Commission Decision of 18 December 2009 on the adoption of the Work Plan for 2010 for the implementation of the second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013), on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme and Community payment to the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control (notified under document C(2009) 10183) (2009/964/EU)

ANNEX II U.K. Criteria for financial contributions to projects under the second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013)Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 4(1)(a)

This document applies only to co-funding of individual actions under the second Health Programme through grants after a call for proposals for projects.

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES U.K.

1. The Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules are the reference documents for the implementation of the second Health Programme. U.K.

2. Grants must comply with the following principles: U.K.

• Co-financing rule: external co-financing from a source other than Community funds is required, either by way of the beneficiary's own resources or the financial resources of third parties. Contributions in kind from third parties may be considered as co-financing if considered necessary or appropriate (Articles 113 of the Financial Regulation and 172 of the Implementing Rules).

• No-profit rule: the grant may not have the purpose or effect of producing a profit for the beneficiary (Articles 109(2) of the Financial Regulation and 165 of the Implementing Rules).

• No-retroactivity rule: expenditure eligible for financing must be incurred after the agreement is signed. In exceptional cases, it may be acceptable to consider expenditure that was incurred from the date of submission of the grant application, but not earlier (Article 112 of the Financial Regulation).

• No-cumulation rule: only one grant may be awarded for a specific action carried out by a given beneficiary per financial year (Article 111 of the Financial Regulation)(1).

3. Proposals for actions (projects) will be evaluated on the basis of three categories of criteria: U.K.

• exclusion and eligibility criteria, to assess the applicant's eligibility — Article 114 of the Financial Regulation,

• selection criteria, to assess the applicant's financial and operational capacity to complete the proposed action — Article 115 of the Financial Regulation,

• award criteria, to assess the quality of the proposal taking into account its cost.

These three categories of criteria will be considered consecutively during the evaluation procedure. A project which fails to meet the requirements of one category will not be considered at the next evaluation stage and will be rejected.

4. In respect of the second Health Programme, priority will be given to projects which: U.K.

• have an innovative character in relation to the existing situation and are not of a recurrent nature,

• provide added value at European level in the field of health: projects are to yield relevant economies of scale, involve an appropriate number of eligible countries in relation to the scope of the project and be capable of being replicated elsewhere,

• contribute to and support the development of Community policies in the field of health,

• devote adequate attention to an efficient management structure, a clear evaluation process and a precise description of the expected results,

• include a plan for using and disseminating the results at European level to appropriate target audiences.

2. EXCLUSION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA U.K.

1. Applicants will be excluded from participation in an award procedure under the second Health Programme if they: U.K.

(a)

are bankrupt or are being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;

(b)

have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgment which has the force of res judicata;

(c)

have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify;

(d)

have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which they are established or with those of the country of the Authorizing Officer or those of the country where the contract is to be performed;

(e)

have been the subject of a judgment which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation or any other illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' financial interests;

(f)

are currently subject to an administrative penalty referred to in Article 96(1) of the Financial Regulation;

(g)

have received unlawful aid, on which the Commission has adopted a negative decision involving a recovery order, and the aid has not been recovered in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

Evidence: Candidates shall provide a declaration on their honour, duly signed and dated, stating that they are not in any of the situations listed above.

2. Any proposals received after the deadline for receipt, any incomplete proposals or proposals failing to meet the formal requirements laid down in the call for proposals will not be considered for funding. This does not apply in the case of obvious clerical errors within the meaning of Article 178(2) of the Implementing Rules. U.K.

Each application must contain the documents required in the call for proposals, including the following documents:

• Administrative data on the main partner and associated partners,

• Technical description of the project,

• Global budget of the project and the requested level of Community co-financing,

Evidence: Application content.

3. Actions which have already commenced by the date on which the grant application is registered will be excluded from participation in the second Health Programme. U.K.

Evidence: The scheduled starting date and duration of the action must be specified in the grant application.

3. SELECTION CRITERIA U.K.

Only proposals which have met the requirements of the exclusion criteria will be eligible for evaluation. All the following selection criteria have to be met.

1. Financial capacity U.K.

Applicants must have stable and sufficient sources of funding to maintain their activity throughout the period during which the activity is being carried out and to participate in its co-funding.

Evidence: Applicants must supply the profit and loss accounts and the balance sheets for the past two complete financial years.

The verification of financial capacity will not apply to public bodies, or to international public organisations created by inter-governmental agreements or to specialist agencies created by the latter.

2. Operational capacity U.K.

The applicant must have the professional resources, competences and qualifications required to complete the proposed action.

Evidence: Applicants must supply the organisation's most recent annual activity report including operational, financial and technical details and the curricula vitae of all relevant professional staff in all the organisations involved in the project.

3. Additional documents to be supplied at the request of the Commission. U.K.

If so requested, applicants must supply an external audit report produced by an approved auditor, certifying the accounts for the last financial year available and giving an assessment of the applicant's financial viability.

4. AWARD CRITERIA U.K.

Only projects which have met the requirements of the exclusion and selection criteria will be eligible for further evaluation on the basis of the following award criteria.

1. Policy and contextual relevance of the project (40 points, threshold: 20 points) U.K.

(a)

Project's contribution to meeting the objectives and priorities of the second Health Programme, as defined in the Work Plan for 2010 (8 points);

(b)

Strategic relevance in terms of relevance to the EU Health Strategy(2) and in terms of expected contribution to the existing knowledge and implications for health (8 points);

(c)

Added value at European level in the field of public health (8 points):

• impact on target groups, long term effect and potential multiplier effects, such as replicable, transferable and sustainable activities,

• contribution to complementarity, synergy and compatibility with relevant EU policies and other programmes,

(d)

Pertinence of the geographical coverage (8 points)

Applicants must ensure that a geographical coverage of the project is appropriate with regard to its objectives, explaining the role of the eligible countries as partners and the relevance of the project resources or target populations they represent.

Proposals with national or sub-national dimension (i.e. which involve only one eligible country or a region of a country) will be rejected.

(e)

Adequacy of the project with social, cultural and political context (8 points)

Applicants must relate the project to the situation of the countries or specific areas involved, ensuring the compatibility of envisaged actions with the culture and views of the target groups.

2. Technical quality of the project (30 points, threshold: 15 points) U.K.

(a)

Evidence base (6 points)

Applicants must include a problem analysis and clearly describe the factors, the impact, the effectiveness and applicability of measures proposed;

(b)

Content specification (6 points)

Applicants must clearly describe the aims and objectives, target groups, including relevant geographical factors, methods, anticipated effects and outcomes;

(c)

Innovative nature, technical complementarity and avoidance of duplication of other existing actions at EU level (6 points)

Applicants must clearly identify the progress the project intends to accomplish within the field in relation with the state of the art and ensure that there will be neither inappropriate duplication nor overlap, whether partial or total, between projects and activities already carried out at European and international level.

(d)

Evaluation strategy (6 points)

Applicants must clearly explain the kind and adequacy of methods proposed and indicators chosen.

(e)

Dissemination strategy (6 points)

Applicants must clearly illustrate the adequacy of the envisaged strategy and methodology proposed to ensure transferability of results and sustainability of the dissemination.

3. Management quality of the project and budget (30 points, threshold: 15 points) U.K.

(a)

Planning and organisation of the project (5 points)

Applicants must describe the activities to be undertaken, timetable and milestones, deliverables, nature and distribution of tasks, risk analysis.

(b)

Organisational capacity (5 points)

Applicants must describe the management structure, competency of staff, responsibilities, internal communication, decision making, monitoring and supervision;

(c)

Quality of partnership (5 points)

Applicants must describe the partnerships envisaged in terms of extensiveness, roles and responsibilities, relationships among the different partners, synergy and complementarity of the various project partners and network structure.

(d)

Communication strategy (5 points)

Applicants must describe the communication strategy in terms of planning, target groups, adequacy of channels used, and visibility of Community co-funding.

(e)

Overall and detailed budget including financial management (10 points, threshold: 5 points)

Applicants must ensure that the budget is relevant, appropriate, balanced and consistent in itself, between partners and in relation to the specific objectives of the project. The budget should be distributed within partners at a minimum reasonable level, avoiding excessive fragmentation.

Applicants must describe the financial circuits, responsibilities, reporting procedures and controls.

Any project failing to achieve the threshold will be rejected.

Following the evaluation, a list is drawn up of proposals recommended for funding, ranked according to the total number of points awarded. Depending on budget availability, the highest ranked proposals will be awarded for co-funding. The remaining proposals recommended for co-funding will be placed on a reserve list.

(1)

This means that a specific action, submitted by one applicant for a grant, can be approved for co- financing by the Commission only once a year, regardless of the length of this action.

(2)

COM(2007) 630 final; http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/strategy/health_strategy_en.htm