FF4EuroHPC Call-1: Proposer-Evaluator Check-List

First Open Call for participation has been closed!

The second Open Call is expected to be opened in June 2021.

Would like to prepare a winning proposal for the second Open Call and get the opportunity to be involved in the experiment?

You are invited to go through the check-list used for the first Open Call to learn more about what criteria were abided by during the evaluation process and where the attention when writing the proposals must be paid. Please note that the second Open Call conditions for proposal submission may slightly differ from those for the first Open Call, thus the check-list will be moderated accordingly.

The expectations for new experiments and procedures for the proposal submission will remain the same. Learn more

Detailed information for the second call will be published on this webpage and shared via FF4EuroHPC Twitter and LinkedIn accounts. To stay updated with the latest information on the Open Call, project activities and events, you are invited to subscribe to the newsletter.


If the proposed work were successful would it have a significant impact on the market in which the end-user SME is active?

If the proposed work were successful, would its outcome be relevant to the sector of the SME end-user company? Is this the engineering or manufacturing sector or another sector for which the economic growth or particular impact for Europe have been highlighted in the proposal?

If the proposed work were successful, would it benefit the SMEs involved in the project and demonstrate the potential benefit for SMEs beyond the Consortium?

Do the exploitation plans ensure that a significant industrial impact will be realised? Are the expected returns for each and every partner clearly explained?

Does the proposed work appropriately address the target for the call, the expectations of the call and the priorities of the call? In particular:

  • Is the proposed work driven by the business needs of the industrial partner(s)?
  • Does the proposed work target benefits for engineering and manufacturing SMEs or SMEs from other sectors able to demonstrate fast economic growth or particular impact for Europe?
  • Is the proposed experiment sufficiently different from previous Fortissimo experiments to satisfy the requirement for complementarity?
  • Does the proposal require HPC resources and do the computational needs clearly exceed those offered by a modern workstation (particularly in terms of computing times for solution delivery)?
  • Is the proposal driven by the requirements of first-time HPC users?


Is the proposed experiment, as described in the proposal, feasible? Are risks properly described and addressed?

Are tasks relating to solving the business problems of the end-users clearly predominant compared with any research on new methods? (The expectation is for there to be only a need for extension of existing software and computational methods, not the development from scratch of software or methods)

Is the work plan sufficiently clear and coherent so that it gives confidence that the proposed work will be carried out effectively and will be directed towards achieving the objectives of the call?


Is the consortium as a whole well qualified to carry out the proposed work?

Does the consortium contain the necessary partners with all the skills needed to carry out the proposed work? Are the roles of all partners clear? Is the role and effort of the industrial partners balanced with respect to other partners? Are key personnel clearly identified and described?

Are any types of partner missing? In particular, does the Consortium include an SME whose business needs are addressed by the experiment? Is the application domain of the SME engineering or manufacturing or another sector which can demonstrate fast economic growth or a particular economic impact for Europe?

Is each consortium member as presented in the proposal qualified to carry out the work they are assigned? Is the assignment of that work clear?


Have appropriate resources (effort and budget) been allocated to members of the consortium in such a way that each of them has the required resources needed to carry out their part in the work effectively? Is the effort of each partner required for specific tasks clear?

Are the proposed resources (effort, budget, any sub-contract) clearly justified in the proposal? Are computing resources and licence fees clearly identified, justified,appropriate and included in the proposed experiment’s budget?

Are the most compute-intensive steps in the application workflows to be executed with application software that has the appropriate level of parallel scalability? In that context, has the experiment considered the feasibility of the software to be used particularly in terms of its performance characteristics?

Is the computing infrastructure requested commensurate with the application software to be used in the proposed experiment and is that adequately described in the proposal?