Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

A COFUND project can be designed in many different ways and it is up to the beneficiary to decide how the researchers are funded. If the beneficiary wants to include a family allowance after the recruitment, it is OK, but it is not a formal requirement from the EC/ REA. It can of course be evaluated positively by the evaluators as clear support to offer the best conditions to the fellows. In addition, this would be unlikely, as in H2020 the MSCA rules did not foresee changes in the eligibility for family allowance during the fellowship duration.

“Partner Organisations” means both type of partners: associated or implementing.

Implementing partners have a bigger role, however, this was harmonised among the MSCA actions and associated partners are supposed to appear in part A for all actions. COFUND is the only action which has implementing partners and therefore it is slightly different.

PhD enrollment is now mandatory also for DN Standard, so doctoral candidates should have the necessary degree that allows them to be enrolled in a PhD.

Absolutely, there can also be multiple recruitments for DN Standard, provided that each contract is minimum 3 months (and maximum 36 months). The mobility rules only apply to the first recruitment.

In such a case, the fellow can be enrolled in a PhD programme at the second faculty which must be added as an associated partner or an associated partner linked to a beneficiary.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for the 2021 call, this set-up will be further discussed at Commission level and may be implemented in the future.

REA prefers that beneficiaries signing the GA are WP leaders. The consortium must have the technical resources needed to carry out the project (so-called ‘operational capacity’). In that regard, the work should be done primarily by the beneficiaries themselves but if needed, they may involve other partners and rely on outside resources (including involving Associated Partners). The fact that beneficiaries retain responsibility towards the granting authority and the other beneficiaries when relying on affiliated entities and other participants (including Associated Partners) does not preclude that an Associated Partner that implement action tasks may appear as work package leader for these tasks. In any case, the operational capacity must be demonstrated in the proposal and be available at the moment of the implementation of the work. Its assessment is performed on a case-by-case basis.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

The legal status that the EC has assigned to the organisation during the validation process has to be checked on the Funding and Tenders Opportunities Portal.

In addition, please note that non-academic placements can only take place in EU MS or HE AC, as clarified on p. 11 of the MSCA PF 2022 Guide for applicants.

Applicants can download the editable proposal templates by starting submission – it is not necessary to register the proposal, immediately at first step there is a button ’Download Part B templates’.

In the actual Part A of the European Fellowship proposal, there is no confusion. The PDF template has the Global Fellowship version of the budget table. In the submission system, European Fellowship applicants have the correct version.

This is an institutional decision of the organisation where the supervisor is meant to be recruited by the time the project starts: if it is possible for them to have somebody not employed acting as staff in a European project.

If the answer is yes, then the applicant should go ahead with that institution, they can include the information on the institution’s infrastructure and capacities.

If the answer is no, then the applicant should include information on the institution where the supervisor is recruited at present. In that case, if a change of host has to be asked for, it should happen at GAP stage.

Having in mind that the supervisor is the official contact for the beneficiary in the project proposal, another solution is that the applicant includes someone else as the main contact/ supervisor, for example head of the lab/ institute, and list the other one as co-supervisor. From the point of view of a reviewer, the fact that the actual supervisor is not yet employed by the organisation is a potential risk. It would make the proposal stronger, if the employment contract were already signed (with a future start date), or there would be something else in place to ensure that the person is employed by the start date of the project at the latest.

Yes, PACS is considered as an equivalent status to a marriage in France.

No, table 5.1 is only for the associated and implementing partners. The beneficiary will be included in the table in the beginning of part B soon after the start page ‘Information on the Beneficiary’.

The only option in such cases is having more than 2/3 of the secondments to/ from Switzerland. The Guide for Applicants 2021 states on p. 6: “There is no pre-defined size for Staff Exchanges projects. However, it is recommended to keep the size of the consortium between 6 to 10 organisations. As for the number of associated partners, it should remain reasonable and commensurate with the size of the network.” Some evaluators could highlight weaknesses due to the distribution of the secondments. It is better to increase the number of partners from 3 to 6. This will provide more possibilities for secondments distribution.

The deadlines and procedures are set out in the evaluation result letter. For more information on complaints about proposal rejection: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/display/OM/Complaints+about+proposal+rejection.

Secondments from/ to branches/ departments of beneficiaries/ partner organisations that are not separate legal entities, are NOT eligible, if they are located in countries other than the country of their beneficiary/ partner organisation.

The total person-months for the Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary should be encoded together with the main beneficiary (e.g. University A.) in the budget table. That means, the total person-months must be encoded only into the beneficiary budget and no budget should be encoded for the associated partners linked to a beneficiary. There will be a warning in the form because the associated partner linked to beneficiary budget will be zero. This does not prevent from submitting. In case the number of secondments from the Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary is substantial, they should appear as beneficiary/participant only (not Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary). Applicants should list and detail the relation of the other Associated Partners linked to a beneficiary (e.g. University B) in part B.