DESCA Feedback

Hi. In the context of coaching SMEs in their cooperation decisions we needed a fast way to utilize the Desca CA Model. We have consequently developed a small excel-based tool basically acting as semi-automated CA document configurator highlighting the critical decisions along the way. I would love to discuss this with a member of the Desca Core Group and see whether there is interest in our approach. As smE-MPOWER Community we fully support the open knowledge strategy and are happy to share the tool in case of interest. Let me know.

andreas, Fraunhofer IFF, Magdeburg

Hi, this clause is causing us problems, namely the paragraph:

“The Coordinator is the legal entity acting as the intermediary between the Parties and the European Commission. The Coordinator shall, in addition to its responsibilities as a Party, perform the tasks assigned to it as described in the EC-GA and this Consortium Agreement.”

has been interpreted to mean that the coordinator has a legal right to represent each of the parties which is not true if the coordiantor does not have the power of attorney to do so. Deleting the word “legal” would alleviate this interpretation. I’d really appreciate your thoughts on this please.

With thanks - Dajana (University of Durham, UK) 

I would like to have some more information (and, possibly, references) on the comment on art. 9.4 of the Desca model, when it is said that, in case of access to Background for use, the royalty-free option generates “concerns regarding violation of competition law” and, for public funded Party, “state aid provisions”.

Please, a clarification on Article 7.2.1 concerning Budgeted costs elegible for 100 % reimbursement will be very welcomed.
Our concern deals with the following sentence:
(…)
and/or
- the certification of the simplified method of calculation of a Party™s full indirect eligible costs (Grant Agreement Article II.15.2.a), if any

It seems that the simplified method does not require in principle any certification.

Would this sentence refer actually to the certificate on average personnel costs, (unless a certificate on the methodology is provided)?.
Thank you in advance to provide us with your feedback.
Best regards,

In article 3.3. the last part of the first sentence refers to agreed time limits in different articles. As not all of these articles mention any time limit, I would suggest that this part (as agreed in respective articles) is deleted in any new version.

I agree with the comment relating to the Consortium Plan and Consortium Budget. Is it desirable and realistic to operate with such parallel documents to the Annex I? Please consider this for the next version.

IPR:
As an academic party (University) we find that the clause on dissemination could have been stronger and more detailed. Would you please consider including something about what steps would be approriate, according to Annex II.30.3? I would also suggest a maximum period of delay of [xx] (e.g. 60) days.

Co-authorship is also a relevant issue where I often see references made to the Vancouver convention http://www.icmje.org/. Have you had any discussions on this?

Concerning Background, I would like to mention that there might be a contractiction in option 1 under article 9.1 between the included and excluded background. Please consider this thoroughly.

Are we sure that that the Consortium Plan, as an update version of the Description of Work (Annex I) established by the Consortium, will be accepted by the E.C. for the project reviews, instead of the last version of the Annex I itself ?

If so, is there a process for the validation of any Consortium Plan amendment?

Are we sure that that the Consortium Plan, as an update version of the Description of Work (Annex I) established by the Consortium, will be accepted by the E..C. for the project reviews, instead of the last version of the Annex I itself ?

If so, is there a process for the validation of any Consortium Plan amendment?

Llevo más de media hora intentando ver como se usa (se introducen los datos) en el DESCA y no lo consigo. Hasta ahora la sensación de friendly que tengo es muy escasa

 A Coordinator is worried to find himself in meetings of the General Assembly not reaching the 2/3 quorum of members (DESCA 6.2.3) and thus unable to deliberate validly, with all present parties incurring travel costs for nothing.
What about a member that is neither present nor represented at the meeting becomes irrelevant for the quorum?

The generally agreed standards for project management (and certfication of project leaders) - PMP in the US and IPMA internationally - use the well-known Project Management Body-of-Knowledge (PMbok). Please refer to PMbok for more information. A Google search will also quickly show you the relative popularity of the terminologies, with Project Management Team an overwhelming winner.

Suggestion: change - quickly - the DESCA template to use Project Management Team instead of the confusing Management Support Team terminology.

P.S.
This feedback system is rather difficult to use. A simple form that emails the feedback to an email address would be better.
D.S.