Hints and Suggestions For Grant Application

implemented by a consortium led by PM Group
The PPF3 project is funded by the EU and ВЛАДА РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ

КАНЦЕЛАРИЈА ЗА ЕВРОПСКЕ ИНТЕГРАЦИЈЕ
САВЕТИ И
СУГЕСТИЈЕ ЗА
ПОДНОШЕЊЕ ПРИЈАВА
ЗА ГРАНТОВЕ
САВЕТИ И СУГЕСТИЈЕ ЗА ПОДНОШЕЊЕ ПРИЈАВА ЗА ГРАНТОВЕ
APPLICATION
FOR GRANT
SUGGESTIONS
HINTS AND
EU INTEGRATION OFFICE
The PPF3 project is funded by the EU and
implemented by a consortium led by PM Group
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR GRANT APPLICATION

GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA
EU INTEGRATION OFFICE
HINTS AND
SUGGESTIONS
FOR GRANT
APPLICATION
May 2011
Hints and suggestions for grant application
Publisher:
Republic of Serbia
Government
European Integration Office
For publisher:
Milica Delevic, PhD
Author:
European Integration Office
No. of copies:
300
Design and prepress:

Grafolik, Belgrade
Printing:
Grafolik, Belgrade
Belgrade, 2011
ISBN 978-86-87219-21-2
CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији

Народна библиотека Србије, Београд
336.6:061.2(035)
005.912:82-6(035)
САВЕТИ и сугестије за подношење пријава

за грантове / [приредила] Канцеларија за
европске интеграције. - Београд : Влада
Републике Србије, Канцеларија за европске
интеграције, 2011 (Београд : Графолик). - 66
стр. ; 25 cm
Текст штампан у међусобно обрнутим

смеровима. - Насл. стр. приштампаног енгл.
превода: Hints and Suggestions for Grant
Application. - Тираж 300.
ISBN 978-86-87219-21-2
1. Канцеларија за европске интеграције
(Београд)
a) Невладине организације - Финансирање -
Приручници b) Кореспонденција - Приручници
COBISS.SR-ID 186179852
1
Hints and suggestions for grant application
FOREWORD
This document has been produced by the European Integration Office in Serbia (SEIO),
supported by the IPA Project Preparation Facility (PPF3) team, in order to integrate the
wide array of manuals and guidelines at the disposal of EU-funded grant applicants in
general and, more specifically, of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) keen to improve
the quality of their proposals.
This set of practical suggestions is not to be seen as a training manual. It does not of-
fer an extensive explanation of the functioning of EU grant-aid, or guidance on how
applicants can identify and find information on calls for proposals. Such information
is readily available and, in any case, is extensively provided both at the meeting orga-
nised when any call is launched and in the call package (applicant guidelines, applica-
tion forms, templates, etc.).
The purpose of this document is to increase applicants’ understanding of the criteria

applied when a proposal for a grant funded by the EU is evaluated. The practical hints
and suggestions included relate to the standardised practices of project evaluation
that assessors must follow when awarding a grant. In explaining such evaluation cri-
teria, the ultimate aim of this document is to align the intentions of the applicant with
those qualitative elements considered by the EU Programmes as worthy of being sup-
ported.
From the point of view of the EU, a grant is a non-commercial payment by the con-
tracting authority enabling the beneficiary to implement an action intended to help
achieve an objective of EU policy (or part of such an objective). In certain cases, the
grant may also finance the functioning of a body which pursues an aim of general
European interest or has an objective that forms part of an EU policy. Grant schemes
operate through a variety of instruments – for example, in pre-accession funds (IPA),
in projects focused more specifically on CSO development, in projects in fields such
as socio-economic development, environment, culture, education, etc., and in Cross-
Border Cooperation Programmes (CBC) projects. For the EU, these projects are es-
sential for reinforcing regional cooperation, which is crucial during the pre-accession
period. Grants are also used in different kinds of EU programmes (e.g. community pro-
grammes). When a country becomes an EU member state, grants remain important
(they are used in the framework of EU agriculture policy, regional policy, etc). Grants
are a highly valuable tool available to a number of non-profit structures. In Serbia, to-
day, an important portion of funding – by both the EU and other donors – is provided
through grant procedures. Local public authorities or CSOs can finance their activities
through grants. However, to avail of such grants, proposals must be of a high quality
(both technical and administrative).
2
In drafting this document, the team based its suggestions on official European Com-
mission documents (such as Practical Guidelines to contract procedures for EU external
actions – PRAG) and other working papers available on the internet, as well as the
Guidelines for assessment of EU IPA CBC application packages,1, the Grant beneficiaries
frequently asked questions2 and the Learning Handbook: grant management principles,3
used for preparing the glossary (Section 7.2). 4
1
InTER – D. Mijacic, April 2010
2
EU Delegation to the Republic of Serbia – Strengthening Serbia–EU Civil Society Dialogue Project
3
IPA Programming and Project Preparation Facility PPPF – N. Vukadinovic, July 2010
4
See also IPA Glossary, SEIO, 2011
3
List of Contents
FOREWORD 1
1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Target of this document (whom this document is addressed to) 6
1.2 Purpose of this document (to improve quality of project proposals
and increase the rate of grant absorption) 8
1.3 Structure of this document (based on application evaluation and assessment) 9
2 THE APPLICANT’S CAPACITY 13
2.1 Main applicant and partners (who leads, who participates, and why) 16
2.2 Applicant and partner know-how (who knows what to do) 17
2.3 Applicant and partner management (technical reliability) 18
2.4 Applicant and partner finance (financial accountability) 19
3 RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT IDEA 21
3.1 Scope of the action (objective and purpose of the project) 24
3.2 Background conditions (problem analysis and potential synergies) 24
3.3 Project target (a needs analysis) 25
3.4 Cross-cutting issues (added value) 26
4 METHODOLOGY OF THE PROJECT 29
4.1 Project’s intervention logic (consistency and coherence of the actions) 31
4.2 Project feasibility (planning of actions and of works) 33
4.3 Project effectiveness (objectively verifiable indicators) 34
4.4 Project’s partnership (distribution of responsibilities, allocation of tasks) 35
5 IMPACT OF THE ACTION 37
5.1 Tangible outcomes (immediate results) 39
5.2 Multiplier effects (replication and pilot value of the project) 40
5.3 Sustainability (at all levels: financial, institutional, environmental, social, etc) 41
6 HOW TO PREPARE A BUDGET 43
6.1 Budget (cost-effectiveness ratio) 47
6.2 Congruence (realistic costs) 48
7 USEFUL LINKS AND REFERENCES 49
7.1 Internet references 50
7.2 Glossary 51
8 ANNEXES 55
8.1 Evaluation grid 56
8.2 Table of contents of the Grant Application Form 60
8.3 Table of contents of Guidelines for Applicants 61
4
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Financial and operational capacity – maximum scores 13

Table 3.1: Relevance of project proposal – maximum scores 18
Table 4.1: Methodology:
Effectiveness and feasibility of action – maximum scores 24
Table 5.1: Sustainability – maximum scores 30
Table 6.1: Budget and cost-effectiveness – maximum scores 37
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – sections 3 and 4 11

Figure 3.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – section 1.2 17
Figure 4.1: Grant Application Form – section 2.2 23
Figure 5.1: Grant Application Form – section 2.2 29
5
1 PART
INTRODUCTION
6
1.1 Target of this document

(whom this document is addressed to)
This document is aimed at providing practical advice for applicants for EU-funded
grants. In most cases across the Western Balkans, these applicants are civil-society
organisations (civil associations and NGOs) whose activities are not always (and not
solely) project-based. Of course, the same can be said of other potential applicants for
EU-funded grants, such as public administrations and small to medium-sized enter-
prises (SMEs).
Civil-society organisations (CSOs) have specific missions and engage in a wide array
of activities that are deeply rooted in a given territorial context (from very local to re-
gional) or specialised in a specific sector (gender issues, human rights, environmental
protection, etc.). These organisations depend on a precise and soundly designed fund-
raising mechanism. Their funding usually relies on multiple sources, ranging from pri-
vate donors and corporate sponsors to governments and international organisations
such as the European Union. Gaining access to EU financing is, however, a relatively
complex task.
In general terms, the EU funds projects in two ways:
• Grants, which are subsidies for actions supporting EU policies

• Other types of contracts (services, supplies and works), where contractors are
paid to perform tasks directly on behalf of the EU
Typically, only non-profit organisations and public administrations are allowed to ap-
ply for grants as well as, occasionally, SMEs. There are exceptions; for example, under
the Framework Programmes for Research and Development, large companies and in-
dustries are eligible to receive subsidies.
Grants are often one of the many sources of income for CSOs, income which allows
them to implement initiatives that are conceived (or, if already conceived, must be
reshaped) in the form of projects. With grants, the EU to some extent relinquishes
control of the outcome of actions proposed by independent parties; the beneficiary
of a grant owns the project and its results. If the project creates, for instance, a book,
a website, or any other kind of tangible or intangible product, the EU has no claims to
copyright or direct editorial influence.
Other types of contracts, on the other hand, entail full EU ownership of all results,
whether buildings, objects, or rights. By their legal nature, such contracts put the EU
administration in full, immediate control of any properties of the action or product.
For example, if the project activity is to develop a website, the EU will specify exactly
which kinds of content to put on it, and insist on approving officially all details before
they are published. Similar procedures apply with all kinds of contracts.
7
There are significant differences between how grant beneficiaries and implementing
partners for service contracts are selected.
By definition, an EU grant is a direct financial contribution, by way of donation, in order

to finance either (a) an action intended to help achieve an objective related to EU policy,
or (b) the functioning of a body which pursues an aim of general European interest or
has an objective related to EU policy. In this context, EU grants are oriented towards
supporting specific policies. For example, in the case of supporting and raising aware-
ness of EU activities in Serbia, the EU Delegation to the Republic of Serbia would pub-
lish a call for proposals related to that specific aim. It might set certain requirements or
restrictions on the kinds of organisations entitled to participate, whether a minimum
number of legal entities should be involved, if an international partnership is required,
and what the overall budget line is.
However, where grants are concerned, the EU would not specify how exactly an ap-
plicant is supposed to achieve the desired objective. On the contrary, rather than nar-
rowing options, one of the main intentions behind such grant procedures is to elicit
creative solutions from a community of independent providers. In principle, applicants
may come up with brilliant and highly effective suggestions which an EU official might
never have considered.
With other types of contracts, it is quite the opposite. The EU will describe in detail what
precisely it wants to implement. In many if not most cases, there is not much room left
for creativity; if the offer tender proposal digresses from the tender specifications, the
bid will most probably be rejected.
In the case of grant proposals, in contrast, the tendering authority does not explain
what exactly it wants an applicant to do, but rather outlines the overall objectives of the
policy programme. Applicants, therefore, have no way to assess competition.
In short, with a grant, there may be dozens or even hundreds of competing propo-
sals, and, what is worse, many may not even be comparable with each other. Another
fundamental difference between grants and other types of contracts is that, for the
latter, competitive market prices should be quoted, while a genuine value-for-money
criterion is not a fundamental issue as for grants. For both grants and other contracts,
the EU requires full financial transparency. But, where grants are provided, making a
profit is expressly forbidden. Therefore, CSOs awarding a grant will be required to sub-
mit detailed accounting of costs and expenses and even to disclose the salaries of staff
members involved in the activity. This means, effectively, that EU money is merely ‘pass-
ing through’ the organisation.
Indeed, an EU grant does not support a CSO per se, just for the sake of supporting civil
dialogue in a given situation or the existence of an organisation, whatever its relevance.
Such baseline support is of course provided indirectly and in a general way, in so far
as the EU encourages governments to facilitate civil dialogue in a democratic environ-
ment. Instead, EU-funded grants are specifically and exclusively aimed at providing di-
rect support to single initiatives that are conceived, planned and organised in the form
of projects.
8
It is assumed that applicants are not project managers by profession and are applying
for EU grants as part of a more articulated and wider fund-raising operation: hence,
in most cases, applicants find it difficult to generate projects that are eligible for EU-
funded grants or to translate their ideas into feasible, measurable projects that comply
with EU rules for financing.
This document is addressed to Civil Society Organisations wanting to success-

fully apply for EU grants and seeking practical advice on how to design projects
that meet the qualitative criteria applied in grant evaluation.
1.2 Purpose of this document

(to improve quality of project proposals and increase the rate of
grant absorption)
For a given project to be awarded an EU-funded grant, it needs to be assessed and

evaluated on the basis of very specific procedures.
Although each grant is regulated by its own specific guidelines, the EU nevertheless
requires a certain set of procedures to be followed and strictly respected. These pro-
cedures are standardised in the so-called PRAG (Practical Guidelines to contract pro-
cedures for EU external actions).
According to PRAG, the evaluation of a grant application passes through a number of

stages and checks: from initial administrative compliance to the final control in terms
of eligibility of expenditure.
In this document, it is taken for granted that all administrative compliances criteria, are
known and followed by the applicants. This document focuses on how the project has
to be conceived, planned, described and presented in order to be positively evaluated
during its technical assessment.
The technical assessment of a project focuses on the qualitative elements featured in

the application, such as: the applicant’s capacity, the relevance of the proposal, the
implementation methods, the expected impact and the value for money.
Dealing in a satisfactory manner with all these aspects requires technical capacities in
project design and planning that applicant organisations often lack. Sometimes, de-
spite the overall quality of the project idea, an application is not granted the requested
support because it was inadequately described and circumstantiated.
Submitting applications for grants requires an investment, not only in terms of co-
financing but also of time and human resources allocated to the preparation of the
project proposal. It could be said that preparing a grant application is a project in itself.
Therefore, it is important to know how grant applications are evaluated.
9
Furthermore, EU grant funds are sometimes not fully spent because of the lack of qua-
lity of applications. On a larger scale, this problem is reflected in the low absorption
of EU funds, which eventually weakens a country’s negotiating strength when it is dis-
cussing multi-annual financial allocation with the EU.
In short, the capacity to generate and design high-quality applications is crucial.
The purpose of this document is to improve the quality of technical project

proposals from Civil Society Organisations applying for EU grants, so that they
successfully respond to the evaluation criteria and thus increase overall grant
absorption.
1.3 Structure of this document

(based on application evaluation and assessment)
In Serbia and across the Western Balkans, a wide array of documents, manuals and
guidelines are available both from official (managing authorities, donors) and unofficial
(technical assistance) sources, whether on paper or downloadable from websites. 5 All
these materials are aimed at providing clear explanations on how to manage, imple-
ment and apply for EU-funded grants. As well, every call for grant application has its
own information package, providing extensive instructions for applicants. These infor-
mation packages include guidelines for applicants, contract details, application form,
log-frame matrix template, budget spread sheet and all other templates necessary for
submitting the required declarations, statements and documentation.
Clearly, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) applying for EU-funded grants do not need
more explanations or information. However, the quality of applications and the overall
absorption rate of granted funds need to be improved.
This document does not seek to repeat, duplicate or overlap the information that is
already so richly available, but to provide advice for applicants (in the form of practical
hints and suggestions) to help ensure that their proposals meet the assessment criteria
used to rate and eventually approve grant requests. Applicants are thus encouraged to
take this document’s suggestions into account when completing application forms. 6
Evaluation, which follows the stages of publication of the call for proposals and the
submission of proposals, starts with the receipt by the contracting authority of the
concept notes / proposals, and ends with the decision to award grants to the selected
applicants.
The technical evaluation is standardised for all grants. The assessment procedures are
extensively explained in the PRAG and supplemented with grids and scoring mecha-
nisms. In general terms, all projects are evaluated according to these criteria; they are
5
See Section 7.1: Internet references in this document.
6
Refer to the Evaluation Grid in Annex 8.1 of this document
10
only slightly and occasionally adjusted to fit the main features of a given call for appli-
cations. Thus, evaluation criteria sometimes vary in relation to the specific conditions
of the call and the related EU programme that finances it.
In general terms, the evaluation procedure follows these steps:
• Approval and composition of the Evaluation Committee

Proposals are evaluated by an Evaluation Committee appointed by the contract-
ing authority, comprising a non-voting chairperson, a non-voting secretary and
a number of voting members (always an odd number). The voting members (a
minimum of 3 evaluators) must have the technical and administrative capacities
necessary to give an informed opinion of the proposals. All voting members of
the committee have equal voting rights.
• Opening of the applications and administrative check
All proposals received are opened at an initial session at which the registration
details are checked and completed, and the proposals numbered. The admini-
strative check is then carried out; the Evaluation Committee verifies the admini-
strative compliance of the application and that all documents and declarations
are included, appropriate, completed and signed.
• Evaluation of the concept note
The concept note must answer a series of questions in 4 sections, on a maximum
of 4 pages. The overall assessment is based on the scores obtained under each
sub-heading, added up by heading. The secretary prepares a list of all the con-
cept notes, ranked by score. The contracting authority then sends a letter to the
applicants whose concept note has been evaluated, indicating whether their full
application will be evaluated or not.
• Evaluation of the application forms
The quality of the application forms must be assessed on the basis of the evalua-
tion grid containing the selection and award criteria. Once the required approvals
are received, the contracting authority must send a standard letter to the appli-
cants, stating whether their proposal has been provisionally selected, based on
their score, and inviting those whose proposals have been provisionally selected
to supply the required supporting documents. The Evaluation Committee’s deci-
sions are taken independently and in an advisory capacity. After the assessors
have examined all the proposals, the Evaluation Committee will draw up its rec-
ommendations. It must not change the assessors’ scores, nor alter the evaluation
grids completed by the assessors.
• Verification of eligibility
It is general expected that the verification of eligibility will be carried out only for
the provisionally selected applicants at the end of the procedure. However, the
Evaluation Committee may decide to verify eligibility at any previous step of the
procedure. It can exclude an applicant at any stage of the evaluation process if it
is obvious that the eligibility criteria are not met.
• Approval of the applications
The Evaluation Committee must ultimately draw up a list of the proposals selec-
ted for financing, indicating the score obtained by each proposal, the amount of
the proposed grant and the proportion of eligible costs it is proposed to finance.
11
This list consists of the proposals obtaining the best scores, ranked by order,
within the limits of the funds available under the call for proposals. The commit-
tee may also draw up, subject to the same conditions, a reserve list comprising
a limited number of proposals that obtained the next best scores after those se-
lected for financing. This reserve list is valid during the period mentioned in the
evaluation report. The proposals included in that list may receive a grant as funds
become available under the call for proposals – for example, if the eligible costs
of the selected proposals are reduced, if it proves impossible to sign a contract
with a selected applicant, etc.
The structure of this document follows the standard evaluation chart that all
appointed evaluators / assessors have to follow to check the quality of proposals,
after the preliminary verification of administrative compliance.
The five criteria applied in assessing applications are:
1. APPLICANT CAPACITY, 2. RELEVANCE OF THE IDEA, 3. PROJECT METHO-

DOLOGY, 4. EXPECTED IMPACT and 5. VALUE FOR MONEY.
For each of these criteria, this document provides practical hints and suggestions
to help applications get closer to the maximum scores envisaged by the evalu-
ation grid.
12
13
2 PART
THE APPLICANT’S CAPACITY
14
It is important that the applicant for an EU-funded grant provides detailed and circum-
stantiated information on its capacity to manage both the proposed activities and the
requested financing to implement them. The Grant Application Form (GAF) has a
full section dedicated to this crucial set of information.
The GAF also requires the applicant to provide a detailed description of the partner-
ship composition.
Such information should be provided in GAF sections 3 and 4, as shown below:
Figure 2.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – sections 3 and 4
It is important to note that:
• The evaluators may not allocate all the available funds of a given grant if they find
that not enough proposals achieve the quality required to receive a grant.
• A proposal may be rejected if another project of a similar nature is awarded a
higher score.
• When several proposals submitted by the same applicant are selected for finan-
cing, but the applicant does not have the financial and operational capacity re-
quired to implement all of them, the proposal(s) awarded a lower score may be
rejected. Thus, only the proposal (or proposals) that the applicant really has the
capacity to implement will be contracted.
Accountability and reliability
There are, therefore, two main elements to keep in mind when applying for an EU-
funded grant: accountability and reliability.
Accountability should be seen in the sense of management capacities (financial, ad-

ministrative, procedural), and reliability in the sense of operational capacities (finan-
cial, technical, logistical).
Both these elements are crucial for a positive evaluation of the proposal. Applicants
must show in a detailed manner that they possess both these requirements.
15
Although reliable in operational terms, an organisation may be unaccountable be-

cause it lacks administrative staff, or it may be soundly managed financially but even-
tually unreliable in implementing an action.
These capacities have to be circumstantiated through a range of information on com-

pliance and eligibility that are checked at two separate stages of the evaluation process.
Relevant statements, documents and declarations must be provided, but, in comple-
ting an application form, it is also necessary to extensively describe both capacities, to
administer funds and implement actions.
Acting in partnership
It appears is generally required – and sometimes it is a mandatory requirement for

some EU-funded grants – to act in partnership.
Partnership may be complementary, additional, and pivotal. One or more partners

may complement the applicant competencies with their specific expertise (e.g. where
an articulated operation requires different skills), may add resources to strengthen the
whole initiative (e.g. where two similar organisations duplicate the same actions in
two different geographical or social circumstances), or may provide know-how that the
applicant needs (e.g. where a foreign partner brings its best practices into the pro-
posed project).
In all cases, the evaluators take into account the accountability and reliability of the
partners as well as those of the applicants.
When partnership is not mandatory for obtaining a grant, it is important to explain

and justify the need for acting in partnership, and the partner organisation’s task in
the work plan.
As already mentioned, it is recommended that, when preparing a project, an applicant

relies on the evaluation grid of the Grant Application Form.
When examining the financial capacity and expertise of the applicant and partners,
the evaluators will pay attention to their previous experience in receiving and using
EU funds.
Provided that the proposal is going to be evaluated in all its parts, it must score a
minimum 12 out of 20 points for this section in order not to be rejected. However,
the aim is to get the maximum score for each of the criteria, as indicated in Table 2.1:
16
Table 2.1: Financial and operational capacity – maximum scores
Sections of the
Max
1. Financial and operational capacity Grant Application
score
Form
1.1 Do the applicant and partners, if applicable,
have sufficient experience of project mana- 5 2.3; 3.3; 4
gement?
have sufficient technical expertise (notably 5 3.2; 3.3; 4
knowledge of the issues to be addressed)?
have sufficient management capacity (inclu-
5 3.3; 3.4; 4
ding staff, equipment and ability to handle
the budget for the action)?
1.4 Does the applicant have stable and sufficient 3.3; 4;

5
sources of finance? Budget table
Total score: 20
2.1 Main applicant and partners

(who leads, who participates, and why)
To meet criterion 1.1 (Do the applicant and partners have sufficient experience of project
management?), the applicant must show that it is potentially able to implement the
proposed project with the planned resources, within the proposed time-frame, and
in a qualitative fashion. The relevant experience should be outlined, not by the team
appointed to concretely implement the envisaged actions, but by the lead applicant
and partner organisations.
To get the maximum of 5 points for criterion 1.1, the information provided should:
• Show that the applicant and partners have implemented more than three projects
so far, including at least one funded by the EU
• Describe the mechanisms for project management, with the responsibilities clearly
assigned
• Explain clearly the processes for inflow of information and decision-making
The information provided will be assessed as being poor or very poor (scores 2 and 1)
where:
• The applicant and partners do not have any experience in project management or
if, despite the team’s expertise, there is no proven experience in having worked on
projects funded by international donors.
17
• The mechanisms for project management are not well described and/or responsi-
bilities are not clearly assigned.
IMPORTANT
The proposal will be seriously weak if:
• The team structure is inadequate for the proposed activities, in terms of

both quantity and quality (too many people performing a limited number
of activities, or vice versa).
• The control mechanisms are not clearly defined, especially where those co-
ordinating the project have no role in the financing of the project or the
overall organisation.
2.2 Applicant and partner know-how

(who knows what to do)
The grant is not given to support the specific mission of a given organisation, but to
implement a defined (episodic) activity. Therefore, specific technical expertise has to
be mobilised that may not be available within the applicant and partner organisations.
Criterion 1.2 (Do the applicant and partners have sufficient technical expertise?) evalu-
ates to what extent the applicant and partners know (and have direct experience of)
exactly what has to be done to implement the project.
To get the maximum 5 points, the information provided should demonstrate that:
• The applicant and partners have at least three relevant project references in the
field addressed by the project.
• The team members have sufficient expertise in the project subjects and are fa-
miliar with the specificities of the target groups.
• The outsourcing of external experts (if any) is justified and demonstrated as neces-
sary – it must be shown that the proposed external experts have extensive know-
ledge of the project subjects, and do not duplicate experts on the staff of the appli-
cant and partners in terms of knowledge.
• Where the external experts are public officials or are employed on permanent
contracts by other organisations, any overlap or conflicts with their usual func-
tions are clearly avoided.
The provided information will be assessed as being poor or very poor (scores 2 and 1)
where:
• The applicant and partners have no experience in the project subjects nor famili-
arity with the specificities of the target group.
• The project relies entirely on the external experts and, worse, some or all of these
external experts also lack the required technical expertise.
18
IMPORTANT
• More than 30% of the implementation of budgeted activities is outsourced

to external expertise, and there is no clear indication that those external ex-
perts will be employed to perform similar tasks by the applicant or partners
at the conclusion of the project.
• Project activities overlap with routine tasks performed by public officials in-
volved in the team.
2.3 Applicant and partner management

(technical reliability)
Managing EU funds often entails a lot of paperwork. Sufficient administrative staff

must be mobilised to ensure that the proposed project is accountable and this has to
be clearly described in the proposal. Moreover, implementing a project adds to the
usual workload of the applicant and partners; therefore it has to be shown that they
can provide the necessary premises and personnel.
Although the project activities are not the usual ones of the applicant and partner, and
some tasks have to be implemented by resources that are specifically recruited for the
purpose, ownership of the project must remain with the applicant organisation. Thus
excessive outsourcing will not be acceptable.
To get maximum of 5 points for the criterion 1.3 (Do the applicant and partners have suf-
ficient management capacities?), the applicant must provide relevant information on:
• the availability of permanent staff and accountants who can implement the
project
• the availability of a well-equipped office to carry out project management
functions
• the availability of resources with adequate capacities to perform the tasks pro-
posed
The provided information will be assessed as being poor or very poor (scores 2 and 1)
where:
• The applicant and partners rely only on non-permanent staff (or on volunteers) to
perform accountancy and project management tasks.
• Insufficient information is given to allow management capacities to be assessed.
IMPORTANT
• The applicant and partners excessively outsource project management

tasks and technical expertise.
19
2.4 Applicant and partner finance

(financial accountability)
To safeguard funds disbursement, the EU requires clear information on the applicant’s

financial accountability. Usually, after an advance is provided for the start-up of activi-
ties, money will be disbursed according to the receipt of periodic financial reports. To
avoid a situation where the applicant is unable to comply with the rules of financial
reporting and is eventually not eligible for payments, the EU focuses on its financial
accountability at the application stage.
To get maximum of 5 points for criterion 1.4 (Does the applicant have stable and suf-
ficient sources of finance?), the applicant should demonstrate that:
• Sources of funding from previous years are reliable, stable and adequate to the
financial size of the requested grant.
• The stated co-financing matches the financial resources of the applicant and part-
ners.
• The expertise to raise funds and ensure project sustainability is in place.
If information to demonstrate the above is not provided, the proposal will be assessed
as being poor or very poor (2 or 1 points) – or, more precisely, where:
• The applicant and partners have no funding from their own sources from, pre-
vious years (although they managed to attract external resources to guarantee
the co-financing of the project).
• There are discrepancies between the co-financing stated in the proposal and the
related evidence that is provided.
• The applicant and partners do not demonstrate any expertise in raising funds,
which implies a risk that the project outcomes will not be sustained.
IMPORTANT
• There are inconsistencies between the size of the requested funding and the
experience shown in managing funds over previous years. If an applicant re-
quests an amount considerably higher than the ones usually managed, their
ability to properly manage such an amount will be in question.
20
21
3 PART
RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT IDEA
22
The Grant Application Form (GAF) requires an applicant to show in detail the relevance
of their proposal to the objectives and purposes of the call for proposals.
This information should be detailed in GAF section 1.2, as indicated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – section 1.2
Demonstrating the relevance of the proposed project is crucial. Applicants often confuse
their ordinary mission with the objectives of a given call. In launching calls for proposals,
the EU seeks to support CSOs (as well as public administrations, SMEs, etc.) and there
are always clear and detailed objectives to pursue. No matter how wide these objectives
might be, proposals submitted must be relevant to their achievement. The number of
applications that are rejected for not being relevant is surprisingly high.
Project ideas unrelated to a given call are sometimes re-arranged in their scope to fit
with the call’s purposes and objectives; doing this is usually ineffective.
In other cases, project ideas are weak but the problem they address is important. How-
ever, the evaluators would not be assessing the importance of the problem but the
extent to which the project would resolve it.
The applicant thus needs to show strong awareness of the situation their proposed
project will deal with. They should ensure that the problem to be addressed is clearly
presented and analysed, and that there is strong consequentiality in the relation be-
tween cause and effect. A problem analysis, circumstantiated by relevant data and sta-
tistics, and perhaps illustrated by a cause-effect diagram, could help to attain a positive
evaluation.
It is also important to target the proposed actions towards needs that are well identified
and relevant to the objectives of the EU programme launching the call for proposals.
It is necessary, therefore, to clarify who are the target groups, the beneficiaries, and the
final beneficiaries of the proposed actions. Applicants usually implement actions whose
effects are targeted towards specific groups for the benefit of others; for example, a CSO
working for the full integration of disadvantaged groups may apply for funds so as to
promote among educators new methods of teaching children belonging to such groups.
The target here is the educators adopting new methods of teaching; the beneficiaries are
the children receiving innovative education, and the final beneficiaries are the disadvan-
taged groups whose integration in society will be promoted through better education.
Another element that is crucial in evaluation is the relevance of the project ideas in terms
of innovation. A project must always encompass a certain degree of innovation in
23
tackling the identified problem. Best practices that have proven effective in similar cir-
cumstances but are proposed for the first time in a given situation are of course posi-
tively evaluated, even if they may entail certain risks. New methods of implementing
planned activities – for example, using Information Communications Technology (ICT)
tools – can also be positively assessed.
Next, the pilot significance of the project – that is, the extent to which it might usefully
be multiplied or implemented on a larger scale, whether geographically or for a larger
target group –will also be a strong factor in a successful application.
In all cases, where relevant, the applicant should also pay attention to cross-cutting
issues promoted by the EU as substantial values, such as gender equality, equal oppor-
tunities, environmental protection, etc. Such elements will add value to the proposal.7
As already mentioned, it is recommended that, in preparing a project, applicants always

rely on the evaluation grid of the full application.8
The aim is to get the maximum score for each of the criteria (see Table 3.1), taking into
account that the minimum points required to ensure that the proposal is not rejected
are 16 points out of 30:
Table 3.1: Relevance of project proposal – maximum scores
Sections of the
Max
2. Relevance of the action Grant Application
score
Form
2.1 How relevant is the proposal to the objectives and
5(x2)7 1.2.1; 2.2.1
priorities of the Call for Proposals?
2.2 How relevant to the particular needs and constra-
ints of the target country(ies) or region(s) is the
5(x2)8 1.2.2; 2.2.1
proposal (including synergy with other EU initia-
tives and avoidance of duplication)?
2.3 How clearly defined and strategically chosen are
those involved (final beneficiaries, target groups)?
5 1.2.3; 2.2.1
Have their needs been clearly defined and does
the proposal address them appropriately?
2.4 Does the proposal contain specific added-value
elements,suchasenvironmentalissues,promotion
of gender equality and equal opportunities,
needs of disabled people, rights of minorities and 5 1.2.4; 2.2.1
rights of indigenous peoples, or innovation and
best practices and the other additional elements
as indicated by the Guidelines?
Total score 30
7
The score is doubled, given the importance of the criterion.
8
Idem
24
3.1 Scope of the action

(objective and purpose of the project)
When responding to a call for proposals, applicants should keep in mind that they are
not asking for money to perform their usual activities, but to contribute to the achieve-
ment of an objective that is also seen as important by the EU.
For a project to score 5 points (very good) for criterion 2.1 (How relevant is the proposal
to the objectives and one or more priorities of the call for proposal?) the following ele-
ments must be clearly explained:
• There is strong consistency between the proposal and at least one of the Pro-
gramme objectives as included in the Applicant Guidelines.
• The proposal falls within at least one of the priority sectors as listed in the Appli-
cant Guidelines.
• The relevance of the proposal to the programme’s overall objective and priorities
is well justified (e.g. it is clearly demonstrated that the proposal fully fits within the
given Programme and not within another EU programme).
The proposal would be assessed as poor or very poor (2 or 1 points) if it:
• Is not directly relevant to the Programme objectives

• There is a more appropriate EU programme that could support the proposed ac-
tivities
IMPORTANT
It is necessary to be fully aware of the Programme’s objectives and of their correct
interpretation. Note that the objectives of the proposal should not be formulated
as a literal repetition of the Programme objectives, but as a contribution to their
achievement.
3.2 Background conditions

(problem analysis and potential synergies)
Successful applicants are those that know in detail the situation their proposed project
addresses. The EU has a strong overall vision (the objectives to be achieved) but lacks
the detailed point of view (knowledge of specific circumstances). Therefore, an ap-
plicant should describe the background to its proposal in such detail as will demon-
strate how the project can be of benefit in the given situation – the more specific the
description, the better.
To achieve a very good evaluation (5 points) for criterion 2.2 (How relevant to the par-
ticular needs and constraints of the target country/ies or region/s is the proposal?), the ap-
plicant must:
25
• Define in detail the context of the stated problem in the country/region

• Use and quote official sources of information in order to justify the problem iden-
tification
• Ensure that the justification is reliable and trustworthy – e.g. is up to date, objec-
tive and impartial (sometimes international organisations may be more trustworthy
sources than government ones)
A poor or very poor score (2 or 1 point) will be given if:
• The country or regional context is described in overly general terms.

• Relevant information about the situation in the country/region where the project
would be implemented is missing.
IMPORTANT
The proposal will appear seriously weak if:
• The problem is only schematically presented.

• The effects of the proposed actions are not clearly stated.
• The justification applies to the country/region as a whole rather than to a
precisely identified situation (geographical or social).
3.3 Project target

(a needs analysis)
The applicant must demonstrate strong awareness of the needs its proposal addresses
and of those target groups and beneficiaries expressing these needs. The analysis of
needs, of course, implies ownership of the project idea and eventually the consistency
of benefits achieved once the project is implemented.
To receive a very good score (5 points) for criterion 2.3 (How clearly defined and strategi-
cally chosen are those involved {final beneficiaries, target groups}? Have their needs been
clearly defined and does the proposal address them appropriately?), the application must:
• Describe well all the beneficiaries (all those who will benefit from project im-
plementation)
• Make a clear distinction between the beneficiaries and the target group (those
whom the project addresses )
• Make sure that all important target groups are identified and described
• Show that no other groups may be negatively affected by the project (and, if they
will be, explain how and why)
• Define the target groups by providing quantitative and qualitative data
• Specify with detailed information (quantitative and qualitative data) the problems
and needs of the target group
• Involve the target group in the design of the project and demonstrate that the
target group has positive expectations and perceptions about the activities to be
implemented
26
• Make sure that the project objectives address the target group’s needs
A proposal will be rated as poor or very poor (2 or 1 points) where:
• The target group is only schematically presented.

• The target group is not relevant to the achievement of the Programme’s objective.
• The specific problems and needs of the target group are general or are not clearly
identified.
• The objective of the proposed project does not match the identified needs.
IMPORTANT
The proposal will appear seriously weak if:
• The target group is very generally described and the analysis is not based on
objective information and statistical data.
• The dimensions of the target group are too great in relation to the proposed
project’s time-frame and resources.
• The information and data on the problem identified are too general and not
clearly based on the target group’s defined needs.
• The proposed project is not relevant to the real needs of the target group,
which has not been involved in the project design.
3.4 Cross-cutting issues

(added value)
A very good score (5 points) for criterion 2.4 (Does the proposal contain specific added-
value elements?) will be given if the proposal includes elements that will lead to ad-
ditional benefits related to important cross-cutting issues such as the environment;
gender equality and equal opportunities; the needs of disabled people, minorities and
indigenous peoples; innovation and best practices, etc. For example, it will be taken
into account that the project activities:
• Do not promote equal participation in terms of gender or disadvantaged people

• Safeguard the environment rather than damage it
• Do not lead to specific advantages that reduce competitiveness or fair and equal
access to resources
• Boost innovative mechanisms with a pilot role or pivotal significance for amplifi-
cation, replication or multiplication
• Introduce best practices shown to have been effective in similar circumstances
Proposals not containing such added value will be rated poor or very poor (2 or 1 points)
– if, for example, the project activities:
• May produce consequences that directly or indirectly harm the environment

• Envisage the inappropriate exclusion of part of the population from the benefits
of the project
27
• May alter the rules of fair competition at the local level
IMPORTANT
The relevance of cross-cutting issues depends on the specificities of the given
EU Programme launching the call, as described in the Guidelines for Applicants,
section 1.2 (Objectives of the programme and priority issues).
28
29
4 PART
METHODOLOGY OF THE PROJECT
30
The Grant Application Form (GAF) requires the applicant to provide a detailed descrip-
tion of the methodology for implementing project activities – in section 2.2 (as shown
in Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Grant Application Form – section 2.2
The main purpose of this section is to provide information to donors and assessors on
the feasibility of the project activities.
Following the Logical Framework Approach, this entails the preparation of the
project intervention logic as outlined in the log-frame matrix (Annex E3d of the full
application package).
While preparing the log-frame matrix, attention should be given to the logic involved;
ensuring, for instance, that the consequentiality of actions is soundly respected; that the
planned activities lead to the relevant results, and that the project’s specific objective will
be achieved in a way that contributes to the overall project objective. Most importantly,
the external factors (risks) should be assessed and circumstantiated, with an explanation
of how risks are going to be faced and managed, and counter-measures taken.
In this section, the applicant should also:
• Indicate the level and quality of the partnership

• Outline the level of involvement of the target groups
• Provide reassurance that the applicant has the necessary resources and expertise
to implement the activities within the foreseen timeframe and within the avail-
able budget
An important part of the methodology is the explanation of the way that project
monitoring and internal evaluation will be organised, and of the relevance and
quantification of indicators. Indicators have to be objectively verifiable, measurable,
relevant and timed; they represent the main benchmarks to measure the project’s im-
portance and impact. An assessment of the reliability of the indicators’ verification
sources clarifies further the cost-efficiency ratio of the proposed methods. The fre-
quency of collecting information is also an important issue to consider when preparing
the methodology, as this will show a capacity to perform effective monitoring.
31
IMPORTANT
Before preparing this section of the Grant Application Form, the Guidelines for
Applicants should be checked, in particular section 2.1.3: Eligible actions: actions
for which an application may be made.
This section of the Guidelines for Applicants has detailed information on

project duration, sectors and themes, as well as on the types of projects and
activities that can be implemented.
As already mentioned, it is recommended that, when preparing a project, the appli-

cant should always rely on the evaluation grid of the full application.

The aim is to get the maximum score for each of the criteria, as listed in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Methodology: Effectiveness and feasibility of action – maximum scores
Sections of the
3. Effectiveness and feasibility of the action Max
Grant Applica-
(Methodology) score
tion Form
3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practi- 2.2.1; 2.2.2
cal, and consistent with the objectives and expe- 5 Log-frame - Annex
cted results? E3d
2.2.3
3.2 Is the action plan clear and feasible? 5 Log-frame - Annex
E3d
3.3 Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable 2.2.2
indicators for the outcome of the action? Is 5 Log-frame - Annex
evaluation foreseen? E3d
3.4 Is the partners' level of involvement and parti- 2.2.2

5
cipation in the action satisfactory?
Total score: 20
4.1 Project’s intervention logic

(consistency and coherence of the actions)
If the applicant is familiar with the Logical Framework Approach and masters the com-
pletion of the log-frame matrix, receiving a positive evaluation for this criterion is like-
ly. Of course, using the logical framework approach correctly implies rationalisation
of the activities, a set of benchmarks to objectively quantify (and verify) the expected
results, and a realistic risk analysis that identifies all external factors (risks) that might
affect project implementation.
32
To get maximum of 5 points for criterion 3.1 (Are the activities proposed appropriate,
practical, and consistent with the objectives and expected results?), the project should be
prepared in such a way that:
• The project activities are sufficiently detailed.

• The goal, target groups, concrete deliverables, duration and completion date, re-
sources, responsibilities, etc., are specified for each activity.
• The activities are consistent with the project objective(s).
• All activities that are essential for the efficient implementation of the project are
foreseen.
• There are no activities listed which implementation is not necessary.
• All the activities are feasible in terms of number, timing, cost-effectiveness (hu-
man and material resources employed).
• There are no activities foreseen that overlap with the routine practices of the ap-
plicant.
• The methodology for implementing activities is clearly detailed.
• All the proposed methods and approaches are relevant to the knowledge level,
background and cultural specificity of the target group.
• There is clear evidence that the team proposed for project implementation has
the capacity and experience to apply the proposed methodology.
• There is no target-group bias or cultural specificity that could hamper the imple-
mentation of the proposed activities.
This part of your project will be assessed as being poor or very poor (scores 2 and 1) if:
• The activities are only schematically presented and not well defined.
• The activities are not consistent with and not relevant to the achievement of the
project objective(s) and results.
• The proposed approaches and project design are not relevant to the needs and
specificity of the target groups.
• The applicant/partner has not given evidence of the capacity required to imple-
ment the methodology proposed.
• The methodology to implement the project activities is not defined.
• The approach for working with the target groups is not well described.
IMPORTANT
Serious shortcomings in a proposal related to criterion 3.1 include:
• The activities are schematically presented, and details are missing (e.g. cur-
ricula, training modules).
• The stated activities overlap with the routine practices of the applicant and
with other projects being implemented.
• The main methods of and approach to working with the target groups are
not clearly defined.
• Some of the proposed interventions do not respond to the specific needs of
the target groups / beneficiaries.
33
4.2 Project feasibility

(planning of actions and of works)
In formulating their methodology, applicants can usefully undertake a detailed break-

down of the work structure, to clearly assign tasks and distribute resources accor-
dingly. This also helps to differentiate the partner contributions and the role of experts
in implementing the operation.
To get the maximum of 5 points for criterion 3.2 (Is the action plan clear and feasible?),
the applicant should make sure that:
• All activities described in section 2.2.1 of the application form are listed in the ac-
tion plan (section 2.2.3) and all activities listed in the action plan (section 2.2.3) are
described in detail in section 2.2.1.
• The planned activities are realistically implementable within the foreseen period
and logically sequenced; each activity should be designed so as to be implement-
ed within a suitable period.
• Human resources are clearly indicated and related tasks assigned.
• The responsibilities of partners are clearly defined for each of the activities.
• Suitable preparatory time is planned for each activity.
• Activities are evenly spread over the course of the project implementation (for
example, the applicant should make sure that there are no periods in the action
plan in which many activities are planned, while in other periods activities are not
planned, even though the budget states that salary costs remain the same)
This part of the project will be assessed as poor or very poor (scores 2 and 1) if:
• The activities are not logically sequenced.

• The activities are not feasible.
• There are inconsistencies between the action plan (section 2.2.3) and section 2.2.1
of the application form.
• There is an unrealistic distribution of activities over the period of the project im-
plementation.
• The responsibilities of the partners are not clearly stated.
IMPORTANT
Serious shortcomings in the proposal related to criterion 3.2 :
• Inconsistency between the action plan and section 2.2.1 of the application
form
• Too many activities planned over a relatively short period, with insufficient
resources
34
4.3 Project effectiveness

(objectively verifiable indicators)
Criterion 3.3 (Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators for the outcome
of the action? Is evaluation foreseen?) assesses whether the project provides sufficient
and realistic information that can be used to monitor and evaluate performance. The
objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) for evaluating the outcome of the project are
listed in the second column of the log-frame matrix.
The mistake most often made by applicants when defining indicators is to mix them
with the results. Great care is needed in defining the indicators. For example: “obtain-
ing more qualified competencies and developing new skills” is a way of formulating a
result; whereas an indicator of the achievement of such result can be formulated as:
“a number (to be specified) of staff trained on subjects (to be defined) by the end of the
project”. It is important to learn how to distinguish results and indicators and formulate
them correctly.
To get the maximum of 5 points for criterion 3.3 it is particularly important that:
• The indicators are defined with respect to the project’s overall objective, specific
objective(s) and results.
• The indicators are specific to the project and closely related to project activities
and outputs.
• The indicators are quantified and time-framed.
• The indicators are reliable and allow comparability of results.
• The indicators are simple and the relevant information can be collected at low
cost and without requiring much time and resources.
• The sources of verification are identified, and the frequency of collection of infor-
mation and the responsibility of the partners in collecting information are both
defined.
This part of the application will be assessed as poor or very poor (2 and 1 points) if:
• The indicators are not well defined.

• The indicators are not quantified.
• The indicators are not project-specific.
• The sources of verification are not identified.
IMPORTANT
It is a serious shortcoming if:
• Processes like (improving, mastering, etc.) instead of indicators are formu-

lated.
• The indicators are not quantifiable or not quantified.
• The indicators are complicated and the collection of information would de-
mand too many resources.
35
4.4 Project’s partnership

(distribution of responsibilities, allocation of tasks)
Partnership is one of the EU’s key principles, so criterion 3.4 (Is the partners’ level of
involvement and participation in the action satisfactory?) is extremely important. A
partnership in the project is expressed by describing clearly and in detail the role and
participation of each partner through its human and material resources – based on ex-
pertise, complementarities between partners, and experience in implementing joint
activities and projects.
To get the maximum 5 points for criterion 3.4:
• The participation of the partners is justified (based on their capacities and exper-
tise).
• The partners have a real role to play in implementing the project and their respon-
sibilities are clear.
• The partners have an active role in the design and implementation of the
project.
• The partners contribute to the project budget and get financial remuneration for
activities implemented (budget resources are allocated to the partners).
This part of the application form will be assessed as poor or very poor (2 and 1 points) if:
• The partnership is formal but the partners do not participate actively in project
implementation.
• The role of the partners is not defined.
IMPORTANT
Section 2.1.2: Partnership and eligibility of partners, in the Guidelines for Appli-
cants, stipulates whether partnership is mandatory or the applicant can act indi-
vidually. The proposal will be weak if:
• Partnership is mandatory but no partners are involved in the project.

Other serious shortcomings are:
• The partnerships stated in the proposal are merely formal (just to earn a
higher score).
• There is no complementarity between partners.
36
37
5 PART
IMPACT OF THE ACTION
38
A very important element of the Grant Application Form is the way the sustainability
of the project results is addressed. By including mechanisms that will enable such sus-
tainability, we are enabling the project to achieve the expected impact/change on the
target groups / beneficiaries.
Since, at the early stage of a proposal, it is difficult to predict the potential for project
sustainability, the focus should be on how effective the envisaged mechanisms will be
in ensuring that the project results will eventually be sustainable.
Figure 5.1: Grant Application Form – section 2.2
The description of all sustainability issues should be provided in section 2.2.4 of the
Grant Application Form. The applicant should outline:
• The expected impact of the action, with quantified data where possible, at the tech-
nical, economic, social, and policy levels
• A dissemination plan and explanation of the possibilities for replicating and extend-
ing the action outcomes (multiplier effects)
• A detailed risk analysis and contingency plan
• The main preconditions and assumptions both during and after the implementa-
tion phase
• How sustainability will be secured after completion of the action (follow-up activi-
ties, built-in strategies, ownership, communication plan, etc) according to the four
dimensions of sustainability: financial, institutional, policy-level and environmental
To verify that these four dimensions of sustainability are considered in the application
form, the evaluators will examine:
• How the activities will be financed after the funding ends

• Will structures be in place that will allow the activities to continue at the end of
the action?
• Will there be local ownership of the results of the action?
• What will be the structural impact of the action – e.g. will it lead to improved legi-
slation, codes of conduct, methods, etc.?
• Will the action have a negative or positive environmental impact?
Also, the multiplication effect will be assessed by examining the scope for replication
and extension of the outcome of the action, taking into account the dissemination of
relevant information.
39
The evaluation grid for the sustainability section of the Grant Application Form indi-
cates that the maximum score that can be obtained is 15, as shown in Table 5.1:
Table 5.1: Sustainability – maximum scores
Max Sections of the Grant

4. Sustainability of the action
score Application Form
4.1 Is the action likely to have a tangible impact
5 2.2.4
on its target groups?
4.2 Is the proposal likely to have multiplier effe-
5 2.2.4
cts?
4.3 Are the expected results of the proposed
action sustainable:
- financially
5 2.2.4
- institutionally
- at policy level (where applicable)
- environmentally (where applicable)
Total score: 15
5.1 Tangible outcomes

(immediate results)
Applicants should have clear in their minds the expected impact of the project they are
proposing. In this context, impact means a change that should occur in the situation the
activities address, in the period after the project implementation. It is important to
differentiate project results from the project impact:
• The project results are the concrete and immediate effects delivered and pro-
duced by project implementation.
• The project impact will be produced at a latter stage thanks to these results – and
probably will not be due solely to them.
To get the maximum 5 points for criterion 4.1 (Is the action likely to have a tangible im-
pact on its target groups?), the project description must clearly show:
• It is evident that the activities planned will lead to the achievement of the stated
results.
• The stated results will lead to the achievement of the project’s specific
objective(s).
• Achieving the specific objective(s) will contribute to achieving the overall project
objective.
• Achieving the objectives is feasible with the resources employed (human, mate-
rial).
• The assumptions that may influence the achievement of the planned results are
40
properly addressed, there is great probability that these assumptions will hold
true (such assumptions / external factors are well described are likely to be borne
out).
• The project impact on the target group is clearly presented and defined as a
measurable change.
• The impact is achievable and in line with the project’s vertical logic.
• Project impact on the target group is not well defined, or the probability that the
project will have a substantial impact on the target group is very marginal.
• There are serious weaknesses / incoherencies in the project’s vertical logic.
• The assumptions / external factors are not well assessed.
IMPORTANT
Serious weaknesses in the proposal include:
• The planned activities are inconsistent with the stated results.

• There is a lack of information about the project results / impact.
• Too many assumptions are made, which may hamper the achievement of
the expected results, and the impact on the target groups will be limited.
• Impact is stated as an activity, rather than as an effect or change.
5.2 Multiplier effects

(replication and pilot value of the project)
A proposal is greatly strengthened if it is possible to replicate or multiply the project

experience in a different situation or in a wider dimension. Besides the economies of
scale that multiplication entails, such potential shows that the project is not episodic
and that the investment by the applicant (as co-funded by the EU grant) has a pilot
value. In other words, it may lead to further, and probably stronger, support.
To get the maximum 5 points for criterion 4.2 (Is the proposal likely to have multiplier
effects?), the following elements should be addressed:
• The project incorporates / foresees or will create a model or practice for replica-
tion.
• The mechanisms for / approaches to multiplication are properly described.
• The applicant and partners have identified parties / organisations that may be
interested in implementing this model / practice.
• The project includes mechanism to provide information to these parties / organi-
sations during project implementation, so as to raise their interest and motivate
them to eventually apply it.
• The applicant and partners have the capacity (including material and human re-
sources) to multiply this model / practice by themselves.
41
This part will be assessed as poor or very poor (2 and 1 points) if:
• It is unlikely that the suggested approaches / mechanisms will lead to multiplica-

tion.
• The project does not include (and the applicant has not elaborated) mechanisms
for multiplying the project results.
• The applicant and partners do not have the capacity (material or human) to
multiply this model / practice.
IMPORTANT
• The project does not include a model / practice that can be multiplied.
• The parties that would potentially be interested in multiplying the project
results are not identified.
• The applicant and partner lack the capacity to multiply the effect / results.
5.3 Sustainability
(at all levels: financial, institutional, environmental, social, etc)
For criterion 4.3 (Are the expected results of the proposed action sustainable?), the ap-
plicant should consider providing evidence on all or some of the issues listed below:
Financial sustainability
• There is clear evidence that outputs will surmount project inputs (so there is a
positive rate of investment).
• There are not more feasible means of responding to the needs of the target groups
and achieving the project results.
• It is evident that the applicant can financially guarantee the replication of project
activities after the project has ended.
Institutional sustainability
• There is evidence that the project team will keep on working and providing servi-
ces to the target groups after the project ends.
• There is justification for sustaining the continual use of employed technology /
equipment after the project ends.
• After the project ends there will be structures in the target regions that can con-
tinue to provide the services developed during the project.
• There is evidence that the target groups will be interested in continuing the de-
veloped activities after the project ends.
Policy-level sustainability
• There is a national / municipal policy in the respective sector that may guarantee
public / state interest in the project results.
• There is evidence that the municipality / state would support the project results
through appropriate mechanisms / budget / resources.
• The project will lead to amendments of legislation, development of codes of con-
ducts, or similar actions.
42
Environmental sustainability
• There is evidence that the project action will have a positive impact on the envi-
ronment.
Gender aspects and equal opportunities
• The project foresees equal access for men and women to project activities and
results.
To get 5 points for criterion 4.3, the following elements should be considered:
• There is a strong likelihood that the project benefits will be sustained after the
project is over.
• The applicant has identified all the forms of sustainability and has adequately ana-
lysed them.
• There is no evidence that the project benefits will be sustained after the project
has ended.
• There is no or inadequate analysis of sustainability.
IMPORTANT
• No or little attempt is made to assess how results and activities will continue
after the project ends.
• There is no description of how the structures or equipment put in place
within the framework of the project will be sustained after it has ended.
43
6 PART
HOW TO PREPARE A BUDGET
44
The budget for grants is the tabulation of costs related to project activities. The project
budget is single and comprehensive – it contains all the expenses needed to imple-
ment the activities and all the sources of funding.
The project budget relates all planned activities to the expenditures required, and
provides information on the quantities and value of all the inputs needed.
The Template for Grant Budget9 is an Excel workbook that contains three worksheets:
• Worksheet 1 – the budget of the project, for the total duration of the project and
for its first 12 months of implementation
• Worksheet 2 – justification of the budget, for the total duration of the project
• Worksheet 3 – the amount requested and other expected sources of funding for
the total duration
Worksheet 1 presents the applicant’s budget for the project. It consists of 8 sections:
• Human resources
• Travel
• Equipment and supplies
• Local office cost
• Other costs, services
• Other costs
• Contingency reserve
• Administrative costs
What to include in the Human Resources section of the budget

Human resources should list all the project team members. Applicants often forget to
include all members in the budget.
Per diem rates must not exceed the rates defined by the European Commission.10 The
rates can be less than the maximum allowed but cannot go over the limit.
• Wages and salaries (gross amount) of people engaged in the project, with their
roles specified (coordinator, project manager, assistant, etc) – the salaries and
costs must be consistent with those that apply in the applicant organisation
• Fees of consultants, trainers and external experts who will be engaged in project
implementation (except those who will be engaged through a tendering process
in order to procure their services)
• Per diem to cover accommodation, meals and local transportation
9
Annex E3c of the grant application package
10
per diem rates can be found on following address http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/
per_diems/index_en.htm
45
• Per diem for missions abroad and for the project staff – the rates must not exceed
the maximum amount allowed by the European Commission
• In the country of residence of the project staff, the standard per diem has to be
used – however, in case of overnight staying, the average cost of hotel accom-
modation should be quoted.
• The accommodation and subsistence costs of participants in seminars / confe-
rences
What to include in the Travel Expenses section of the budget

Travel expenses should be estimated for local and international transportation and be
presented in the per km rate.
• International travel – return air tickets, stating destinations and number of pas-
sengers
• Local transportation – usually on a monthly basis or according to mileage
What to include in the Equipment and Supplies section of the budget

This section should include all supplies that the applicant envisages purchasing in or-
der to implement the project.
Budget lines can be added to allow better breakdown of costs.
If a tender procedure for procurement of equipment is needed, the proposal should

include the costs of subcontracting. This may relate to purchase or rental of:
• Furniture, computer equipment (can be broken down into PC, printer, office desk,
etc.)
• Spare parts for equipment
• Other items, always to be specified
What to include in the Local Office section of the budget

The Local Office costs include expenses such as vehicle cost, office rent, consumables
and maintenance costs, – for example:
• Vehicle costs
• Office rent
• Bulk supplies
• Other services (tel / fax, utilities, etc.)
Note that the rental costs cover only the office rental space for the time and for the
purposes of the project.
Other costs and services are included in a budget line where the applicant should in-
clude all services to be subcontracted, such as development of studies, printing costs
(leaflets, brochures), translation cost, etc.).
46
What to include in the Other Costs, Services section of the budget

• Publications, studies, research – only if subcontracted
• Expenditure verification – 3% to 5% of the value of the project
• Evaluation costs for an evaluation that has to be performed by an external assessor
• Translations, translators and interpreter services, specifying the number of days,
amount per day, and total amount
• Costs for financial services, such as: banking fees on money transfers (1-2%), finan-
cial guarantees, opening of accounts, etc
• Costs of conferences, seminars – only if subcontracted
• Cost of media coverage and raising public awareness of the project (press confe-
rences, TV, radio, publications, brochures, posters)
‘Other costs’ is the budget line that can be used if there are costs not foreseen in any
previous budget lines.
Under Contingency reserve, the applicant should plan some reserves in case they are
needed for unforeseen costs. This budget line should not exceed a maximum of 5%
of the total direct eligible costs and can be used only with the prior approval of the
contracting authority.
Administrative costs cover the electricity, maintenance, water, telephone, internet, etc.
costs of the applicant. If these costs are covered by this budget line, they should not be
included in the Local Office section of the budget.
Before preparing the budget,11 the applicant should check:
• the overall indicative amount available under the call for proposals
• the minimum and maximum amounts available for the grants requested
• the minimum and maximum percentages of total eligible costs
• the eligible and ineligible costs
All this information can be found in Guidelines for Grant Applicants section 1.3 – Fi-
nancial allocation provided by the Contracting Authority, and section 2.1.4 – Eligibility of
costs: costs which may be taken into consideration for the grant.
In preparing the budget, the applicant should ensure that:
• The Budget form – Annex E3c (incl. detailed justification of costs) – is respected
in its format
• The budget includes only eligible costs
• The figures fall within the maximum / minimum project / grant amounts
• The budget heading thresholds are respected
• The co-financing requirements are met
• All activities are duly budgeted
• The costs for expenditure verification are included, if applicable
11
Annex E3c of the application package
47
The Evaluation grid section related to the budget includes the following questions:12
Table 6.1: Budget and cost-effectiveness – maximum scores
4. Budget and cost-effectiveness Max Sections of the Grant

of the action score Application Form
5.1 Are the activities appropriately reflected in
5 (x2)12 Annex E3c
the budget?
5.2 Is the ratio between the estimated costs Annex E3c
and the expected results satisfactory? 5
2.2.1
Total score: 15
6.1 Budget
(cost-effectiveness ratio)
To get the maximum 5 points for criterion 5.1 (Are the activities appropriately reflected in
the budget?), it is important that:
• The costs stated in the budget correspond to the activities described in section
2.2.1 of the application form.
• All necessary details for each item have been provided: unit, number of units, unit
rate, total costs, number of participants, duration of events, etc.
• All the costs have been correctly placed under the relevant budget items (salaries,
overheads, etc).
• There are no overheads included under ‘other’ budget items.
The proposal will be assessed as poor or very poor (2 and 1 points) if:
• There are discrepancies between the activities stated in section 2.2.1 and the budget.
• A relatively high number of costs are not clearly justified (presented as lump
sums).
• The costs are not stated under the relevant budget items.
• There are mathematical errors.
• There are serious mistakes in respecting the budget format.
IMPORTANT
Serious shortcomings in the proposal include:
• The costs are not stated under the relevant budget items.
• Detailed justification of costs is lacking.
If a project is recommended for funding and criteria such as the above are not
satisfied, the assessors may propose that the amount of each of the unspecified
budget items be cut so to decrease the total amount of the project budget.
12
The rate is doubled because of the importance of the issue.
48
6.2 Congruence
(realistic costs)
To get the maximum 10 points for criterion 5.2 (Is the ratio between the estimated costs
and the expected results satisfactory?), it is important that:
• The costs in the budget relate to normal market prices.

• All the stated costs are realistically quantified and priced in relation to the esti-
mated outputs (number of consultancies, trips, brochures, participants).
• Quantities are realistically estimated in relation to the outputs.
• All costs reported in the budget are also mentioned in the narrative description
of activities.
• There are no unjustified costs (e.g. equipment not related to activities, trips, pub-
lications, etc.).
• There are no ineligible costs (e.g. prices quoted with VAT, capital investments, de-
preciation, currency-exchange losses, on-going project expenses, etc.).
Proposals will be assessed as poor or very poor (2 and 1 points) if:
• There are serious discrepancies between budget items and usual market prices
or costs.
• There are serious discrepancies between budget items and estimated outputs.
• Ineligible costs are stated in the budget.
• The budget format is not respected.
IMPORTANT
Serious shortcomings in the proposal include:
• Excessive quantities (working days, circulation of publications, transporta-

tion, trips, etc)
• The budget includes ineligible costs.
• There is unrealistic costing, especially for salaries, per diems, equipment
• The max/min thresholds are not respected.
• There is inconsistency between costs given in the breakdown of costs and
partner declarations.
• There are subcontracting costs with no added value for the project.
49
7 PART
USEFUL LINKS AND REFERENCES
50
7.1 Internet references
PRAG (Grants Annexes)

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/implementation/grants/index_en.htm
Technical Assistance for Civil Society Organisations

http://www.tacso.org/Default.aspx?template_id=69&langTag=en-US&pageIndex=1
EU Integration Office of the Republic of Serbia

http://www.seio.gov.rs/code/navigate.asp?Id=20
Delegation of the EU to the Republic of Serbia

http://www.europa.rs/en/kakoDoFondova/otvoreno.html
New Funds, Better Rules: Overview of new financial rules and funding opportunities
2007–2013. A beginners’ guide
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/funds_rules/pack_rules_funds_en.pdf
Department for planning, programming, monitoring and reporting on EU funds and

development assistance, EU Integration Office of the Republic of Serbia
http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Evropa/PublicSite/index.aspx
Strengthening Serbia – EU Civil Society Dialogue Project; Grant Contract Implementa-

tion: Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.dijalog.org.rs/dijalog.asp?j=e
InTer: Guidelines for Assessment of EU IPA CBC Application Packages, Dragisa Mijacic
http://issuu.com/inter-territorialdevelopment/docs/guidelines_for_assessment_of_eu_ipa_cbc_
applicatio
The Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities, Exchange 3 Documentation for

the implementation of projects
http://www3.exchange.org.rs/en/page/21/Documentation+for+the+implementation+of+projects
Aid Delivery Methods – Project cycle management guidelines, Aidco, European

Commission, March 2004
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/reports/index_en.html
European Community procedure for implementation of EU-financed external aid

programmes and projects:
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/index_en.htm
51
7.2 Glossary13
Administrative compliance
Verification that an application is complete in accordance with the checklist in the
guidelines for applicants.
Applicant
Person who applies for a grant. To be eligible for a grant, applicants must be a non-
profit public body and/or a private body governed by public law, an international
organisation, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), a non-profit body or associa-
tion.
Application form
The general template for the application form is given in the PRAG, as well as the
standard template for the Budget table and the Log-frame.
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 mem-
ber of the Evaluation Committee.
Benchmark
Reference point or standard against which performance or achievements can be as-
sessed.
Beneficiary of a grant
Person / organisation who receives a grant.
Co-financing
EU funding of programmes and projects usually takes the form of co-financing the
eligible expenditure (i.e. the EU does not pay for 100% of a project); the remainder has
to be covered by public funds supplied by the beneficiary, though private money can
sometimes be used if eligible expenditure is defined as total expenditure rather than
public expenditure. For IPA, the default EU co-financing rates, sometimes referred to
as “aid intensities” or “intervention rates”, vary between Components (85% for I to IV,
75% for V). In certain cases, however, exceptions can be made and the EU co-financing
rate raised, sometimes to 100%. Details per Component are to be found in Articles 38,
67, 90, 149, 153 and 173 of the IPA Implementing Regulation. The term “co-financing”
obviously applies not only to funds supplied by the EU, but also to the remainder pro-
vided by a beneficiary (in most cases national public funds provided from state, re-
gional or local budgets). EU, national public and non-public funds can be delivered via
joint co-financing or parallel co-financing.
Concept note
Synthetic presentation of the project – the concept note must answer a series of ques-
tions in 4 sections, on a maximum of 4 pages
13
See IPA Glossary, SEIO 2011
52
Contingency reserve
Each project must make a provision for (relatively) small and unexpected budgetary
expenditure.
Development intervention
An instrument for partner (donor and non-donor) support aimed at promoting develop-
ment.
Development objective
Intended impact contributing to physical, financial, institutional, social, environmen-
tal, or other benefits to a society, community, or group of people via one or more de-
velopment interventions.
Direct award
The award of one or more grants without organising a call for proposals – a direct
award is only appropriate in special circumstances and must always be the subject of
an evaluation report.
Effect
Intended or unintended change due directly or indirectly to an intervention.
Equal treatment
The grant award process must be completely impartial.
Evaluation
The systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, pro-
gramme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the
relevance and fulfilment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible and use-
ful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of
both recipients and donors.
Eligibility of costs
Costs that may be taken into consideration for the grant must be based on real costs
based on supporting documents.
Final beneficiaries of a grant

Those who will benefit from the project in the long term at the level of society or the
wider sector.
Goal
The higher-order objective to which a development intervention is intended to con-
tribute.
Grant
A direct payment of a non-commercial nature by the Contracting Authority to a re-
cipient to implement an operation (or in some cases to finance part of its budget) in
order to promote an EC policy aim.
53
Grant programme
A programme that determines the objectives and scale of assistance in the form of
grants for operations promoting EC policy aims.
Guidelines for applicants

Document explaining the purpose of a Call for Proposals for grants. It sets out the rules
regarding who may apply, the types of operations and costs that 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.
Impacts
Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a develop-
ment intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
Independent evaluation
An evaluation carried out by entities and persons free of the control of those respon-
sible for the design and implementation of the development intervention.
Objective
Intended impact contributing to physical, financial, institutional, social, environmental,
or other benefits to a society, community, or group of people via one or more develop-
ment interventions.
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.
Outcome
The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention’s out-
puts.
Outputs
The products, capital goods and services which result from a development interven-
tion; may also include changes resulting from the intervention which are relevant to
the achievement of outcomes.
Monitoring
A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators
to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development inter-
vention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and
progress in the use of allocated funds.
PADOR
Potential Applicant Database Online Registration
(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/onlineservices/pador/index_en.htm)
Partner
The individuals and/or organisations that collaborate to achieve mutually agreed ob-
jectives. Applicants’ partners participate in designing and implementing the action.
54
Performance
The degree to which a development intervention or a development partner operates
according to specific criteria / standards / guidelines or achieves results in accordance
with stated goals or plans.
Performance indicator
A variable that allows the verification of changes in the development intervention or
shows results relative to what was planned.
Re-granting
If the action requires financial support to be given to third parties (re-granting), it may
be given on the condition that the financial support is not the primary aim of the ac-
tion and that the conditions for the giving of such support are strictly defined in the
grant contract or decision, with no margin for discretion.
Relevance
The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with
beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’
policies.
Results
The output, outcome or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of
a development intervention.
Review
An assessment of the performance of an intervention, periodically or on an ad hoc
basis.
Stakeholder
Any individual, group or organisation with an interest in the operation of an institu-
tion, whether they use its services, participate in its activities, cooperate with it, or
directly or indirectly feel the influence of the institution’s activities.
Successful applicant
The applicant selected at the end of a call for proposals procedure for the award of
contract.
Sustainability
The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major develop-
ment assistance has been completed.
Target groups
The groups / entities that will be directly positively affected by the project at the
Project Purpose level.
Transparency
The availability of grants must be publicised widely and in an easily accessible way. The
work programme will be implemented through the publication of calls for proposals.
55
8 PART
ANNEXES
56
8.1 Evaluation grid
FULL APPLICATION Evaluation Grid
Grid completed by ___________________________________ Date: __/__/2___
I. IDENTIFICATION DATA
Reference number:
Budget line/EDF:
Applicant (country):
Title of action:
Region(s) or country/ies targeted:
Amount requested (and % of total eligible costs) < EUR > ________ ( ___% )
[and % of total accepted costs]: [_____% ]
Duration: ___ months
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
57
These scores are added to give the total score for the section concerned. The totals for
each section are then listed in section 6 and added together to give the total score for
the full application.
Each section contains a box for comments. These comments should address the issues
covered by that section. Comments must be made on each section. If an evaluator
gives a score of 1 (very poor), 2 (poor) or 5 (very good) to a subsection, the reasons for
giving such a score must be explained in the comments box. Extra space may be used
for comments if required.
II. EVALUATION GRID
1. Financial and operational capacity Score

1.1 Do the applicant and partners, if applicable, have sufficient
/5
experience of project management?
technical expertise? (notably knowledge of the issues to /5
be addressed.)
management capacity? (including staff, equipment and /5
ability to handle the budget for the action)
1.4 Does the applicant have stable and sufficient sources of
/5
finance?
Total score: / 20
Comments:
If a total score lower than ‘adequate’ (12 points) is obtained for section 1, the full ap-
plication will be eliminated by the Evaluation Committee.
2. Relevance of the action Score
Score transferred from the Concept Note evaluation / 30
Total score: / 30
Comments:
58
3. Effectiveness and feasibility of the action Score
3.1 Are the activities proposed appropriate, practical, and

/5
consistent with the objectives and expected results?
3.2 Is the action plan clear and feasible? /5
3.3 Does the proposal contain objectively verifiable indicators

/5
for the outcome of the action? Is evaluation foreseen?
3.4 Is the partners' level of involvement and participation in
/5
the action satisfactory?
Total score: / 20
Comments:
4. Sustainability of the action Score
4.1 Is the action likely to have a tangible impact on its target

/5
groups?
4.2 Is the proposal likely to have multiplier effects? (including
scope for replication and extension of the outcome of the /5
action and dissemination of information)
4.3 Are the expected results of the proposed action sustai-
nable:
- financially (how will the activities be financed after the
funding ends?)
- institutionally (will structures allowing the activities to con-
tinue be in place at the end of the action? will there be local
/5
‘ownership’ of the results of the action?)
- at policy level (where applicable) (what will be the struc-
tural impact of the action — e.g. will it lead to improved
legislation, codes of conduct, methods, etc?)
- environmentally (where applicable) (will the action have
a negative / positive environmental impact?)
Total score: / 15
Comments:
59
5. Budget and cost-effectiveness of the action Score
5.1 Are the activities appropriately reflected in the budget? / 5x2

5.2 Is the ratio between the estimated costs and the expected
/5
results satisfactory?
Total score: / 15
Comments:
6. Total score and recommendations Score

6.1 Financial and operational capacity / 20
6.2 Relevance of the action / 30
6.3 Effectiveness and feasibility of the action / 20
6.4 Sustainability of the action / 15
6.5 Budget and cost-effectiveness of the action / 15
TOTAL: / 100
Recommendation: Not provisionally selected:
60
8.2 Table of contents of the Grant Application Form
Table of content
Part A. Concept Note .................................................................................................................
1 Instructions for the drafting of the concept note

1.1. Summary of the action ...................................................................................................
1.2. Relevance of the action (max 3 pages) .....................................................................
1.3. Description of the action (max 1 page) ....................................................................
2 Checklist for concept note ..................................................................................................
3 Declaration by the applicant for concept note ..........................................................
4 Assessment grid for concept note ...................................................................................
Part B. full application form .............................................................................................
1 General information ..............................................................................................................
2 The action ...................................................................................................................................

2.1. Budget of the action, amount requested from the
Contracting Authority and other expected sources of funding .......................
2.2. Description of the Action .............................................................................................
2.3. Applicant's experience of similar actions ................................................................
3 The applicant ............................................................................................................................

3.1. Identity ...............................................................................................................................
3.2. Profile ..................................................................................................................................
3.3. Capacity to manage and implement actions .........................................................
3.4. List of the management board/committee of your organisation ....................
4 Partners of the applicant participating in the action .............................................

4.1. Description of the partners ..........................................................................................
4.2. Partnership statement ...................................................................................................
5 Associates of the applicant participating in the action .........................................
6 Check list for the full application form ..........................................................................
7 Declaration by the applicant .............................................................................................
8 Assessment grid of the full application form .............................................................

61
8.3 Table of contents of Guidelines for Applicants
Table of contents
1. <enter the title of the programme> 4

1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Objectives of the programme and priority issues .............................................. 4
1.3. Financial allocation provided by the contracting authority ............................ 4
2. rules for this call for proposals 6

2.1 Eligibility criteria ........................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Eligibility of applicants: who may apply? .............................................. 6
2.1.2 Partnerships and eligibility of partners ................................................ 7
2.1.3 Eligible actions: actions for which an application may be made ... 7
2.1.4 Eligibility of costs: costs which may be taken into
consideration for the grant ....................................................................... 8
2.2 How to apply and the procedures to follow ...................................................... 10

2.2.1 Concept Note content ...............................................................................10
2.2.2 Where and how to send concept notes .............................................. 11
2.2.3 Deadline for submission of the Concept Notes ................................ 11
2.2.4 Further information for Concept Note ................................................ 12
2.2.5 Full Application form ................................................................................. 12
2.2.6 Where and how to send the Full Application form .......................... 12
2.2.7 Deadline for submission of the Full Application form .................... 13
2.2.8 Further information for the Full Application form ........................... 13
[Open Call for Proposals ................................................................................................................ 13

2.2.1 Application form ........................................................................................ 13
2.2.2 Where and how to send the Applications .......................................... 14
2.2.3 Deadline for submission of Applications ............................................ 14
2.2.4 Further information for the Applications ............................................ 15

2.3 Evaluation and selection of Applications ........................................................... 16
2.4 Submission of supporting documents for provisionally

selected applications ................................................................................................ 19

2.5 Notification of the Contracting Authority's decision ...................................... 21
2.5.1 Content of the decision ............................................................................ 21
2.5.2 Indicative time table ................................................................................. 21
2.6 Conditions applicable to implementation of the action following
the Contracting Authority's decision to award a grant .................................. 21
2.7 Early warning system and central exclusion database ........................... 22
3 list of annexes 23

Hints and Suggestions For Grant Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hints and Suggestions For Grant Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

implemented by a consortium led by PM Group

The PPF3 project is funded by the EU and ВЛАДА РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR GRANT APPLICATION

Design and prepress:

CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији

САВЕТИ и сугестије за подношење пријава

Текст штампан у међусобно обрнутим

Hints and suggestions for grant application

The purpose of this document is to increase applicants’ understanding of the criteria

Table 2.1: Financial and operational capacity – maximum scores 13

Figure 2.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – sections 3 and 4 11

1.1 Target of this document

In general terms, the EU funds projects in two ways:

• Grants, which are subsidies for actions supporting EU policies

By definition, an EU grant is a direct financial contribution, by way of donation, in order

This document is addressed to Civil Society Organisations wanting to success-

1.2 Purpose of this document

For a given project to be awarded an EU-funded grant, it needs to be assessed and

According to PRAG, the evaluation of a grant application passes through a number of

The technical assessment of a project focuses on the qualitative elements featured in

In short, the capacity to generate and design high-quality applications is crucial.

The purpose of this document is to improve the quality of technical project

1.3 Structure of this document

In general terms, the evaluation procedure follows these steps:

• Approval and composition of the Evaluation Committee

The five criteria applied in assessing applications are:

1. APPLICANT CAPACITY, 2. RELEVANCE OF THE IDEA, 3. PROJECT METHO-

Such information should be provided in GAF sections 3 and 4, as shown below:

Figure 2.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – sections 3 and 4

It is important to note that:

Accountability and reliability

Accountability should be seen in the sense of management capacities (financial, ad-

Although reliable in operational terms, an organisation may be unaccountable be-

These capacities have to be circumstantiated through a range of information on com-

It appears is generally required – and sometimes it is a mandatory requirement for

Partnership may be complementary, additional, and pivotal. One or more partners

When partnership is not mandatory for obtaining a grant, it is important to explain

As already mentioned, it is recommended that, when preparing a project, an applicant

Table 2.1: Financial and operational capacity – maximum scores

1.4 Does the applicant have stable and sufficient 3.3; 4;

2.1 Main applicant and partners

• The team structure is inadequate for the proposed activities, in terms of

2.2 Applicant and partner know-how

• More than 30% of the implementation of budgeted activities is outsourced

2.3 Applicant and partner management

Managing EU funds often entails a lot of paperwork. Sufficient administrative staff

• The applicant and partners excessively outsource project management

2.4 Applicant and partner finance

To safeguard funds disbursement, the EU requires clear information on the applicant’s

Figure 3.1: Grant Application Form (GAF) – section 1.2

As already mentioned, it is recommended that, in preparing a project, applicants always

Table 3.1: Relevance of project proposal – maximum scores

3.1 Scope of the action

The proposal would be assessed as poor or very poor (2 or 1 points) if it:

• Is not directly relevant to the Programme objectives

3.2 Background conditions

• Define in detail the context of the stated problem in the country/region

A poor or very poor score (2 or 1 point) will be given if:

• The country or regional context is described in overly general terms.

• The problem is only schematically presented.

3.3 Project target

A proposal will be rated as poor or very poor (2 or 1 points) where:

• The target group is only schematically presented.

Grid completed by _________________________________ Date: //2_