EDULINK II 4th Call for Proposals Information Session Part B EDULINK PMU

1. ACP – EU Cooperation Programme in Higher Education EDULINK II 4th Call for Proposals Information Session Part B EDULINK PMU Implemented by the ACP Secretariat Funded by the European Union

2. Contents • Procedures for application • Procedures for evaluation • Critical issues • Further information

3. Procedures for application Guidelines Application Form and Annexes can be downloaded from the DEVCO-EuropeAid Website Funding page: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/index_en.htm Follow: Calls for proposals Recent Publications - Search or use the reference: 132023 - Search

4. Procedures for application OPEN CALL PROCEDURE As an Open Call for proposals, all documents are submitted in one stage (Concept Note and Full Application + annexes) Elements to the Application • Part A: Concept Note • Part B: Full Application form • Checklist (section 6 of part B: full application form) • Declaration by the Applicant (section 7 of Part B full application form) • Annexes: • Annex B: Budget (Global Estimated Costs; Sources of Funding and Justification of Costs) • Annex C: Logical Framework • Make sure that these documents contain all the relevant information • Please do not include any other documents as only these will be evaluated!

5. Procedures for application Deadline for Applications 30 July 2012

6. Procedures for application Applications must besubmitted in One original plus two Copies • A4 size • Bound • Plus CD-ROM of complete application (Concept note; Full Application; Annexes) Applications must bedelivered by: • Registered mail • Private Courier Service • Hand Delivery • Proposals must be written (typed) in either English or French No hand written applications will be accepted !!

7. Procedures for application Applications must be delivered in a SEALED envelope Include on the Envelope: • Reference numberof the Call for Proposals (EuropeAid/132023/D/ACT/ACPTPS) • The title and number of the LOT applied for: • LOT 1 EDF or: • LOT 2 DCI (Relations with South Africa) • Full name and address of Applicant • “Not to be opened before the opening session”

8. Procedures for application Address: EDULINK Programme Management Unit c/o GOPA-Cartermill Rue de Trèves, 45 B1040 Brussels Belgium

9. Procedures for evaluation EVALUATION • Independent Evaluators • Each proposal evaluated by at least 2 different evaluators THREE STEPS 1. Opening Administrative and Concept Notes • Deadline respected • Check list points satisfied (section 6 of Part B of full application form) • Concept notes with a minimum score of 30 will pass to the next stage • (Evaluation Grid: page 17, section 2,3 Guidelines) 2. Evaluation of Full Application • Check list points satisfied (section 6 of Part B of full application form) • (Evaluation Grid: page 19, section 2,3 Guidelines) 3. Eligibility Check

10. Procedures for evaluation STEP TWO Evaluation of Full Application Two Evaluation criteria: • Selection criteria (Section 1: evaluation grid) • Financial and Operational Capacity • A score of less than 12 out of a maximum of 20 will lead to automatic rejection • Award criteria (sections 2,3,4 and 5 of Evaluation Grid) • Compliance with EDULINK II Objectives and priorities • Relevance • Expected Impact • Sustainability • Cost effectiveness

11. Procedures for evaluation STEP Three Verification of Eligibility • Only performed for provisionally selected proposals • List according to score and financial envelope • Declaration of the applicant cross checked with supporting documentation Eligibility Criteria (Sections 2,1 of guidelines) • 2,1,1: Eligibility of applicants • 2,1,2: Eligibility of partners • 2,1,3: Eligibility of actions

12. Procedures for evaluation STEP Three Supporting Documentation • Statutes or Articles of Association (law establishing body) • Latest accounts (not required for public entities) • Legal entity sheet (Annex D) • Financial identification form (Annex E) • Bank must be one that is located in the country where the applicant is registered • Name address and contact details of audit firm • Document from competent national authorities certifying applicant and partners are accredited HEIs • English or French Translations of Documents in other languages

13. Critical issues MAJOR REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS UNDER PREVIOUS CALLS FOR PROPOSALS: ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK • The application was posted after the deadline This is the most annoying reason of all for having your proposal rejected after all the effort it took to prepare it, so be absolutely sure to respect the deadline. Rejection of late proposals is automatic and there will be no exceptions! • The application failed to pass the administrative check • The compulsory format of the Application Form was not respected • Essential documents were missing (budget, budget justification, logical framework, concept note, etc.) • Partnership not eligible (no partners at all, not enough partners, ineligible applicant or partner) • Requested EDF contributionexceeds the limit. • Application not in EN or FR

14. Critical issues MAJOR REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS UNDER PREVIOUS CALLS FOR PROPOSALS • Quality of the content • The relevance of the project (to needs and constraints of the country/region and to those of the target groups and final beneficiaries) is not convincing; • Proposal shows no clear relation to the objectives of EDULINK; • Goals too ambitious and not substantiated by the proposed activities; • Objectives, methodology and results are insufficiently elaborated and explained; • Text is not clearly structured, lacking internal logic; • Text is obviously written by “cut and paste”; poor final editing; • Poor Logical Framework (internal logic, indicators, sources of verification) • Costs appear exaggerated in relation to proposed activities and inputs.

15. Critical issues MAJOR REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS UNDER PREVIOUS CALLS FOR PROPOSALS Impact • Target group(s) not clearly identified or negligible in quantitative terms; • Proposal does not elaborate on tangible outputs and results; • Sustainability of the project not sufficiently substantiated. Implementation • Insufficient management experience; • Inadequate knowledge of Project Cycle Management.

16. Further information Clarifications may be asked to the EDULINK PMU at: Call2012@acp-edulink.eu Frequently asked questions will be published regularly on the EDULINK website Deadline for Questions is 21 days before the deadline for applications Deadline for answers is 11 days before the deadline for applications

17. Further information EDULINK PMU (frequently asked questions) Call2012@acp-edulink.eu ACP Secretariat http://www.acp.int/ EDULINK Website http://www.acp-edulink.eu/

18. Further information • The «Manual for Preparing an EDULINK Application» is being updated to take into account the changes in the 4th Call. • It will be available soon on the EDULINK website.