Overview
Horizon Europe collaborative calls — Research and Innovation Actions (RIA), Innovation Actions (IA) and Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) — are submitted through the EU Funding & Tenders Portal in two parts. Part A holds the administrative forms: participants, contacts, the budget table, ethics and security self-assessments. Part B is the technical description written against the standard template, organized under the three award criteria: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Evaluators score each criterion and must find every element of the topic's 'expected outcomes' and 'scope' addressed.
The difficulty is rarely the science. It is integration: ten or more partners writing in different styles, work packages that overlap, impact claims that are not connected to specific outputs, and a budget negotiated in parallel with the text. We act as a proposal editor and co-writer alongside the coordinator, holding the storyline together from topic analysis through to the final page count.
Many recent calls use lump sum funding, where the grant amount is fixed at proposal stage and paid on completion of work packages rather than reimbursed against actual costs. That makes the budget table and the work package descriptions part of the evaluated proposal in a new way. We help make the link between activities, effort and cost explicit, while your finance teams remain responsible for the numbers.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Coordinators leading a Horizon Europe RIA, IA or CSA consortium for the first time
- Work package leaders who must write their section in a way that fits the whole proposal
- SMEs, NGOs and public bodies joining a consortium and unsure how to present their role
- University grants offices supporting several consortia in the same call
- Researchers returning after a below-threshold score who want to understand the Evaluation Summary Report
Common problems we help with
- The topic text lists expected outcomes, and you are not sure the proposal addresses each one
- Partners' contributions read as separate projects stapled together
- The Impact section describes dissemination activities but not the pathway to outcomes and wider impacts
- The lump sum budget does not visibly match person-months and tasks in the work packages
- Page limits are exceeded two weeks before the deadline
- The last Evaluation Summary Report said 'shortcomings' but you cannot tell what to change
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Topic analysis: expected outcomes, scope, destination and any specific conditions mapped to Part B sections
- Proposal storyline and outline, with page allocation within the template limit
- Drafting and editing of Excellence: objectives, ambition beyond the state of the art and methodology, including open science and gender dimension where relevant
- Drafting and editing of Impact: project results, pathways to expected outcomes and impacts, and the dissemination, exploitation and communication plan
- Implementation: work plan, work package tables, deliverables, milestones, risk table, consortium capacity and management structure
- Consistency between the Part B work packages, Part A budget table and person-month allocations, including lump sum logic
- Harmonizing the voice and terminology of multiple partner contributions
- Mock evaluation using the three award criteria and a written consensus-style report
- Final editing for clarity and page-limit compliance
Not included
- Finding or recruiting consortium partners on your behalf, or adding partners who have not agreed to participate
- Setting cost rates, personnel costs or financial declarations — these stay with each partner's finance office
- Submitting the proposal in the Funding & Tenders Portal; the coordinator submits
- Promising a score above threshold or a place on the main list
What you receive
- Topic-to-proposal matrix
- A table linking each expected outcome and scope element in the topic to the paragraph, work package or deliverable that answers it.
- Part B draft rounds
- Edited and co-written Part B sections in the official template, with tracked changes and comments for each partner.
- Work package and budget coherence check
- A review of tasks, deliverables, milestones, person-months and lump sum shares, listing mismatches for the coordinator and finance teams.
- Impact pathway diagram
- A one-page figure linking results to target groups, expected outcomes and wider impacts, for inclusion in the Impact section.
- Mock evaluation report
- Scores and comments per criterion written in the style of an Evaluation Summary Report, with priority fixes.
How it works
Kick-off with the coordinator
We review the topic, call conditions, draft concept and consortium, and agree roles, templates and a writing calendar working back from the deadline.
Storyline and outline
We build the topic matrix and a Part B skeleton so each partner knows exactly what to write and how long it should be.
Partner drafting and integration
Partners send sections; we integrate, edit and draft connective text, returning queries to named leads.
Budget and work plan alignment
With the coordinator and finance contacts, we check that tasks, effort, deliverables and costs support each other.
Mock evaluation and final polish
An independent read against the three criteria, then fixes, final editing and a page and format check.
Horizon Europe structures we work with
- Award criteria
- Excellence; Impact; Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Each is scored by evaluators and a consensus report is prepared; thresholds and weighting are set in the work programme and call.
- Part A and Part B
- Part A is completed online in the portal (partners, budget, ethics self-assessment); Part B is the technical document in the standard template with a page limit that evaluators enforce.
- Pathways to impact
- Results lead to expected outcomes named in the topic and, over time, to wider impacts set out in the destination. We help make each link concrete: who uses the result, how and when.
- Work packages and deliverables
- Work package tables, a list of deliverables and milestones with means of verification, a Gantt chart and a critical risk table with mitigation measures.
- Lump sum funding
- A fixed amount per work package agreed at proposal stage and paid when work packages are completed, so the technical description must show clearly what completion means.
- Open science and data
- Open access to publications, FAIR research data and a data management plan are expected; we help describe these practices credibly.
Writing to the topic, not just the program
Every Horizon Europe topic sets out expected outcomes and a scope, and evaluators check your proposal against those words. A common reason for a lower Impact score is a proposal that is excellent in general but only partly addresses the specific outcomes listed. We start every engagement by mapping the topic line by line to your planned results, which often reveals a missing stakeholder group, a missing pilot or an outcome nobody owns.
Making lump sum budgets readable
Under lump sum funding the proposal effectively becomes the contract: payment depends on completing work packages as described. Evaluators therefore look closely at whether resources are appropriate for the activities. We check that each work package's tasks, lead, person-months and deliverables are described precisely enough to show completion, and that the budget share for each partner is justified by their tasks.
Rules and templates for lump sum calls are updated periodically, so we always work from the call documents and the current model grant agreement guidance you are applying under.
One consortium, one voice
Evaluators notice when a proposal reads like several documents. We harmonize terminology (one name for each tool, pilot and target group), remove repeated background, and make sure work packages refer to each other where they depend on each other. That coherence is itself evidence of a well-managed consortium.
- Glossary of project terms shared with all partners
- Single figure numbering and cross-reference scheme
- Consistent deliverable and milestone codes across text, tables and Gantt chart
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative extract from a topic-to-proposal matrix
A fictional eight-partner consortium is applying to a climate adaptation topic that lists three expected outcomes. The matrix shows how gaps were found early.
Expected outcome 1: decision-support tools used by regional authorities
Answered by WP3 (tool development) and WP5 (pilots in two regions). Gap: no regional authority is a partner or named end user. Action: coordinator to seek letters of intent from the pilot regions; Impact section to describe the co-design process.
Expected outcome 3: improved data interoperability
Mentioned in Excellence but no deliverable or milestone. Action: add deliverable D2.4 (interoperability specification) with a Month 18 milestone and assign person-months in WP2.
Lump sum check
WP6 (dissemination) holds 14% of the budget but lists only two deliverables. Action: define the completion criteria of WP6 more precisely or rebalance effort.
Illustrative example with an invented consortium, topic and figures. Real matrices follow the exact topic text of your call.
What you’ll need to provide
- The call topic, work programme extract and any specific call conditions
- Your concept note or draft proposal, and the list of confirmed partners and their roles
- Draft work packages, person-month estimates and budget table from Part A
- Previous Evaluation Summary Reports if this is a resubmission
- A named contact at the coordinator who can make decisions quickly
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Action type and page limit (RIA, IA or CSA)
- Number of partners and work packages to integrate
- Whether we co-write sections or edit partner drafts
- Whether a mock evaluation and a resubmission analysis are included
- Stage of the proposal when we join
Turnaround depends on
- Weeks remaining before the call deadline
- Responsiveness of partners and the coordinator to queries
- Whether the budget and partner list are stable
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Can you write the whole Part B for us?
We can co-write substantial parts, but the science, the consortium's commitments and the final decisions must come from the partners. Evaluators and the Commission rely on the consortium's declarations, so the coordinator and partners approve every section.
We have a low score from last time. Is it worth resubmitting?
Often yes, if the topic is still open and the Evaluation Summary Report points to fixable issues. We read the ESR with you, separate comments about substance from comments about presentation, and help decide whether to revise or target a different topic.
Do you handle Marie Skłodowska-Curie or EIC proposals?
We can apply the same approach to other Horizon Europe schemes, but each has its own template and criteria. Tell us the call and we will confirm whether it is a good fit before starting.
Who prepares the budget?
Each partner's finance office prepares its costs, and the coordinator compiles Part A. We check that the budget and the technical description are consistent and suggest where effort or justification seems unbalanced.
How early should we involve you?
Ideally when the concept and partner list are stable, often two to four months before the deadline. Joining in the last two weeks is still useful for editing and a mock evaluation.