Assessment Manual Step 1

Assessment Manual part A 2012, Call for Proposals
JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME

ROMANIA-UKRAINE-REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
2007-2013
2nd CALL FOR PROPOSALS
ASSESSMENT MANUAL
PRIORITY 1 Towards a more competitive border economy

PRIORITY 2 Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness
PRIORITY 3 People-to-people cooperation
January 2012
FOREWORD
Purpose of this Assessment Manual and its annexes

This document is addressed to all actors involved in the evaluation and selection of projects in the
framework of the 2nd Call for proposals of the Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova Joint Operational
Programme.
It will also be used as a supporting material for the training session foreseen before initiating the
selection process, as well as a guidance tool during the evaluation and selection work.
The general principles guiding the overall evaluation process are presented and the evaluation
procedure for all the steps and stages of the evaluation process are described in detail, indicating
specific responsibilities, as well as the proposed methodology to be followed.
The manual is providing the templates to be used during the evaluation (e.g. evaluation reports,
notifications, etc.), as well as a set of tools for the evaluators (e.g. evaluation grids, possible reasons to
award maximum or minimum scores to the evaluation criteria, etc.). These tools are envisaged to
eliminate as much as possible subjectivism during the process, and guiding the evaluation work so that
the main topics of the programme receive an appropriate analysis.
In case of any discrepancy between the provisions of the guidelines for grant applicants and the
Assessment Manual, the provisions of the guidelines for grant applicants apply.
In case there are situations not covered/regulated by the guidelines for grant applicants and / or
Assessment Manual, the Evaluation Committee will decide on those situations observing the
principles of objectivity, impartiality and equality of treatment.
2
Table of contents
FOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................................................................................2
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Objectives of the programme and the 2nd call for proposals ......................................................................... 5
1.2 Priorities and measures .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Financial allocations available for the Call for proposals. Target results and outputs ....................... 6
1.3.1 Financial allocation available for the Call and expected results ........................ 6
1.3.2 Minimum and maximum size of grants ................................................................... 9
1.3.3 Co-financing rules ........................................................................................................ 9
1.4. Eligible applicants, partners and actions. Eligibility rules ............................................................................. 9
1.4.1 Examples of potential applicants and/or partners. Examples of eligible
activities ....................................................................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Not eligible actions / activities ................................................................................ 14
1.5. Cross-cutting themes, cross border cooperation criteria and impact .................................................... 14
1.5.1 Cross - cutting themes ............................................................................................... 14
1.5.2 Cross border cooperation criteria .......................................................................... 15
1.5.3 Cross border impact .................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 2 STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING EVALUATION ............................................................. 16
2.1 Programme structures involved in the evaluation process - roles and responsibilities ................. 16
2.2 The Evaluation Committee ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3 THE EVALUATION PROCESS............................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Working principles ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Overview of the evaluation process ..................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4 THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1 Setting up the Evaluation Committees ................................................................................................................ 22
4.2 Receipt and registration of the Concept Notes ................................................................................................ 22
4.3 Opening session and administrative check for Concept Notes .................................................................. 23
4.4 Concept Notes evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Notification of successful and unsuccessful applicants ................................................................................ 30
4.6 Appeals to the outcomes of the evaluation ........................................................................................................ 30
Glossary of useful terms .................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Annex E_1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Annex E_2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Annex E_3.1.................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Annex E_3.2.................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Annex E_4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Annex E_5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
1. Timetable .................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
2. Participants ................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
3. Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
3.1 Verification of the respect of the deadline of submission of proposals........................................................... 47
3.2 Verification that the checklist has been duly completed. ..................................................................................... 48
3.3 Concept Note Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................... 48
4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
4.1 Concept notes recommended .......................................................................................................................................... 48
4.2 Concept notes not recommended .................................................................................................................................. 49
5. Signatures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Annex E_6.1.................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
3
Annex E_6.2.................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
TOOLS FOR THE EVALUATORS ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

Annex T_1.1 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
ASSESSMENT GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTES............................................................................................................... 56
Annex T_1.2 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
ASSESSMENT GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTE ................................................................................................................. 60
Annex T_2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Annex T_3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
CONCEPT NOTE EVALUATION GRID ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Joint Operational Programme Romania Ukraine Republic of Moldova 2007 - 2013 ......................................... 64
Annex T_4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
4
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives of the programme and the 2nd call for proposals
The general objective of the programme is to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in
the Programme area, in the context of safe and secure borders, through increased contacts of partners on both
sides of the border. This general objective will be pursued in a spirit of partnership and co-operation which
encourages cross border contacts and activities and makes material improvement to the infrastructure.
The general objective of the 2nd Call for Proposals is to create premises for improving the economic, social
and environmental situation in the Programme area, in the context of safe and secure borders, by selecting good
quality proposals, and maximizing the impact of the EU contribution in the Programme area.
The specific objective of this Call for Proposals is to support cross-border partnerships and activities in the
eligible area of the Programme, by selecting good quality project proposals which maximize the overall
effectiveness of the programme.
1.2 Priorities and measures

In order to achieve the general objective, three priorities were developed within the Joint Operational
Programme Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova:
Priority 1 Towards a more competitive border economy
Priority 2 Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness
Priority 3 People to people cooperation
The aim of Priority 1 is to improve the economic performance of the border area through diversification and
modernisation in a sustainable manner, by:
supporting SMEs growth and to increase the number of SMEs in order to improve the economy of the region
and limit the migration;
improving competitiveness across the economy, particularly for Innovation and Research and Development
(R&D);
modernizing agriculture in order to make the principal sector of the area more competitive;
developing the great potential of tourism (cultural, agro, eco and theme tourism) for area development;
improving the regions infrastructure through modernisation of transport and energy networks which suffer
from a lack of investment and are key aspects to a competitive economy and to provide adequate
interconnection of electricity systems through integration into the UCTE in order to increase the capacity of
cross-border electricity exchanges and increase security of supply in the region.
Measures underpinning this priority are:
Measure 1.1 Improving the productivity and competitiveness of the regions urban and rural areas by
working across borders.
Measure 1.2 Cross border initiatives in transport, border infrastructure and energy
The aim of Priority 2 is to develop long term solutions to the environmental problems faced by the border
areas, particularly those associated with water and sewerage management system as well as environmental
emergencies, where a coordinated approach is essential, by:
tackling issues around pollution aggravated by inadequate water supply and waste management systems;
5
addressing the issue of soil erosion which is aggravated by unsustainable farming techniques and
deforestation;
ensuring a good preparation for emergencies that may endanger the environment and population in the
region;
ensuring effective protection and use of the natural assets by tackling common environmental issues.
Measure 2.1 Addressing strategic cross-border environmental challenges including emergency
preparedness.
Measure 2.2 Water supply, sewerage and waste management
The aim of Priority 3 is to promote greater interaction between people and communities living in the border
areas, by:
addressing the need of harmonized development across the border;
reinforcing close social and cultural relations between the communities across the border;
reducing organized crime and people trafficking in the border area;
stimulating activities encouraging young people to stay in the border area.
Measure 3.1 Local and regional governance; support to civil society and local communities.
Measure 3.2 Educational, social and cultural exchanges
1.3 Financial allocations available for the Call for proposals. Target results and outputs
1.3.1 Financial allocation available for the Call and expected results
The selected projects must contribute to the achievement of the programmes results and consequently, to its
specific and general objectives.
The following table summarises the indicative allocation per priority for this call for proposals and the
expected results and outputs:
6
Financial Target values set Target values set

Priority allocatio Expected results by the Expected outputs by the
n (EUR) programme programme
Priority 1- 11,095,974 Number of projects fostering 10 Number of SMEs benefitting 300
Towards a more locally based activities; from business facilities;
competitive
border economy
Number of projects stimulating 10 Number of partnerships between 10
cross border cooperation between universities, research institutes
universities, research institutes and business/local authorities
and business/local authorities;
Number of projects developing 10 Number of people graduation 3000
cross border training services for training courses
employment in connection with the
market needs
Number of projects with 10 Number of tools/ methods/ 20
recognised support to model solutions developed/
modernisation of agriculture and tested aiming at modernising
joint production agriculture
Number of projects supporting the Number of joint integrated
development of permanent joint tourism products created
products in the area of tourism
Number of projects clearly 10 Number of tools/methods/ 10
influencing the field of transport, solutions developed/ tested
border crossing infrastructure and aiming at increase of capacity
energy networks and increased and or interoperability of
electricity interconnection different transport and energy
networks
Priority 2 - 12,508,884 Number of projects dealing with 10 Number of water and waste 15
Environmental water supply and waste technologies jointly implemented
challenges and management; in the border area;
emergency
Number of projects supporting 5 Number of tools/ methods/ 10
preparedness
fighting soil erosion, including solutions/ networks developed/
forestry management and tested for fighting soil erosion
environmental stewardship
Number of cross border projects 10 Number of tools/ methods/ 10
involving institutions/ professional solutions/ networks contributing
Financial Target values set Target values set

Priority allocatio Expected results by the Expected outputs by the
n (EUR) programme programme
associations activating in to risk prevention and early
emergency systems warning and emergency
response
Number of projects developing 10 Number of collaborations 15
joint solutions for environmental established on common
issues problems of environmental
protection
Priority 3 - 2,531,021 Number of projects supporting 10 Number of bodies involved in 30
People to people common planning initiatives, cooperation initiatives;
cooperation exchange of experience,
cooperation networks;
Number of projects creating 30 Number of joint cultural 40
permanent social and cultural events/networks promoting
exchanges regional CBC identity, including
awareness campaigns for
environmental protection in the
area
Number of projects fighting against 5 Number of trainings/meetings 20
organized crime, people trafficking for professionals
in the border area
Number of information 30
campaigns for citizens and
rehabilitation courses for victims
of people trafficking
Number of projects creating 10 Number of exchanges and joint 30
activities for young population in events for young people
the area
Number of trainings/meetings 30
for professionals
* Filled in red, results and outputs specifically addressed by the Call for proposals
8
The Contracting Authority (Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism, Romania), with the prior
agreement of the Joint Monitoring Committee, reserves the right not to award all available funds.
1.3.2 Minimum and maximum size of grants
Priority Minimum size of grant (EUR) Maximum size of grant (EUR)
Priority 1 100,000 2,500,000
Priority 2 100,000 2,500,000
Priority 3 30,000 150,000
1.3.3 Co-financing rules

No grant may exceed 90 % of the total eligible costs of the action.
The balance (i.e. the difference between the total cost of the action and the amount requested from
the Contracting Authority) must be financed from the applicants and/or partners own resources, or
from sources other than the European Union budget or the European Development Fund.
1.4. Eligible applicants, partners and actions. Eligibility rules

1.4.1 Examples of potential applicants and/or partners. Examples of eligible activities
Priority 1 - Towards a more competitive border economy

Measure 1.1 Improving the productivity and competitiveness of the regions urban and rural areas
by working across borders
Examples of potential applicants and/or partners:
local or regional authorities;
chambers of commerce;
universities, other educational institutions;
public entities supporting the work force (job creation centres, job exchange services etc);
NGOs and formally constituted business and professional associations;
public entities in charge with promoting tourism, association of small local municipalities and town
administrations;
cultural public institutions, (museums, cultural centres, etc.);
cults and religious associations;
international organisations;
other organisations relevant for the type of activities corresponding to this measure.
Examples of eligible activities:
Formation of cross-border business networks to promote trade, visits and missions, marketing
initiatives and joint product promotion, common branding of products/services;
9
The development of cross-border training for staff in SMEs in areas such as management,
procurement, marketing, product development, accounting, book-keeping etc;
The development of cross-border business related infrastructures such as business incubators,
business centres, exhibitions centres and project-supporting institution building;
Joint activities of regional and local institutions related to capacity building initiatives and training, in
order to adapt skills and qualifications of the labour force to the needs of the labour market;
The development of public sector led crossborder networks between local and regional authorities
universities and businesses to develop and enhance innovation and research;
Promote cross-border approaches to co-operation in the production and marketing of farm products,
including organic products and modern agricultural techniques and technologies (e.g. co-operative
processing initiatives and joint studies which improve the quality of agricultural products, trainings and
exchange of experience and best practice in modern agricultural techniques and technologies which help to
prevent the soil and waters from pollution with nitrates, and pesticides and avoiding the areas classified as
vulnerable; common branding; standards harmonization;
Improvement and development of new tourist facilities (e.g. museums and cultural centres,
recreation areas, walking, cycle, car parks neighbouring tourist attractions, environmental friendly navigation
technologies), which may increase the attractiveness of the cross-border areas;
Development of tourism networks and information by creation of integrated and interactive
databases, information brochures, websites, etc on tourism facilities and attractions, including rural and
ecological tourism;
Elaboration of feasibility studies, technical projects, environmental impact assessment, cost-benefit
analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis related to the activities covered by the present measure.
Elaboration of feasibility studies, technical projects, etc. are not eligible for financing as stand alone
actions. They may only be considered as eligible activities when they are part of a well-defined and
sustainable action, which should normally include relevant works and/ or supplies 1.
Measure 1.2 - Cross-border initiatives in transport, border infrastructure and energy

public sector transport organisations (rail and road, water in terms of transport);
energy agencies or national companies;
public service providers, including bodies under the authority of state authorities and bodies;
subordinated to state authorities;
universities and bodies involved in research in the fields addressed by this measure;
bodies in charge with border crossing management;
Closing the gaps in the energy grid networks (electricity and gas) in the border areas;
Provision of local renewable energy schemes (biomass, solar and wind energy, bio-energy);
1 According with the letter sent to JMA by the European Commission (no. Aidco A5/AMR D(2009) 94755) on 12.05.2009.
10
Best practice transfer in the energy sector: study trips across the border, common planning and
trainings;
The improvement of energy networks, energy efficiency, interconnection of electricity systems
through synchronous integration into the UCTE and the increased use of renewable energy sources;
Small scale road and rail improvement schemes where it can be demonstrated that there is a
significant improvement in the passage of traffic across the border;
Investments in infrastructure, access road, facilities and equipment at the Border Crossing points
agreed by all partners, as well as strengthening institution building capacity. This may include but is not
limited to general (re)-construction/rehabilitation of the border crossing points, special technical equipment,
training of the staff from the different services involved in border control activities at the border crossing
points, strengthening of the control on biological, chemical and nuclear transit over the border.
Priority 2 - Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness

Measure 2.1 - Addressing strategic cross-border environmental challenges including preparedness
environmental agencies and agencies involved in water management and flood protection;
NGOs;
administrations of national parks and natural protected areas;
universities and higher education institutes;
emergency situations inspectorates or similar organisations;
other statutory bodies involved in the development of emergency plans;
Projects where joint strategies and plans or key strategic projects tackle common problems of
pollution, including joint monitoring systems of protected areas, river basins, wetlands, air, water and soil.
Eligible activities will include the purchase of shared equipment and training of staff;
Projects related to water management. These projects can address the following issues: drought,
reducing flood risk including flood defence measures; restoration of wetlands; introducing river basin
management, and implementing the non-obligatory parts of the EU Water Framework Directive;
Projects, which exchange best practice and develop effective methods of fighting soil erosion and
landslide, including soil-monitoring systems;
The development of border networks designed to improve forestry management and environmental
stewardship (good care of natural resources; can include: recycling, conservation, regeneration and
restoration);
11
2
According with the letter sent to JMA by the European Commission (no. Aidco A5/AMR D(2009) 94755) on 12.05.2009.
Management of biodiversity in the border area; Monitoring of fish-cultural resources; management of

aquatic resources during difficult climatic situations;
Measures to improve and restore national and regional protected areas. Projects involving
particularly sensitive areas, including those projects promoting the exchange of experience and best practice
in this policy area Development of the joint planning strategies and initiatives across the Programme area;
Designation of cross border reservations (identification of common needs and initiation of the
implementation process of an integrated management of the cross border reservations);
Preparation of joint action plans for the sustainable management of the cross border protected areas,
including actions for the preservation of natural heritage, actions for sustainable usage of natural resources,
actions for increasing the institutional capacity of the local key decision factors in order to improve the access
to funding and implementation of joint cross border actions;
Projects bringing together professionals drawing up and implementing emergency plans for a wide
variety of activities, e.g. flooding, drought, severe weather or major incidents of severe pollution;
establishment of on-line networks for emergency actions;
Setting-up jointly early warning systems for life-threatening incidents;
Measure 2.2 - Water supply, sewerage and waste management

local or regional authorities,
local or regional waste management public bodies,
local or regional water management public bodies,
NGOs,
Development at local level of systems for water supply and/or water purification and water sewage
that are used on either side of the border, particularly in communities largely dependent on water from wells;
Projects for monitoring the quality of water from wells, including listing the wells contaminated with
nitrates and pesticides and purchasing of equipment; identification of sources of pollution; decontamination
of warehouse and remediation of the nearby lands affected by pesticides;
Development and upgrading of cross-border waste disposal and neutralisation, sewage, waste water
and sludge infrastructure and their supporting human resources;
Development of cross-border waste management projects including the exchange of experience and
best practice;
Development of cross-border waste minimisation strategies; joint recycling initiatives;
12
3

Priority 3 - People to people cooperation

Measure 3.1 - Local and regional governance, support to civil society and local communities
local and regional authorities;
NGOs;
legally constituted voluntary bodies drawn from civil society and local communities;
non-governmental organisations and associations;
educational institutions;
formally constituted womens group;
Initiatives of common (spatial and other) planning across border;
Best practice transfer and exchange of experience for local and regional authorities, community
groups, non-governmental organisations including euro-regional cooperation;
Development of joint planning strategies and initiatives including those promoted by euro-regions;
Initiatives to support regional/ local administrative reform across the border, including cross border
capacity building initiatives;
Improvement of life expectancy programmes, support to public health surveillance and monitoring,
public awareness and health education campaigns;
Training, exchange of experience and best practice between the local/ regional authorities fighting
illegal migration, cross border criminality, drug trafficking, people trafficking and organised crime;
Cross border publicity campaigns, training workshops and courses to warn vulnerable groups about
the dangers of people and drug trafficking;
Cross border rehabilitation courses for victims of people trafficking and drug abuse;
Establishment of networks between professionals in the areas of labour market, health services and
health promotion.
Measure 3.2 - Educational, social and cultural exchanges

schools;
colleges;
universities;
13
4
other educational institutions;

legally constituted voluntary groups including disadvantages groups;
cultural and social organisations;
non-profit media associations;
professional organisations;
regional environment protection institutions;
NGOs;
Educational exchanges between schools, colleges and adult educations institutions including both
staff and students;
Exchanges in less formal education group such as youth groups and community groups;
Exchanges to develop cultural and social initiatives, raising awareness campaigns in the field of
environmental protection, ecological camps;
Cultural events and festivals with a clear and visible cross border aspect;
Projects between educational and labour market specialists which lead to the common recognition of
educational qualifications;
Joint media events supporting cross border cooperation
1.4.1 Not eligible actions / activities

The following are not eligible as actions to be financed by the European Community:
actions concerned only or mainly with individual sponsorship for participation in workshop,
seminars, conferences, congresses;
actions concerned only or mainly with individual scholarships for studies or training courses;
projects that have already been approved for financing from other sources, including other EC
programmes;
projects that include activities of a political nature;
projects related to the tobacco industry, production of alcoholic distilled beverages, fire arms and
munitions;
activities that represent state aid for Romanian applicants and partners
1.5. Cross-cutting themes, cross border cooperation criteria and impact

1.5.1 Cross - cutting themes
Sustainable Development
The programme is looking to foster the development potential of the programme area in a sustainable
manner.
Equal Opportunities
14
During the preparation and implementation of projects, it has to be considered that all groups in the society
have equal access to the opportunities and benefits of the Programme. Equal opportunities should include
women, children/youth, the disabled, ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups, depending of the
project particularities.
Territorial Cohesion
The programme is aimed to stimulate economic development in the programme area in order to reduce the
regional disparities between the regions from Romania, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine, to promote the
balanced spatial development of the programme area and the adjoining regions.
1.5.2 Cross border cooperation criteria

The cross border cooperation is supported through: joint project development, joint project
implementation, joint staffing, and joint financing.
Joint development
Is ensured when the Action is designed commonly by the partners, integrates the needs, priorities and actions
of all stakeholders.
Joint implementation
Is provided when activities are carried out and coordinated among all partners. It is not enough that activities
run in parallel. There must be clear content-based links between what is happening on one side of the border
and the work done by partners on the other side.
Joint staffing
It is not intended to duplicate functions in the project team. Therefore, regardless of where the person is
registered and located, there should be at least one overall project coordinator or a project steering
committee, in case of larger projects. The staff will be responsible for project activities carried out on each
side of the border.
Joint financing
It insures that a joint project budget is divided between partners according to the activities carried out by
each of them. Co-financing should come from all sides of the borders in order to prove commitment of each
partner to the joint Action. Nevertheless, there will be only one joint Action budget and one joint reporting.
1.5.3 Cross border impact

The programme is looking to select proposals which can demonstrate they have real long term cross border
impact on the targeted area, and on the programme area at large, and benefits for each side of the border.
In this respect, each proposal should identify long term changes on the target groups and/or final
beneficiaries situation which can be attributed to its intervention.
Coherence, complementarities and coordination with other donors, local/ regional/ national strategies and/
or action plans should therefore be ensured.
15
Chapter 2 STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING EVALUATION
2.1 Programme structures involved in the evaluation process - roles and responsibilities
The following structures/ institutions have clear involvement and responsibilities during the evaluation
process as it is presented below:
Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC)
It is responsible to decide on the selection criteria for projects and takes the final decision concerning the
projects to be financed. If it decides not to follow the recommendations made by the Evaluation Committees
in what concerns the projects selected or the amount granted to them, the JMC shall justify its position and
seek the EC approval (IR art.13).
The JMC appoints the Evaluation Committees members based on the proposals made by the National
Authorities and the JMA. After each evaluation step, the JMC approves the evaluation report and it also
approves the final lists of the projects recommended for financing.
Joint Managing Authority (JMA) / The Contracting Authority (CA)
In accordance with the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external actions (PRAG), the JMA together
with the JMC fulfils the role of the Contracting Authority.
It approves from procedural point of view the evaluation reports prepared by the Evaluation Committees,
thus ensuring compliance with regulations and procedures in force (i.e. certifying that the procedures have
been respected).
Its approval does not relate to the content of the evaluation reports and especially not to the
recommendations made by the Evaluation Committees. After each step, the JMA submits the evaluation
reports to the JMC, for the final approval.
JMA nominates the Chairpersons and Secretaries to the Evaluation Committees (non-voting members) and
may assign observers to participate at the Evaluation Committees meetings.
National Authorities
They are in charge of proposing evaluators to the JMC, as voting members in the Evaluation Committees.
National Authorities must ensure that persons assigned have adequate qualifications and experience to carry
out their respective duties, and they are fully available to take part in the process.
In case an evaluator becomes unavailable due to unexpected and justified reasons, in order to keep the
process running, the respective National Authority must promptly propose to the JMC another evaluator,
having similar qualifications and experience as those of the person replaced.
If necessary during the evaluation process, the National Authorities shall provide support to the JMA/JMC in
what concerns the national legal framework related with e.g. eligibility issues.
Joint Technical Secretariat (JTS)
It ensures secretariat functions for the Evaluation Committees. It may also provide internal assessors to be
used during the evaluation. In this respect, the JTS and the branch offices staff can be involved in the
evaluation process as long as it is guaranteed that they are not in conflict of interest.
Branch offices of the Joint Technical Secretariat in Ukraine and the Republic of
Moldova
Branch offices may assist the JTS and provide internal assessors to participate to the evaluation process, as
long as it is guaranteed that they are not in conflict of interest.
16
The European Commission (EC)
The EC gives guidance and procedural support to the management structures with responsibilities in the
evaluation process, and may participate as observer.
If, when taking decisions on the projects and on the amounts granted to them, the JMC decides not to follow
all or part of the recommendations made by the Evaluation Committees, such decision must be sent to the EC
for prior approval (IR, art. 13) who shall communicate its opinion to the JMA in 15 working days.
With a view to ensure that double-funding is avoided, after the approval of the final evaluation report, by JMC,
the EC reviews the list with projects proposed to be financed and communicates its findings to the JMA within
10 working days.
2.2 The Evaluation Committee

The Evaluation Committees members are approved by the JMC and have the responsibility to carry out the
evaluation and selection process from the opening session to recommending to the JMC project proposals to
be financed.
In the framework of this Call for proposals, three different Evaluation Committees are set, one per each
priority: for Priority 1, for Priority 2, and for Priority 3.
Persons taking part in the Evaluation Committee (voting and non-voting members, internal assessors,
observers, any substitutes) are approved, by name, by the JMC.
Each person assigned to the Evaluation Committee, whether is a voting or non-voting member, including
observers, must sign the Declaration of impartiality and confidentiality (see Annex E_1). The purpose is to
ensure that they are impartial and free from any conflict of interests, and also that the importance of the
process is clearly understood. Any person assigned to the Evaluation Committee who has a potential conflict
of interest with any applicant or partner must declare it and immediately withdraw from the Evaluation
Committee. He/she will be excluded from participating further in any capacity in the evaluation process.
Each Evaluation Committee includes:
The Chairperson (non-voting member)
He/she is nominated by the JMA and approved by the JMC.
The Chairperson is responsible for co-ordinating the evaluation process according to the evaluation criteria
and requirements applicable for this call for proposals, and by following the provisions of the present manual.
The Chairperson is responsible for supervising and monitoring the work of the assessors and of the voting
members, and he/ she is the only one that signs the written communications with the applicants, as well as
any written correspondence concerning the evaluation and selection process.
He/ She must also sign a Declaration of Impartiality and Confidentiality.
The Secretary (non-voting member)
He/she is nominated by the JMA and approved by the JMC.
He/she is responsible for carrying out all administrative tasks related to the evaluation procedure (e.g.
circulating and collecting the Declarations of Impartiality and Confidentiality and the Declarations of
availability, keeping minutes of all meetings of the Evaluation Committee and the relevant records and
documents, registering attendance at meetings and compiling the Evaluation Reports and their supporting
annexes, based on the work of the Evaluation Committee, its decisions and recommendations).
The Secretary must also sign a Declaration of Impartiality and Confidentiality.
Evaluators (voting members):
They are nominated by the participating countries, and approved by the JMC. Each evaluator and its
substitute must possess adequate qualifications and experience, proved by CV, so as to be able to give an
informed opinion on the proposals. They must also have a good command of the English language.
17
They must be available during the entire process, whenever requested by the Chairperson. In this respect,
they must sign a Declaration of availability (see Annex E_2).
In order to ensure commitment to the evaluation process, at the beginning of the Concept Notes evaluation
and Full Applications evaluation, the Committees shall agree on a timetable of each stage. This timetable will
be sent to the JMA and JMC, and will serve as reference for anyone interested to observe the process.
The evaluators must be impartial and free of any conflict of interest. Voting members of the Evaluation
Committees cannot be national information point or contact persons or staff from the JMA, JTS or JTS branch
offices in charge of giving general information to potential applicants. .
The evaluators should attend all meetings, except the opening meeting. Any absence must be recorded and
explained in the evaluation reports. In duly justified cases, a voting member who withdraws from the
Evaluation Committee must be replaced by his/her substitute. The Chairperson of the Evaluation Committees
determines to what extent the evaluation process must be restarted. Such decision as well as any decision
relating to the replacement of a Committee member must be recorded and justified in the evaluation report.
The Evaluators have individual and collective responsibility for the decisions taken within the Evaluation
Committees, and they have equal voting rights.
Main responsibilities of the evaluators are:
To review the work done by the internal assessors during opening and administrative check phases
and eligibility verification;
During opening and administrative check for Full Application, to check if the elements evaluated on
the basis of the Concept Note are the same in the Full application (partners, objectives, activities, results,
outputs, etc).
To prepare and sign the evaluation reports for each evaluation stage, assisted by the Secretary;
To carry out Concept Notes and Full Applications evaluation, by filling in the corresponding
Evaluation grids (Annex T_3)
To draw up recommendations for the JMC and establish a list of proposals recommended for
selection or to be put on a reserve list, ranked by score. All the decisions taken must be clearly justified
within the evaluation reports and the lists of projects proposed for selection or to be put on the reserve list,
must be based on a scoring and ranking system previously agreed.
In performing their work, evaluators must strictly follow the Guidelines for grant applicants, the
present Assessment Manual, as well as any other evaluation related instruction given by the JMA for
clarification purposes only.
Internal assessors (non-voting members)
They are nominated by the JTS, including its Branch Offices in Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, endorsed
by the JMA and approved by the JMC. They participate to both Opening and administrative checks stages (for
the Concept Notes, and for the Full applications), and to the Eligibility verification stage.
The internal assessors work under the supervision of the Chairperson.
They may attend the working sessions and meetings of the Evaluation Committee, if requested, to present
results of their assessments and answer to any questions from the evaluators.
Observers (not members of the Evaluation Committee)
The JMC approves, by name, the participation of observers to the evaluation process and the costs incurred
for their participation will not be covered by the Programme budget.
These observers can, for instance, give independent advice to the Chairperson on the conduct, fairness and
equity of the evaluation process, ways in which the procedures could be improved, the evaluation criteria
used and the way in which the assessors/evaluators applied these criteria. However, they cannot express
views on the proposals under examination.
18
Their participation to the different meetings of the Evaluation Committee or stages of the evaluation process
shall be recorded in the minutes accompanying the evaluation reports. Representatives of the JMA and
European Commission may also participate as observer.
Chapter 3 THE EVALUATION PROCESS
3.1 Working principles

Objectivity, impartiality and equality of treatment
All proposals have to be assessed alike and treated impartially on their merits, following a review strictly
based upon the information they contain. They are assessed against the evaluation grids provided by the
Guidelines for grant applicants, irrespective of where the applicant and its partners originate, or their
identity.
The grant award process must be completely impartial. This means notably that the proposals must be
evaluated by the Evaluation Committee, with the advice of internal/external assessors where appropriate,
using the published Guidelines for grant applicants for the Call for proposals, eligibility and evaluation
(selection and award) criteria and this assessment manual.
Confidentiality and secrecy
The entire process of evaluation of proposals must be conducted in camera and must be confidential and
secret. The Evaluation Committees decisions are collective and its deliberations must remain secret. The
committee members are bound to secrecy.
During evaluation, proposals should remain in the premises where the evaluation takes place and should be
kept safe. The information concerning the process and recommendation to award or reject a proposal are not
to be disclosed to the applicants or to any other person who is not officially involved in the process, until
information on the award of the grant contracts is made public on the websites of the European Commission
and the Joint Operational Programme.
All the participants in the evaluation process: evaluators, chairperson, secretary, observers, internal assessors
must sign, at the beginning of the process, the Declaration of impartiality and confidentiality (Annex E_1).
Any Evaluation Committee member, internal assessor, or observer who has a potential conflict of interest 5
with any applicant must declare it and immediately withdraw from the Evaluation Committee. He/she will be
excluded from participating further in any capacity in the evaluation meetings.
The Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee determines to what extent the evaluation process must be
restarted. Such decision must be recorded and justified in the Evaluation Report.
With a view to ensure confidentiality during the process, the following rules shall apply:
In performing their work, all persons taking part in the evaluation process (voting and non-voting members,
observers, internal assessors) must only use the laptops or computers and the block notes provided by the
Secretary at the beginning of the evaluation process. It is not allowed that any document, draft document or
notes, in hard copy or electronic format, is taken out from the room where the proceedings of the EvC are
conducted, except for the Evaluation Reports with their annexes, signed by the EvC members that shall be
sent to the JMA and JMC.
The internet access will be only supplied on the Chairperson/Secretary computer or laptop.
The Committee works may be monitored with video camera.
5
Conflict of interest represents any event influencing the capacity of a candidate, tenderer, contractor or grant beneficiary to give an
objective and impartial professional opinion, or preventing it, at any moment, from giving priority to the interests of the Contracting
Authority, as well as any consideration relating to possible contracts in the future or conflict with other commitments, past or present, of
19
a candidate, tenderer, contractor or grant beneficiary. These restrictions also apply to any sub-contractors and employees of the
candidate, tenderer, contractor or grant beneficiary.
Transparency and clarity

The process of reaching decisions, described in the Guidelines and based on a scoring and ranking system,
must be strictly followed and therefore eligibility, selection and award criteria must not be changed during
the evaluation process. Comments have to be written in an explicit and detailed manner, and adequate
feedback must be provided to the applicants on the outcome of the evaluation at each stage.
Quality
Projects selected for funding must demonstrate high quality and must support achieving the expected results
and objectives of the Programme and of the Call. In order to comply with this principle, reasons for awarding
maximum or minimum scores during the Concept Notes and Full Applications evaluation, as well as serious
weaknesses leading to score reduction are provided by this Assessment Manual within the section Tools for
evaluators.
Efficiency and speed
Evaluation procedures should be as rapid as possible, while maintaining the quality of evaluation and
respecting the legal framework within which the Programme is managed. The assessment has to be
completed within a reasonable deadline, preferably agreed upon beforehand by all the persons concerned.
The Chairperson should ensure that the timeframe is followed by supervising the process and constantly
informing the JMA and the JMC.
Traceability
The overall evaluation process should be documented and recorded in the evaluation reports. All documents
used during the process (proposals, evaluation grids, communications with the applicants, and evaluation
reports) should be kept by the JMA and JTS for future eventual controls, while ensuring confidentiality.
Proportionality
Any action of the Evaluation Committee shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives set by
the programme and the Call for proposals. Therefore, the Evaluation Committee should always look if its
decisions are suitable to achieve the objectives, also if it is necessary or if less restrictive approaches are
available, or if there is an excessive effect on the applicants interests. When using its discretionary powers
and taking decisions during the evaluation process, the EvC must take into account also the gravity of the
infringement or mistake made by the applicant determining whether it is a reason enough to be excluded
from further evaluation. The application of the principle of proportionality should be always accompanied by
the application of the principle of equal treatment.
Consensus
Decisions of the Evaluation Committee must be taken by consensus. Consensus implies the agreement and
commitment of the voting members to the collective decisions taken by the Evaluation Committee.
20
3.2 Overview of the evaluation process
1. Setting up the Evaluation Committee NA, JMA proposals

JMC - approval
2. Receipt and registration of Concept Notes Joint Technical

Secretariat
Internal assessors
3.1 Opening and administrative check for Concept Evaluation Committee
Notes members
1st Evaluation
3.2. Concept Notes evaluation Evaluation Committee
Report
members
4. Notification of Successful and Chairperson, Secretary

JMA, JMC Unsuccessful Applicants of the Evaluation
Committee
5. Receipt and registration of Full applications Secretary of the

Evaluation Committee
6.1 Opening and administrative check for Full Internal assessors and
the members of the EvC
Proposals
2nd Evaluation Members of the

Report 6.2. Evaluation of the Full applications Evaluation Committee
and / or external
assessors

JMA,JMC Unsuccessful Applicants of the Evaluation
Committee
3rd Evaluation Internal assessors and

8. Verification of eligibility of applicants and EvC members
Report
partners
9. EC check on double funding

JMA, JMC

Unsuccessful Applicants of the Evaluation
Committee
11. Grant contracts signature
21
Chapter 4 THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE
4.1 Setting up the Evaluation Committees

Three evaluation committees will be set up, one for each priority.
Each Evaluation Committee shall comprise:
- 3 evaluators, 1 evaluator per participating country (voting members);
-1 substitute per each evaluator;
-1 Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee (non-voting);
-1 Secretary of the Evaluation Committee (non-voting);
-2 internal assessors responsible for administrative checks and verification of eligibility (non-voting);
-observers
The voting members as well as their substitutes shall be nominated by the National Authority of each country
in JMC and must be communicated in due time to the JMA. The chairperson and the secretary of the
Evaluation Committee shall be nominated by the JMA/JTS. JMA, JMC or EC may designate observers to take
part to the Evaluation Committees meetings in an advisory capacity.
The list of participants to the evaluation committee (voting members, non-voting members, observers)
meetings shall be approved by the JMC.
4.1.1. Use of external assessors during the evaluation process

The Evaluation Committees set for Priority 1 and for Priority 2 may decide, after the Concept Notes
evaluation, if the use of external assessors is required for providing specific expertise in case of those project
proposals which were identified as particularly complex or extremely technical.
If so, the Evaluation Report for Concept Notes will include a list of projects that needed to be technically
assessed by the external assessors, including the reasons justifying the use of assessors for each project from
the list.
In order to keep the process running, the Evaluation Committee members should be available and committed
during the whole process; replacements should be requested only in duly justified cases.
Each person participating in the evaluation process, irrespective his/her quality (assessor, evaluator,
secretary, chairperson, or observer) will fill in and sign Declaration of impartiality and confidentiality (see
Annex E_1) at the very beginning of the process. In addition, evaluators shall submit to the Chairperson a
signed Declaration of availability (see Annex E_2) stating their commitment to the process. The Signed
declarations will be attached to the 1st Evaluation report.
If replaced, the substitute has the same obligation and his/her signed declarations will be attached to the
corresponding evaluation report.
The Evaluation Committee's decisions are taken independently and in an advisory capacity
4.2 Receipt and registration of the Concept Notes

Responsible: JTS staff
22
Timing / Deadline: 30th of January, 2012, at 4.00 PM Romanian local time
Methodology:
- Concept Notes are submitted to the Joint Technical Secretariat at the following postal addresses:
For Priorities 1 and 2 For Priority 3
CBC Regional Office Suceava, Joint Technical CBC Regional Office Iasi, Joint Technical
Secretariat Secretariat
22, Dragos Voda Street, 720184 Suceava, 110, Pacurari street, 700514 Iasi,
Suceava county, ROMANIA. Iasi county, ROMANIA
- The JTS staff registers each Concept Note received indicating: the reference number, date and hour of
receipt (in case of hand delivery), the name of the applicant, priority and measure.
- If not delivered by hand, the deadline of submission is registered as evidenced by the date of
dispatch, the postmark or the date of the deposit slip.
- If hand-delivered, a receipt is given to the deliverer (see template in Annex E_3.1 Acknowledgement
of receipt).
Any Concept Note submitted by hand delivery after the deadline will automatically be rejected.
Concept Notes submitted by postal or courier services will be accepted provided the date of dispatch,
or the postmark, or the date of the deposit slip does not exceed the deadline set in the Guidelines.
Concept Notes received later than the date when the first evaluation report (Opening and Administrative
checks and Concept Notes evaluation report) is approved by the JMC may be rejected.
4.3 Opening session and administrative check for Concept Notes

Responsible: internal assessors, evaluators, the secretary, the chairperson
Timing / Deadline:
The Evaluation Committee shall be convened immediately after the decision of JMC concerning the
composition of the Evaluation Committee.
The Evaluation Committee voting members and their substitutes shall sign a declaration of availability during
the whole evaluation process.
Opening and administrative checks of the Concept Notes will continue running, if necessary, until the date the
1st evaluation report is approved by the JMC.
Methodology:
4.3.1 Opening session

- All envelopes are opened and the registration details are checked (deadline of submission, name of
the applicant, priority and measure).
- The reference number (code) is marked on all copies of the Concept Notes and is retained throughout
the evaluation process as the sole reference.
- The coding system will indicate the number of the call and the priority, e.g. 2/1/5, where 2 is for the
call for proposals, 1 is for the priority, and 5 is the sequential number of the proposal.
23
- The deadline of submission is checked. If the deadline has not been respected, the Concept Note is
automatically rejected and is not further evaluated.
- The opening may take place on an on-going basis and in parallel to the administrative checks. For
reasons of administrative efficiency, the Evaluation Committee may reject any Concept Note received after
the effective date on which the Evaluation Report for Opening & Administrative Checks and Concept Note
evaluation is approved by the JMA (the Contracting Authority), even if the proposal has been submitted
before the deadline.
- At the end of the opening session, the Secretary, under the supervision of the Chairperson, prepares:
a) a list of Concept Notes having respected the deadline of submission, admitted to further evaluation
steps;
b) a list of Concept Notes submitted after the deadline, to be automatically rejected by the Evaluation
Committee.
4.3.2 Administrative check of the Concept Notes

- Concept Notes in original are distributed to the assessors to perform the administrative check.
- A Concept Note having met the deadline for submission is examined by one assessor.
- The assessor verifies points 1-7 of the Checklist for Concept Note (part A) against the content of the
Concept Note itself. The Administrative Grids for the Concept Note (Annex T_1.1 for Priorities 1&2, or Annex
T_1.2 for Priority 3) are used for this purpose.
Under no circumstances may internal assessors or members of the Evaluation Committee change the
checklist, annexed to the Concept Note.
By using the Administrative Grid for the Concept Note, the assessor checks also if the Action is eligible
according to points 8 - 12 in the Checklist (part A).
If the Action is not eligible, the Concept Note will be automatically rejected.
The assessor should clearly indicate in the administrative grid whether the Concept Note is
administratively compliant/ non-compliant/ clarifications or missing documents are needed, and also
if the Action is eligible as per the criteria set in the Guidelines (sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3).
- The Evaluation Committee shall review the assessment done by the internal assessors and shall
decide on any contentious case..
- Clarifications may be requested if some documents are missing or if minor inconsistencies are found.
The request for clarifications is made in writing using the template in Annex E_4 - Request for clarifications. If
the clarifications are hand delivered, an Acknowledgement of receipt for clarifications (Annex E_3.2) will be
given to the deliverer.
The Deadline for the applicant to answer will be no more than 3 calendar days.
Incomplete dossiers are disqualified from the evaluation process. Therefore, if the applicant fails to
submit the clarifications requested by the Evaluation Committee within the given deadline, the
Concept Note is rejected.
Moreover, the applicant cannot improve or modify the content of the Concept Note during the
evaluation. If this situation is identified, the information modifying or improving the content of the
Concept Note will not be considered by the Evaluation Committee.
Possible reasons for the Evaluation Committee to ask for clarifications or possible reasons to reject
the Concept Notes following the administrative check are listed in Annex T_2.
24
Applicants that can demonstrate that a required document is not available (e.g. pursuant to the
legislation of the country, duplicata of a given lost document cannot be obtained from the issuing
administration) are not to be rejected, provided that an acceptable alternative is obtained (e.g.
declaration of the said administration that the document in favor of the applicant is still valid but no
duplicata can be issued).
- The decision taken by the Evaluation Committee on a Concept Note is recorded in the corresponding
Administrative Grid, the end section.
Decisions of the Evaluation Committee must be taken by consensus. As regards its decisions, the
Evaluation Committee shall always consider equal treatment of all the applicants and compliance
with the principle of proportionality.
- Concept Notes evaluation will start immediately after the administrative check is finalized.
- Following the administrative checks and Evaluation Committees decision, the Secretary draws up:
a) a list containing proposals which did not satisfy the administrative criteria mentioned in the
checklist. For each entry on the list, the criteria which were not satisfied must be identified;
b) a list containing proposals which satisfy the administrative criteria mentioned in the checklist.
- Decisions taken by the Evaluation Committee during this stage will be mentioned in the Evaluation
Report for Opening & Administrative checks and Concept Notes Evaluation (Annex E_5).
4.4 Concept Notes evaluation

Only administratively compliant Concept Notes undertake this stage.
Responsible: evaluators, the secretary, the chairperson
Timing / Deadline: It is expected that at least 4 Concept notes per day and 20 Concept Notes per week will
be assessed by each evaluation committee member. Each evaluation committee member will manage his/her
own working effort so that, at the end of each week the 20 grids are completed.
Each evaluator is required that at the end of each week to have a minimum of 20 evaluation grids completed
and handed over to the Chairperson/Secretary. They will be kept only by the Chairperson/ Secretary until the
date when the collective grids are completed. The collective grids will also be kept only by the Chairperson
/Secretary of the Evaluation Committee.
The evaluators will sign and hand completed individual evaluation grids to the Chairperson/Secretary at the
end of each day.
Evaluators will previously agree on the indicative timeframe for completing the Concept Notes evaluation to
be further communicated to the JMA and JMC.
The JMA and JMC will be constantly informed about the progress made by Evaluation Committee members in
performing their tasks.
25
Methodology:
- Each Concept Note will be assessed by two evaluators.
- The Concept Notes will be distributed to the Evaluation Committee members by the Secretary, by
using the following algorithm:
1st voting member 2nd voting member 3rd voting member
Week Day
Projects
1 2 3
2 3 1
I
4 5 6
6 4 5
7 8 9
8 9 7
II
10 11 12
12 10 11
13 14 15
1 14 15 14
III
16 17 18
18 16 17
19 20 21
20 21 19
IV
22 23 24
24 22 23
25 26 27
26 27 24
V
28 29 30
30 28 29
.. .... .. .
n n+1 n+2
n+1 n+2 n
w I-V
n+3 n+4 n+5
n+5 n+3 n+4
The assignment as 1st, 2nd and 3rd voting member shall be determined randomly at the beginning of the
evaluation session.
- Weekly, the Evaluation Committee members will compile the individual evaluation grids in the
collective evaluation grids, with the support of the Secretary and under the supervision of the Chairperson.
26
- Under no circumstances, the Concept Notes may leave the evaluation room. Evaluators are not
allowed to take outside the building any parts of proposals, copies or notes, either on paper or in electronic
form, relating to the evaluation. All information concerning the proposals will be securely stored inside the
evaluation room.
- Any evaluator shall immediately inform the Chairperson if during the evaluation she/he discovers
being directly or indirectly connected with a proposal which she/he has been asked to evaluate and which
impairs her/his impartiality. The Chairperson will take all necessary actions to remove the conflict of
interests preventing her/him from participating in the evaluation process by requesting the replacement
with her/his substitute. .
- Evaluators are not allowed to communicate with the applicants or their partners. Copying from one
evaluators grid to another is prohibited. Evaluators found in this situation may be revoked by the
Chairperson with the prior approval of the JMA andJMC.
- The Concept Notes will be distributed by the Secretary, and the Chairperson will keep evidence on
the progress made in assessing the Concept Notes. Evaluators are accountable towards the Chairperson, and
furthermore to the JMA and JMC for complying with the agreed timeframe.
Evaluators must use only the Concept Note Evaluation grid provided by the Guidelines (see template in
Annex T_3).
Evaluators shall act objectively and highly professional, their assessment must be substantiated and
reference to the content of the Concept Note must be made with a view to justify the score awarded.
Any qualitative appreciation i.e. good, poor, very good will be followed by the evaluators
arguments and reference to the Concept Note content.
Explanations for the score awarded should be concise and relevant. Vague comments with no
reference to the content or accompanied by copy-pasted excerpts from the Concept Note will not be
accepted. If this situation is found, the evaluator shall be asked by the Chairperson to review his/her
assessment.
Clarifications may be requested only once when the information provided in the Concept Note is
unclear, thus preventing the Evaluation Committee from conducting an objective assessment.
However, the applicant cannot improve or modify the content of the Concept Note during the
evaluation. Any supplementary information modifying or improving the content of the Concept Note
not initially submitted will not be considered by the Evaluation Committee.
If the clarifications are hand delivered, an Acknowledgement of receipt for clarifications (Annex E_3.2) will
be given to the deliverer.
- Each criteria, sub-criteria and question in the Concept Note Evaluation grid must be assessed,
commented and/or answered.
- Evaluators shall consider very carefully the content of each sub-section of the Concept Note. This
may not follow the exact order in the Evaluation grid, or it may not even be structured in distinct sub-sections
(e.g. due to the need to save space, the applicant may decide not to use sub-sections). Therefore each section
of the Concept Note must be considered in its entirety. Objective answers to each question posed by the
Evaluation grid must be given, regardless of the sequence of sections and sub-sections in the Concept Note.
- The Evaluation grid provides main references about where information can be found to assess a
certain criteria.
Evaluators are requested to read and carefully assess the entire Concept Note. They are accountable if
information about a certain criteria exists, but it was not evaluated.
- The scoring system in the Concept Note Evaluation grid indicates the relative importance of several
elements that govern the projects selection.
- Scores and comments have to be consistent with each other, i.e. the score given has to be a synthetic
expression of the evaluators opinion and comments.
27
- Each sub-section contains a box for comments. Comments must be made for each sub-section, in
English language, and should address specifically the issues therein. Comments must express evaluators
opinion related to the subject. Copy-paste from the proposal is forbidden, but the evaluator may refer to a
certain section or paragraph within the Concept Note when justifying his/her opinion.
- Scores awarded will be round numbers.
- Each sub-section of the Evaluation grid must be given a score between 1 and 5 (never 0):
Score 5 4 3 2 1
Meaning Very good Good Adequate Poor Very poor
The overall assessment is based on the scores obtained under each sub-section, added up by section.
Maximum score that may be awarded to Concept Note
Criteria Maximum score
1) Relevance of the action and the cross border impact 30
2) Design of the Action 20
Total score and recommendations 50
Reasons for awarding maximum or minimum scores, as well as serious weaknesses leading to score
reduction can be found in Annex T_4. Evaluators are strongly recommended to follow the approach
therein while performing their assessment.
- The final score awarded to the Concept Note will be the arithmetical average of the scores awarded
by each evaluator.
- If the Concept Note receives less than 30 points, is considered rejected and is not further evaluated.
- Based on the individual Evaluation grids filled in by each evaluator, the Evaluation Committee shall
meet to decide on each Concept Note. One collective Evaluation grid per Concept Note, signed by all the voting
members, will be compiled based on the comments and recommendations made by evaluators. The collective
grid will reflect the consensus and the commitment of the committee to the decision taken.
The scores awarded for the collective grid must strictly reflect the comments provided within the
grid.
When the consensus over the final score and comments cant be reached between the two EvC
members who assessed the Concept Note (e.g: the individual scores place the CN over and above 30
points or there are major differences between the individual scores awarded per section (4
points)/per total (8 points) the third EvC member will make a new assessment and will fill in a new
evaluation grid. In this situation, the final score will be decided by consensus and a common grid will
be filled in with new scores and corresponding comments, agreed by all EvC members. However,
when the consensus over the final score and comments cannot be reached between the three
evaluation members, the final score will be calculated as the arithmetical average between the scores
awarded by the evaluators with similar opinion and will be accompanied by sound and relevant
comments.
All such cases must be recorded and fully described in the Evaluation Report.
28
Preparation for use of external assessors during the full applications evaluation stage
In case a proposal seems to be particularly complex and/or extremely technical, the EvC members may decide
to request that technical expertise is provided by an external assessor for the assessment of the full
application. Based on justifications included within the first stage Evaluation Report, the Evaluation
Committee shall prepare a list of project proposals needing to be technically assessed by external assessors in
the next step (evaluation of the full applications) and the fields of expertise for which the JMA has to contract
the external assessors. The list of the potential fields is the following:
-Transport and Infrastructures;
-Energy;
-Environment
If the Evaluation Committee considers necessary the external assessors support during full applications
evaluation, the assessment performed by the external assessors will be taken into consideration as such and
the results of their assessment will not be changed by the evaluators. In these cases the full applications will
be evaluated by 2 external assessors and the final score will be the arithmetical average of the scores of the
two external assessors.
- The Secretary prepares the list of Concept Notes provisionally selected for further evaluation. Firstly,
Concept Notes will be listed considering the overall scores awarded. Concept Notes granted less than 30
points are rejected.
- Secondly, the list of Concept Notes will be reduced in accordance to the ranking to those whose sum
of requested ENPI funds amount to twice the available budget for this Call for proposals.
- In case that several Concept Notes with the same score are placed on the final position of the list of
selected projects, priority will be given to those that can contribute to the achievement of the following
programme indicators:
For Priority 1:
Result 4: Number of projects with recognized support to modernization of agriculture and jointly production
Output 4: Number of tools/methods/model solutions developed/tested, aiming at modernizing the agriculture,
For Priority 2:
Result 2: Number of projects supporting fighting soil erosion, including forestry management and environmental
stewardship
Output 2: Number of tools/methods/solutions/networks developed/tested for fighting soil erosion
Result 3: Number of cross border projects involving institutions/professional associations, activating in
emergency systems.
For Priority 3:
Result 3: number of projects fighting the organized crime, people trafficking in the border area
Output 3.2: Number of information campaigns for citizens and rehabilitation courses for victims of people
trafficking.
- If after applying the priority indicator filter, several Concept Notes having the same overall scores
still remain on the final position, the ranking will be done considering score awarded at section 1 Relevance of
the action and the cross border impact.
- If after applying the Relevance filter there are still Concept Notes having the same overall score on
the final position, the Evaluation Committee will consider the score of the next remaining sections as a
threshold.
29
- The Secretary prepares also the list with rejected Concept Notes, clearly indicating reasons for
rejection as resulting from the corresponding Evaluation grids and following the Evaluation Committees
decisions.
- The Secretary compiles the 1st stage report Evaluation Report for Opening & Administrative checks
and Concept Notes Evaluation together with its annexes, following PRAG template (see Annex E_5). The
report includes: timetable; participants (including observers); description of the evaluation process
(verification of compliance with the deadline for submission of the Concept Notes; administrative checks,
including eligibility; Concept Notes evaluation; conclusions and decisions on Concept Notes evaluation; list of
Concept Notes provisionally selected; list of Concept Notes not recommended for pre-selection).
- The Evaluation Report for Opening & Administrative checks and Concept Notes Evaluation is
submitted to the JMA (Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism) for approval. The JMA
approves the report only from a procedural point of view.
- After JMAs approval, the report is sent to the JMC for approval. In this respect, the Report and its
annexes are uploaded on the Programme website. The access to the Report will be given by the Chairperson
only to the JMC members that previously signed the Declaration of Confidentiality and Impartiality and are
not in a situation of conflict of interest.
- The Declarations of Confidentiality and Impartiality of the JMC members will be attached to the
Evaluation Report.
4.5 Notification of successful and unsuccessful applicants

Responsible: the secretary, the chairperson
Timing / Deadline: Notifications are sent within max.5 working days since receiving the JMCs approval on
the 1st stage Evaluation Report.
If selected, the deadline to submit the Full Applications will be indicated in the same notification. The
Deadline shall be of maximum 60 calendar days from the date the notification is sent.
Methodology:
- The Secretary sends letters to all applicants on the same day (Annex E_6.1 Notification to successful
applicants following Concept Notes evaluation and Annex E_6.2 Notification to unsuccessful applicants
following Concept Notes evaluation), indicating whether their Concept Note was submitted prior to the
deadline, and the results of Concept Note evaluation.
- If successful, the applicant is invited to submit the Full application.
- If unsuccessful, the applicant is informed about the overall score awarded, scores awarded per each
section from the Concept Note Evaluation grid, and the reasons for rejection.
4.6 Appeals to the outcomes of the evaluation of the Concept Notes

Applicants believing that they have been harmed by an error or irregularity during the selection process may
file an appeal (see further section 2.4.15 of the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EC external actions
by following the link:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/practical_guide/index_en.htm).
An appeal is considered legitimate if the applicant can substantiate that the decision of the Evaluation
Committee infringes the provisions of the Guidelines for grant applicants for the present Call for proposals.
In order to be considered, an appeal must:
a) be submitted only by the applicant, and not by his partners or third parties and be signed by the legal
representative of the Applicant;
30
b) be submitted within 15 calendar days (as evidenced by the date of dispatch, the postmark or the
date of the deposit slip) from the date when the written notification announcing the result of an evaluation
step has been sent by the Contracting Authority;
c) be written in English;
d) be addressed to the Head of Joint Managing Authority and sent to the Joint Technical Secretariat by
fax (0040 230 530055) or by mail or currier, to the following addresses:
For Priorities 1 and 2 For Priority 3
Joint Technical Secretariat - Regional Office for Joint Technical Secretariat - Regional Office for
Cross Border Cooperation Suceava Cross Border Cooperation Iasi
22, Dragos Voda street, Suceava 110, Pacurari street, Iasi
Suceava County, ROMANIA Iai county, ROMANIA
Phone: +40 230 530049 Phone: +40 232-270.646
Fax:+40 230 530055 Fax:+40 232-260.646
e) clearly describe the nature of the infringement considered as being made by the Evaluation
Committee and make clear references to the corresponding provisions of the Guidelines for grant applicants
for the present Call for proposals, with pertinent substantiation.
According to the guidelines for grant applicants, Additional information related to the Action provided by the
letter of appeal will not be considered. Appeals that do not observe these requirements will not be taken into
consideration.
Appeals Committees shall consist of three voting members appointed amongst the members of the JMC, one
member per participating country, and one non-voting member, the Secretary/Chairperson. The chairperson
of the Evaluation Committee may be invited to the works of the Appeal Committee, in order to provide
clarifications.
Answers to the applicants will be communicated by the Contracting Authority in writing, within 45 calendar
days following the receipt of an appeal.
31
Glossary of useful terms
32
Term
Definition
Action (Project) A set of activities addressing the programme objectives and aiming at
achieving specific results, in a limited period of time and using a
determined budget.
Activities The actions that convert inputs into outputs. In the context of the Logframe
Matrix, these are the actions (tasks) that have to be taken to produce
results.
Analysis of Identification and verification of future desired benefits to which the

Objectives beneficiaries and target groups attach priority. The product of an analysis
of objectives is the objective tree/hierarchy of objectives.
Analysis of Critical assessment of the alternative ways of achieving objectives, and
Strategies selection of a set of feasible objective clusters for inclusion in the
proposed project.
Adjoining regions Regions that may positively influence the co-operation in the border area
Applicant (Lead The body which submits a Grant Application to the Contracting Authority
partner) for evaluation.
Assessor An expert with an in-depth knowledge of the issues covered by a grant
programme who is engaged by a Contracting Authority to carry out a
detailed written assessment of a grant application using the published
evaluation grids. He/she cannot be a member of the Evaluation Committee.
Assumptions External factors which could affect the progress or success of the project,
but over which the project manager has no direct control. They form the
4th column of the Logframe, and are formulated in a positive way, e.g.:
Reform of penal procedures successfully implemented. If formulated as
negative statements, assumptions become risks.
Beneficiary The body which signs a grant contract with the Contracting Authority and
assumes full legal and financial responsibility for project implementation
vis-a-vis that authority.
It receives the financial contribution from the Contracting Authority and
ensures it is managed and, where appropriate, distributed in accordance
with the agreements drawn up with its partners.
It alone is responsible to the Contracting Authority and it is directly
accountable to the authority for the operational and financial progress of
activities.
Budget breakdown The schedule which breaks down the contract value according to the
different items or services, stating out fee rate, unit prices and lump sums
for each item provided (Works, Services, Supplies).
Call for proposals A public invitation by the Contracting Authority, addressed to clearly
identified categories of applicant, to propose operations within the
framework of a specific EU programme.
Co- financing The contribution in cash of the Applicant and/ or partners from their own
resources to the financing of the project.
The co-financing shall be at least 10% of the total eligible costs of the
Action.
Conflict of
interests
Any event influencing the capacity of a candidate, tenderer, contractor or
grant beneficiary to give an objective and impartial professional opinion, or
33
preventing it, at any moment, from giving priority to the interests of the
Contracting Authority. Any consideration relating to possible contracts in

the future or conflict with other commitments, past or present, of a
candidate, tenderer, contractor or grant beneficiary. These restrictions also
apply to any sub-contractors and employees of the candidate, tenderer,
contractor or grant beneficiary.
There is also a conflict of interests within the meaning of Article 52 of the
Financial Regulation (Budget)/ Article 18.2 of the Financial Regulation
(10th EDF) where the impartial and objective exercise of the functions of a
player in the implementation of the budget or an internal auditor is
compromised for reasons involving family, emotional life, political or
national affinity, economic interest or any other shared interest with the
beneficiary.
Contract An agreement, between two or more persons or entities, with specific
terms and an undertaking to provide services, supplies and/or works in
return for a financial consideration (Services, Supplies, Works).
Contract award The procedure followed by a Contracting Authority to identify, and
procedure conclude a contract with, a suitable contractor to provide defined goods or
services.
Contract budget A summary of the costs of performing the contract. The total of these costs
(for grants) is the contract value or contract price. Where grants are concerned: the
budget shows the eligible costs for funding and the total costs.
Contracting The institution bearing overall responsibility for the management and
Authority -CA implementation of the programme towards the European Commission; in
(Joint Managing the context of this call for proposals and in accordance with the Practical
Authority- JMA) Guide.
Core area As they are defined by the programme, the Romanian counties of Suceava,
Botosani, Iasi, Vaslui, Galati, and Tulcea, the Ukrainian oblasts of Odesska
and Chernivetska and the whole territory of Republic of Moldova.
Cost-benefit Cost-benefit analysis involves the valuation of the flow of the projects
analysis/ratio costs and benefits over time to determine the projects return on
investment. A comparison is made between the situation with and
without the project to determine the net benefit of the project.
Cost effectiveness Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to choose between variants of a project
analysis or between alternative projects whose purpose or results are identical or
comparable. It allows a decision to be made as to the most effective way to
deliver an established set of benefits which are not easily valued in
monetary terms (i.e for non-tangible products).
Cross border Relating to activity across a border between neighbour countries (between
Romania , Ukraine and /or Republic of Moldova)
Cross border Is the collaboration between adjacent areas across borders. In the
Cooperation European Union this is one of the forms of territorial cooperation (in
addition to transnational and interregional cooperation). The European
model is very diverse with cooperation between border regions or
municipalities, or through specific cooperation structures. These structures
are usually composed by public authorities (municipalities, districts,
counties, regions) from different countries organized in working
communities, euroregions or EGTCs (European Grouping of Territorial
Cooperation).
Cross-cutting Refers to:
themes Gender equality
34
Environmental sustainability.
Democracy, good governance.
Promotion of human rights (including people with disabilities), children's
rights etc.
Combating HIV/AIDS
Taking account of cross-cutting themes/issues helps beneficiaries:
identify the key constraints affecting growth, poverty reduction,

equity, opportunity, security and empowerment in a given country
work with national stakeholders on measures to address these
issues
incorporate such measures into the domestic development
strategy
monitor the outcomes of a policy of integrating cross-cutting
issues.
Day Calendar day unless otherwise specified.

Economic operator Covers contractors, suppliers and service providers.
Effectiveness An assessment of the contribution made by results to achievement of the
Project Purpose, and how Assumptions have affected project achievements.
This should include specific assessment of the benefits accruing to target
groups, including women and men and identified vulnerable groups such
as children, the elderly and disabled. The contribution made by the
projects results to the achievement of the project purpose.
Efficiency The fact that the project results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e.
how well inputs/means have been converted into Activities, in terms of
quality, quantity and time, and the quality of the results achieved. This
generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same
results, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
The fact that the results were obtained at reasonable cost, i.e. how well
means and activities were converted into results, and the quality of the
results achieved.
Equipment Machinery, apparatus, components and any other articles intended for use
in the works (Works).
Evaluation Assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and
sustainability of actions
Evaluation A committee made up of an odd number of members (at least three) with
committee the necessary technical and administrative expertise to give an informed
opinion on tenders or grant applications.
Execution period The period from contract signature until final payment and in no event
later than 18 months after the end of the implementation period (Services,
Grants).
35
Expenditure The expenditure verification refers both to the process and the report by
verification which an auditor verifies according to agreed-upon procedures contained
in the relevant Terms of Reference that the Financial Report submitted by
the contractor/beneficiary can be reconciled to the latters accounting and
bookkeeping system and to the underlying accounts and records. He/she
also verifies that the contractor/beneficiary complies with the relevant
provision of the contract signed with the Commission.
Feasibility Addresses the issue whether the project objectives can really be achieved.
Feasibility Study A feasibility study, conducted during the Formulation phase of a project,
verifies whether the proposed project is well-founded, and is likely to meet
the needs of its intended target groups/ beneficiaries. The study should
design the project in full operational detail, taking account of all policy,
technical, economic, financial, institutional, management, environmental,
socio-cultural, and gender-related aspects. The study will provide the
European Commission and partner government with sufficient information
to justify acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposed project for
financing.
Final beneficiaries Those who will benefit from the project in the long term at the level of the
of a grant society or sector at large. Usually, final beneficiaries are targets of the
overall objective of the project.
Gender The social differences that are ascribed to and learned by women and men,
and that vary over time and from one society or group to another.
Gender differs from sex, which refers to the biologically determined
differences between women and men.
Gender Equality The promotion of equality between women and men in relation to their
access to social and economic infrastructures and services and to the
benefits of development is vital. The objective is reduced disparities
between women and men, including in health and education, in
employment and economic activity, and in decision-making at all levels.
All programmes and projects should actively contribute to reducing gender
disparities in their area of intervention.
General conditions The general contractual provisions setting out the administrative, financial,
legal and technical clauses governing the execution of all contracts of a
particular type.
Grant A direct payment of a non-commercial nature by the Contracting Authority
to a specific recipient to implement an operation (or in some cases to
finance part of its budget) in order to promote an EU policy aim.
Group of activities The schedule that sets out the Activities (and may include the Resources)
necessary to achieve a projects Results and Purpose.
Guidelines for Document explaining the purpose of a Call for Proposals for grants. It sets
applicants out the rules regarding who may apply, the types of operations and costs
which may be financed, and the evaluation (selection and award) criteria. It
also provides practical information on how to complete the application
form, what documents must be annexed, and rules and procedures for
applying.
Horizontal issues The respect of EU and programme visibility by all partners (in events,
material produced, etc.)
Impact Project contribution to the overall objective.
The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to
36
the wider
policy or sector objectives (as summarised in the projects Overall

Objective).
Innovate To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
Inputs The resources consumed by the project (staff, supplies, etc.)
In writing This includes any hand-written, typed or printed communication, including
telex, cable, e-mail and fax transmissions.
Log frame The promotion of equality between women and men in relation to their
access to social and economic infrastructures and services and to the
benefits of development is vital. The objective is reduced disparities
between women and men, including in health and education, in
employment and economic activity, and in decision-making at all levels.
All programmes and projects should actively contribute to reducing gender
disparities in their area of intervention.
Month Calendar month.
Multiplier effect An effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an
increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial
amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ
construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the
factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries,
restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity.
National currency The currency of the beneficiary country.
Operating grant Direct financial contribution, by way of donation, in order to finance the
functioning of a body which pursues an aim of general European interest or
has an objective forming part of a European Union policy.
Outputs What is produced by the activities (study, publication, etc.)
Overall The Overall Objective explains why the project is important to society, in
Objective(also terms of the longer-term benefits to final beneficiaries and the wider
sometimes known benefits to other groups. They also help to show how the
as the Goal) project/programme fits into the regional/sector policies of the
government/organisations concerned and of the EC, as well as into the
overarching policy objectives of EC co-operation. The Overall Objective will
not be achieved by the project alone (it will only provide a contribution),
but will require the contributions of other programmes and
projects as well.
Participant in a project, which is responsible for implementation of part of
Partner
the projects activities, in accordance to the Grant Application Form and to
the Partnership agreement signed with the applicant (lead partner) of the
grant.
Period A period begins the day after the act or event chosen as its starting point.
Where the last day of a period is not a working day, the period expires at
the end of the next working day.
Practical Guide Is the first sole working tool, which explains the contracting procedures
to Contract applying to all EU external aid contracts financed from the European Union
procedures for EU general budget (Budget) and the 10th European Development Fund
external actions (EDF).6
November 2010,
update March
2011 (PRAG)
37
6
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/practical_guide/index_en.htm
Profit A surplus of receipts over the costs incurred by the beneficiary when
request is made for final payment.
Programme area The core area plus adjoining regions.
Relevance The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was
supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within
which it operated. It should include and including an assessment of the
quality of project preparation and design i.e. the logic and completeness
of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the
project design.
Restricted Calls for tender are restricted where all economic operators may ask to
procedure take part but only candidates satisfying the selection criteria and invited
simultaneously and in writing by the Contracting Authorities may submit a
tender.
Results The immediate effects of the outputs on the target group. Results are the
tangible products/services delivered as a consequence of implementing a
set of Activities.
Soft Project A project that is intended to bring about changes and does not have a
physical end product; a project, which is not principally concerned with
works or equipment provision.
'Soft' projects include activities such as institutional strengthening,
training, policy reform, exchange of experience.
Special Conditions The special conditions laid down by the Contracting Authority as an
integral part of the tender or call for proposals dossier, including
amendments to the General Conditions, clauses specific to the contract and
the terms of reference (for a service contract) or technical specifications
(for a supply or works contract).
Stakeholders Any individuals, groups of people, institutions or firms that may have a
groups significant interest in the success or failure of a project (either as
implementers, facilitators, beneficiaries or adversaries)
Successful The applicant selected at the end of a call for proposals procedure for the
applicant award of contract.
Supplies All goods the Contractor are required to supply to the Contracting
Authority and where the property of what is purchased , is transferred
from the contractor to the contracting authority (in the case of
procurement contracts) or to the designated local partners of the
beneficiary and/or final recipients of the action (in the case of grant
agreements).
Supply contract Supply contracts cover the purchase, leasing, rental or hire purchase, with
or without option to buy, of products. A contract for the supply of products
and, incidentally, for siting and installation shall be considered a supply
contract.
Sustainability Please look at sustainable development.
NB! Sustainability is built during project implementation.
38
Sustainable 1. "Development that meets the needs of the present without

development compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", in
other words ensuring that today's growth does not jeopardise the growth
possibilities of future generations. Sustainable development thus
comprises three elements - economic, social and environmental - which
have to be considered in equal measure at the political level. The strategy
for sustainable development, adopted in 2001 and amended in 2005, is
complemented inter alia by the principle of integrating environmental
concerns with European policies which impact on the environment.
2. Preservation / reproduction of growth of the system factors.
3."Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the

world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and
social organization on the environment's ability to meet present
and future needs."
Strategy Refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Target groups The groups/entities that will be directly positively affected by the project
at the Project Purpose level.
Taxes Include indirect taxes such as value added taxes, customs and import
duties, other fiscal charges and duties in beneficiary countries* (*except
under the ENPI Regulation, which does not specify country(ies)).
Time limits Those periods in the contract which shall begin to run from the day
following the act or event which serves as the starting point for those
periods. Should the last day of the period fall upon a non-working day, the
period shall expire at the end of the first working day following the last day
of the period.
39
List of general annexes

Annex E_1 Declaration of impartiality and confidentiality
Annex E_2 Declaration of availability
Annex E_3.1 Acknowledgement of receipt Concept Note
Annex E_3.2 Acknowledgement of receipt clarifications
Annex E_4 Request for clarifications
Annex E_5 Evaluation Report for Opening & Administrative checks and Concept Note Evaluation
Annex E_6.1 Notification to successful applicants following Concept Notes evaluation
Annex E_6.2 Notification to unsuccessful applicants following Concept Notes evaluation
Toolbox for evaluators

Annex T_1.1 Administrative and Assessment Grids for the Concept Note Priorities 1 and 2
Annex T_1.2 Administrative and Assessment Grids for the Concept Note Priority 3
Annex T_2 Possible reasons for the Evaluation Committee to ask for clarifications or reject the
Concept Notes during the administrative check stage
Annex T_3 Concept Note Evaluation grid
40
Annex T_4 Reasons to award maximum or minimum scores to the Concept Notes and serious
weaknesses which may lead to score reduction
EVALUATION
(GENERAL ANNEXES)
41
Annex E_1
DECLARATION OF IMPARTIALITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY7
Publication ref: 2nd Call for Proposals

Joint Operational Programme Romania Ukraine Republic of Moldova 2007 2013
I <name, surname, country>, the undersigned, hereby declare that I agree to participate in the evaluation of
the above-mentioned call for proposals. By making this declaration, I confirm that I have familiarised myself
with the information available to date concerning this call for proposals including the provisions of the
Practical Guide to contract procedures for external actions relating to the evaluation process.
I shall execute my responsibilities impartially and objectively.
I hereby declare that I am independent 8 of all parties which stand to gain from the outcome of the evaluation
process9. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there are no facts or circumstances, past or present, or that
could arise in the foreseeable future, which might call into question my independence in the eyes of any
party; and, if I discover or should it become apparent during the course of the evaluation process that such a
7 To be completed by all persons involved in an evaluation process (including members of the Evaluation Committee,
whether voting or not-voting and any observers)
8 Taking into consideration whether there exists any past or present relationship, direct or indirect, whether financial,
professional or of another kind.
9 I.e. all applicants who are participating in the call for proposals, whether individuals or members of a consortium, or
any of the partners or subcontractors proposed by them.
42
relationship exists or has been established, I will declare it immediately and cease to participate in the
evaluation process. I declare that I have not been employed by any of the applicants and or partner, their
consortium members or subcontractors within the previous 3 years. 10
I further declare that to the best of my knowledge, I am not in a situation that could cast doubt on my ability
to evaluate the proposals.
I agree to hold in trust and confidence any information or documents ("confidential information") disclosed
to me or discovered by me or prepared by me in the course of or as a result of the evaluation and agree that it
shall be used only for the purposes of this evaluation and shall not be disclosed to any third party. I also agree
not to retain copies of any written information or prototypes supplied.
Confidential information shall not be disclosed to any employee or expert unless they agree to execute and be
bound by the terms of this Declaration.
Name
Date
Signature
Annex E_2
DECLARATION OF AVAILABILITY

I, <name, surname, country> the undersigned, hereby declare that I am fully available to fulfil my
responsibilities as evaluator in the Evaluation Committee set for Priority <1, 2, 3>, <title of the Priority>.
I will be present to the working sessions and meetings of the Evaluation Committee, as requested by the
Chairperson.
I agree to act in a way that the evaluation process takes place without shortcomings, in compliance with the
timeframe agreed by the Evaluation Committee.
Name
Date
Signature
10 if you cannot declare this, please indicate the name of the employer, the duration and your position
43
Annex E_3.1
Acknowledgement of receipt - hand delivery

Concept Note
Name and address of the Applicant:

.....................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
Call for proposals: 2nd call for proposals Joint Operational Programme Romania Ukraine Republic of
Moldova 2007 2013, for11:
Priority 1 - Towards a more competitive border economy
Priority 2 - Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness
Priority 3 - People to people cooperation
Your Concept Note was received on...........................................................................................................

You will be sent a formal acknowledgement of receipt following the opening session and administrative
check and Concept Note evaluation. This acknowledgement letter will contain the reference number
assigned to your concept note.
Name:
Tick the priority

44
11
Signature:
Annex E_3.2
Acknowledgement of receipt - hand delivery

Clarifications
Name and address of the Applicant:

.....................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
Reference number of application...................................................................

Call for proposals: 2nd call for proposals Joint Operational Programme Romania Ukraine Republic of
Moldova 2007 2013.
Step of evaluation12:
Step 1 Opening & Administrative Check and Concept Note Evaluation
Step 2 - Opening & Administrative Check and Full Application evaluation
Step 3 Eligibility Verification
Your clarifications were received on .......................................................
Name:
Signature:
Annex E_4
LETTER FOR REQUEST OF CLARIFICATIONS

JOINT MANAGING AUTHORITY
<Date>
<Name and address of the applicant>
Call for proposals: 2nd Call for proposals (restricted Call)

Joint Operational Programme RomaniaUkraineRepublic of Moldova 20072013
Application ref.: <Number and title>
Dear Sir/Madam,
Following the opening and administrative check for concept note/ concept note evaluation/ opening and
administrative check for full application/ full application evaluation / eligibility verification carried out by
the Evaluation Committee according to the criteria set out in the Guidelines for Grant Applicants, the
following [clarifications/missing documents] are requested in order to conduct an objective assessment of
your application:
[1..
2]
Tick the corresponding step of evaluation.

45
12
Please note that these [clarifications/missing documents] are requested to conclude the opening and
administrative check for concept note/ concept note evaluation/ opening and administrative check for full
application/ full application evaluation / eligibility verification. Therefore the deadline for their submission is
no more than 3/10 calendar days since the date when the present notification is sent, that is no later than
<>.
According to the guidelines for grant applicants, you cannot improve or modify the content of the Concept
Note/ Full application during the evaluation. Any supplementary information modifying or improving the
content of the Concept Note/ Full application initially submitted, will not be considered by the Evaluation
Committee.
Please send your answer by registered mail or private courier service (date on the envelope) or by hand-
delivery at the following address:
Regional Office for Cross Border Cooperation Suceava
(Biroul Regional pentru Cooperare Transfrontaliera Suceava)
Joint Technical Secretariat
22, Dragos Voda Street
Suceava, ROMANIA
Or
Regional Office for Cross Border Cooperation Iasi
(Biroul Regional pentru Cooperare Transfrontaliera Iasi)
110, Pacurari Street
Iasi, ROMANIA
In case you fail to provide the requested [clarifications/missing documents in original] before the set
deadline (3 or 10 calendar days) <>, your application will not be considered for further evaluation under
the present Call for Proposals.
Yours faithfully,
<Name>
Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee

Annex E_5

MINISTRY OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM ROMANIA
<Priority 1, Priority 2 or Priority 3>
Call for proposals reference: 2nd call for proposals
Type of procedure: restricted call for proposals
Evaluation Report (Step 1)

OPENING & ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK AND CONCEPT NOTES EVALUATION
Contents
Timetable
Participants
Evaluation
Verification of the respect of the deadline of submission of proposals
Verification that points 1-12 of the checklist in Section 2 of Part A of the grant application form have
been duly completed
Concept Note Evaluations
Conclusions
Decision on evaluation of concept notes
46
Concept notes recommended for pre-selection
Concept notes not recommended for pre-selection

Annexes
List of proposals received
Completed administrative checklists Section 2 of Part A
List of concept notes examined
Declarations of impartiality and confidentiality
Concept Notes Evaluation Grids
[Clarification correspondence with applicant(s)]
1. Timetable
Date Time
Publication of call for proposals n.a.
Deadline for submission of proposals
Meeting 1
Meeting 2
Etc.
2. Participants
Name Representing Role13
3. Evaluation
This text may be expanded to reflect eventual discussions on particular cases
In line with Section 2.3 (1) of the Guidelines, the committee proceeded with the first step of the
evaluation process as follows.
In total, <XXX> proposals were received. Each one was given a sequential number. This number was
marked on all copies of the application and will be retained throughout the evaluation process as the
sole reference. The full list of the proposals received is attached in annex.
The originals of the proposals have been filed with the Contracting Authority.
3.1 Verification of the respect of the deadline of submission of proposals
The following proposals were submitted after the deadline and are therefore excluded from further
examination.
Applic. N Applicant Date [& time ]of

submission
Evaluator, assessor, observer, chairperson, secretary,

47
13
3.2 Verification that the checklist has been duly completed.

The completed administrative checklists for each of the proposals submitted within the deadline are
attached. On the basis of the results of the verifications, the Evaluation Committee decided to exclude
the following proposals from further evaluation.
Applic. N Applicant Reasons for elimination
Decision on the Evaluation of Concept Notes

On the basis of the results of the verifications, the Evaluation Committee decided to examine the concept
notes of the following proposals for a total requested contribution of <XXXX >.
[The list of administratively compliant proposals sorted by sector, issue or geographical area is attached
in annex.]
Applic. N Applicant Requested EU

contribution
3.3 Concept Note Evaluation

The <Evaluation Committee/assessors> used the Evaluation Grid to assess the relevance and design of
the action.
The Evaluation Committee subsequently deliberated on the basis of these analyses.
(Insert here the summary of discussions and the approach adopted by the Evaluation Committee.)
The Evaluation Committee finalised the evaluation of the concept notes and established a list of pre-
selected concept notes for which the applicants will be invited to submit full application forms. The
concept notes were ranked according to the total [average] of the scores awarded.
The concept notes awarded lower [average] scores than those pre-selected are also listed below.
The evaluation grids of all the concept notes examined are annexed to this report.
4. Conclusions
4.1 Concept notes recommended
The following concept notes are recommended for pre-selection
48
[The list of recommended concept notes sorted by sector, issue or geographical area is attached in
annex.]
Applic. [Average] Requested

Applicant Comments
N score grant
Number of pre-selected concept notes: XXXX.

Total requested amount of preselected concept notes: XXXX (sum of the requested contributions)
Total available amount: XXXX.
The evaluation committee has ensured that there is no detection of the proposed applicants (i.e.
applicant + partners) in the Early Warning System (W5). (In decentralised management this has to be
verified with the representative of the European Commission)
4.2 Concept notes not recommended
The following concept notes are not recommended for pre-selection:
[The list of not recommended concept notes sorted by sector, issue or geographical area is attached at
annex.]
[Average]
Applic. N Applicant Comments
score
e.g that the minimum threshold of 30 was not
reached
Number of unsuccessful concept notes: XXXX.
5. Signatures
Name Signature
Chairperson
Secretary
Evaluators
49
Approved by the Joint Managing Authority :
Name & Signature: Date:
Annex E_6.1

< Date >

< Name and address of the applicant >
Dear Sir / Madam,
Call for proposals: 2nd call for proposals

Application reference: < Number and title >
Thank you for submitting an application for the above call for proposals. It has been given the
abovementioned application reference number. Please use this reference number in any correspondence.
I am pleased to inform you that your Concept Note was evaluated by the evaluation committee and the Joint
Monitoring Committee has pre-selected your Concept Note.
Please send us your corresponding full application form, observing the instructions given in the guidelines to
applicants. Proposals must be submitted by <date>, as evidenced by the stamp date or by <date>, at hours
Romanian time in case of hand delivery. Any application submitted after this date shall be automatically
50
excluded from further examination.
The application must be provided at the following address:

Regional Office for Cross Border Cooperation Suceava
(Biroul Regional pentru Cooperare Transfrontaliera Suceava)
22, Dragos Voda Street
Suceava, ROMANIA
Or
Regional Office for Cross Border Cooperation Iasi
(Biroul Regional pentru Cooperare Transfrontaliera Iasi)
110, Pacurari Street
Iasi, ROMANIA
The above is without prejudice to any potential grounds for exclusion of your application which may be
established during the further steps of the procedure.
Yours faithfully,
< Name >
Annex E_6.2

< Date >

< Name and address of the applicant >
Dear Sir / Madam,
Call for proposals: 2nd call for proposals

Application reference: < Number and title >
Thank you for submitting an application for the above call for proposals. It has been given the
abovementioned application reference number. Please use this reference number in any correspondence.
However, I regret to inform you that you Concept Note could not be considered further for the following
reason(s):
Delete rows not applicable
your Concept Note was not submitted by the deadline
51
your Concept Note was submitted by the deadline, but the checklist had not been duly completed
your Concept Note did not receive the minimum score of 30 points as specified in the guidelines for
applicants. For information, please find below the scores awarded to your Concept Note, in accordance
with the evaluation grid in the guidelines to applicants <insert here the standard grid with scores>
your Concept Note received a lower score than the ones selected to go through to the next step of the
procedure. For information, please find below the scores awarded to your Concept Note, in accordance
with the evaluation grid in the guidelines to applicants <insert here the standard grid with scores>
< other reason, to be specified, e.g. your application was considered to give rise to a conflict of interests or
a check of eligibility pursuant to section 6.4.8.5 of the Practical Guide to contractual procedures for EU
external actions >
Therefore, your application could not be considered for further evaluation under the present call for
proposals.
I take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in participating in the present call for proposals and
hope that the above information will assist in preparing for any future call you may wish to submit an
application.
Yours faithfully,
< Name >
52
TOOLS FOR THE

EVALUATORS
53
Annex T_1.1
ADMINISTRATIVE GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTES Priorities 1 and 2

Applicant:
Title of the Proposal: To be filled in by the internal assessor
Reference number:
YES NO Comments
1. The instructions for concept note, published for this call for proposals, have
been followed: max. 10 full pages, (A4 size) of Arial 10 characters with 2
cm margins?
2. The Declaration by the applicant has been filled in, signed, stamped, dated
and is enclosed as original?
3. The partnership statement(s) signed, stamped and dated by each partner
is /are enclosed as original or copy certified by the applicant According to
the original?
4. The proposal is typed and is in English?
5. One original and 4 copies are included?
6. An electronic version of the concept note (CD-ROM) is enclosed?
7. An electronic copy of the national/regional strategies and/or action
plans, relevant for the project is enclosed, or web links were provided?
8. The applicant and partner(s) organisations are located in the programme
area, or participation of a partner located outside the programme area is
motivated in the concept note?
9. The entire action will be implemented in the eligible area of the
programme, or
When part of the action will take place in regions other than those defined
by the programme area, a duly justification was provided by the applicant in
the concept note?
10. The duration of the action is between 12 months (the minimum allowed by
this Call) and 24 months (the maximum allowed by this Call)?
11. The requested EU contribution is between 100,000 EUR (the minimum
allowed by this Call) and 2,500,000 EUR (the maximum allowed by this
Call)?
12. The Checklist and the Declaration by the applicant are filled in and sent with
the Concept Note?
54
Applicant:
Reference number:
YES NO Comments
The opening session and administrative verification has been conducted by:
Internal assessor
Date:
Signature:
A. The Concept Note has been recommended for evaluation after having passed
In case the answer is NO, the proposal will be
the administrative check according to the criteria stipulated in the Guidelines for
rejected.
Grant Applicants.
Please indicate which requirements have not
been fulfilled:
.
B. On the basis of the comments highlighted in this grid, complementary
Date of request: //
documents and/or clarifications have been requested.
Deadline: //
1) The requested documents and/or clarifications have been received within the Received: <date>
set deadline.
rejected.
2) After analysis of all the requested documents and/or clarifications and
completing this grid, the Concept Note has been recommended for evaluation
rejected.
after having passed the administrative check according to the criteria stipulated
in the Guidelines for Grant Applicants. Please list the requirements which have not
been fulfilled:
..
After clarifications were asked/ received, the verification has been conducted by:
Internal assessor
Date:
Signature:
C. The Evaluation Committee decision. Yes No Signatures of the evaluators
55
ASSESSMENT GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTES

(For the use of the Contracting Authority only)
Reference number of the Concept Note: // YES NO

1. The submission deadline has been respected?
2. The Checklist has been duly completed?
The administrative verification has been conducted by:
Date: //
DECISION 1:
The Committee has decided to evaluate the Concept Note after having
passed the Administrative Check.
Signatures of the evaluators:
The evaluation of the Concept Note has been conducted by:
Date: ...//
DECISION 2:
The Committee has decided to recommend evaluating the Full
application.
56
Annex T_1.2
ADMINISTRATIVE GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTES Priority 3

Applicant:
Reference number:
YES NO Comments
1. The instructions for concept note, published for this call for proposals, have
been followed: max. 10 full pages, (A4 size) of Arial 10 characters with 2 cm
margins?
2. The Declaration by the applicant has been filled in, signed, stamped, dated
and is enclosed as original?
3. The partnership statement(s) signed, stamped and dated by each partner is
/are enclosed as original or copy certified by the applicant According to the
original?
4. The proposal is typed and is in English?
5. One original and 4 copies are included?
6. An electronic version of the concept note (CD-ROM) is enclosed?
7. An electronic copy of the national/regional strategies and/ or action plans,
relevant for the project is enclosed, or web links were provided?
8. The applicant and partner(s) organisations are located in the programme
area, or participation of a partner located outside the programme area is
motivated in the concept note?
9. The entire action will be implemented in the eligible area of the programme,
OR,
When part of the action will take place in regions other than those defined by
the programme area, a duly justifications was provided by the applicant in
the concept note?
10. The duration of the action is between 6 months (the minimum allowed by
this Call) and 18 months (the maximum allowed by this Call)?
57
Applicant:
Reference number:
YES NO Comments
11. The requested EU contribution is between 30,000 EUR (the minimum
allowed by this Call) and 150,000 EUR (the maximum allowed by this Call)?
12. The Checklist and the Declaration by the applicant are filled in and sent with
the Concept Note?
The opening session and administrative verification has been conducted by:
Internal assessor
Date:
Signature:
A. The Concept Note has been recommended for evaluation after having passed the In case the answer is NO, the proposal will be
administrative check according to the criteria stipulated in the Guidelines for Grant rejected.
Applicants. Please indicate which requirements have not
been fulfilled:

B. On the basis of the comments highlighted in this grid, complementary documents Date of request: //
and/or clarifications have been requested. Deadline : //.
1) The requested documents and/or clarifications have been received within the Received: <date>
set deadline In case the answer is NO, the proposal will be
rejected.
2) After analysis of all the requested documents and/or clarifications and In case the answer is NO, the proposal will be
completing this grid, the Concept Note has been recommended for evaluation rejected.
after having passed the administrative check according to the criteria Please list the requirements which have not
stipulated in the Guidelines for Grant Applicants. been fulfilled:
.
After clarifications were asked/ received, the verification has been conducted by:
Internal assessor
Date:
Signature:
58
Applicant:
Reference number:
YES NO Comments
C. The Evaluation Committee decision. Yes No Signatures of the evaluators

..
..
..
59
ASSESSMENT GRID FOR THE CONCEPT NOTE

(For the use of the Contracting Authority only)
YES NO
1. The submission deadline has been respected?
2. The Checklist has been duly completed?
The administrative verification has been conducted by:
Date:
DECISION 1:
The Committee has decided to evaluate the Concept Note after having
passed the Administrative Check.
The evaluation of the Concept Note has been conducted by:

Date:
DECISION 2:
The Committee has decided to recommend evaluating the Full
Application.
Annex T_2
60
Possible reasons for the Evaluation Committee to ask for clarifications or to reject the
Concept Note without further evaluation
Evaluation stage: Opening & administrative check of CONCEPT NOTES
Reason Action
1. The Concept Note is submitted after the Reject the Concept Note.
deadline.
2. The Concept Note was delivered to another Reject the Concept Note.
address than the one specified in the Guidelines
for grant applicants or was sent by other means
(e.g. by fax or by e-mail).
3. Declaration by the applicant is missing Reject the Concept Note
4. Declaration by the applicant is not adequately Request for a new Declaration by the applicant,
filled in, signed or stamped properly filled in (using the template in the
Guidelines, signed, stamped, containing all the
necessary information). If not provided within the
deadline, the Concept Note will be rejected.
5. Declaration by the Applicant is in copy or in Request Declaration by the applicant in original. If

scanned version not provided within the deadline, reject the Concept
Note.
6. Declaration by the Applicant is not signed by Check if legalized mandate of delegation from the
the legal representative of the applicant. legal representative of the applicant is provided.
If not, request the legalized mandate of delegation
or, a new Declaration by the applicant signed by the
legal representative. If not provided within the
deadline, reject the Concept Note.
7. There are project partners who did not provide Request the missing Partnership Statement(s). If
the Partnership Statement. not provided within the deadline, reject the Concept
Note.
8. Partnership Statement(s) is/are provided in Request for Partnership Statement(s) in English. If

national language, not in English not provided within the deadline, reject the Concept
Note.
9. Partnership Statement(s) is/are not adequately Request for Partnership Statement(s) properly
filled in, signed or stamped filled in (using the template in the Guidelines,
signed, stamped, containing all the necessary
information). If not provided within the deadline,
reject the Concept Note.
10. Partnership Statement(s) is/are in copy or in Request Partnership Statement(s) in original or

scanned version but is/are not certified by the copy certified by the applicant according to the
applicant according to the original original. If not provided as original or copy
certified by the applicant according to the original
within the deadline, reject the Concept Note.
61
11. Partnership Statement(s) is/are not signed by Check if legalized mandate(s) of delegation from the
the legal representative(s) legal representative(s) is/are provided.
If not, request the legalized mandate(s) of
delegation or, new Partnership Statement(s) signed
by legal representative(s). If not provided within
the deadline, reject the Concept Note.
12. Concept Note has not the necessary number of The Secretary to the Evaluation Committee will
copies make the copies.
13. Concept Note is more than 10 pages Only the first 10 pages will be evaluated and scores
will be awarded for the information included
therein.
14. Concept Note is not in English Reject the Concept Note
15. The Concept Note is not typed but hand written Reject the Concept Note.
16. The CD is missing. Request a CD containing the Concept Note and, if

the case, electronic copies of national/ regional
strategies, action plans, relevant for the project. If
not provided within the deadline, reject the Concept
Note.
17. The CD is blank or it does not contain the Request a CD containing the Concept Note and, if
necessary information (the Concept Note, the case, electronic copies of national/ regional
electronic versions of national/ regional strategies, action plans, relevant for the project. If
strategies, action plans which are relevant for not provided within the deadline, reject the Concept
the project) Note.
18. Checklist for the Concept Note is missing or is Request the Checklist if missing, or a properly filled
not filled in in Checklist, as the case may be. If not provided
within the deadline, reject the Concept Note.
19. Implementation period for the Action is more Reject the Concept Note
than the maximum period specified by the
Guidelines (24 months for projects under
Priorities 1 and 2, and 18 months for projects
under Priority 3)
20. Implementation period for the Action is less Reject the Concept Note
than the minimum period specified provided by
the Guidelines (12 months for projects under
Priorities 1 and 2, and 6 months for projects
under Priority 3)
21. The grant requested is more than the maximum Reject the Concept Note
allowed by the Call (2,500,000 for projects
under Priorities 1 and 2, and 150,000 for
projects under Priority 3
22. The grant requested is less than the minimum Reject the Concept Note
allowed by the Call (100,000 for projects
under Priorities 1 and 2, and 30,000 for
62
projects under Priority 3)
23. Clarifications requested by the Evaluation Reject the Concept Note

Committee were not submitted within the set
deadline
24. Clarifications provided by the Applicant at The information will not be considered by the
Evaluation Committees request improve or Evaluation Committee.
modify the content of the Concept Note.
63
Annex T_3
CONCEPT NOTE EVALUATION GRID
Joint Operational Programme Romania Ukraine Republic of Moldova 2007 - 2013
2ND Call for proposals
Grid completed by:

Number of the proposal:
Name of the Applicant:
Title of the project:
Scoring guidelines
This evaluation grid is divided into sections and subsections. Each subsection must be given a score
between 1 and 5 in accordance with the following guidelines:
Score Meaning
1 very poor
2 poor
3 adequate
4 good
5 very good
These scores are added to give the total score for the section concerned. The totals for each section are
then listed added together to give the total score for the concept note.
64
1. Relevance of the action and the cross border Score Main

Max. score
impact awarded references
1.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and 5 sections 1.1
priorities of the Call for proposals? and 1.2.1
Does the proposal effectively put into practice the cross border
cooperation criteria?
Is the cross border impact clearly described and effective for
every side of the border area?
1.2 How relevant for the indicators of the Programme is the 5 section 1.2.1
action and how the action contributes to reaching these
indicators?
1.3. When national or regional strategies or action plans exists 5 x 2** section 1.2.2
and are mentioned:
How relevant to the particular needs and constraints foreseen
by regional strategies or regional action plans of the target
countries or region(s) is the proposal? (including synergy with
other EU initiatives and avoidance of duplication). Are there
references to any significant plans undertaken at national,
regional and/or local level relevant for the action?
When the project innovates and is not framed in a strategy
or action plan:
Are there sufficient data to indicate the added value of the
project from the perspective of the programme objectives and
complementarities with the national and regional strategies?
** Note: The score is multiplied by 2 because of its importance.
1.4 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are those 5 section 1.2.3
involved (final beneficiaries, target groups)? Have their needs
been clearly defined and does the proposal address them
appropriately? Are there any information from a reliable
sources provided?
1.5 Does the proposal contain specific value added elements: 5 section 1.2.4
sustainable development, gender equality, equal opportunities,
and environmental issues?
Total score for the section 1 Max. 30 -
Comments:
1.1 ..
1.2 .
65
Max. Score Main

2. Design of the action
score awarded reference
2.1 How coherent is the overall design of the action? 5 x 2** section 1.3
How clearly defined is the implementation of the action?
In particular, does it reflect the analysis of the problems involved, takes into
account external factors and relevant stakeholders?
2.2 Is the action feasible and consistent in relation to the objectives and 5 x 2** section 1.3
expected results?
Total score for the section 2 Max. 20 -
Comments:
2.1 ....
2.2
3. Total score and comments/ recommendations

1. Relevance of the action and the cross border impact
2. Design of the action
Total score
General comments/ recommendations (major strong points and weaknesses):
Only the Concept Notes which have been given a score of a minimum of 30 points can be considered for pre-
selection.
66
Annex T_4
Evaluation stage: CONCEPT NOTES evaluation
Subject: a) Reasons to award maximum or minimum scores to the Concept Notes

b) Serious weaknesses which may lead to score reduction
Section 1 RELEVANCE OF THE ACTION AND THE CROSS BORDER IMPACT

Purpose: To establish if the project fits the programme, the objectives set are appropriate to the real
problems, needs and priorities of those whom will be addressed by it, if the environment within which it
operates is known, and also if the cross border character and impact is ensured
Maximum
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Reference
score
1.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives 5 sections 1.1 and 1.2.1
and priorities of the Call for proposals?
Does the proposal effectively put into practice the
cross border cooperation criteria?
Is the cross border impact clearly described and
effective for every side of the border area?
1.2 How relevant for the indicators of the 5 section 1.2.1

Programme is the action and how the action
contributes to reaching these indicators?
1.3. When national or regional strategies or action 5 x 2** section 1.2.2

plans exists and are mentioned:
How relevant to the particular needs and
constraints foreseen by regional strategies or
regional action plans of the target countries or
region(s) is the proposal? (including synergy with
other EU initiatives and avoidance of duplication).
Are there references to any significant plans
undertaken at national, regional and/or local level
relevant for the action?
When the project innovates and is not framed in a
strategy or action plan
Are there sufficient data to indicate the added value
of the project from the perspective of the
programme objectives and complementarities with
the national and regional strategies?
1.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen 5 section 1.2.3

are those involved (final beneficiaries, target
groups)?
Have their needs been clearly defined and does the
proposal address them appropriately?
Are there any information from a reliable sources
67
Maximum
score
provided?
1.5 Does the proposal contain specific value added 5 section 1.2.4
elements: sustainable development, gender equality,
equal opportunities, and environmental issues?
[1.1] Purpose: To assess if the project fits the programme, if there is real impact of the project on the targeted
area, and if the cross border character is ensured
1.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and priorities of the Call for sections 1.1
proposals? and 1.2.1
Does the proposal effectively put into practice the cross border cooperation criteria?
Is the cross border impact clearly described and effective for every side of the border
area?
- Is there a programme priority addressed by the project?

Questions to be asked
- Is there consistency between the project objectives and the aim of the priority addressed?
- Does the project literally repeat the programme objectives?
- Will the implementation of the project effectively contribute (in the long run) to achievement
of that priority?
- Are there cross border cooperation criteria substantially approached by the project?
- Is there a description of clear and feasible benefits stemming from the project which may
positively impact the cross border target area?
Reasons to award maximum / minimum scores
If,
- The project is addressing directly one priority of the programme, AND
- There is a clear link between the project objectives and the aim of the priority
addressed by the project, AND
5=Very good
- Cross border cooperation at project level clearly envisages at least two of the criteria
set by the Call for proposals (e.g. joint development, joint staffing, joint financing, joint
implementation), AND
- Cross border impact is realistic and feasible in terms of benefits for the targeted area,
AND
- There is no other more relevant EU Programme that could support the project activities
1= Very poor If,

- No information is provided within the Concept Note, OR
- There is no link between the project objectives and any programme priority, OR
68
- The project objectives are not feasible within the project lifetime, OR
- There is no cross border cooperation envisaged at project level, OR

- There are no clear cross border benefits for the programme eligible area, OR
- There are other EU programmes that could better support the project
Serious weaknesses which may lead to score reduction

- There is bad understanding of the programme priorities and objectives,
- The project addresses poorly or very generally the cross border cooperation criteria,
- Cross border impact is overestimated when compared to project objectives.
[1.2] Purpose: To determine if the project significantly contributes to programme indicators
1.2 How relevant for the indicators of the Programme is the action and how the section 1.2.1
action contributes to reaching these indicators?
Questions to be asked:
- Are programme indicators pursued by the project?
- Is the project consistently focused on achieving these indicators?
If,
5= Very good - The project is specifically addressing one or more of the programme expected results,
AND
- Focus of the project on those results is clear and consistent
1= Very poor If,

- There is no programme result directly targeted by the project, OR
- There is no clear evidence about how the project will contribute to achieving the
programme results

- Lot of programme results are envisaged by the project,
- Ways to achieve the expected results are generally presented, more like statements than like actions at
project level.
[1.3] Purpose: To assess if the project is aware about the problems to be addressed, if its intervention will be
adequate and will appropriately target the causes leading to the problem(s) identified
1.3 When national or regional strategies or action plans exist and are mentioned: section
1.2.2
How relevant to the particular needs and constraints foreseen by regional strategies or
regional action plans of the target countries or region(s) is the proposal? (including
synergy with other EU initiatives and avoidance of duplication).
Are there references to any significant plans undertaken at national, regional and/or
local level relevant for the action?
69
When the project innovates and is not framed in a strategy or action plan:
Are there sufficient data to indicate the added value of the project from the perspective of
the programme objectives and complementarities with the national and regional
strategies?
- Is there a coherent picture of the situation in the target region/ area/ sector which clearly
Questions to be
justifies the project intervention?

asked
- Are there enough data provided, especially official, on the situation in the target region/area/
sector related to the stated problem proving that the project has knowledge on the subject in a
consistent way?
- Is the project complementing national/ regional/ local strategies and/or action plans in order
to support solving the stated problem(s)?
When national or regional strategies or action plans exist and are mentioned:
- Presentation of the situation in the target region/ area/ sector is reliable and trustworthy, it
includes quantified official data and makes references to national/ regional strategies/
action plans, referenced with web links or provided in electronic version, AND
- There is evidence that the action complements the national/ regional strategies/ action
plans, AND
- Analysis of the pre-project situation is well addressed and is trustworthy, AND (see the
options below)
a) If the proposal is a continuation of a previous action:
- There is clear presentation on how the project is intended to build on the activities/ results
5*2= Very of previous actions, AND
good14
- There are references about conclusions and recommendations of evaluations that might
have been carried out after implementation of those actions.
b) If the action is part of a larger programme/strategy:
- Clear explanations on how the project fits or is coordinated with this programme or any
other planned project are given, AND
- Potential synergies with other initiatives, in particular from the European Commission are
clearly specified
When the project innovates and is not framed in a strategy or action plan:
- Added value of the project and complementarities with national and regional strategies
are properly substantiated
If:
1*2= Very poor - No reference to official data, strategies, or action plans is made when presenting the needs
and constraints of the target region/ area/ sector, OR
- Analysis of the pre-project situation lacks coherence and is not trustworthy, OR
70
14
The scores are multiplied by 2 because of their importance.
- The project comes out of the blue, no link or complementarities with national/ regional/
sectoral strategies or programmes can be identified

- Pre-project situation is general, lacks specificity, few official references are given
- Needs and constraints are rather justified for the country as a whole, rather than for a certain region/
area/ sector.
[1.4] Purpose: To determine if the project is appropriately focusing its intervention to address the problem(s)
identified in the target area
1.4 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are those involved (final beneficiaries15, section
target groups16)? 1.2.3
Have their needs been clearly defined and does the proposal address them appropriately?
Is there any information from reliable sources provided?
- Are the target groups and the final beneficiaries accurately defined?
Questions to be
- Are their specific needs adequately described as deriving from the needs and constraints
asked
stated for the target region/ area/ sector?

- Is there coherence between the objectives to be pursued and the specific needs to be
addressed by the project?
- Are the target groups or final beneficiaries clearly involved and benefiting from the project
activities?
Reasons to award maximum/ minimum scores
If:
- The target group and final beneficiaries are described with quantitative and qualitative
data (where possible), AND
- Clear distinction between the target groups and final beneficiaries is made, AND
- There is information about ways the project will select the target group, AND
5= Very good - Needs and constrains of the target groups and final beneficiaries are described based
on official sources of information, AND
- There is clear link between the needs and constraints of the target region/ area/
sector and the specific needs and constraints of the selected target group and final
beneficiaries, AND
- The project objectives specifically address the needs and constrains of the target
groups and the final beneficiaries, AND
- The target groups and final beneficiaries are directly involved and benefiting from the
15 Final beneficiaries are those who will benefit from the project in the long term at the level of the society or sector at
large.
Target groups are the groups/entities who will be directly positively affected by the project at the Project Purpose
71
16
level.
project activities
1= Very poor If:

- The target group and final beneficiaries are very schematically presented and they are
not relevant to project objectives, OR
- There is no description of the specific needs and constraints of the target group and
final beneficiaries, OR
- Project objectives do not address real specific needs and constraints of the selected
target group and final beneficiaries, OR
- The target group is barely involved in project activities.

- The target group is rather big in number, and is difficult to estimate about its participation to project
activities
- The target group is very generally described, and needs analysis the project has made is not based on
objective data and statistical information.
[1.5] Purpose: To determine if the project effectively takes into consideration EU priorities in relation to
sustainable development, gender equality, equal opportunities, and environmental issues
1.5 Does the proposal contain specific value added elements: sustainable section 1.2.4
development, gender equality, equal opportunities, and environmental issues?
- Does the project take into consideration EU horizontal themes?

Questions to be
- Are these priorities addressed through general statements or are there specific interventions
asked
at project level addressing them?

- Is the project foreseeing to implement EU good practices in a region/ area/ sector for the first
time?
- Is the project original or do not go beyond traditional lecturing/ training?
If:
5= Very good
- The proposal specifically and directly contributes to the EU horizontal themes through
e.g. concrete activities at project level, implementation of EU good practices, original
approach
1= Very poor If:

- The proposal has no added value elements to support EU horizontal themes.

- The project makes little efforts to properly analyze and address EU cross cutting themes.
72
Section 2 DESIGN OF THE ACTION

Purpose: To determine if the project is feasible i.e. if planned activities will lead to achieving of the
results, and if project specific objectives will contribute to achieving of the overall project objective
Maximum
score
2.1 How coherent is the overall design of the action? 5 x 2** section 1.3
How clearly defined is the implementation of the
action?
In particular, does it reflect the analysis of the
problems involved, takes into account external
factors and relevant stakeholders?
2.2 Is the action feasible and consistent in relation 5 x 2** section 1.3
to the objectives and expected results?
[2.1] Purpose: To assess if there is a good logic between the specific problems and needs identified and the
activities proposed by the project, and if any potential influencing factors were taken into consideration
2.1 How coherent is the overall design of the action? section 1.3
How clearly defined is the implementation of the action?
In particular, does it reflect the analysis of the problems involved, takes into account
external factors and relevant stakeholders?
- Is the project environment properly described (e.g. preparatory steps taken, main
to be asked
Questions
stakeholders consulted and their attitude towards the problem, important external factors
determining success or failure of the project)?
- Are the project objectives clearly described and feasible?
- Are the project objectives tackling the specific problems identified?
If:
- There is description of the project preparation stage, AND
- There is information about involvement and consultation of relevant stakeholders with
5*2= Very a view to have a properly backed up action, AND
good17
- The project objectives are proven to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and
time bounded, AND
- The overall design of the action is coherent, structured and logic, the project is fully
relevant to the needs and constraints identified for the target region/country, and also
for the target groups and final beneficiaries
73
17
1*2= Very If:

poor
- There is no information in the Concept Note, OR
- Project objectives miss important features (e.g. specificity, quantification, relevance,
time limits etc.), OR
- The overall design of the action is just a list of activities having nothing to do with the
needs and constraints identified, or with the objectives set

- Project objectives and results need improvement to be properly pursued during project implementation
- There is a weak link between the proposed intervention and the specificity of the target group
[2.2] Purpose: To establish if there is good logic between general and specific objectives, expected results and
activities envisaged by the project
2.2 Is the action feasible and consistent in relation to the objectives and expected section 1.3
results?
- Are the stated activities clear and logically sequenced?

Questions
asked
to be
- Are they leading to the stated results?

- Are the results and outputs appropriately presented and consistent?
- Are the results clearly supporting achievement of the project objectives?
If:
- Project activities are well described, logically sequenced and they are directly
addressing/ involving the target group and final beneficiaries, AND
5*2= Very - There are clear outputs and results foreseen to be achieved at the end of each group of
good18 activities, AND
- Outputs and results are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and can be achieved
in the proposed timeframe, AND
- There is direct and logic connection between the results foreseen to support project
objectives
1*2= Very If:

poor
- Project activities are schematically presented, OR
- Direct connection between project activities and the expected results cannot be
established, OR
- Outputs and results are not project specific, OR
- Outputs and results miss important features (e.g. specificity, quantification, relevance
for the project, etc.)
74
18

- Too many activities are planned if compared to the project lifetime
- Instead of outputs and results, processes or activities are formulated (e.g. improving the water quality,
instead of 10% improvement of the water quality to be supplied to 150 people living in village [...] by the
end of the project)
- Outputs and results are not realistic and would request important resources to be documented during
project implementation
75

Assessment Manual Step 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Assessment Manual Step 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Assessment Manual part A 2012, Call for Proposals

JOINT OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME

2nd CALL FOR PROPOSALS

PRIORITY 1 Towards a more competitive border economy

Purpose of this Assessment Manual and its annexes

TOOLS FOR THE EVALUATORS ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

1.2 Priorities and measures

Financial Target values set Target values set

Financial Target values set Target values set

1.3.2 Minimum and maximum size of grants

Priority Minimum size of grant (EUR) Maximum size of grant (EUR)

Priority 1 100,000 2,500,000

Priority 2 100,000 2,500,000

Priority 3 30,000 150,000

1.3.3 Co-financing rules

1.4. Eligible applicants, partners and actions. Eligibility rules

Priority 1 - Towards a more competitive border economy

Measure 1.2 - Cross-border initiatives in transport, border infrastructure and energy

Priority 2 - Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness

Management of biodiversity in the border area; Monitoring of fish-cultural resources; management of

Measure 2.2 - Water supply, sewerage and waste management

Elaboration of feasibility studies, technical projects, environmental impact assessment, cost-benefit

Priority 3 - People to people cooperation

Measure 3.2 - Educational, social and cultural exchanges

other educational institutions;

1.4.1 Not eligible actions / activities

1.5. Cross-cutting themes, cross border cooperation criteria and impact

1.5.2 Cross border cooperation criteria

1.5.3 Cross border impact

Chapter 2 STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING EVALUATION

2.2 The Evaluation Committee

Chapter 3 THE EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1 Working principles

Transparency and clarity

3.2 Overview of the evaluation process

1. Setting up the Evaluation Committee NA, JMA proposals

2. Receipt and registration of Concept Notes Joint Technical

4. Notification of Successful and Chairperson, Secretary

5. Receipt and registration of Full applications Secretary of the

2nd Evaluation Members of the

7. Notification of Successful and Chairperson, Secretary

3rd Evaluation Internal assessors and

9. EC check on double funding

10. Notification of Successful and Chairperson, Secretary

11. Grant contracts signature

Chapter 4 THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Setting up the Evaluation Committees

4.1.1. Use of external assessors during the evaluation process

4.2 Receipt and registration of the Concept Notes

For Priorities 1 and 2 For Priority 3

4.3 Opening session and administrative check for Concept Notes

4.3.1 Opening session

4.3.2 Administrative check of the Concept Notes

4.4 Concept Notes evaluation

Meaning Very good Good Adequate Poor Very poor

Criteria Maximum score

1) Relevance of the action and the cross border impact 30

2) Design of the Action 20

Total score and recommendations 50

4.5 Notification of successful and unsuccessful applicants

4.6 Appeals to the outcomes of the evaluation of the Concept Notes

For Priorities 1 and 2 For Priority 3

Glossary of useful terms

Analysis of Identification and verification of future desired benefits to which the