2.

Project selection:
procedure and criteria

Table of content
1. Selection procedure .......................................................................................................................... 2
Evaluation of proposals ....................................................................................................................... 2
Selection of proposals ......................................................................................................................... 3
Information to applicants ...................................................................................................................... 3
2. Selection criteria ............................................................................................................................... 4
Criteria for expression of interest (step 1)............................................................................................... 4
Criteria for project applications (step 2).................................................................................................. 6
Reference documents...........................................................................................................................10
Annexes ...............................................................................................................................................11

Version 07 as of 30 January 2019

1. Selection procedure
The cooperation programme (CP) section 5.3 sets out a binding framework for the selection of project
proposals. All project proposals are evaluated following a standardised and transparent procedure and a set
of criteria approved by the programme committee (PC).

Project proposals are normally selected in a two-step application procedure: expressions of interest (EoI) in
step 1 and application forms (AF) plus partnership agreements in step 2 (see details in factsheet “project
application”). The following graph shows the single steps and approximate duration of the application and
selection procedure.

publication deadline for decision closure of decision

ToR submission PC call PC

6 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks 12 weeks

expression selection full selection

of interest EoI application AF

Evaluation of proposals
In both steps the evaluation of proposals is carried out by the joint secretariat (JS), with the support of the
Alpine contact points (ACP) performing national verifications for the partners situated in their country. The
evaluation starts with the eligibility check and (for those successful) is then completed with the assessment.
They are performed against specific criteria which are approved by the PC and set out in this factsheet;
further criteria might be decided by the PC and included in the relevant terms of reference (ToR)
(e.g. targeted call to specific fields of activities).

The eligibility check is verifying whether the proposal fulfils the minimum programme requirements. If it fails
the eligibility check, the EoI/AF is considered as rejected and is not further assessed. The assessment is
appraising the quality of a proposal; it focuses on operational and content-related aspects, in addition to the
strategic ones. The assessment of an AF will also take into consideration the compliance with the
recommendations given by the PC (see below).

2
Selection of proposals
The PC, composed by the Partner States of the programme, is the decision-making body and is therefore
responsible for project selection. As soon as the eligibility check is completed, the PC decides on the
eligibility of proposals, normally through a written procedure. For the quality assessment, the JS proposes a
ranking list to the PC. An assessment report is developed for each project. The selection of EoI/AF is
decided by the PC in the context of a specific meeting. In this meeting, national delegations discuss the
different proposals and come to a common agreement on their approval or rejection. Decisions are taken by
consensus of all Partner States.

Expression of interest (step 1)

In step 1, project proposals that are highly scored and show good quality are invited by the PC to submit a
detailed application form (AF) and signed partnership agreement in a second step. If appropriate, the PC
gives recommendations to those invited to the second step on how to further elaborate the project proposal
to better meet the expectations of the programme.

Project applications (step 2)

In step 2 projects are approved or rejected. The PC selects by consensus the projects that are highly scored
and show good quality and that are thus co-financed by the programme. In justified cases the PC might
formulate recommendations together with the approval decision. At the latest with the submission of the first
progress report the partnership will be asked for explanations on how the recommendations have been
considered and integrated in the project.

Information to applicants
Information is provided to lead applicants in the relevant steps of the application procedure. At the end of the
eligibility check, the lead applicants of ineligible EoI/AF are notified by the managing authority/joint
secretariat (MA/JS) via email; the communication specifies the eligibility criteria which were not fulfilled. At
the end of the selection process, the list of approved projects is published on the programme website
together with a news thread. In addition, all lead applicants receive a letter from the MA/JS on the approval
or rejection of the project; the communication includes an evaluation report and reasons for
approval/rejection. In case of approval, the subsidy contract (SC) is attached to the letter.

3
2. Selection criteria
Criteria for expression of interest (step 1)
Eligibility criteria
o The EoI is completed with the requested information (in part A and C of the EoI all fields are obligatory;
in part B of the EoI, the following fields are obligatory: name of the organisation, at least one contact
detail (name of the person, telephone and email address), NUTS3 level, legal status, thematic
competence/experience relevant for the project).
o The EoI is completed in the required language: English.
o The project fulfils minimum requirements for the partnership: at least 4 partners from 4 different Alpine
Space countries are involved.
o Established contact of the applicant with the ACP: the EoI lead partner had at least one written contact
with its respective ACP before submission (input from the ACP verification). For the projects with EoI LP
coming from Switzerland or Liechtenstein, this rule does not apply to the EoI ERDF-LP.

Further eligibility criteria might be added, depending on the formulation in the relevant ToR as set out by the
PC.

Weighting system for the assessment criteria clusters

Assessment criteria clusters Points

Project's context and cooperation character 350
Project’s contribution to programme’s objectives, 380
expected results and outputs
Partnership relevance 270
Total 1000

Assessment criteria
Cluster criterion: Project's context (relevance and strategy) and cooperation character (EoI sections A, C)
This criterion refers to the relevance of the project for the programme and its cooperation character. A
proposal is scored 0 when, based on the overall judgement of the proposal, serious weaknesses in this
assessment criteria cluster are identified. In such a case, the proposal is automatically recommended for
rejection; the evaluation report does not contain weaknesses and strengths for all clusters , but a short overall
assessment of the proposal as well as information on main reasons why the project reached 0 in this cluster.
How well is a need for the project justified?

4
o The project addresses common territorial challenges of the programme or a joint asset of the programme
area - there is a real demand for the project.
o The project demonstrates its contribution to a wider strategy on one or more policy levels (EU/ macro-
regional).

What added value does the cooperation bring?

o The importance of the transnational approach to the topic addressed is clearly demonstrated and
reflected in the planned activities: the results cannot (or can only to some extent) be achieved without
transnational cooperation and/or the transnational cooperation has a significant added value for the
programme area.
o The project demonstrates new solutions that go beyond the existing practice in the sector/programme
area/participating countries or adapts and implements already developed solutions.

Cluster criterion: Project’s contribution to programme’s objectives, expected results and outputs
(EoI section C)
To what extent will the project contribute to the achievement of programme’s objectives?

o The project’s results and outputs are clearly linked to a programme priority and its indicators:
- the project overall objective is clearly link ed to a programme priority specific objective,
- the project results are clearly link ed to a programme result indicator,
- the project specific objectives are clearly link ed to the project overall objective,
- the project outputs are clearly link ed to the project specific objectives.

o The project’s results and outputs are in accordance with the needs of the selected target groups.

Cluster criterion: Partnership relevance (EoI section B)

To what extent is the partnership composition relevant for the proposed project? Is the partnership coherent
with the project objectives?
o The project involves the relevant institutions needed to address the territorial challenge/joint asset and
the objectives specified (e.g. partners with relevant institutional role and policy addressing capacity are
involved, partners have proven experience in the thematic field concerned).
o With regards to the project’s objectives, the project partnership is balanced with respect to the
governance levels, sectors and territory.

Additionally further criteria might be assessed, depending on the formulation of the ToR as set out by the PC
(e.g. targeted call to specific fields of activities).

5
The ACP perform national verifications as follows:
o Legal capacity of the LP (i.e. can the entity indicated as LP as such enter into legal obligations such as
those arising from the partnership agreement and therefore bear rights and duties? If not, a LP change
will have to be implemented in step 2).
o There are no official records pointing at possible inability in the partners ’ capacities to fulfil its envisaged
role (also in financial terms).

Criteria for project applications (step 2)

Eligibility criteria
o The AF is completed with the requested information.
o The partnership agreement as obligatory annex is submitted.
o The application pack age is completed in required language: English.
o The project fulfils minimum requirements for the partnership: at least 4 partners from 4 different Alpine
Space countries are involved.
o Established contact of the LP with the ACP and JS: the LP consulted its national ACP and the JS after
step 1 to ensure the submission of quality application documents (if relevant, to discuss the PC
recommendations) (input from the ACP verification). For the projects with LP coming from Switzerland or
Liechtenstein, this rule does not apply to the ERDF-LP.
o The overall objective of the submitted proposal is the same as in the EoI.
o The indicated LP was already involved in the EoI as LP or PP. For the projects with LP coming from
Switzerland or Liechtenstein, this rule does not apply to the EoI ERDF-LP.
o The EoI LP is involved in the project partnership as LP or PP. For the projects with EoI LP coming from
Switzerland or Liechtenstein, this rule does not apply to the ERDF-LP.
o The LP of the submitted proposal is a public or public equivalent body (according to the public
procurement law) (input from the ACP verification). For the projects with LP coming from Switzerland or
Liechtenstein, this rule applies only to the ERDF-LP.
o All project participants (LP and PPs) met the national requirements: each project participant submitted
the national requirements within the given deadline (input from the ACP verification).

Further eligibility criteria might be added, depending on the formulation in the relevant ToR as set out by the
PC.

6
Weighting system for the assessment criteria clusters

Assessment criteria clusters Points

Project's context and cooperation character 170
Project’s contribution to programme’s objectives, 280
expected results and outputs
Partnership relevance 200
Management 50
Communication 100
Work plan 100
Budget 100
Total 1000

Assessment criteria

Were recommendations from the 1st step considered and integrated in AF?
o Recommendations given by the PC in the 1st step of application were considered and integrated in the
AF.

Project's context (relevance and strategy) and cooperation character (AF sections B, C)
How well is a need for the project justified?
o The project addresses common territorial challenges of the programme or a joint asset of the programme
area - there is a real demand for the project.
o The project demonstrates its contribution to a wider strategy on one or more policy levels (EU/ macro-
regional/ national/ regional) (input from ACP verification for national level).
o The project mak es use of available k nowledge and builds on existing results and practices.
o The project mak es a positive contribution to the programme horizontal principles: sustainable
development, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, equality between men and women.

What added value does the cooperation bring?

o The importance of the transnational approach to the topic addressed is clearly demonstrated: the results
cannot (or can only to some extent) be achieved without transnational cooperation and/or the
transnational cooperation has a significant added value for the programme area.
o The project demonstrates new solutions that go beyond the existing practice in the sector/programme
area/participating countries or adapts and implements already developed solutions.

7
Project’s contribution to programme’s objectives, expected results and outputs (AF section C)
To what extent will the project contribute to the achievement of programme’s objectives?

o Through the planned outputs and results, the project demonstrates a clear contribution to the
programme priority and indicators:
- the project overall objective is clearly link ed to a programme priority specific objective,
- the project results are clearly link ed to a programme result indicator,
- the project specific objectives are clearly link ed to the project overall objective,
- the project main outputs are clearly link ed to the project specific objectives,
- the project main outputs are clearly link ed to programme output indicators.

o Results and main outputs:

- are in accordance with the needs of relevant target groups,
- are tangible/implementation oriented,
- are clearly defined and realistic (it is possible to achieve them with given resources – i.e. time,
partners, budget - and they are realistically based on the quantification provided).

o Project outputs are durable: the proposal is expected to provide a significant and durable contribution to
solving the challenges targeted (the proposal includes realistic provisions to ensure the durability of the
project outputs) – if not, it is justified why.

o Project outputs are applicable and replicable by other organisations/regions/countries outside of the
current partnership (the proposal includes realistic provisions to ensure transferability) – if not, it is
justified why.

Partnership relevance (AF section B)

To what extent is the partnership composition relevant for the proposed project?
o The relevance of the involved project partners is clearly demonstrated with regard to the addressed
territorial challenge/joint asset and the objectives specified (e.g. partners with relevant institutional role
and policy addressing capacity are involved; partner organisations have proven experience and
competence in the thematic field concerned).
o With regards to the project’s objectives the project partnership is balanced with respect to the
governance levels, sectors and territory.
o All partners play a defined role in the partnership and are expected to get a real benefit from it.
o Organisations listed in the AF as project observers (if applicable) are relevant and their commitment to
the project objectives is demonstrated.

8
Management (AF sections B, C)
To what extent are management structures and procedures in line with the project size, duration and needs?
o Management structures (e.g. project steering committee) are proportionate to the project size and needs
and allow partners’ involvement in decision-mak ing. Project management includes regular contact
between project partners and ensures transfer of expertise across the partnership (internal
communication within the partnership).
o Management procedures (such as reporting and evaluation procedures in the area of finance, project
content, communication) are clear, transparent, efficient and effective. Necessary provisions for risk and
quality management are in place.
o The LP demonstrates competency in managing EU co-financed projects or other international projects or
can ensure adequate measures for management support.

Communication (AF section C)

To what extent are communication activities appropriate and forceful to reach the relevant target groups and
stak eholders?
o The communication objectives clearly support the project specific objectives. The approach/tactics
chosen are appropriate to reach communication objectives.
o Communication activities and deliverables are appropriate to reach the relevant target groups and
stak eholders.

Work plan (AF section C)

Are the principles of multi-level governance and horizontal integration as well as transnationality considered
in project activities?
o Activities are of transnational character (organisational aspect).
o Through its activities the project promotes vertical (across levels) and horizontal (across sectors)
cooperation among stak eholders.

To what extent is the work plan realistic, consistent and coherent?

o Proposed activities and deliverables are relevant and lead to the planned main outputs and results.
o Time plan is realistic (contingency included). Activities, deliverables and outputs are in a logical time -
sequence. Distribution of task s among partners is appropriate (e.g. sharing of task s is clear, logical, in
line with partners’ role in the project, etc.).
o Activities outside the programme area clearly benefiting the programme area (if applicable).

9
Budget (AF sections C, D, E)
To what extent does the project budget demonstrate value for money?
o Economic use of the proposed budget: the project budget appears proportionate to the proposed work
plan and the main outputs and results aimed for.

To what extent is the budget coherent and proportionate?

o Total partner budgets reflect real partners’ involvement (is coherent and realistic).
o Distribution of the budget per period, work pack age and budget line is in line with the work plan.
o The need for engaging external expertise is justified and the costs are realistic.
o The need for equipment purchases is justified and the costs are realistic. The added value of equipment
purchases and small scale investments and their transnational relevance is demonstrated for reaching
the project objectives (if applicable).

Additionally, further criteria might be assessed, depending on the formulation of the relevant ToR as set out
by the PC (e.g. targeted call to specific fields of activities).

The ACP perform the technical verification on the national level including the following elem ents:
o Legal capacity of the project participant (i.e. can the entity indicated as PP or LP as such enter into legal
obligations such as those arising from the partnership agreement and therefore bear rights and duties.
This includes a verification of the legal status of PP: public or private entity, according to the public
procurement law).
o There are no official records pointing at possible inability in the capacities of participants (PP or LP) to
fulfil the envisaged role (also in financial terms).
o The project contributes/is link ed to national/regional policies.

Reference documents
o EU Regulation 1303/2013, art. 125 (3)
o Cooperation Programme "Alpine Space", Chapter 5.3. and Guiding principles for selection of operations
defined for each Investment Priority, Chapters 2.A.6.2.
o Terms of reference of the relevant call for proposals

10
Annexes
o Guidance for EoI and AF, Two-step calls for proposals
o Subsidy contract

11