EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) · However, an e-mail addressed to the Expert Management...

EIC Accelerator pilot (SME

Instrument) Frequently Asked Questions for experts

participating in the Evaluation

[Version January 2020]

The document contains a list of frequently asked questions by the experts involved in the evaluation of the EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) proposals. Please consult this document before writing

to EASME-SME-EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu.

1

Table of Contents Section 1 - Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 – What is the EIC Accelerator Pilot and how has it changed from the SME Instrument ..... 4

1.2 Management of the workload ............................................................................................... 4

A. How many cut-off dates are there? Which are the dates planned for 2019/20? ............... 4

B. How many proposals may I receive during each cut-off? ..................................................... 4

C. I received 10 proposals in one day. Why? ............................................................................. 4

D. Do I have to confirm my availability for each cut-off? .......................................................... 5

E. When should I accept or decline a task?................................................................................ 5

F. When I decline a proposal, should I inform the SME Instrument team? ............................. 5

G. Do I receive a notification by e-mail each time I receive a proposal to evaluate? .............. 5

H. In how many days should I assess a proposal? ...................................................................... 6

I. I have received tasks with a deadline shorter than one week. Why? .................................. 6

J. Which are the documents I have to assess for an EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument)

proposal? ......................................................................................................................................... 6

K. How many pages could an annex contain?............................................................................ 6

L. What does the evaluation template look like? ..................................................................... 7

M. What shall I do if I receive a proposal that is not in English? ............................................ 7

N. What shall I do if I receive a proposal that appears to be inadmissible? ............................. 7

O. How are proposals allocated to experts? .............................................................................. 7

P. Why haven’t I received any proposals to evaluate? ............................................................. 8

1.3 – Scoring a proposal ................................................................................................................ 8

A. How do I score a proposal? .................................................................................................... 8

B. How detailed should my comments be for each sub-criterion? ........................................... 8

C. How is the proposal's final score calculated? ........................................................................ 8

D. How is the qualitative assessment scored? ........................................................................... 9

E. If the Impact criterion is below threshold, do I still evaluate the rest of the proposal? ... 10

F. I have already submitted my IER, why was it reopened? ................................................... 10

G. How do I assess Non-Bankability? ....................................................................................... 10

H. How do I assess Operational Capacity? ............................................................................... 12

I. How do I assess Eligible Costs? ............................................................................................. 13

2

J. How do I assess the European Dimension? ......................................................................... 13

K. The applicant has its headquarters outside the European Union or Associated Countries.

How do I assess this? .................................................................................................................... 13

L. I have evaluated this proposal, or one very similar, before. Should I evaluate it again? .. 14

M. The proposal mentions the scores received in a previous evaluation. How should I

proceed? ........................................................................................................................................ 14

N. I made an error in one of my submitted IERs, how can I correct it? ................................... 14

O. May I contact directly an applicant/subcontractor/third party?........................................ 14

P. May I contact directly other experts or ask to see their evaluation? ................................. 14

Q. When assessing a proposal do I rely only on my expertise or may I seek further

information (for example through the internet, specialised databases, etc.)? ......................... 15

R. I feel I am not specialised in the specific subject/innovation of the proposal, should I

decline the task? ........................................................................................................................... 15

S. The EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) focuses on growth and jobs. How does this impact

on my approach to the evaluation? ............................................................................................. 15

T. What is the "Seal of Excellence"? ........................................................................................ 16

U. What is the scope of the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Call? ...................................... 16

V. How should I consider dual use technologies or goods with regard to Scope? ................. 16

1.4 – Subcontracting (See the separate set of slides for more information)............................ 17

A. What is a subcontract? ......................................................................................................... 17

B. What could be a conflict of interest situation between an applicant and a subcontractor?

17

C. Are there budget limits (max/min) for unknown/known subcontractors? ....................... 17

D. What is the difference between subcontracts and contracts? ........................................... 17

E. What if one out of a several subcontractors involved is not adequately described? ........ 18

F. How do I deal with the best value for money principle in case of a usual provider? ........ 19

G. What is the difference between a subcontractor and a linked third party? ...................... 19

1.5 - Conflict of Interest .............................................................................................................. 19

A. What is the correct definition of Conflict of Interest? ........................................................ 19

B. Am I in a Conflict of interest situation? ............................................................................... 20

C. What shall I do if I feel I am in a conflict of interest situation? .......................................... 21

Section 2 – Contracting and Payment .................................................................................................. 21

2.1 – Contract .................................................................................................................................... 21

A. How long will my contract last? ........................................................................................... 21

B. What happens if I exceed the threshold of the 30 days? .................................................... 21

3

C. How and when do I sign my contract? ................................................................................. 22

D. How many times could my contract be renewed? .............................................................. 22

E. Is it possible to indicate in the contract the name of my company instead of my name? 22

F. I have been approached by the EC as a possible evaluator for the EIC Accelerator (SME

Instrument) but I still have not signed a contract. May I expect to be contacted for future cut-

offs? ............................................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 – Payment ................................................................................................................................... 23

A. What is the reimbursement rate for the evaluation of the EIC Accelerator (SME

Instrument) proposals? ................................................................................................................ 23

B. How many times may I claim reimbursement for the half-day remote briefing? ............. 23

C. When can I claim the reimbursement for the work done? ................................................. 24

D. Do I receive a notification when I have to submit my reimbursement claim? .................. 24

E. I assessed a number of proposals for EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument), how should I

claim the reimbursement for the work done? ............................................................................ 24

F. Who is responsible for keeping track of the number of proposals I evaluated during each

cut-off and Phase? ........................................................................................................................ 24

G. May the reimbursement be paid directly on my company's account? .............................. 25

H. Which are the tax rules I should apply to the work done in the framework of the H2020

SME Instrument? .......................................................................................................................... 25

I. As self-employer may I request a VAT exemption certificate? ........................................... 25

J. The link I received to encode my legal and bank account details does not work, what shall

I do? ............................................................................................................................................... 25

K. How do I contact the EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) team in case of need? ....... 25

4

Section 1 - Evaluation

1.1 – What is the EIC Accelerator Pilot and how has it changed from the

SME Instrument The European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator Pilot, as part of the Horizon 2020

programme, acts as an accelerator programme at EU level offering funding - in the form of a

grant or blended finance (a mix of grant and equity investment), coaching and business

acceleration services to innovative small or medium-sized businesses with global ambitions.

It supports high-risk, high-potential small and medium-sized enterprises and innovators to

develop and bring to the market new innovative products, services and business models that

could drive economic growth and have the potential to scale-up.

The EIC Accelerator Pilot builds on and replaces the SME Instrument Phase 2 from October

2019 until the end of 2020.

For-profit SMEs, including young companies and start-ups from any sector, can apply for

funding under the EIC Accelerator Pilot. Only individual applicants are entitled to submit a

proposal.

1.2 Management of the workload

A. How many cut-off dates are there? Which are the dates planned for 2019/20?

During the remaining period of your contract there are two cut-offs for the EIC Accelerator

pilot (SME Instrument). The specific dates for 2019/20:

EIC Accelerator

2019 09 October

2020 08 January

B. How many proposals may I receive during each cut-off?

We cannot give an accurate estimate of the workload as it depends on the number of proposals

received for each cut-off, the availability of all the evaluators involved, nationality, and the

keywords selected by both applicants and evaluators.

In past cut-offs, we received around 2000 Phase 2 proposals. We expect similar figures in the

near future. We have increased the number of contracted experts and therefore the average

workload per expert is expected to decrease.

C. I received 10 proposals in one day. Why?

5

It might happen that during the week of the cut-off date you are assigned a high number of

proposals in a single day. This only happens during cut-off weeks.

This situation is likely to continue only for a few days, until we eliminate our backlog. In any

case, payments will still be calculated based on the number of proposals evaluated, i.e. IERs

submitted, by each expert, at the rate defined in Section 2.

Although we understand that this situation of high workload may not be ideal in some cases,

we would like you to remain aware that you still have one week to complete each report,

counting from the date of reception of each proposal.

Nevertheless, if you feel that you will not have time to complete all the assignments, please

decline any excess tasks immediately.

D. Do I have to confirm my availability for each cut-off?

Yes. Due to the high number of applications and the high number of experts participating in

the evaluation, good planning is the key to a swift and smooth assignment of proposals.

Shortly before each cut-off date, you will receive a request to confirm and detail your

availability via an EU Survey. Please consider that if you confirm your availability we count

on your commitment to complete the workflow within the fixed deadlines. Therefore, to

ensure a good organization of the process, kindly inform us about any change affecting your

availability.

E. When should I accept or decline a task?

You should accept or decline a task within 24 hours from the day of the assignment. You

were assigned a task because you confirmed your availability in the period. If you do not

accept or decline a task within 24 hours, it will be reassigned to another expert.

Please consider the impact of declining a task, as we have to reassign it to another evaluator

and this creates delays. The best solution is always that you keep us informed of your

availability. If you do not feel in position to cope with the workload received, please inform

us as soon as possible. Declining a task within the first 24 hours after allocation due to your

lack of availability will not harm your position in future work allocation.

F. When I decline a proposal, should I inform the SME Instrument team?

No, you are not obliged to inform us as we receive an automatic notification. However, an e-

mail addressed to the Expert Management team EASME-SME-EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu

could be helpful to understand the reason for the decline, avoiding similar situations in the

future and speed-up the reallocation of the proposal.

G. Do I receive a notification by e-mail each time I receive a proposal to evaluate?

Yes. Each time that you have to perform an evaluation in the system, you receive a

notification by e-mail. The notification message includes a link to the Individual Evaluation

Report (IER). Within the evaluation platform, you will see all your tasks grouped under the

Dashboard.

6

H. In how many days should I assess a proposal?

When a proposal is assigned, you have a maximum of seven calendar days to complete the

remote evaluation. The system automatically generates this deadline. Do not leave the

completion of your accepted tasks until the last day or two. We strongly encourage you to

work as much as possible online, encoding your comments and scores via the online

evaluation platform. As the deadline for tasks approaches, we are regularly monitoring the

progress and contacting you if we see that tasks have only been open with no comments

inserted.

I. I have received tasks with a deadline shorter than one week. Why?

It is possible that, toward the end of an evaluation, you receive proposals to evaluate with a

shorter deadline. This is usually because another expert has declined them late. To keep within

the evaluation deadlines, we may then assign these proposals to other experts but with a

shorter deadline to complete the task. If you find that the shorter deadline is too difficult to

meet, please let us know immediately and decline the task straight away so we can reallocate

to another expert.

J. Which are the documents I have to assess for an EIC Accelerator pilot (SME

Instrument) proposal?

Part A: the administrative form:

Includes structured data and contains general information, administrative data of the

applying organisation, the budget for the proposal, ethics issues and call-specific

questions.

Part B: the project proposal:

Dedicated to the project proposal where applicants should detail all elements related to

the innovation for which they are requesting funding. It is composed of four different

documents including the following elements:

Document 1 – Proposal template (provided in .pdf):

Introduction ;

Section 1 – Excellence;

Section 2 – Impact;

Section 3 – Implementation;

Document 2 – Annexes 1 – 3 (provided in a single .pdf):

Annex 1 - Ethics and Security;

Annex 2 - CVs ;

Annex 3 - Other supporting documents;

Document 3 - Annex 4 - Financial and corporate information Excel file (provided

as .pdf and .xls);

Document 4 – Annex 5 - Pitch-deck (provided in .pdf).

K. How many pages could an annex contain?

7

Document 1, Sections 1 – 3, is limited to 30 pages in total. The related template is available

via the following link

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/pt/2018-2020/h2020-call-

pt-eic-sme-2-2018-20_en.pdf

Document 2 includes ethics and security along with CVs for team members. This document

may also be used to provide additional details on the selection of sub-contractors (if relevant)

and the application of “best-value-for money” principles.

Document 3 includes financial and corporate information in a spreadsheet following a specific

template.

Document 4 is the applicant’s pitch-deck that provides a high-level overview of the various

aspects of the proposal for expert-evaluators and will also be used for the jury interview if the

proposal goes through to the second step of the evaluation process.

Documents 2, 3 and 4 have no page limit. However, applicants are invited to submit

documents that are reasonable, justifiable and acceptable in terms of content. It might happen

that some applicants try to circumvent the rule of the maximum pages for the annex 1-3 by

adding longer additional annexes or using smaller fonts and spacing. The same applies to

cases where the proposal includes hyperlinks in section 1-3 which are used to go over the page

limits. When facing these cases, please focus your reading on the information strictly linked to

the content of the proposal.

L. What does the evaluation template look like?

The standard evaluation template for Horizon 2020 can be found on the Funding and Tender

Opportunities website

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/ef/2018-2020/h2020-call-

ef-sme-2018-20_en.pdf

M. What shall I do if I receive a proposal that is not in English?

If you receive a proposal written in any other language than English, please alert us

immediately by emailing EASME-SME-EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu. We will provide automatic

machine translations of all documents for you to complete the evaluation.

N. What shall I do if I receive a proposal that appears to be inadmissible?

If you find that a proposal is inadmissible, because for example it is missing essential

information or is simply a brochure or a PowerPoint slide, please do not attempt to undertake

an evaluation. Instead, alert the evaluation team by emailing EASME-SME-

EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu. If we verify that the proposal is in fact inadmissible, all evaluation

tasks will be cancelled and any work that you may have carried out will be invalidated. If the

proposal is actually admissible, we will advise you to proceed with the evaluation.

O. How are proposals allocated to experts?

If you are an existing expert i.e. you have previously been contracted to evaluate proposals for

the EIC SME Instrument then you have already selected your keywords and these remain in

place for your 2019 contract. Should you wish to change them, please send an email to

EASME-SME-EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu with ‘Keywords’ in the subject line.

8

The tool for matching proposals will also take into account nationality (no more than one

expert of the same nationality as the applicant coordinator) and expert availability.

P. Why haven’t I received any proposals to evaluate?

Whether you receive proposals to evaluate after each cut-off depends on a number of factors,

including nationality, keywords selected (by both applicants and experts), availability and

number of proposals submitted.

If proposals are allocated to you, you will receive an automatic notification.

If you do not receive a notification, please do not contact the functional mailbox as the period

around the cut-off is the most work intensive time of the evaluation for staff and you may not

receive a reply.

1.3 – Scoring a proposal

A. How do I score a proposal?

The IER includes a score for each evaluation sub-criterion using a scale from 0 to 10. One

decimal digit may be used, if experts wish to be more precise with their scoring. However, the

scale of 0-10 should provide a sufficient scoring range. You are encouraged to use the

entire range but please exercise caution if scoring at extremes ie 0 or 10. Extreme low

and high scores will be checked and your task may be reopened if there is insufficient

supporting information in your IERs to justify such scoring.

The individual scores (from 0 to 10) you have given to each sub-criterion are automatically

converted to a scale from 0 to 5 in order to calculate the Criterion score per evaluator. After

that, the system determines the median score for each Criterion across all evaluators. The

overall score is obtained by the sum of the three criteria median scores. To each result

obtained, a qualitative assessment is attributed.

B. How detailed should my comments be for each sub-criterion?

You must provide comments for each sub-criterion. The comments should cover the criterion

fully and include a clear, complete justification of the marks given, not just a repetition of

the sub criterion text. The completeness of the justifications provided ensures a high quality

standard for the evaluation of the proposals and allows us to easily justify the outcome

provided to the applicants in cases of redress.

Quality checks are carried out during each evaluation. Experts who did not adequately justify

their scores will have their tasks reopened with a request to provide supporting comments.

C. How is the proposal's final score calculated?

Grant proposals are evaluated by 4 independent experts, on the basis of the award criteria

‘impact’, ‘excellence’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’ (Annex H of the

H2020 Work Programme 2018-2020, Article 15 of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation

Regulation No 1290/2013).

Evaluation scores of up to 5 points are awarded for each main criterion, giving a total score of

maximum 15. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, is 13

for the EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument).

9

The overall score is established as follows:

- for each criterion, a median score (the median is the mean of the two "middle" scores,

e.g. median of scores 1; 2; 3; 4 is (2+3)/2 = 2.5) across the 4 evaluators is established;

- the final score of a proposal - "ESR Total score" - is then calculated by adding up the

median scores of all three criteria.

The weighting for each of the three criteria is 1/3

- This score serves to decide if proposals are above or below threshold.

Below you can find an example of a score calculation.

D. How is the qualitative assessment scored?

The scale used to obtain the qualitative assessment, which is included in the Evaluation

Summary Report (ESR) sent to applicants, is the following:

Very Good to Excellent (4.5 – 5)

Good to Very Good (3.5 – 4.49)

Fair to Good (2.5 – 3.49)

Insufficient to Fair (1.5 – 2.49)

Insufficient (0-1.49)

10

E. If the Impact criterion is below threshold, do I still evaluate the rest of the proposal?

Yes. It is important that the proposal is assessed against all the evaluation criteria. Each

proposal will be assessed by four experts and the final score will be determined on the basis of

the scores reported in each IER. The fact that one evaluator might consider the proposal below

the threshold of criterion ‘Impact’, does not necessarily prevent the final score from being

above threshold. Therefore, evaluators are required to duly assess each proposal against all

evaluation criteria.

F. I have already submitted my IER, why was it reopened?

During each evaluation, all completed IERs are checked for quality and consistency. During

this check your evaluation task might be reopened for one of several reasons, including:

Comments in the IER When there is a discrepancy between the scores and the comments provided, we might ask

the evaluator to justify their position;

IERs containing extremely brief comments, particularly only one word, will be reopened

for you to provide sufficient information in support of your scores.

Evaluation of the subcontracting Subcontracting may be an essential part of the implementation of the project.

The assessment of the subcontracting is crucial because the best-value-for-money

principle for choosing subcontractors (or to choose subcontractors in the future) must be

respected and detailed. As successful proposals cannot be negotiated at grant preparation

level, this aspect must be evaluated with rigour by each expert and for all known and

unknown subcontractors.

Therefore, shortcomings in the explanation of subcontracting must be reflected in the

Quality & efficiency of implementation criterion (criterion 3) and the proposal has to be

scored below threshold of 4 in this criterion.

If the assessment of the subcontracting is not coherent and consistent, we will ask the

evaluator to clarify their position.

G. How do I assess Non-Bankability?

The EIC Accelerator targets mainly high risk, deep tech and non-bankable companies to

help them scale-up and reach commercial break-through. Due to their early stage

development and high risks of their projects, these companies will not usually be able to

leverage enough funding from financial institutions and venture capitalists.

Criteria Definition

The sub-criterion of bankability is the first under Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of

implementation and is defined as follows:

11

“Evidence that the applicant company cannot leverage sufficient investments from the market

and/ or, particularly for applicant companies requesting blended finance support, evidence that

the applicant company is deemed 'non- bankable' by the market, in view of the activities to be

developed”.

How to Assess and Score Non-Bankability

Carefully read the Frequently asked questions for APPLICANTS of the EIC Accelerator Pilot

(SME Instrument) Programme, there is an entire section (FAQs 65 to 75) dedicated to non-

bankability.

Which evidence should be considered? Each proposal should include all the evidence

needed to assess the non-bankability:

1. Part B of the proposal includes, among other information, the company’s financial

history and provides information about its funding record.

2. Annex 4 presents in table format the company balance sheet as well as the list of

previous public and private funding received by the company (grants, loans, seed, VC,

etc.).

Always take into consideration how the requested funding will impact the project

implementation and the company’s growth and scale-up! This is particularly relevant for

young start-ups, which might lose momentum and their competitive advantage if their project

is delayed. Even if a company has already received funding from private investors, such funds

may not be sufficient to implement the project, therefore the proposal should be considered as

non-bankable and scored high (8 and above).

The scoring for this criterion works “counter-intuitively”: if a proposal is considered as

non-bankable, then the score on this criterion should be high; on the other hand, if the

company is capable of raising enough funding from the market or seems able to fund the

project with its own resources, then the score on the criterion should be low (5 and below).

Do not be worried to give low scores! If you think the proposal can be considered bankable,

then you should not be afraid to score low on this criterion (5 and below).

Be specific and detailed. Your assessment must be duly motivated and describe the

company’s specific issues on the basis of the evidence provided. You should avoid generic

statements like “there is evidence that the company cannot leverage enough funding from the

market”.

Examples of good practice:

Non-bankable

a. Company A is developing a disruptive innovation based on a unique technology and a

capital-intensive business model, which requires relevant investments upfront in order

to generate revenues in the form of license fees. The project is a high-risk one for the

technological and commercial challenges involved, which explains the company’s

difficulties to raise sufficient investments from the market. Score: 9.

b. Company B requests blended finance. The solution is highly innovative and

completely new for the market and thus brings high risks for private investors.

Considering that there is no regular revenue stream and the assets of the company

may not be sufficient to secure the loan, the company can be deemed non-bankable.

Equity finance is requested for the activities planned for a 1-year period after the

project ends. Score: 9.4

12

c. Company C has leveraged some investments, but not enough to meet the project

financial needs, especially in consideration of the risk profile of the company in its

current stage. Score: 9.2

Bankable

d. Company D has already received 6.1 million EUR in equity financing (converted debt

and equity) from various sources over last 3 years and plans to obtain an additional 3

million EUR as bank loan (in addition to the requested 1.6 million EUR grant) to

accelerate its growth. For this reason, the evidence that the company cannot leverage

sufficient additional commercial investments is very limited. Score: 4.

e. The business plan provided by Company E shows that the applicant appears to be a

rather robust, healthy and bankable company, which could obtain a bank loan or

finance the project with its own resources. Score: 2.1.

f. Company F states on page 6 of part B that several investments were easily gathered

upon a funding round resulting in 1.7 million EUR of equity. However, it fails to

present evidence of how it has been unable to leverage additional funding for the

following project stages. Score: 3.5.

H. How do I assess Operational Capacity?

During the evaluation, as experts you are asked to take a position on the operational

capacity (OC) of the individual applicants: whether they have, or will have by the time of

implementation, the professional competencies and qualifications (in sufficient quantities

and with sufficient quality) to implement the action — and, in particular, the tasks they are

responsible for.

You should assess whether, based on the information provided, the applicants and other

parties associated with the project possess the basic operational capacity to carry out the

proposed work. If you think that this is not the case, you should choose “No” in OC and

score the proposal below the threshold of 4 in the “Quality & efficiency of

implementation” criterion. Please consider that if you choose "No" in operational capacity,

you should also justify your position in the box for comments and complete the evaluation

of the proposal against all the evaluation criteria.

Examples:

Absence of domain specific expertise is a reason to conclude OC is lacking

"The innovation targets the aquaculture industry. Consortium partner no. 3 has a key role

in the project, demanding an in-depth specialist knowledge and experience of the sector.

However, this partner does not demonstrate in the proposal any knowledge or experience

in aquaculture, needed to accomplish its share in the project, and there is no plausible way

that such expertise could be brought on board in the context of the proposed project."

"The capacity of partner no. 4 to design a novel/innovative pump that goes beyond the

state of the art is not demonstrated. While their manufacturing facilities are presented,

there is no evidence of their experience in the manufacture of pumps. Such a capacity

13

requires long in-house experience. Their capacity to undertake all the required testing is

also not adequately documented in the proposal - they fail to give detail on the equipment

that will be used."

Disproportionate and unclear outsourcing may be an indication for lack of OC,

although as such it is insufficient proof on its own to declare lack of OC

"We note that applicant X does not provide any evidence of a track record in the specific

working field, nor of relevant qualifications of the assigned staff in this field. The proposal

allocates a substantial proportion (65%) of the requested budget of applicant X to two

subcontractors, which will both perform important tasks in WP3, one of the main work

packages, of which the applicant is the lead beneficiary. We conclude that applicant X

does not have the operational capacity for successfully accomplishing the proposed action,

in particular with respect to WP3 where this is compensated by extensive outsourcing of

tasks."

Human resources are relevant to OC to the extent that they ensure the availability of

sufficient and adequately skilled staff on the project, at the latest at the time of

implementation.

"The profiles of the available staff are up to the task, however human resources are

calculated at the very limit leaving no free resources for daily business or other

developments. The SME has 5 FTE while the project is calculated at 8 person/year. The

SME plans to expand the development team from 3 to 6 by 3 hirings at the start. Although

the new staff will need some limited time to familiarise, the development team as a whole

is expected to be productive from the beginning of the project. It is therefore expected that

the capacity to perform the project will be there."

.

I. How do I assess Eligible Costs?

Some costs are not eligible for funding and, specifically, those related to commercialization

activities. For example, publicity costs, signature of contract costs, sales training costs, etc.

are not eligible for funding. Therefore, if these are included in the proposal, please write

relevant comments and score appropriately in criterion 3.

J. How do I assess the European Dimension?

A proposal shows a European dimension if the proposed innovation has the potential to be

implemented/replicated/expanded and, therefore, have an impact across Europe (and even

beyond).

K. The applicant has its headquarters outside the European Union or Associated Countries.

How do I assess this?

Companies may, in some cases, comply with the eligibility criteria while at the same time

going against the spirit of the EIC Accelerator SME Instrument. For example, a non-EU-based

company may apply through their EU-based affiliate. In such a situation, we would ask

evaluators to pay particular attention, as the main benefits of the funded project should be

directed to the growth and jobs of the EU-based affiliate and, generally speaking, to the

growth of the EU-economy and not to the growth of the non-EU based company.

14

L. I have evaluated this proposal, or one very similar, before. Should I evaluate it again?

Yes. Under the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme, applicants do not face any

limitations in the number of times they might decide to re-submit the same and/or a similar

proposal. As long as they have been notified of the results of their previous submission, they

are allowed to resubmit the same proposal in the next cut-off. Therefore, when you evaluate a

resubmitted proposal, please complete the evaluation and score the proposal on its own

merits.

M. The proposal mentions the scores received in a previous evaluation. How should I

proceed?

Applicants are free to decide what to include in a proposal. It is up to the expert to evaluate

any information provided, specifically its credibility.

N. I made an error in one of my submitted IERs, how can I correct it?

As soon as you realize that you made an error in your IER, you should send an e-mail to the

Expert Management team EASME-SME-EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu and ask them to reopen

your task in the system. Please do this at the earliest possible moment.

O. May I contact directly an applicant/subcontractor/third party?

No. As stated in the expert contract, you are not allowed to contact any entity mentioned in

the proposal at any time. For detailed information, see the Annex 1 – Code of Conduct – of

your expert contract:

- Art 3 - Obligations of Confidentiality – Paragraph 2 – Point (iii): "The expert must not

communicate with applicants on any proposal: during the evaluation……, after the

evaluation."

- Art 3 - Obligations of Confidentiality – Paragraph 6 – Point (b): "the confidentiality

obligations are binding on the expert during performance of the Contract and for five

years from the date of the last payment made……"

P. May I contact directly other experts or ask to see their evaluation?

No. As stated in the expert contract you are not allowed to contact or share evaluations with

any other experts. For detailed information, see the Annex 1 – Code of Conduct - of the expert

contract:

- Art 3 - Obligations of Confidentiality – Paragraph 2 – Point (i): "the expert must not

discuss any proposal with others, including other experts……"

- Art 3 - Obligations of Confidentiality – Paragraph 6 – Point (b): "the confidentiality

obligations are binding on the expert during performance of the Contract and for five

years from the date of the last payment made……"

15

Q. When assessing a proposal do I rely only on my expertise or may I seek further

information (for example through the internet, specialised databases, etc.)?

When analysing a proposal you should first evaluate the content of the proposal based on your

expertise, experience, knowledge. Besides this, you are allowed to seek further information if

you think this is useful, provided that you respect the overall rules for confidentiality. For

more information, see the Annex 1 – Code of Conduct – of the expert contract:

Art 3 – Obligation of Confidentiality – Paragraph 5: "if the expert seek further

information……..she/he: must respect the overall rules for confidentiality….., must not

contact applicants, must not contact third parties….."

Art 3 - Obligations of Confidentiality – Paragraph 6 – Point (b): "the confidentiality

obligations are binding on the expert during performance of the Contract and for five

years from the date of the last payment made……"

R. I feel I am not specialised in the specific subject/innovation of the proposal, should I

decline the task?

The choice to accept or refuse a proposal is up to each evaluator. However, on several

occasions we have noticed that some evaluators declined assessing proposals because they felt

they were not experts on the specific technology described in the proposal.

Although in some instances this was a justifiable action, in some others we feel it may have

resulted from a slight misunderstanding of the evaluation process, which has eventually

generated unnecessary delays.

We have chosen groups of four experts to evaluate each proposal based on their business

knowledge of a sector through their choice of keywords (i.e. Energy, Transport, ICT, etc.).

Although an expert may be more accustomed to dealing with a particular technology within

those sectors (for example through research or product sales), it is the overall expertise and

business experience of the evaluator within the overall sector that we are trying to capture.

We are trying to assess the merits of the overall business proposition, rather than just of

the technology or innovation proposed.

As mentioned above, we invite four experts to evaluate each proposal and we work to ensure

that each panel includes a variety of business experiences and at least one person with the

knowledge of the specific technology. Some experts will be more familiar with the

technology, while others will be more familiar with the management context or with

production or sales. Some will know the competitors well, while others will perhaps be more

skilled in appraising the financial viability of the proposal. Therefore, each expert needs to be

seen as part of a team evaluating new businesses.

We are convinced that an expert receiving a proposal slightly outside their comfort zone

may bring an even greater added value to the evaluation panel, enabling it to better assess its

potential.

S. The EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) focuses on growth and jobs. How does this

impact on my approach to the evaluation?

16

The EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme seeks to find excellent innovative

business opportunities, not just excellent innovation research. We are looking for business

propositions that will allow the applicant SMEs to grow and create jobs. For this reason, the

proposed business is at the heart of the proposal and should be the driving subject of the

evaluation. Experts should look at the proposed market and how such a business proposition

could operate in that market and benefit the applicant SME, in terms of growth and jobs.

T. What is the "Seal of Excellence"?

The 'Seal of Excellence' is a quality label awarded to project proposals under the H2020

framework programme that have received a score above threshold but are not funded due to

lack of budget. A holder of the certificate can approach alternative funding sources (public or

private), i.e. national, regional, European or international and present the certificate as proof

of a high-quality project proposal.

For further information, please see: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-

5802_en.htm

U. What is the scope of the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Call?

You should consider whether the contents of a proposal correspond, wholly or in part, to the

description of the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) call, bearing in mind the following from

the Work Programme:

The EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) supports high-risk, high-potential small

and medium-sized enterprises to develop and bring to market new products, services

and business models that could drive economic growth. The EIC Accelerator pilot

(SME Instrument) is for innovators with ground-breaking concepts that could shape

new markets or disrupt existing ones in Europe and worldwide.

In your role as an expert evaluator, you have to decide whether a proposal responds to this

description.

Only add comments to the ‘Out of Scope’ box if you believe that a proposal does not fit the

description above.

If a proposal is of poor quality this does not necessarily mean it is outside the scope of the EIC

Accelerator (SME Instrument). You should still carry out an evaluation of the proposal with

appropriate comments and scores.

V. How should I consider dual use technologies or goods with regard to Scope?

Research activities aimed at the development or improvement of dual use technologies or

goods can be financed through H2020, provided that the research is fully motivated by, and

limited to civil applications.

Applicants planning research and innovation activities with an exclusive focus on civil

applications are asked to tick the box in the ethics table in part A and then clearly express in

the objective-section in part B of their proposal the exclusive focus on civil applications of the

proposed action.

17

As evaluators, you will need to assess this section based on the criteria mentioned above. If

you are not convinced that the proposal is fully motivated by, and limited to civil applications,

you may declare the proposal out of scope.

1.4 – Subcontracting (See the separate set of slides for more information)

A. What is a subcontract?

Subcontracts are the purchase of goods, works or services that are identified as action tasks

(in Technical Annex 1-3 of the proposal) which are necessary to implement the action.

The beneficiaries must award the subcontracts ensuring the best value for money or, if

appropriate, the lowest price. In doing so, they must avoid any conflict of interests.

Examples of subcontracting could include: contracts for (parts of) the research or innovation

tasks which are clearly written in Technical Annex 1-3 of the proposal.

For more information, see page 125 of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement

B. What could be a conflict of interest situation between an applicant and a

subcontractor?

Conflict of interest could exist for reasons of economic interest, political or national affinity,

family or emotional ties or any other shared interest which could influence the subcontractor's

selection/award procedure; influence the subcontractor's price (so that it does not correspond

to the market price) or affect the action's performance.

For more information and examples, see page 231 Annotated Model Grant Agreement

C. Are there budget limits (max/min) for unknown/known subcontractors?

There are no maximum or minimum limits for subcontractors. Subcontracting is NOT

restricted to a limited part of the action in the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument).

However, the motivation or the capacity of the participant to carry out the action should be

very well justified. This is in line with the spirit of the SME Instrument that the applying

SME should have the capacity to carry out the activity. In addition, vigilance is used to

spot proposals charging very high amounts for services of subcontractors adding little value

to the development of the product or service proposed as well as where subcontractors have

the core part of the tasks.

D. What is the difference between subcontracts and contracts?

Subcontracts are directly linked to the implementation of specific tasks described in Annex

1 (Technical Annex Section 1-3). For example: Contract for (parts of) the research or

innovation tasks mentioned in Annex 1 which could include: demonstration; testing;

18

prototyping; piloting; scaling-up; miniaturisation; design; market replication. These should

be listed under "direct costs of subcontracting" in Part A (section 3 (C) - Budget breakdown).

Contracts do not directly cover the implementation of specific action tasks mentioned in

Annex 1, but they can provide support to them. For example: Contract for a computer;

contract for an audit certificate on the financial statements; contract for the translation of

documents; contract for the publication of brochures; contract for the creation of a website

that enables action’s beneficiaries to work together (if creating the website is not an action

task); contract for organisation of the rooms and catering for a meeting (if the organisation

of the meeting is not an action tasks mentioned as such in Annex 1); contract for hiring IPR

consultants/agents. These should be listed under "other direct costs" in Part A (section 3 (B)

- Budget breakdown. For more information, see page 111 of the Annotated Model Grant

Agreement

E. What if one out of a several subcontractors involved is not adequately described?

The best value for money must be evaluated for each of the subcontractors. If not enough

information is provided, this shall be reflected in your assessment of Criterion 3- Quality &

Efficiency of Implementation.

If best value for money is not demonstrated, the overall score for Criterion 3 should be below

the threshold of 4. To achieve this, question 3 relating to subcontracting under Criterion 3

should be scored in such a way that the final score will be below 4 for the Implementation

Criterion.

Furthermore, in the section entitled "subcontracting", each subcontractor must be evaluated.

If one subcontractor fails to demonstrate the best value for money, “No” should be chosen for

that activity and provide an explanation on why best value for money was not demonstrated

should be provided.

The budget for subcontracting must be detailed by the applicant.

Subcontracting:

Under the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument), the subcontracting is not restricted to a

limited part of the action. The best value for money principle for choosing

subcontractors must be respected and detailed. The experts shall assess:

For known subcontracts: information provided on the award procedure, tasks to

be subcontracted and reasons why the subcontractor has been chosen and why the

price is appropriate, all ensuring the best value for money principle.

For unknown subcontracts: tasks to be subcontracted, the estimate budget and the

procedure to be followed to ensure the best value for money principle.

If the above is not met, the proposal should be scored below the threshold of 4 in the

criterion “Quality & efficiency of implementation”.

In summary, for Subcontracting:

If you are satisfied with the subcontracting, please choose “Yes” for each

subcontractor.

19

If you are not satisfied with the subcontracting, please choose “No or lack of

explanation” for each subcontractor and provide a short explanation that can

also justify scoring of criterion “Quality & efficiency of implementation” below

threshold (<4)

F. How do I deal with the best value for money principle in case of a usual provider?

The fact that a subcontractor has been working with the applicant for years could be an

element to demonstrate best value for money. In any case, the motivation to choose a

subcontractor must be demonstrated and the best value for money must be explained in detail

(i.e. expertise, efficiency, price, etc.). In addition, any conflict of interests should be avoided.

G. What is the difference between a subcontractor and a linked third party?

A subcontractor has a contractual agreement with the beneficiary to implement

specific action tasks. The subcontractor charges a price which usually includes a profit.

The beneficiary must award contracts on the basis of best-value-for-money and absence of

conflict of interest.

A linked third party should be an affiliate to the beneficiary or have a legal link with

the beneficiary. The work carried out by the linked third party cannot be for a profit and

the linked third party must declare their own costs.

For more information see page 111 and 131 Annotated Model Grant Agreement

1.5 - Conflict of Interest

A. What is the correct definition of Conflict of Interest?

According to your expert contract - Annex 1 – Code of Conduct – Art 2 – Obligation of

impartiality, Point 2 – Definition of the conflict of interest:

"For a given proposal, a conflict of interest exists if an expert:

a. was involved in the preparation of the proposal;

b. stands to benefit directly or indirectly if the proposal is accepted;

c. has a close family or personal relationship with any person representing an applicant

legal entity;

d. is a director, trustee or partner or is in any way involved in the management of an

applicant legal entity;

e. is employed or contracted by one of the applicant legal entities or any named

subcontractors;

f. is a member of an Advisory Group set up by the Commission to advise on the

preparation of EU or Euratom Horizon 2020 Work Programmes, or Work

Programmes in an area related to the call for proposals in question;

g. is a National Contact Point, or is directly working for the Enterprise Europe

Network;

h. is a member of a Programme Committee.

20

In the following situation the contracting party (EASME) will decide whether a conflict of

interest exists, taking account of the objective circumstances, available information and

related risks, when an expert:

i. was employed by one of the applicant legal entities in the last three years;

ii. is involved in a contract or grant agreement, grant decision or membership of

management structures (e.g. member of management or advisory group etc.) or

research collaboration with an applicant legal entity or the fellow researcher, or had

been so in the last three years;

iii. is in any other situation that casts doubt on their ability to participate in the

evaluation of the proposal impartiality, or could reasonably appear to do so in the

eyes of an external third party.

B. Am I in a Conflict of interest situation?

Conflict of interest is a highly sensitive issue for any close-to-market programme such as the

EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument). Despite the precise indications included in the code of

conduct of the expert contract, in the majority of the cases it is the evaluator who must

determine whether a conflict of interest applies to their specific situation. When facing

these situations, please also consider how they might be seen by third parties.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that, every time you do not feel comfortable in

assessing a proposal or a group of proposals, you inform and explain the reason to us. Below

we provide you with a few examples of possible scenarios you might encounter as an

evaluator for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme.

Scenario 1

I work for the Enterprise Europe Network in COUNTRY A but the Enterprise Europe

network is only my part time job. Recently I have been approached by the European

Commission to be part of the next experts' pool for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument)

Programme. Am I in a conflict of interest’s situation?

Yes. According to Art 2 (Point G) of the Annex 1 - Code of conduct - of the expert contract,

you are in a conflict of interest situation.

Scenario 2

I have been involved as a consultant / advisor / service provider / applicant preparing a

proposal under the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument). Can I still be involved as an evaluator

for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme?

No, if you are evaluating proposals for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument). Please note

that you may be required to suspend your evaluator activities during the ongoing evaluation.

Scenario 3

21

I am an evaluator for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme and recently I have

been asked to give a presentation on the programme during an event organized in my country

by an incubator of start-ups. Am I in a conflict of interest’s situation?

No. There is no conflict of interest if you accept to participate in such events organized in

your region/country. A conflict of interest might occur only if you mention the

contents/details of a proposal you have evaluated.

Scenario 4

I would like to be evaluator and a coach for the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument). Would I

be in a conflict of interest's situation?

Yes. In this combination of roles we see a potential conflict of interest and we ask you to

make a choice and to not combine the roles.

These scenarios are not exhaustive.

C. What shall I do if I feel I am in a conflict of interest situation?

Whenever you do not feel comfortable in the assessment of a proposal or you feel that you

are in a situation that could cast doubts on your ability to evaluate with impartiality, you

should decline the task received and inform the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) team

accordingly. You must decline all other tasks in the same cut-off.

If a COI is detected, all tasks for the expert with a COI will be cancelled in that

particular cut-off in line with the European Ombudsman decision. Failure to declare a

COI may lead to exclusion from future cut-offs.

Section 2 – Contracting and Payment

2.1 – Contract

A. How long will my contract last?

You receive a contract specific to the SME Instrument that cannot exceed the maximum of

30 working days for remote evaluation of EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument)

proposals. The contract runs until 31/03/2020. However, your contract only allows for 30

days of work. You should keep track of how many days you have worked (using the

calculations under 2.2 Payment below) in order not to exceed the maximum of 30 working

days per contract.

B. What happens if I exceed the threshold of the 30 days?

If you exceed the threshold of the 30 days worked, you may be not paid for the extra

evaluations.

22

C. How and when do I sign my contract?

The signature of the experts’ contract is done electronically in your expert profile of the

H2020 Participant Portal. The signature of the contracts for the experts is launched by the

Research Executive Agency (REA) at the same time for a high number of experts. You will

receive an email notification informing you that a contract has been sent to you by the

Commission for your signature. It will be accessible from the link provided in the email you

will receive or if you received such a notification, by logging-in to the Expert Area in the

Participant Portal. Prior to signing your contract, you will be presented with a screen inviting

you to make some declarations. Once you have filled in all the sections, you can proceed to

the signature itself. To sign the contract, you will simply have to enter your personal ECAS

password. You will then be directed back to the Participant Portal where you will see that the

signature status on the left-hand side has changed to signed and the ‘proceed to sign’ button

becomes inactive. An electronic seal will be displayed at the end of your contract once it has

been signed by both parties and you will be notified once it’s accessible to you in the

Participant Portal.

D. How many times could my contract be renewed?

There is no limit in the number of times that the contract can be renewed. However, as

indicated in the revision of the implementation of the rotation rules applicable to H2020

experts, the ceiling of maximum working days is increased to 200 days for any activity

under Horizon 2020 (regular evaluator, ethics evaluator, monitor, ethics monitor, and expert

group).

The target to renew 25% of the contracted experts every year is retained. Given this renewal

rate, we are obliged to remove an equivalent number of experts from the pool each year to

maintain a workable balance. This means that some experts will not receive new contracts for

subsequent pools.

It is in your interest to monitor that the limit of the 200 days is not exceeded across the

H2020 framework programme, especially in cases when you are involved in the evaluation of

more than one programme.

E. Is it possible to indicate in the contract the name of my company instead of my name?

No. As indicated in the Art 1 of the Annex 1 – Code of Conduct – of the expert contract: "the

expert works independently, in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any organization".

Therefore, the contract can only be contracted under your name.

F. I have been approached by the EC as a possible evaluator for the EIC Accelerator

(SME Instrument) but I still have not signed a contract. May I expect to be contacted

for future cut-offs?

You could be contacted, because your details are in our approved pool of experts. This pool

is meant to be used throughout the year. Although you may not have been selected to work as

23

an expert in the first cut-offs, it does not mean that you will not be selected at a later point in

the year.

2.2 – Payment

A. What is the reimbursement rate for the evaluation of the EIC Accelerator (SME

Instrument) proposals?

Since 1st January 2017, the reimbursement rate will be based on working unit. One working

unit represents 45€.

- EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) One proposal evaluated counts for 3

working units

Under the EIC Accelerator (SME Instrument) Programme the payment will be always done

separately for each cut-off.

Please consider that only when an IER is finalised can it be considered as a completed

proposal evaluation even if it has been reopened.

Below we provide you with an example of reimbursement claims:

EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument): I assessed 9 proposals. I can claim

reimbursement for 1215€ (9 x 135€).

B. How many times may I claim reimbursement for the half-day remote briefing?

Your contract states the following:

For reading and assimilating briefing documents (including webcast briefings): EUR 225.00

(which equals a fixed number of 0.5 working day) per evaluation session

Please note that ‘evaluation session’ refers to the period of the EIC SME Instrument for

which you have been contracted and NOT to each cut-off.

Ordinarily, you may claim this payment only once per contract. Your contract runs from

March 2019 to March 2020. However, an amendment has been introduced (September 2019)

to allow for an additional briefing payment.

For the remaining evaluations of your contract (9th October 2019 and 8th January), you are

required to follow a new set of remote briefing before carrying out these evaluations. You

should include a request for payment for this briefing activity in your first payment claim

from October onwards i.e. only once you have carried out evaluations from October onwards

and once you receive a notification to submit a reimbursement request following the

evaluation session.

24

C. When can I claim the reimbursement for the work done?

The reimbursement procedure starts only when the whole evaluation process for each cut-

off date is completed (all the evaluations for each cut-off have been finalised). Please

consider that after the cut-off date, the evaluation may take around four or five weeks to fully

complete.

D. Do I receive a notification when I have to submit my reimbursement claim?

You will receive a notification from the system and we will send you an email stating when

you can submit your payment request. After the completion of each evaluation process, an

attendance session is created in the participant portal allowing you to submit your payment

request. Each attendance session has a start-date and an end-date. The attendance session

lasts 30 days. If you pass this limit you will not be able to submit your claim anymore. For

the remainder of your contract in 2019/20 a total of 2 sessions will be opened. When drafting

your payment request, please remember that:

No payment can be processed if it has been validated more than 30 days after the closure

of the attendance session;

No payment is processed when requested on an individual basis.

Once you have submitted your claim, it cannot be modified.

The payment in your bank account is processed by REA within the 30 days following the

submission of your claim.

If you miss claiming your reimbursement within the designated period, we will be unable

to do ad-hoc payments. To solve the issue of any unclaimed evaluation work, we will open

two additional payment sessions per year, at times designated by us.

E. I assessed a number of proposals for EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument), how

should I claim the reimbursement for the work done?

Under the EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument), Programme the payment will be always

done separately for each cut-off. You will receive a separate notification for the opening of

two attendance sessions. The latter depends on the speed with which the relevant evaluation

rounds are completed. Please do not aggregate your cost claims for cut-offs. Aggregated

claims will not be processed and this will slow down the entire process.

F. Who is responsible for keeping track of the number of proposals I evaluated during

each cut-off and Phase?

It is your responsibility to monitor the number of evaluations performed in order not to

exceed the limit of the 30 days mentioned in your contract and the limit of 200 days fully

worked across the H2020 framework programme.

Our systems keep track of the evaluations performed by each expert during each cut-off date.

The EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) Team is also monitoring the allocations done in

order to avoid situations of high workload to experts.

25

G. May the reimbursement be paid directly on my company's account?

Yes. You may choose to claim reimbursement on your company's account or on your

personal account. If you choose your company's account you need to request to add a new

bank account in your expert area in the H2020 Participant Portal. You can then choose the

other account when introducing your reimbursement file.

H. Which are the tax rules I should apply to the work done in the framework of the H2020

SME Instrument?

According to the Chapter 4 – Article 6 of the expert contract, no payment received by the

expert is exempted from national taxes and the expert is obliged to ensure compliance with

his/her applicable national legislation on taxes and social security law. As far as the VAT

obligation is concerned, the services provided to the Commission/REA are VAT exempted

(see article 151 (1) (a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and article 51 of Council

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 governing purchases made by the European

Commission and other EU institutions).

I. As self-employer may I request a VAT exemption certificate?

Yes. If you are self-employed and VAT taxable under your national law (the VAT number

has to be registered to the same person as in your expert contract), you might request a VAT

exemption certificate. If you wish to receive such a document, please provide the REA

EVALUATION team by e-mail (REA-EVALUATION@ec.europa.eu) with the official

national VAT registration document proving your self-employed status and your VAT

number. Please specify also the number of the expert contract for which you would like to

have the certificate.

J. The link I received to encode my legal and bank account details does not work, what

shall I do?

The provision of the legal and banking account details is a prerequisite to receive an expert

contract through the electronic system on the Participant Portal. You may want to open the

link via a different browser like Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome. If it still does not work,

please seek assistance from the IT helpdesk by clicking on the 'Support' tab on the Funding

and Tender Opportunities website

https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/support

K. How do I contact the EIC Accelerator pilot (SME Instrument) team in case of need?

For further information not included in this document, please contact the EIC Accelerator

pilot (SME Instrument) Team via the functional mailbox EASME-SME-

EXPERTS@ec.europa.eu.