An explanation on the selection process after the Review meeting with the European Commission.

Dear LEDGER Community,

Following the second Jury Day session, we have received some emails questioning the evaluation and selection process to enter the second round of LEDGER. We understand that the selection process is complex and that some of our messages posted on the community pages could have been adding to that confusion; however, we would like to assure you that the whole evaluation process was in line with the Guide for Applicants and H2020 standards. All decisions were taken in the interest of the applicants and in line with the LEDGER Project goals. As stated in the Open Call package of documents, LEDGER aims to select 16 teams of human-centric innovators to develop Minimum Viable Products (MVPs) and services […]. based in Privacy-by-design concepts […].

The selection of new beneficiaries followed a three-stage process as described in the Description of Work of our contract with the EC. First, an ‘External Committee’ shortlisted the eligible candidates. Second, the ‘Evaluation Committee’ selected from the shortlist the projects that went to the Jury Day. Third, the ‘Selection Committee’ after hearing the candidates at the Jury Day selected the 16 best proposals.

In the second Open Call, based on a shortlist defined by the External Evaluators, the Evaluation committee selected an initial batch of 33 proposals to pass to pitch to the Selection Committee on a Jury Day. As the Selection Committee could not find 16 proposals among them that could be funded (according to the pre-defined evaluation criteria for the Jury Day), the Evaluation Committee selected a second batch of 30 additional proposals (from the shortlist defined by the External Evaluators), that were then interviewed on a second Jury Day, and that were scored according to the same pre-defined criteria used for the first Jury Day. Among these two batches of 63 proposals invited to pitch, the Selection Committee found 16 proposals fully complying with the pre-defined scoring and area coverage requirements, which were then selected for funding. The treatment given to the proposals was the same during the two Jury Days, and no additional criterion (e.g. “human-centricity”) was used in this selection.

The whole process was recently discussed with the European Commission, which has analysed it in detail and suggested to issue this clarification.

All teams will receive individual feedback as soon as possible and we count on your participation in future similar NGI initiatives.