Back to results/list of all FAQs
Q: FP7-NMP-2007-SMALL-1/ NMP-2007-2.5.-2 (Stage 1 - Part B) - 1) Form A3.1.: What budget information is requested (only coordinator or all partners) ? In case I have to give a budget information for all partners, I have to use different values for flat rate of indirect costs and different funding schemes for RTD costs (75% or 50%). How does it fit in one table? 2) Should the whole part B only be 10pages ? 3) Are the tables 1.3.a - 1.3.e requested for stage 1 submission ? 4) Is section 2.1. - 2.4. really not necessary at stage 1 ? 5) Is section 3.2. requested at stage 1 submission ? 6) Are there any other format rules?
A: Form A3.1:Only the coordinator is required to complete A forms (this is to keep stage 1 simple). Therefore, only the coordinator will complete Form A3.1. However, we want to see the full proposal budget (not just the coordinator's costs); so, at stage 1, the coordinator should submit the total proposal costs against his "Personnel Costs" heading (it is fully understood that these are not really personnel costs - that just happens to be the first line). All other cost headings can be left empty. This overcomes the complication that different partners have different breakdowns of costs.Q2 - Part B:The limit for the text of Part B is 10 pages. This should not be exceeded. A pro-forma cover page is mandatory and the guideline also recommends a contents - these would not be considered as part of the 10 pages of text. In addition, 2 tables are specifically requested in Section 6 - the consortium and the budget; these tables are clearly stated to be in addition to the 10 pages. The tables should simply list the consortium partners (in so far as they are known at this stage) and should not be used to elaborate in any way on the information included in the 10 page submission. The Totals from the budget table and the requested EC funding are the figures that should appear on Form A3.1 above. The contents of these tables will not be evaluated at stage 1 - this is treated as supporting information for the evaluators.Q3 - Part B:In Section 1.3, only an overview of the workplan is essential at stage 1. It is not necessary to adhere to the detailed presentation that is demanded at stage 2. The tables proposed may be used or adapted if desired but, remember, the Implementation is not being evaluated at stage 1, just the S&T Quality .Q4. - Part B:Section 2 deals exclusively with implementation which will not be evaluated at all at stage 1. Therefore, this Section may indeed remain empty at stage 1 (preferably do not change the section numbering). Q 5 - Part B:Section 3.2 is likewise related to a sub-criterion which will not be applied at stage 1 - therefore, it is not required at this stage. (Note, there is a subtle difference between Section 1.3 and Section 3.2 at stage 1: the workplan is not being evaluated but it is very difficult to assess the S&T Quality without some overview of the workplan - that is why an overview is essential under 1.3; on the other hand, it is not necessary to see any overview of the dissemination and use plan in order to evaluate the Impact - so 3.2 is not required) Q6 - Part B:Font, page margins, line spacing, etc. can all affect the amount of information that can be included in 10 pages. These are not all defined but evaluators are usually not encouraged by extreme attempts to push the limits. As a general rule, use the existing formats in the template (although some of the spacings between sections may be exaggerated).
FP7 (Seventh Framework Programme) ( NMP )