We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. Do You agree?

I.4.1. Strengthening the core-facility potential on the Ochota Campus

RegulationsSelection CommitteeSubmitted applications
Errata
In the Annex 4 last sentence:

The final score of the interview ranges from zero (0) to five (5) points and is the arithmetic mean of the scores given by all of the members of the committee.

has been modified to:

The final score of the interview ranges from zero (0) to ten (10) points and is the arithmetic mean of the scores given by all of the members of the committee.

The corrected version is below.

Regulations for Awarding Funding

Objective

The objective of the call for proposals is to select projects for the purchase or production of research infrastructure (and its implementation into service), which will continually increase the research capacity of the University of Warsaw as part of Action I.4.1 “Increasing the Core-Facility potential on the Ochota Campus”, in the “Excellence Initiative – Research University” Programme (IDUB).

Applicants

  • All employees of the University of Warsaw may submit applications to the call.

Anticipated outcomes

  • Strengthening the potential of key research infrastructure on the Ochota Campus.

Amount of available co-financing

  • Financing from Programme funds for an individual project must not exceed 5,000,000 PLN.
  • The total budget of the call is 10 000 000 PLN.

Period of financing

  • Disbursement of awarded funding must begin within 12 months of the date of the decision to grant financing for the project.
  • The project may not last longer than 28 February 2023.

Application procedure

  • Applications are submitted using the form available at https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl which comprises Annex 1 to these regulations.
  • Applications are submitted in English.
  • The application must be approved and signed by the Director of the unit in which the project is to be implemented. The approved and signed application should be sent via email at: infrastruktura_idub@uw.edu.pl
  • The applicant may withdraw the application at any stage.

The Selection Committee

  • The composition and formation procedure for the Selection Committee, as well as the set of rules on which its work is based are specified in Annex 2 to these regulations.

Proposal evaluation procedure

The proposal evaluation includes three stages:

Stage 1 – Public consultation

  • The University of Warsaw community is informed about the applications which have been submitted through announcements on the website of the “Excellence Initiative – Research University” (IDUB) Programme https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl/dzialania/i-4-1/ which include the following information:
    • the project title;
    • the project authors;
    • the email addresses of the project authors;
    • the organisational unit at UW which is coordinating the project;
    • a brief description of the project (specified by the author[s] for public disclosure);
    • a list of the research groups interested in the implementation of the project;
    • the total budget of the project.
  • Within 14 days of the publication date of the above information:
    • the members of the University of Warsaw community may submit suggestions and expressions interest in a project by contacting the author of the application or the Project Manager for Action I.4.1 (ldziewit@biol.uw.edu.pl), directly;
    • the applicant may modify the application (including the project budget). In particular, it is possible to merge two similar applications and obtain new stakeholders.

Stage 2 – Evaluation of submitted applications

  • Submitted applications are evaluated by the Selection Committee according to criteria presented in Annex 3 to these regulations.
  • An application may qualify for the third stage of the evaluation, on the condition that it receives at least 51% of the points possible at the second stage.
  • Subsequently, a list of the applications which have been qualified to proceed to the third stage of the evaluation will be prepared and announced on the website https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl
  • Additionally, the results of the second stage of the evaluation will be sent to the applicants individually, to the email address given on the application form, within 14 days of completing the evaluation of the second stage of the evaluation.

Stage 3 – Interview

  • At the third stage of the evaluation, interviews are carried out with the applicants, during which each Applicant presents the project to the committee and answers questions about it.
  • Criteria for evaluating the presentations by the Applicants during the third stage of the evaluation are given in Annex 4 to these regulations.
  • The interviews will be carried out in English, either in person or via teleconferencing.
  • An application may qualify for funding, on the condition that it receives at least 51% of the points possible at the third stage of the evaluation.
  • After the third stage of the evaluation has been completed, a ranked list of qualified applications will be prepared and announced.
  • Within 10 days of completing the evaluation of the proposals, the committee will announce the results of the third stage of the evaluation on the website https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl
  • Additionally, the results of the third stage of the evaluation will be sent to the applicants individually, to the email address given on the application form, within 14 days of completing the evaluation of the third stage of the evaluation.

The Appeals Procedure

  • An applicant may appeal a negative decision by the Selection Committee concerning the results of the evaluation, at each stage, in accordance with the regulations given in Annex 5 and the regulations given herein.

Resolution

  • Following the resolution of appeals, the Selection Committee establishes a ranked list of projects, indicating those which were granted funding. The decision to grant funding is received by the applicant and the head of the organisational unit which is implementing the project. The head of the organisational unit is obliged to present a declaration ensuring that funding for infrastructural maintenance will be provided.
  • The Programme Director signs the Project Manager’s application. In the event of withdrawal or other unforeseen occurrences which prevent the implementation of a project which has been qualified for financing, the University reserves the right to grant the funding to the project which was classified next in the ranked list.
  • The final results of the call will be published on the website at https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl within 40 days of completing the evaluation of the proposals.

Competition schedule

  1. Applications will be accepted from 02.11.2020 to 06.12.2020. Incomplete application forms or those which are received after the stated deadline will not be accepted.
  2. b. The results of the call will be announced by 02.2021 r.

Settlement

The implementation of the project is subject to financial and substantive settlement. The head of the project submits the following documents:

  1. a substantive report on the implementation of the project,
  2. a summary of expenditures from the implementation process (by category, and in a budgeted-disbursed format), signed by the Bursar’s Representative at the organisational unit of UW implementing the project, and the person from that unit who acting as project manager (within 30 days of completing the project).

Additional information

  • Research infrastructure is understood as sites, resources, and the services associated with them, which are used by the scientific community to carry out research.
  • Costs of maintaining infrastructure and costs associated with service personnel for infrastructure are ineligible for project funding.
  • The Selection Committee will close competition procedures if:
    • there is a lack of submitted applications which fulfil the required formal criteria;
    • none of the applications submitted receive the minimum number of points during the second or third stage of the evaluation.
  • The Programme Director reserves the right to cancel a competition without stating the reason.
  • In accordance with the regulations of the competition, the result of the project may only be the purchase or production of infrastructure, intended solely for research purposes (those not associated with taxable activities).
  • Infrastructure financed from IDUB funds must be adequately marked with the source of funding. Access to such equipment/infrastructure will also be given (based on agreed principles) to employees and research teams from other organisational units at UW than the one which received those fixed assets, in the form of equipment/infrastructure.

Annexes

download (MS Word, < 1MB)

Information: There has been a change in the shape of the form – it was supplemented with the UW and IDUB logos. Please use the current version. (However, applications completed and submitted on the previous version of the form will also be accepted).

  1. Composition and formation procedure for the Selection Committee
    1. The Selection Committee and its chairperson are chosen by the Programme Director.
    2. The Selection Committee is composed of at least 5 members, with recognised scientific achievements, of whom at least 2 people must be employed by research institutions outside of Poland.
    3. The composition of the Selection Committee will be publicly announced immediately after its formation, on the website of the Excellence Initiative (IDUB) at https://inicjatywadoskonalosci.uw.edu.pl
    4. The chairperson of the Selection Committee may exclude any member of said Committee, in the event of reasonable doubts concerning his or her impartiality and objectivity, with respect to an applicant who is participating in the competition, and particularly if:
      • the committee member is a spouse, relative, or in-law to the second degree of the applicant;
      • the committee member is related to an applicant through adoption, custody, or guardianship;
      • the committee member has an existing legal or factual relationship with an applicant which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the committee member’s impartiality.
    5. A committee member will inform the Selection Committee of any special circumstances such as those referred to in the above point, before beginning the evaluation process of the applications.
    6. A Selection Committee member who has been excluded from the evaluation process of a given applicant will not take part in scoring that person’s application and will not be present in the room during the Committee’s deliberations. The exclusion of a member of the qualifying team during the scoring of a particular application will be noted in the minutes from the meeting, along with a statement of the reason for that committee member’s exclusion.
  2. Rules of conduct for the Selection Committee
    1. Committee meetings are called by the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.
    2. The Selection Committee deliberates as a whole. In the event of the resignation or removal of a Selection Committee member, the vacancy will be filled. In the event of reasonable doubts regarding the impartiality and objectivity of a Selection Committee member in relation to an applicant, the Committee will deliberate as a whole, less the member that the previously-mentioned circumstances concern.
    3. It is allowed for members of the Selection Committee to take part in the committee meetings using electronic means of communication (teleconferencing or videoconferencing).
    4. Minutes of the Selection Committee meetings are prepared.
    5. Minutes from the Selection Committee meetings allow for signatures obtained by circulation as well as electronic signatures.
    6. The minutes, signed by the Chairperson and the remaining members of the Committee who took part in the meeting, will be forwarded to the Coordinating Office of IDUB for archiving, within 14 days of the closing date of the competition.
    7. Administrative and technical support for the Selection Committee is provided by the coordinators of Action I.4.1 and I.4.2, who participate in the meetings of the Selection Committee without the right to vote.
    8. The coordinator of Action I.4.1 serves the function of secretary for the Selection Committee. The secretary prepares the minutes of the Selection Committee’s work sessions, and minutes from sittings of the appeals committee.
  1. Evaluation of a project accounts for existing infrastructure, as well as the organisational structure of the unit at the University of Warsaw in which a given project is to be implemented.
  2. During the evaluation of a project, the following are taken into account:

1. Evaluation of the project proposal – 50% of the final score.

Proposal of the development of the infrastructure in relation to general needs in the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. The applicant is obligated to present the list of potential stakeholders)

Scoring:

  • Excellent project – 9-10 points
    • Definition: A flawless project with substantial added value, addressing the existing needs of the broad community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project would directly contribute to high-impact researches.
  • Very good project – 7-8 points
    • Definition: A very good project with clear added value, addressing the existing needs of the broad community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project would increase potential for high-impact researches.
  • Good project – 5-6 points
    • Definition: A good project with some added value, addressing the potential needs within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw, currently desired by few research groups. Implementation of the project would increase or preserve existing potential for high-impact researches.
  • Mediocre project – 3-4 points
    • Definition: A mediocre project, with little benefit to the community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project would marginally increase or preserve existing potential for high-impact researches.
  • Poor project – 1-2 point
    • Definition: A poor project with no prospects for benefit to the community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. The outcome may only preserve existing potential for high-impact researches.
  • Lack of the project description – 0 points

2. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme – 25% of the final score.

Scoring:

  • Very good – 7-10 points
  • Good – 4-6 points
  • Poor – 1-3 points
  • None – 0 points

3. Relevance of costs – 25% of the final score.

Detailed calculation and justification of costs.

Scoring:

  • All costs are justified and well calculated – 7-10 points
  • Majority of costs are justified, however the calculations of some costs is questionable and they may be not obligatory for the project implementation– 4-6 points
  • Many (but not all) costs are questionable and their justification is not fully convincing – 1-3 points
  • Lack of justification or all costs are clearly not calculated correctly – 0 points
  1. An interview consisting of a presentation of the project, which is not merely a repetition of the content from the written project description. The objective is to introduce the research question, place it in a broader context, and so forth.
  2. In the third stage of the competition, the following criteria are taken into account when scoring applicants:

Scoring:

  • Excellent project – 9-10 points
    • Definition: An excellent project as assumed based on its presentation, directly showing the project’s substantial added value. Project addresses the existing and possibly future needs of the broad community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project will directly contribute to significant increase of the high-impact researches. All costs are fully justified and well calculated. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme are excellent.
  • Very good project – 7-8 points
    • Definition: A very good project as assumed based on its presentation, showing the project’s added value. Project addresses the existing needs of the broad community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project wwill increase the potential for high-impact researches. All costs are fully justified and well calculated. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme are good.
  • Good project – 5-6 points
    • Definition: A good project as assumed based on its presentation, showing the project’s overall value. Project addresses the potential needs within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw, currently desired by few research groups. Implementation of the project will potentially increase, but rather preserve existing potential for high-impact researches. Majority of costs are well justified. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme are good.
  • Mediocre project – 3-4 points
    • Definition: A mediocre project as assumed based on its presentation, showing a limited benefit of the project to the community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. Implementation of the project will only preserve existing potential for high-impact researches. Calculation of costs is in many points questionable. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme are poor.
  • Poor project – 1-2 point
    • Definition: A poor project as assumed based on its presentation showing highly limited benefits to the community within the Ochota campus of University of Warsaw. The outcome of the project may only preserve existing potential for mediocre-impact researches. Costs are not justified. Perspectives for long-term maintenance of the project results after the ending of the IDUB programme are poor.
  • Lack of the project presentation – 0 points

The final score of the interview ranges from zero (0) to ten (10) points and is the arithmetic mean of the scores given by all of the members of the committee.

  1. Applicants have the right of appeal to the decisions made by the Selection Committee only in case of procedural infringement or other formal irregularities. Formal irregularities are understood as errors during the proceedings of the competition, based on non-compliance with (or failure to correctly comply with) the established regulations for carrying out the selection of applications in a given competition by the Selection Committee.
  2. An applicant to a competition has the right to appeal a decision made by the Selection Committee after each stage of the competition.  The appeal must be submitted to the Selection Committee.
  3. An appeal should be prepared in written form, in the English language, and submitted to the Selection Committee at infrastruktura_idub@uw.edu.pl, within seven (7) days of having received a negative decision, i.e., after the announcement of the list of winning projects at a given stage of the competition.  The appeal should include a justification.
  4. The Selection Committee is obliged to consider appeals within fourteen (14) days of their submission.  Minutes of the meeting concerning the appeal will be prepared and signed by the Selection Committee members.
  5. In the event of a positive decision which introduces a change in the results of the competition, the Selection Committee will update the list of winners of the given stage of the competition.
  6. Decisions made by the Selection Committee with regard to appeals are final.

Selection Committee

  • CNBCh – mgr Konrad Zawadzki (leader)
  • Faculty of Biology – dr hab. Łukasz Drewniak, prof. ucz.
  • Faculty of Chemistry – prof. dr hab. Sławomir Filipek
  • Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics, and Mechanics – prof. dr hab. Piotr Sankowski
  • Faculty of Geology – dr hab. Ewa Falkowska, prof. ucz.
  • Faculty of Physics – prof. dr hab. Andrzej Wysmołek
  • Faculty of Psychology – dr Dorota Karwowska
  • CeNT – dr hab. Krzysztof Kilian
  • Heavy Ion Laboratory – dr hab. Leszek Próchniak
  • research institutions outside of Poland – dr Alessio Mengoni (University of Florence)
  • research institutions outside of Poland – dr Clement Faugeras (LNCMI, CNRS, Grenoble)

Applications submitted in the call

The consultation has been closed.
Applications were submitted to the evaluation stage by the Selection Committee.