EVALUATION FORMS
Information and Communication Technologies
ICT
Funding scheme: Collaborative projects
Large-scale integrating projects (IP)
FP7-ICT-2009-6
FP7-ICT-2009-6
Evaluations forms
24/11/09 v1
The following forms exemplify those which will be issued to independent experts
employed as evaluators in the evaluation of Integrated Project proposals received in
ICT Call 6 (FP7-ICT-2009-6)
In this call there will be strong competition. Therefore, edit your proposal tightly,
strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself in the place of an expert evaluator;
refer to the evaluation criteria and procedure given in annex 2 of the Guide for
Applicants. Arrange for your draft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use
their advice to improve it before submission.
Proposers in FET Proactive objectives should note that there are differences in the
evaluation criteria descriptions (bullet points) and weightings used in these
objectives. Please consult the ICT Workprogramme Appendix 5
FP7-ICT-2009-6
Evaluations forms
24/11/09 v1
ICT Theme
IER
Individual Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project
Proposal No. :
Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the
call)



Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management




Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures
Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Individual Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project
results


Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property.
Remarks
Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Individual Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project p.3
(If proposal above individual criterion thresholds)
Specific questions to be asked of proposers at hearing
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ?
NO 
YES 
I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the
evaluation of this proposal
Name
Signature
Date
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
ICT Theme
CR
Consensus Report for an Integrated Project
Proposal No. :
Acronym :
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the
call)



Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management




Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures
Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget,
staff, equipment)
Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Consensus Report for an Integrated Project p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project
results


Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under relevant topic/activity
Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property.
Remarks
Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Consensus Report for an Integrated Project p.3
(If proposal above individual criterion thresholds)
Specific questions to be asked of proposers at hearing
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ?
(If yes, and the proposal is above threshold, complete an EIR form)
NO 
Rapporteur
Moderator
Evaluator
Evaluator
Evaluator
Evaluator
YES 
Name
Signature
Date
Name
Signature
Date
Name
Signature
Date
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Evaluator
Evaluator
Name
Signature
Date
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
ICT Theme
ESR
Evaluation Summary Report for an Integrated Project
Proposal number
Proposal acronym
Proposal name
(Main) objective addressed
(Banner)
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the
call)
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Evaluation Summary Report for an Integrated Project p.2
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project
results
Score:
(Threshold 3/5;
Weight 1)
Remarks
Overall score:
(Threshold
10/15)
Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ?
NO 
YES 
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair
While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the
criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.