure and size of administrative team under : 5 to 4 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The applicant has sufficient administrative team for implementation of are significant shortcomings. 1 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The applicant does not have sufficient administrative team for implementation of V2.2 feasibility The structure and size of epert team (FTEs, including possible outsourcing) combined 10 4 An assessment is made of structure and size of epert team / FTEs, including any outsourcing, with regard to character and scope of activities and project size. Annees to - CV of epert team members eternal epert An assessment is made of structure and size of epert team, also with regard to structure of team within cooperation established with project partners. An assessment is made of FTEs, including any outsourcing, with regard to character and scope of activities and project size. The professional team consists of positions that ensure performance of content of project activities. The states its objections and reduces score if structure and size of epert team is overvalued or undervalued. The does not evaluate rates (evaluated under V5.1 Appropriateness and consistency of budget in relation to content and scope of project), but only size, structure and, where relevant, composition of project team. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The applicant describes structure and size of epert team under : 10 to 8 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The structure, focus and size of epert team is consistent with 7 to 4 points: Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. 3 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The applicant does not have adequate epert team to implement project; setting of epert team threatens feasibility of project The does not evaluate rates (evaluated under V5.1), but only size and structure of epert team. V2.3 feasibility/effici ency Quality of nominated members of epert team combined 15 6 An assessment is made of quality of nominated members of epert research team and relevance of ir current research work to research activities of Annees to - CV of epert team members eternal epert An assessment is made of quality of nominated members of epert research team and relevance of ir current research work to research activities of Annees to feasibility study include CVs of named researchers (including of ir eperience). Results for past five years are particularly relevant for key and ecellent workers. In, take account of research results relevant to given field of research. This particularly means H-inde, number of citations for specified publications, IF of journals in which researcher publishes, awards and or parameters that indicate quality of researcher, including his/her previous collaboration with application sector. Assess etent to which current research activities of se researchers are relevant to project s research objectives, programmes and activities, and what potential y have for successful implementation of project s research objectives, programmes and activities. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The applicant has described in as follows: 15 to 11 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The key researchers have required level comparable to international level, as evidenced by ir history. 10 to 6 points: Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. The key researchers will be able to carry out research activities and achieve ir objectives and commitments; ir quality varies and is below epected level. 5 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant /not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. According to ir history, quality of key researchers is not so good and re is a risk that y will not be able to implement activities as planned and meet ir commitments. V3.1 necessity Project necessity combined 5 2 The aims to justify project objectives and show need of ir achievement given current state of knowledge in given area/field and epected benefits, results and outcome of project Annees to - an overview of key outputs to achieve ERDF The aims to justify project objectives and show need of ir achievement given current state of knowledge in given area/field and epected benefits, results and outcome of The applicant has described necessity of project: 5 to 4 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The applicant has adequately and clearly described problem justification of objective and necessity of The justification is sufficiently and specifically substantiated. The conclusions fully correspond with project plans. Clearly and reliably specified necessity of are significant shortcomings. The applicant has described problem justification of objective and necessity of The justification is substantiated only partially and/or only partially corresponds with project plan. The necessity for project implementation is justified at a general level. 1 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant /not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The lacks a clearly defined problem. Justification is not substantiated or does not correspond with project plan. The to address problem is V3.2 necessity/effici ency The impact, main contributions and purpose of project combined 5 2 An assessment is made of wher to solve problem (defined on basis of project's necessity, cr. V3.1) and achieving project objectives (defined based on necessity) will represent a noticeable contribution to objectives defined under call. Annees to - an overview of key outputs to achieve ERDF eternal epert An assessment is made of wher to solve problem (defined on basis of project's necessity, cr. V3.1) and achieving project objectives (defined based on necessity) will represent a noticeable contribution to objectives defined under call (i.e. for intensification of long-term interdisciplinary cooperation between sectors, or for establishment and development of partnerships between ROs and application sector). Epected benefit of project should correspond with research sectors identified and described by applicant. An assessment is made of wher an overall progress in relevant issue and corresponding objectives have been defined. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The applicant describes impact, main benefits and purpose of project: 5 to 4 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The to address problem / achieve project objectives and project impact/contribution are consistent with of project s necessity; it is clearly and sufficiently described. Epected benefits of project are described specifically. are significant shortcomings. The epected benefits are described in general terms. The justification is substantiated only partially and/or only partially corresponds with project plan. Proposals / s to address ehibit shortcomings which do not threaten project feasibility. Although necessity of project is justified in general terms, it corresponds with current situation in field. 1 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious V3.3 efficiency Substantive content and relevance of activities combined 10 4 Assessing proposed manner of specific implementation of project, technical quality and content of project (or its individual activities). The activities must be planned in line with objectives and Annees to eternal epert Assessing proposed manner of specific implementation of project, technical quality and content of project (or its individual activities). The activities must be planned in line with objectives and The planned activities of project must be specifically described and linked to project budget (including all mandatory activities set in call). The setting and of project activities is pivotal indicator of future project implementation, achievement of and goals of project, including its benefit and overall meaningfulness. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. 10 points Activities are clearly and specifically described, ir relation to budget items can be evaluated and related outcomes can be identified. 9 to 7 points Activities correspond to project objectives, but has partial objections (relation to budget items, outputs, etc.). 6 to 4 points has strong objections (relation to budget items, outputs, etc.). 3 to 0 points Activities are not transparent, described insufficiently and in very general terms, relation between activities and budget cannot be identified / is insufficient. Proposed activities threaten feasibility of V3.4 feasibility Schedule and logical consistency of project activities combined 5 2 Assessing wher proposed schedule of activities is logically and realistically set. public contracts Annees to - schedule of key activities eternal epert An assessment is made of wher proposed schedule of activities is logically and realistically set. An assessment is made of wher sequence of implemented activities is suitably designed with regard to possibilities of applicant (project team). The must also include planned tenders, i.e. wher corresponding tenders are planned in accordance with project budget (or wher it has been justified why no tenders are planned, e.g. because a framework agreement has been concluded) and how those tenders are in accordance with schedule of activities (i.e. wher sufficient time has been allocated for large tenders, etc.). In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The applicant describes schedule and logical coherence of project activities as follows: 5 to 4 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. Project activities are logically coherent and time allocated to each key activity is adequate. are significant shortcomings. The proposed schedule has shortcomings in coherence of, and/or time allocation for, activities. 1 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The proposed schedule does not allow smooth implementation of project; it has been set unrealistically. Setting of schedule is illogical and threatens feasibility of V3.5 feasibility Risk management readiness for possible risks and ir resolution combined 5 2 An assessment is made of wher project reflects eistence of risks in implementing activities and in financial and operational management of Project Annees to An assessment is made of wher project reflects eistence of risks in implementing activities and in financial and operational management of It is also necessary for project to contain s of risk prevention and proposals of measures to eliminate such risks. The purpose of is to assess to what etent applicant realises risks and what mechanisms will be used to eliminate m, or what steps will be taken if problems arise. The applicant has described risk management as follows: 5 to 4 points Ecellent or very well; shortcomings, if any, are partial or, furr improvements are possible. The risks are complete. 3 to 2 points Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. Some risks are missing, or plan for ir prevention and elimination is incomplete. 1 to 0 points Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. No significant risks are defined. V3.6 effectiveness/ef ficiency Research results applicability potential combined 10 4 An assessment is made of possible future application of research results in practice. Annees to eternal epert An assessment is made of possible future application of research results in practice. I.e. how realistic it is for research results to be subsequently transferred into practice by applied research. This is also related to wher a project team has eperience with such outputs, wher centre has eperience with application of research results into practice or cooperation with application sector. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The applicant has described area related to application of research results: 10 to 8 points Ecellent or very well; shortcomings, if any, are partial or, furr improvements are possible. The project has potential to ensure application of results in practice. 7 to 4 points Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. Application of results in practice is uncertain. 3 to 0 points Weak or irrelevant / not at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The potential to use results in practice is very little or zero. V3.7 necessity Quality of research objectives combined An assessment is made of quality of submitted research plans and ir activities at international scale, i.e. etent to which proposed research plans have scientific potential to produce results equivalent to results of relevant types of institutions abroad. Annees to eternal epert An assessment is made of quality of submitted research plans and ir activities at international scale, i.e. etent to which proposed research plans have scientific potential to produce results equivalent to results of relevant types of institutions abroad. In addition, an assessment is made of timeliness and relevance of topics addressed, taking into account current state of research in field. In assessing this, must take into account opinion of eternal epert. The quality of submitted research plans and ir activities has been described: 25 to 23 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. This is a good research plan comparable in international contet. 22 to 18 points: Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. The quality of plan is volatile, outputs are below epected level. 17 to 12 points: Weak or insufficient, re are serious shortcomings, or project does not address s evaluated in, or its is impossible due to absence of or insufficient. The research plan cannot be compared in international contet, quality of outputs is low. 11 to 0 points: Irrelevant absent and incomplete in Results and outputs V4.1 efficiency Suitability, specification, appropriateness and feasibility of choosen result and output combined Consideration is given to wher or not selected output and result are appropriately chosen. An assessment is made of appropriateness of setting of quantified for planned project activities. An assessment is made of unambiguous specification and of key outputs to contribute to. Annees to - an overview of key outputs to contribute to ERDF Consideration is given to wher or not selected output and result are appropriately chosen. An assessment is made of appropriateness of setting of quantified for planned project activities. Specifically, an assessment is made of wher it is realistic to achieve set indicator values and wher y are appropriate with regard to objectives, schedule and budget of An assessment is made of how initial and target indicator values are determined. An assessment is made of wher key outputs for achievement of are unambiguously specified and described; applicant must specify key outputs in anne to. The applicant has described area related to results and outputs as follows: 10 to 8 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The applicant has clearly and comprehensively specified project outputs. The of project shows that correspond to selected activities and lead to achievement of results/outputs. The value of proposed is proportionate to proposed activities and probability of achieving m is high. 7 to 4 points: Well or sufficient, improvements will be needed or re are significant shortcomings. Specification of project outputs is not clearly described. The value of proposed is proportionate to proposed activities and y can be epected to be achieved. The has found an error in ir calculation. Adjustment is needed in values of monitoring. 3 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / none at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. Specification of project outputs is insufficient/incomprehensible. Selected activities and values are not in accordance with, y are set ambiguously, disproportionately, improperly or unrealistically and/or V5.1 effectiveness/ef ficiency/econom y Adequacy and consistency of budget with respect to project content and scope combined 15 5 An assessment is made of wher size of budget and particular budget items are duly justified with regard to duration of project, content of activities, and planned results/outputs. An assessment is made of appropriateness of project budget, i.e. respecting 3E rule (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). An assessment is made of clarity of budget. - budget Annees to, including annees (a) an assessment is made of justification of budget size and individual budget items given duration of project, content of activities, planned results/outputs in relation to research part of (b) appropriateness of project budget means respecting 3E rule economy, efficiency and effectiveness in terms of financial costs in relation to implementation of planned activities, planned outputs and results following research part of It is necessary to assess mainly: - Appropriateness of labour costs/fets for project team with respect to quality (proficiency) of its work and duration of its activities. - - If applicant intends to implement project also through eternal suppliers, it must be assessed wher procured goods, services or works will be utilised in project, wher y are not redundant for project implementation or wher parameters of procured goods and services are not disproportionate. - - Appropriateness of leased premises given needs of - appropriateness of quantity and parameters of procured IT equipment.- Proportionality of budget chapters within budget (e.g. proportionality of purchasing equipment for project team and FTEs of project team members). - Wher particular items correspond to prices typical at place and time. - Wher particular items correspond to prices set using a procedure recommended by MA in Rules for Applicants and Beneficiaries or in Call. The appropriateness and technical correctness need to be assessed both for project budget items, or groups of items, and for budget as a whole to avoid assessing only some parts of budget while or parts are not considered. (c) An assessment is made of budget clarity clarity of breakdown of costs into items and groups and degree of ir concretization. If concludes that justification is unclear or amount inadequate, he/she is obliged to propose cuts, while respecting any budget limits laid down in call / follow-up 15 points: The budget is reasonable, parameters of procured supplies are adequate, prices can be considered normal, budget items are linked to individual activities, y enable a reliable assessment of costseffectiveness, no adjustment of budget is proposed. 14 to 11 points: The budget is reasonable save for minor objections, re is a limited number of items that are not directly justified in of project and/or ir procured volume/quantity does not match ( needs of project); only a small-scale adjustment is proposed (roughly up to 5% of total budget). 10 to 7 points: The budget is slightly overvalued or undervalued, re are items that lack clear and good justification and/or purchased volume/quantity does not match (needs) of A reduction is proposed (indicatively 5 20% of total budget). 6 to 5 points: The budget is overvalued or undervalued, re is a larger number of items that are not justified, a significant reduction is proposed (indicatively 20 40% of total budget). 4 to 1 points: The budget is significantly overvalued or undervalued; coherence of budget with activities is not convincing / cannot be unambiguously identified. 0 points: The budget is totally inadequate, poorly designed and unintelligible, lacking coherence, it is confusing. V5.2 efficiency General conditions of epenses eligibility 5 Assessment is made of budget from perspective of general conditions of eligibility of ependiture, i.e. substantive, local and temporal eligibility of ependiture in budget. Annees to Assessment is made of budget from perspective of general conditions of eligibility of ependiture, i.e. substantive, local and temporal eligibility of ependiture in budget. If contains ineligible ependiture, shall propose its removal from budget. If it is not possible to remove ineligible ependiture from budget (i.e. project would not be feasible), it is not possible to recommend approval of. 5 to 4 points: The budget is fully in line with eligibility 3 to 2 points: The budget contains ineligible costs, which can be eliminated from budget based on s objection. 1 to 0 points: The budget contains ineligible costs, which cannot be eliminated from budget while maintaining project feasibility. Here, should focus on assessing general eligibility of ependiture under rules of OP RDE (substantive coherence/necessity of acquisition of relevant equipment given project activities or e.g. wher acquisition of this equipment is not redundant is subject to of V5.1). V5.3 economy Securing co-financing during at implementation phase 5 Assessment is made wher applicant is able to meet cofinancing commitment. - overview of funding sources Annees to Assessment is made wher applicant is able to meet co-financing commitment. 5 points: The applicant is able to demonstrate how co-financing of project will be arranged. The of co-financing is clear and realistic. 0 points: The applicant is not able to demonstrate how co-financing of project will be arranged. The of co-financing is unclear/vague/unrealistic. If applicant has 0% co-financing, project is given full score. Horizont al mes V6.1 compliance of project with horizontal Compliance of project with horizontal eclusionary yes/no An assessment is made of wher does not negatively affect any of horizontal. - horizontal An assessment is made of wher equal opportunities are ensured, regardless of type of disability or social disadvantage, e.g. health, economic, social, ethnic, gender or nationality disadvantage, etc. Specifically, it is assessed how proposed activities fulfil equal opportunities. An assessment is made of wher or not project discriminates against certain groups. An assessment is made of project s relationship to sustainable development, especially its environmental pillar. Specifically, it is necessary to assess proposals leading to reducing negative environmental impacts (minimising noise emissions, air pollutant emissions, contamination of surroundings etc.) or, on contrary, impacts of project on improving environment. It is also necessary to take into account and assess project's contribution to raising awareness about sustainable development (especially about environmental issues), to reasonable use of natural resources (where appropriate) and project's contribution to strengning social and economic pillars of sustainability. yes The project is in line with horizontal principle. The project is specifically aimed / has a positive or neutral impact on horizontal me no The project is not in line with horizontal principle. The project has a negative impact on horizontal me. Complia nce with strategi es V7.1 efficiency Compliance with RIS3 eclusionary yes/no An assessment is made of wher project s activities/content are in accordance with relevant strategies specified in call / follow-up call documentation Annees to - compliance with RIS3 strategy An assessment is made of wher project s activities/content are in accordance with RIS3 strategy according to tet of call and wher project contributes to ir achievement. It is assessed wher focus of research programmes and activities is in accordance with at least one generic knowledge domain and also at least one key application sector and application me specified in National RIS3 Strategy or its regional anne. YES if it is in accordance NO if is not in accordance Synergie s V8.1 effectiveness Synergy potential An assessment is made of synergistic potential of Annees to An assessment is made of synergistic potential of project and feasibility of described synergy is evaluated. The must address wher project really has a potential for furr development in application sector or to ensure, in pre-application phase of research which is subject of project, application of results in application sector. Follow-up activity / synergistic potential will be described by applicant in under tab synergies, or in feasibility study. 5 points project has synergistic potential. 0 points project does not have synergistic potential. Sustain ability V9.1 economy Sustainability combined An assessment is made of setting and ensuring sustainability under terms of call / followup Annees to An assessment is made of wher project has sufficiently detailed plan of costs and revenues, which is based on credible and clearly formulated assumptions, and is designed so that it can be reasonably assumed that financial sustainability of project will be ensured at least for sustainability period specified by call. The project has an adequate plan of measures that will contribute to substantive sustainability of project activities and outputs. The assesses setting and ensuring sustainability under terms of call / follow-up The applicant has described area: 5 to 4 points: Ecellent or very well; any shortcomings or possible improvements are partial. The project has a detailed plan of costs and revenues, an adequate plan of measures that will contribute to substantive sustainability of project activities and outputs. Financial sustainability of project will be ensured. are significant shortcomings. The project has a plan of costs and revenues, has a plan of measures that will contribute to substantive sustainability of activities and outputs, and a plan for human resource development; however, all of se show shortcomings. Although elimination of shortcomings requires adjustments, y will not affect financial sustainability of project and human resource development of institution. 1 to 0 points: Weak or irrelevant / none at all, re are serious absence of or insufficient. The project does not have a detailed plan of costs and revenues; plan is not based on credible and clearly formulated assumptions. The project does not have a plan of action that would contribute to sustainability of project activities and outputs; it cannot be reasonably assumed that financial sustainability of project will be ensured. The financial sustainability Maimum score: Score for with feasibility (according to MP ma. 30 %) Min. score to advance to net stage of approval process Min. score of overall by two s for arbitrator involvement Anne 2 Evaluation for Call Pre-Application Research for ITI epert - step 2 eternal 26 Applica nt/partn er Project descript ion: Funding of project

5 Anne 2 Final verification of eligibility of Call Pre-Application Research for ITI only relevant for ITI projects name score range score in of s correctable / (yes/no, (yes/no, case of for arbitrator non-correctable score) score) combined involvement root root brief instructions for s/sub-scales Z1.1 efficiency Final verification of ependiture eligibility eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal For each ITI project, an assessment is made of wher it is in accordance with operational programme and Annees to meets ependiture eligibility For each ITI project, an assessment is made of wher it is in accordance The assesses compliance with programme and with operational programme and meets ependiture eligibility ependiture eligibility: Yes project is in compliance with programme and ependiture is eligible for funding. The may state that project is or is not eligible for funding or is eligible with an objection (i.e. it only meets certain conditions, e.g. No project is not in compliance with programme and/or budget is modified, an ineligible item of ependiture is ecluded, etc.). ependiture is not eligible for funding. Z1.2 efficiency Verification of assessment process eclusionary non-correctable yes/no internal An assessment is made wher substantive process was conducted properly and correctly. Annees to An assessment is made wher substantive process was conducted properly and correctly. An assessment is made of overall correctness of substantive process, i.e. wher opinion was prepared in accordance with relevant rules and defined procedures. YES substantive process was conducted properly and correctly, opinion has been prepared in accordance with NO substantive process was not conducted properly and correctly, opinion has not been prepared in accordance with