Complete and eligible applications are evaluated by three remote experts (one of them acting as rapporteur, responsible for drafting a consensus report), using the online call management platform, according to three criteria: excellence, impact and quality and efficiency of the implementation. Your application is given points out of 100.
Excellence (threshold: 18/30):
- Projects objectives, ambitiousness, and degree of innovation
- Competitive advantage
- Alignment with SME’s overall business strategy
- Co-creation or technology adaptation
Impact (threshold: 24/40):
- Market size
- Impact on end user
- Market access and risk
- Societal, environmental, ethical and gender relevance, in particular, within the frame of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Quality and efficiency of the implementation (threshold: 18/30);
- Capacity and role of the applicant SME and the main subcontractor
- Availability of resources required
- Realistic and clearly defined project management and planning
- Reasonable cost structure
Each expert will prepare an individual evaluation report that includes scores for each criterion with explanatory comments. Once the individual evaluation reports are finalised, the rapporteur will draft an evaluation consensus report and put forward comments that match the consensus scores[1] based on the individual evaluation reports.
The experts who have evaluated each proposal must agree and electronically approve the consensus report, including the comments and scores. In cases where experts do not agree, the consensus report, together with the disagreement notes, will be forwarded to the independent evaluation panel.
The top 105 proposals (one and a half times the total number of projects to be funded) from remote evaluation that score above threshold, progress to the independent evaluation panel and ethics review. If some proposals have tied scores with the 105th proposal, those also progress to the independent evaluation panel and ethics review.
For proposals below threshold or not in the top 105, the outcome of the consensus phase will constitute the result of the evaluation, and there will be no panel review.
An independent evaluation panel will decide a ranking list based on evaluation results.
An ethics panel review the list of applications that received a successful evaluation, discarding those that do not comply with relevant ethics requirements.
Communication of results:
Each applicant will receive a single evaluation report, including qualitative feedback and scores based on the conclusions of the expert’s assessments.
If your project application was rejected and you believe this was due to a procedural mistake during the eligibility check or the evaluation of your application, you can submit a redress request. A redress request can only be based on procedural grounds, with clear evidence of the reasons for complaint.
Ranking list:
The final independent evaluation panel ranking list and the ethics scrutiny will include:
- a ‘selection list’ with applications that might receive funding;
- a ‘reserve list’ with applications that may in the end get funding if one or more applications in the selection list cannot sign a grant agreement.
Funding will be awarded on the basis of this ranking, subject to the call availability budget.
Following the order set up in the ranking list, the first 70 successful SME market feasibility project coordinators will be sent a Grant Agreement by the Innowwide team at the Eureka Secretariat to be completed and duly signed within the period specified in the notification email. If any of them fail to sign within this period, applicant SMEs in the reserve list following the ranking order will be offered a contract until budget exhaustion.
It is intended to communicate the evaluation results during the first quarter of 2025.
[1] Scores are rounded up.
Learn more about Innowwide on our website.
Apply