Hi Marianthi, hi All,
Thank you for your email. This is applicable for other WP deliverables who have updated versions as well as WP5
Q Re, updated D5.1: Re, either of what you propose would be acceptable to the EC.
(e.g. for the updated DMP deliverable the text was kept from the initial DMP deliverable with additions, and for the WP8 Dissemination deliverable, a new deliverable was written at M18 rather than updating the M6 related deliverable. These deliverables have been approved.
Every WP that has updated versions of deliverables should choose what is most appropriate for them.
If you have a lot of new text, and as D5.1 (submitted in M6) was relatively long, it may be more appropriate to write a new shorter deliverable, and (i) reference to the first version in the Introduction, and (ii) where applicable in the Sections that follow.
Or, if you can put all the “new material” as appendices then it should be sufficient to write a preface to the first version and do it this way.
Re, D5.2 request:
Yes, unfortunately there are inconsistencies in the due dates of deliverables in various places in the Grant Agreement.
The EC portal (which is what the control excel sheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wCYFr8Fph4wFUJguQQU7oWT7QTTe8-HlbUT…> is based on) has some dates wrong as a result,
I do not see there being any problem to rectify D5.3 to from M30 to M34 for the third-year implementations with our PO (and similarly for D6.2 as Christina has pointed out). I will inform our PO of this.
@ALL: (For info)
* We have not yet received any formal feedback on the P1 deliverables from the reviewers ,but as far as I can see on the portal all deliverables have been approved.
* A general note for all deliverables in Period 2, is to try and keep them short for the reviewers (<30 pages max would seem appropriate) and include large amounts of data e.g. Activity Plans etc. as Appendices/Annexes where possible.
* We will also be reviewing deliverables in the OMT meeting on Friday and further discussions can be taken there. Please review the linked control excel sheet above before then.
Best, Shamim
From: Marianthi Grizioti <margrizioti(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2024 at 11:18
To: "Exten.D.T.2_OMT_Mailing List" <extendt2_omt(a)lists.sunet.se>
Subject: WP5 deliverables on M24
Hi Shamim,
We have 1 question and 1 request regarding the upcoming deliverables of WP5
We have to submit an updated version of Del 5.1 (v1 submitted on M6). In the new document should we keep the text from v1 and extend it with new chapters concerning the updates or should we write a new text and refer to v1 in it?
There is one mistake in Del 5.3. It says that the first report is on M24 and the updated on M30. However in the grant agreement on the deliverables table the update of Del5.3 is on M34 (see screenshot). This makes more sense, since the 3rd year interventions will be in progress on M30. Can we modify this?
[cid:image001.png@01DAAB89.563787C0]
Best,
Marianthi
Marianthi Grizioti (PhD)
Post-doc researcher & software developer
Educational Technology Lab (ETL)<http://etl.eds.uoa.gr/>
Department of Educational Studies
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Research Gate<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marianthi_Grizioti> | Academia <https://en-uoa-gr.academia.edu/MarianthiGrizioti> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianthi-grizioti-b0394038/>
Dear All
Here is the formal notification of the Result of the Review and the P1 Review Report, which some of you may also have seen this morning.
This is on the agenda for today’s OMT meeting at 10.30 CEST.
Best regards, Shamim
From: European Commission <EC-NO-REPLY-GRANT-MANAGEMENT(a)nomail.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Friday, 14 June 2024 at 08:19
To: Shamim Patel <shamim.patel(a)lnu.se>
Subject: For Action - Exten.D.T.2 - 101060231 - PMOC-101060231-1 - Project monitoring results
Europa / Funding & Tenders Portal notification
Dear Madam/Sir,
The results of the monitoring for Exten.D.T.2 - 101060231 has been sent to you.
For more details, please log on to the Funding & Tenders Portal > My Project(s) ( https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/myare…) and click on Action > Manage Project.
Regards,
Grant Management Services
Please do not reply to this message
This message has been automatically generated by the Grant Management Services of the European Commission with the following configuration:
To:
Coordinator Contact
Cc:
Participant Contact and Coordinator Contact
Priority:High
You can change your preferences on email alerts in the "Notifications" area of your Funding & Tenders Portal
If you want to change the frequency of receiving notifications with importance "Normal", you can do it in the Funding & Tenders Portal > My Notifications > Preferences
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
Dear All,
Attached please find the newsletter (May Issue), the final version. Please let me know if you spot any errors in it. Provided you don’t spot any, I will upload this on our site and circulate it through our social media site.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Best,
Sagun
Dear All,
Attached please find the draft newsletter (May Issue). Please, let me know if you have any comments and suggestions on it. We will release it tomorrow evening by uploading it on our site.
Best,
Sagun
Dear All
Attached you can find the draft minutes and WP updates from our OMT meeting last Friday.
Please check all Actions/To Dos that apply to you in the minutes and slides.
If you would like any additions or changes let me know by COB next Wednesday 5th June.
NB: The next OMT meeting is at 10.30-12.00 CEST on Friday 14th June.
Best regards
Shamim
-------------------------------------------------
Shamim Patel (ACA)
Project Manager | Exten.(D.T.)2 Project
Linnæus University
Office of External Relations
SE-351 95 Växjö | Sweden
M: +46 (0)705 898396 | lnu.se<https://lnu.se/en/>
-------------------------------------------------
