30/11-1/12/06 1

 10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
 Credibility & Viability - 7 Problem cases
 Structure of the proposal, General remarks & Available support
30/11-1/12/06 2

10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
1.
Understand the criteria and conditions!
 carefully read the call text
 understand all eligibility, selection & award criteria
 if resubmitting, consider comments from consensus report of failed proposal
2.
Form a sound partnership!
 explain role of all partners and give proof of their commitment
 demonstrate the technical & financial capability of the partners
30/11-1/12/06 3

10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
3.
Aim for a high modal shift and environmental benefit!
 the more tkm (or m³km) the better
 the more environmental efficiency (benefit per subsidy, Rs) the better
4.
Key: Demonstrate that your project is credible!
 credible market research
 letters of intent/commitment from potential customers
 sound business plan: viability of service after subsidy period
 availability of transport medium
4

10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
5.
Show the real innovation !
 new markets or technologies
 broad consortia and widespread co-operation, clear organisational structures (for common learning actions)
 concrete dissemination plan (what, when, where, how, not only announcements)
6.
Pay attention to possible distortions of competition!
 honest description of existing services
 clear delimitation against existing non-road services:
5

10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
7.
Justify your finances!
 justify all costs (for eligibility refer to model contract)
 exclude costs related to non-EU countries not fully participating
 no accumulated profit can be made over the whole contract duration
8.
Use the available support!
 support tools and Helpdesk by European Commission (see below)
 use the checklist provided for each action type
 cross-check of proposal by outsider before submission 6

10 Golden Rules for Success in MARCO POLO II
9.
Write a clear and concise proposal!
 clear, comprehensive and logical description on 10-15 pages max.
 further details and confidential elements in the annexes
 detailed description of old and new routes (with clear maps)
 detailed calculations (make use of MP calculator)
10.
Take care of the formal requirements!
 1original, 5 paper copies and CD-ROM, 4 forms to be filled out
 signature and stamp by lead partner on original
 respect the deadline
7

Credibility & Viability
Very important evaluation criteria !
 Low credibility: the main reason for failing the evaluations!
 In Marco Polo II: 50 % of total points distributed to credibility & viability – for all action types!
 Important to focus on credibility & viability – a proposal is selected on the basis of its quality – independently of the transport mode or the type of action
30/11-1/12/06 8

Problem cases, examples that reduce the credibility
1.
The modal shift is not credible!
 The modal shift in the proposal is high – lot of tkm shifted off the road
 Receives high points on award criteria – quantity of freight shifted off the road & environmental benefits
 – BUT:
A) Market study does not prove the high amount of potential freight to be shifted for the type of goods in the relevant market
30/11-1/12/06 9

Problem cases, examples that reduce the credibility
B) Not enough details about the return cargo
C) The volume of freight on the return leg is minimal
D) Irrealistic loading factor of 100% both ways – not credible!
E) Overoptimistic - almost full capacity already at the beginning of the of the service
F) No recent letters of intent/commitment from potential customers
G) Not likely that the cargo was previously transported on the road – no modal shift!
30/11-1/12/06 10

Problem cases, examples that reduce the credibility
2.
Doubts that the service will start up!
 Proposal mentions that the service will start up within the required timeframe in the Call – eligibility criteria met
 BUT:
A) Infrastructure works ongoing/required – no mentioning of when this will be terminated/no details given!
B) Negotiations to obtain slots, authorisations no mentioning when this will end/ no details given!
C) No proof of the availability of the transport medium
30/11-1/12/06 11

Problem cases, examples that reduce the credibility
3.
Not enough details about the service!
 Proposal mentions that the service will run from A to B
 BUT:
A) Transport operator not involved in the project – not as partner neither as subcontracor
B) No timetables, frequency
C) Nothing about the development of the service in the project period
D) The transport leg is not defined, no maps etc.
F) Combined service – SSS & rail proposed, only the rail part is
12

Problem cases, examples that reduce the credibility
G) No description of the transport medium, type, age etc.
H) Final distribution not mentioned
I) No desription of the market segment – type of freight transported
J) The passenger part of the service – not described – cannot be financed in MP (non eligible costs)
Attention: the evaluators are experts in the different modes of transport - SSS/rail/inland waterway/road!
30/11-1/12/06 13

Problem cases, examples that reduces the credibility
4. If upgrade – the existing service is not described!
 For modal shift actions – possibility to submit a project where there is a significant extension of the existing service
Problem: if existing service is not described – no possibility of evaluating if this is a significant upgrade
Attention: what is the upgrade? Has the modal shift and the costs of the existing service been deducted?
Attention: there can be no financing of the existing service and the modal shift of the existing service is not eligible!
What is a significant upgrade?
Increased frequency, upgrade of the transport medium (larger freight capacity)….
14

Problem cases, examples that reduces the credibility
5. No description of the market!
A) No market study or weak market study
Problem: does not address the potential for freight, no short summary, no source indicated
B) Problems in this particular market not addressed / how to solve them: low water level, permits, delays/problems at border crossings, restrictions on transporting heavy weight goods, dangerous goods etc.
Attention: the evaluators are experts – they know the
15

Problem cases, examples that reduces the credibility
6. Weak partner structure or weak/no commitment from partners!
 The proposal meets the eligibility criteria and has 1 partner from
France and 1 partner from Spain
 BUT:
A) No joint letter of intent form signed by all partners explaining their role and commitment to the project – are they commited?
B) No track record or CV‘s of the partners involved – do they have the technical capacity to run this project?
C) No financial statements – do they have the financial capacity to
30/11-1/12/06 16 run the project ?( Bankruptcy etc.)

Problem cases, examples that reduces the credibility
7. Weak business plan!
Problem A): the business plan does not separate between eligible and non eligible costs according to PART B – FINANCIAL
PROVISIONS in the model grant agreement (on MP website)
Problem B): does not mention the revenue – no profit allowed during the accumulated years of funding!
Problem C): only gives lump sums, too generic and not detailed enough, irrealistic figures
Problem D): no plan for the year after MP funding – is the service viable and will it continue?
30/11-1/12/06 17


Part I
 Project Overview Form (1-2 pages)
 Declaration by the Applicant s Form – all partners!
 Acknowledgement of Receipt Form
 Joint letter of intent between all the partners
Part II
 Main Text of the Proposal (around 10 pages in font size 12)
30/11-1/12/06 18


Part III
 Different Annexes according to type of action to support claims in the main text:
 maps,
 business plan,
 financial statements,
 CV’s,
 market research,
 letters of intent from customers etc.
30/11-1/12/06 19

General remarks
 Standardised presentation following the structure of the Call highly advised
 Pay attention to specific documents and requirements
(forms, financial statement, joint letter of intent…)

30/11-1/12/06 20

Available Support
 MARCO POLO Website http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm
 Call text, model contract, templates
 Checklist, Frequently Asked Questions
 MARCO POLO calculator
 Presentations of Nantes and Budapest conference etc.
 MARCO POLO Helpdesk
 Email: tren-marco-polo@ec.europa.eu
 Phone: +32 (02) 29-96448
 Fax: +32 (02) 29-63765
 National / Regional contact points
 support available in some countries (check MP website)
21