Dear All
For Information
Marcelo and I, further to an informal request to our PO, have “unofficially” received the P1 Review Report.
We expect to receive this officially soon - and perhaps some S&T Qs to address too.
The report seems very positive - so well done everybody.
There are 5 recommendations (pp 2-3). At this stage it is not specified whether we need to respond to them, or whether they are just recommendations for the remaining period 2 of the project.
I share the Review Report with you now for information. We will have this on our agenda for next Friday’s OMT meeting too, to discuss it in further detail, including Recommendations, etc.
Best regards
Shamim
Dear All
We have now received feedback from the EC.
The feedback on the financial reporting part is generally good (see snapshot below taken from the Review Report).
[A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated]
We have 5 comments on the financial reporting, for Partners: UGENT, SIMPLE, NKUA, NTNU and TCD to address.
Note: Our PO could not attend the review, so these comments are most likely to have come from the EC legal and financial team rather than the expert reviewers Markus and Davinia.
@Katrien/Lieva, Filothei, Marianthi, Sofia and Carina/Jake:
Please can you provide your written feedback as soon as possible, preferably by Monday.
(Please check carefully what is written in the brackets by your comments too as these could be helpful when responding).
You may find parts of the report submitted, in particular the financial sections from page 41 (see attached) helpful to use as a basis in some cases.
If you think you need more time let me know.
Best regards
Shamim
From: FUENTES MATEOS Angel <Angel.FUENTES-MATEOS(a)ec.europa.eu>
Date: Friday, 7 June 2024 at 10:38
To: Shamim Patel <shamim.patel(a)lnu.se>
Cc: Marcelo Milrad <marcelo.milrad(a)lnu.se>
Subject: Exten.D.T.2 REPA
Dear Shamim,
Please see below the points that need your attention:
* Personnel costs claimed (checks on average personnel costs).
* Beneficiary 3-UGent.
First of all thank you for the explanation provided in the CORE report regarding deviation met in RP1 compared to GAP stage. Nevertheless, the average personnel costs used by this entity (EUR 10,502.49) in this RP1 compared to the one planned in Annex I (EUR 4,651.91) shows a deviation of 125.77%. Please justify this deviation (different profiles than foreseen? wrong estimation in the GA? Etc.). Could you please also let us know, since the overspending is quite high, how you intend, as far as possible, to remain inside your own budget defined by your entity for this project?
* Beneficiary 6-Simple.
First of all thank you for the explanation provided in the CORE report regarding deviation met in RP1 compared to GAP stage. Nevertheless, the average personnel costs used by this entity (EUR 4,145.22) in this RP1 compared to the one planned in Annex I (EUR 3,096.33) shows a deviation of 33.88%. Please justify this deviation (different profiles than foreseen? wrong estimation in the GA? Etc.). In top of this we also spotted that your entity is claiming personnel costs as SME owner unit costs while in annex 2 no such costs were initially planned by your entity. Could you please confirm that your personnel costs have to be claimed as SME owner unit costs and not as actual costs? Please clarify and confirm.
* Purchases costs claimed.
* Beneficiary 2-NKUA.
In the explanations provided in the UOR (Use Of Resources), we can read the following:
* Equipment.
[cid:image002.png@01DAB8DE.CEBC7A40]
As such I would ask for the following additional details if you agrees:
“Could you please specify the date (dd/mm/yyyy) when these two laptops were bought as well as the price paid for each laptop.
For each laptop, please also specify the depreciation period charged (from dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy) as well as the depreciated amount per month charged.”
* Efforts claimed on REPA1.
The checks performed on efforts claimed on this REPA1 show as a summary the following results:
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
WP8
1
LNU
56,72%
27,50%
18,25%
42,75%
19,00%
13,38%
20,25%
25,00%
35,86%
2
NKUA
54,00%
23,67%
37,56%
40,21%
55,13%
42,17%
21,50%
10,40%
38,63%
3
UGent
28,00%
0,00%
20,80%
0,00%
10,00%
53,82%
0,67%
7,75%
23,85%
4
NTNU
100,00%
59,94%
33,88%
54,38%
39,38%
33,25%
49,17%
13,67%
46,24%
5
TCD
50,00%
25,00%
50,00%
25,00%
10,00%
100,00%
58,33%
50,00%
50,00%
6
Simple
0,00%
83,33%
0,00%
55,56%
Based on this I would like to request beneficiaries (4-NTNU and 5-TCD) to explain why the effort planned by them for (WP1 - 4-NTNU) and (WP6 – 5-TCD) already reach 100% of the effort planned for these two WPs, knowing that for WP1 the effort planned cover in theory a period of 36 months and for WP6 a period of 30 months. Please justify this deviation (different profiles than foreseen? wrong estimation in the GA? Etc.)
Many thanks and best regards,
Angel
Angel M. FUENTES, PhD
Research Programme Administrator
[cid:image003.png@01DAB8DE.CEBC7A40]
European Research Executive Agency (REA)
Established by the European Commission
Unit C1
SB34 11/124
Simon Bolivar 34
1210 Bruxelles – Belgium
+32 229-54008
angel.fuentes-mateos(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:angel.fuentes-mateos@ec.europa.eu>
[cid:image004.png@01DAB8DE.CEBC7A40]<https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/stronger-europe-wor…>
This message is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return of this e-mail. This communication does not constitute any formal commitment on behalf of the European Research Executive Agency or the European Commission.
Dear All
Today is a holiday in Sweden (Swedish National Day) and tmrw is also a bridging/sandwich holiday at LNU.
If you would like any items on the agenda for next Friday’s OMT meeting please let me have them by lunchtime 12.00 CEST, Monday 10 June.
Best regards, Shamim
