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?