EIC Pre-accelerator - Widening

EIC Pre-accelerator - Widening General conditions 1. Admissibility Conditions: Proposal page limit and layout described in Annex A and Annex E of the Horizon Europe Work Programme General Annexes. Proposal page limits and layout: described in Part B of the Application Form available in the Submission System. Part B of your proposal, corresponding to the evaluation criteria Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation, must consist of a maximum of 22 A4 pages. Excess pages will be automatically made invisible, and will not be taken into consideration by the evaluators. 2. Eligible Countries described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes. A number of non-EU/non-Associated Countries that are not automatically eligible for funding have made specific provisions for making funding available for their participants in Horizon Europe projects. See the information in the Horizon Europe Programme Guide. In WIDERA calls, the countries eligible for hosting coordinators of widening actions are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and all Associated Countries with equivalent characteristics in terms of R&I performance (Albania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Kosovo7 , Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, and once associated Morocco and Egypt), as well as the Outermost Regions (defined in Art. 349 TFEU). Hereinafter, these countries, including the Outermost Regions, will be named 'Widening countries'. 3. Other Eligible Conditions Applications may only be submitted by one legal entity (mono-beneficiary). The following additional eligibility criteria apply: Beneficiaries must be a small and medium enterprise (SME) established in a Horizon Europe Widening country. described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes. 4. Financial and operational capacity and exclusion described in Annex C of the Work Programme General Annexes. 5a. Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds Seals of Excellence will be awarded to applications exceeding all of the evaluation thresholds set out in this work programme but which cannot be funded due to lack of budget available to the call. are described in Annex D of the Work Programme General Annexes. 5b. Evaluation and award: Submission and evaluation processes The following additions to the general award criteria apply: The proposals will be evaluated by 3 independent evaluators following the award criteria for EIC Transition Open at first evaluation step, EIC Work Programme 2027. These are: Excellence (Threshold: 4/5) Technological breakthrough: Does the technology have a high degree of novelty and higher performance compared to other technologies available or in development? Does the technology indicate high commercial potential? Objectives: How credible and feasible are the objectives for the planned technology development and maturation? How credible and feasible are the objectives and KPIs for the planned business development process? Methodology: Is the timing right for this technology/innovation (i.g. feasibility, minimum technological readiness level (TRL), unique selling points)? Impact (Threshold: 4/5) Credibility of the impacts: To what extent the expected commercial impact(s) described in the proposal are credible and substantial within the project and beyond (e.g. one or several sectors, setting new standards, etc.)? Economic and/or societal benefits: To what extent does the proposed innovation have scale up potential including high capacity to gain or create new European or global markets? To what extent is the proposed innovation expected to generate positive impacts for the European Union, Member States or Associated Countries (e.g. strategic autonomy, employment etc.)? To what extent does the proposal contribute (beyond the establishment of the beneficiary in a widening country) to enhancing the innovation potential of widening countries? Investment readiness and go to market strategy: To what extent the proposal and its activities contribute to make the technology and the team investment ready (including through IP protection and market validation)? Is there a well-defined and convincing go-to-market strategy and pathway, including what regulatory approvals may be needed (if relevant), time to market, possible business and revenue model? Quality and efficiency of the implementation (Threshold 3/5) Quality and motivation of the team: To what extent does the (project) team have the necessary high-quality capabilities and high motivation to move decisively towards market? To what extent does the applicant have the necessary expertise to create a unique commercial value from the emerging technology and develop an attractive business and investment proposition? KPIs and Milestones: Are both milestones and KPIs present, relevant and clearly defined (measurable, timed, comparable etc.) to track progress along the pathway towards objectives? Have the main risks (e.g. technological, market, financial etc.) been identified, together with measures to mitigate in order to achieve the project objectives? Workplan and allocation of resources: How appropriate and effective is the allocation of resources (person-months and equipment) between work packages? The following rules for dealing with ex-aequo applications apply: in the first place, ex-aequo proposals will be prioritised according to geographical diversity criteria, defined as proposals with coordinators established in a Widening country, not otherwise represented as coordinator higher up the ranking list. The method described in Points 1), 2), 3)[[The method mentioned in point 3) related to ge