outdated and do not allow for a proper evaluation of the financial capacity, the application may be rejected. The award criteria help to evaluate the quality of the applications in relation to the objectives and priorities set forth in the guidelines, and to award grants to projects which maximise the overall effectiveness of the call for proposals. They help to select applications which the Contracting Authority can be confident will comply with its objectives and priorities. They cover the relevance of the action, its consistency with the objectives of the call for proposals, quality, expected impact, sustainability and The evaluation grid is divided into sections and subsections. Each subsection will be given a score between 1 and 5 as follows: 1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = adequate; 4 = good; 5 = very good. Evaluation Grid Maximum Section Score 1. Financial and operational capacity 20 1.1 Do the applicants and, if applicable, their affiliated entity(ies) have sufficient experience 5 of project management? 1.2 Do the applicants and, if applicable, their affiliated entity(ies) have sufficient technical 5 expertise? (especially knowledge of the issues to be addressed) 1.3 Does the lead applicant have sufficient management capacity (including staff, equipment 5 and ability to handle the budget for the operation)? 1.4 Does the lead applicant have stable and sufficient sources of finance? 5 2. Relevance of the operation 30 Score transferred from the Concept Note evaluation 20 3. Effectiveness and feasibility of the operation 3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and consistent with the objectives and 5 expected results? Are they well methodologically developed with a clear indication of the partners’ responsibilities? 3.2 Is the operation plan clear, logically structured and feasible? 5 3.3 Does the full application contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcomes of the 5 operation (at the level of overall objective, specific objective(s) and project results)? Are the project indicators likely to contribute to the achievement of programme indicators? Is any evaluation planned? 3.4 Is the co-applicant(s)'s and affiliated entity(ies)'s level of involvement and participation in 5 the operation satisfactory? Does the proposal involve genuine cross-border cooperation (joint development, joint staffing, joint implementation, joint financing)? Are the activities proposed likely to have a clear cross-border benefit and impact? Is the partnership convincing? 15 4. Sustainability of the operation
outdated and do not allow for a proper evaluation of the financial capacity, the application may be rejected. The award criteria help to evaluate the quality of the applications in relation to the objectives and priorities set forth in the guidelines, and to award grants to projects which maximise the overall effectiveness of the call for proposals. They help to select applications which the Contracting Authority can be confident will comply with its objectives and priorities. They cover the relevance of the action, its consistency with the objectives of the call for proposals, quality, expected impact, sustainability and The evaluation grid is divided into sections and subsections. Each subsection will be given a score between 1 and 5 as follows: 1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = adequate; 4 = good; 5 = very good. Evaluation Grid Section Maximum Score 1. Financial and operational capacity 20 1.1 Do the applicants and, if applicable, their affiliated entity(ies) have sufficient experience of project management? 5 1.2 Do the applicants and, if applicable, their affiliated entity(ies) have sufficient technical expertise? (especially knowledge of the issues to be addressed) 5 1.3 Does the lead applicant have sufficient management capacity (including staff, equipment and ability to handle the budget for the operation)? 5 1.4 Does the lead applicant have stable and sufficient sources of finance? 5 2. Relevance of the operation 30 Score transferred from the Concept Note evaluation 3. Effectiveness and feasibility of the operation 20 3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and consistent with the objectives and expected results? Are they well methodologically developed with a clear indication of the partners’ responsibilities? 5 3.2 Is the operation plan clear, logically structured and feasible? 5 3.3 Does the full application contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcomes of the operation (at the level of overall objective, specific objective(s) and project results)? Are the project indicators likely to contribute to the achievement of programme indicators? Is any evaluation planned? 5 3.4 Is the co-applicant(s)'s and affiliated entity(ies)'s level of involvement and participation in the operation satisfactory? Does the proposal involve genuine cross-border cooperation (joint development, joint staffing, joint implementation, joint financing)? Are the activities proposed likely to have a clear cross-border benefit and impact? Is the partnership convincing? 5 4. Sustainability of the operation 15
Guidelines_for_grant_applicants_PROSPECT_final.docx