Latest information:

CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS

HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-TWO-STAGE, 1 stage

EVALUATION results

Published: 07.12.2022

Deadline: 07.02.2024

Available budget: EUR 37,000,000

In accordance with General Annex F of the Work Programme, the evaluation of the first-stage proposals was made looking only at the criteria ‘Excellence’ and ‘Impact’. The threshold for both criteria was 4. The overall threshold (applying to the sum of the two individual scores) was set for each topic/type of action with separate call-budget-split at a level that allowed the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 be as close as possible to 3 times the available budget (and not below 2.5 times the budget):

·     HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-01 (Bio-intelligent manufacturing industries (Made in Europe Partnership)): 8 points

·     HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-12 (Enhanced assessment, intervention and repair of civil engineering infrastructure): 9.5 points

The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:

Summary of observer report:

The Independent observer (IO) finds that the evaluation followed the applicable rules for the call, and that it was competently evaluated in a fair and equitable manner by both the experts and Agency staff. The IO did not observe any event or activity that gave rise to specific concern that might have jeopardised the fairness of the evaluation. The IO understands that the experts were comfortable with the process and the schedule, and many expressed support for the blind evaluation process, which would encourage new participation and reduce unintentional bias.

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

GENERALISED FEEDBACK for successful applicants

after STAGE 1

HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-TWO-STAGE, 1 stage

In order to best ensure equal treatment, successful stage 1 applicants do not receive the evaluation summary reports (ESRs) for their proposals, but this generalised feedback with information and tips for preparing the full proposal.

Information & tips

Main shortcomings found in the stage 1 evaluation.

TOPIC HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01

“BIO-INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (MADE IN EUROPE PARTNERSHIP)”

EXCELLENCE:

Clarity of project’s objectives:

–       Proposed objectives are not sufficiently described, not measurable, not verifiable, or not achievable.

–       Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are not clearly defined, or they are identified only in a generic manner.

–       Insufficient description of how KPIs will be achieved, measured and validated.

Ambition, innovation:

–       Innovation aspect is insufficiently described (e.g., results on demo cases; strategies for marketing, commercialisation, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) management).

–       Background and foreground IPR management is not sufficiently addressed.

Extent to which the proposed work is going beyond state-of-the-art:

–       “State-of-the-art” (SoA) is insufficiently addressed (e.g., SoA is incomplete/lacking depth analysis; not sufficient references provided to relevant publications or already existing products/patents).

–       Advantages over alternative methods proposed in the literature are not fully analysed.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL):

–       The start and the final/target TRL at the end of the project are not clearly identified.

–       Insufficient proof that the appropriate technologies have been validated in lab.

–       Insufficient evidence to demonstrate the achievement and verification of the final TRL (e.g., no clear evidence of the steps to build on from the start TLR until the final/target TRL).

Relation to other EU initiatives:

–       Previous research and innovation activities, including European projects and initiatives, are insufficiently addressed (e.g., they were only briefly mentioned).

Methodology:

–       Proposed methodology is not clearly presented/described (also in relation to scalability, if relevant).

–       Methods employed are not sufficiently detailed.

–       Choice of the appropriate techniques is not fully supported by an adequate justification.

–       Regulatory requirements and standards are not clearly addressed or insufficiently elaborated on; the contribution to new standards is not mentioned.

–       Full interconnection of the technologies employed along the production chain is not clearly highlighted.

–       Scalability of methodology not sufficiently explained.

–       Important features < of the various components and materials employed or to be developed > are not adequately addressed. 

–       Social and ethical aspects are insufficiently addressed; the integration of social sciences and humanities is only generically addressed.

–       Sustainable model for production and recycling of the products is not developed; the sustainability of the concept to use certain materials as a natural resource in Europe is unclear due to lack of information about their supply.

Artificial Intelligence (AI):

–       Technical robustness of the AI-based systems is insufficiently discussed/addressed, including the use of AI in < specific process >.

–       Impact of AI application to the environment is not considered.

Interdisciplinarity:

–       Interdisciplinary character of a proposal is insufficiently addressed.

User groups, stakeholder inputs:

–       Target groups are insufficiently analysed.

Gender dimension:

–       Gender dimension aspect is not adequately addressed.

IMPACT:

The credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts:

–       The specific contribution of the expected outcomes and impacts to the project is not clear. The long-term expected impacts are insufficiently outlined.

–       KPIs/estimations for expected impacts are not provided or they are insufficiently (partly) quantified/detailed. 

–       It is not sufficiently clear if and how the proposal results will be tested in the industrial environment or whether they will be translated in materials or applications needed by the industry.

Wider Impacts:

–       Wider societal and environmental benefits are insufficiently outlined.

Scale and significance of the project’s contributions:

–       Scale and significance are not sufficiently detailed, or not fully estimated and quantified. Baselines and benchmarks are lacking clarity.

Barriers and mitigation measures:

–       Potential barriers are insufficiently identified or only generically described.

–       Potential barriers related to market entry/commercialisation, legal/regulatory aspects, need for industry partnerships, commercial and technical validation, variability in supply quality, logistics costs, health-related aspects, etc, are not properly outlined/ fully acknowledged.

–       Potential barriers are not fully aligned with the expected outcomes and impacts.

–       Mitigation measures are insufficiently addressed; The mitigation measures for the technical barriers are less convincing or they are missing.

In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues.

Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of outside experts.

Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.

TOPIC HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-12

“ENHANCED ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION AND REPAIR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE”

 EXCELLENCE:

Clarity of project’s objectives:

 –  For some of the objectives, the target values associated to the identified Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are not sufficiently presented.

Relation to other EU initiatives:

–       The relevant research projects on which the proposal intends to build are not sufficiently identified.

–       The development of synergies with other relevant European, national, or regional initiatives, funding programmes and platforms is not sufficiently considered.

–       The way in which the work is building on relevant research outcomes of EU, national and regional research projects, initiatives and networks is insufficiently described / not explicitly presented.

Methodology:

–       The application of the appropriate research methods is insufficiently described.

–       The number and the type of pilot sites are not clearly provided.

–       The conditions under which the proposed solutions will be demonstrated are not always determined.

–       There is insufficient information regarding the material used for construction and repair so that all the variations among European countries are taken into account.

–       The methodology used/proposed to perform inspections and repairs is insufficiently considered.

–       Some of the damage, degradation categories do not explicitly indicate the type of deterioration mechanisms to be covered.

–       There is insufficient information regarding the use of the proposed tools in specific conditions.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL):

–          The targeted TRL at the end of the project is not explicitly indicated and not convincingly demonstrated for all the proposed solutions.

Open Science:

–        The Open science practices are not sufficiently addressed.

Data management:

–            The integration and processing of the data feedback and learnings from technician performing maintenance are not very well explained.

User group, stakeholder inputs:

–       Stakeholder feedback to improve the project implementation is not very well explained.

IMPACT:

The credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts:

–       The contribution to the outcome related to the cost savings (in terms of both operational costs and deferred or avoided capital costs) is not sufficiently demonstrated.

Wider Impacts:

–          The contribution towards certain wider impacts, as specified in the respective destinations of the work program, is not sufficiently described.

Scale and significance of the project’s contributions:

–       Scale and significance of the project’s contribution to the expected outcomes and impacts are insufficiently quantified.

–       Justification of achieving some of the KPIs is not convincingly described.

 Barriers and mitigation measures:

–       The barriers linked to infrastructure and investment are not well addressed.

–       The mitigation measures linked to the usage of equipment or tools are not fully convincingly addressed.

Copernicus and/or Galileo/EGNOS:

Reminder: Whenever a proposal is using satellite-based earth observation, positioning, navigation and/or related timing data and services, beneficiaries must make use of Copernicus and/or Galileo/EGNOS (or other data and services may additionally be used).

In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues.

Please bear in mind the published FAQ (ID 31280): “What kinds of civil engineering infrastructure are included in the scope of topic HORIZON-CL4-2024-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-12: Enhanced assessment, intervention and repair of civil engineering infrastructure (RIA)?”

“For the purpose of this topic, ‘civil engineering infrastructure’ means civil engineering works that may both be over or in the ground or water, including roads and runways, bridges, tunnels, pipelines, aqueducts, dams and reservoirs, ports, waterways, and installations which are the basis for rails of railways. The following are excluded: electricity generation installations, oil platforms or chemical plants, pylons and other facilities for transport of electricity, industry manufacturing installations, agricultural installations. Buildings are also excluded.”

Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of outside experts.

Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.