FF4EuroHPC Call-2: Proposer-Evaluator Check-List

Open Call-2 is closed!


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 to learn more about what criteria have to be abided during the evaluation process and where the attention when writing the proposals must be paid. 



Check-List:

Are the sectors in which the industrial end-user(s) is (are) active clearly defined?

If the proposed work were successful would it have a significant impact on the market in which the end-user industrial partner/partners is/are active?

If the proposed work were successful, would its outcome be relevant to the sector of the end-user company?

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

Do the exploitation plans presented indicate 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?
  • Does the proposal directly address the business challenges of a manufacturing SME?
  • Is it clear that the industrial partners involved do not have research-focused business models?
  • Is the proposed experiment sufficiently different from previous Fortissimo experiments (both past projects and those selected in FF4EuroHPC Call-1) to satisfy the requirement for complementarity?
  • Does the proposal substantiate the need for HPC resources and do the computational needs clearly exceed those offered by a modern workstation (particularly in terms of time to solution)?
  • Is the proposal driven by the requirements of first-time HPC users?

Check-List:

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

Are tasks related 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 adaptation/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?

Does the proposal involve use of data covered by the EU General Data Protection Regulation or national regulations implementing these? If yes, does the proposal specify adequate protection measures to be used?

Check-List:

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 clearly described and does each partner have a significant and well-justified role? 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 each consortium member as presented in the proposal qualified to carry out the work they are assigned? Is the assignment of that work clear?

Check-List:

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, appropriately justified and included in the proposed experiment’s budget? Has a provider of such resources been identified? Will the proposal use a European HPC centre or provider?

Does the application software described have the appropriate level of performance and parallel scalability to execute the most compute-intensive steps in the experiment workflow? Does the proposal consider the performance characteristics of said application(s) and establish that their use is feasible on the proposed computing infrastructure or HPC services?

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?