Writing a Horizon Europe proposal for the first time is a significant undertaking. The process is competitive, the documentation is substantial, and the stakes are high. But the structure of a proposal — what goes where, what each section requires, and how evaluators assess it — follows a consistent logic that, once understood, makes the whole process significantly more navigable.
This article explains the standard structure of a Horizon Europe proposal for collaborative projects, what each section requires, and the most common mistakes that cost applicants points.
The two parts of every Horizon Europe proposal
Every Horizon Europe proposal has two components: Part A and Part B.
Part A of the proposal is generated by the IT system. It is based on the information entered by the participants through the submission system in the Funding and Tenders Portal. It is the administrative form — the structured data about your consortium, your budget, and your project parameters.
Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes three sections that each correspond to an evaluation criterion. Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following the templates downloaded by the applicants in the submission system for the specific call or topic.
Understanding this distinction matters in practice. Part A is completed online, in the Portal’s submission interface. Part B is written offline — in the template provided for your specific call — and uploaded as a PDF. The two parts are submitted together but prepared differently, and confusing them is a surprisingly common source of last-minute problems.
Part A: the administrative form
Part A does not require narrative writing. It captures structured information about the proposal and the consortium, entered directly into the Portal’s submission system. This includes:
- The project acronym, title, abstract, and keywords
- The call and topic being addressed
- The list of consortium partners — legal name, PIC number, country, and role
- The budget breakdown by partner and by cost category
- Declarations on ethics, security, and data management
- Information on open science practices
Part A is generated automatically by the Portal based on the data entered. It is not evaluated narratively — but it must be accurate. Errors in Part A — an incorrect PIC number, a misaligned budget, a missing partner declaration — can create problems at the validation stage and, in some cases, lead to a proposal being declared inadmissible.
The abstract entered in Part A is particularly important: it is the first thing evaluators read, it appears in public databases if the project is funded, and it must accurately reflect what the project proposes to do in plain, accessible language.
Part B: the technical proposal
Part B is the substance of the application — the document that evaluators read, score, and use to determine whether the proposal is funded. Proposals are assessed on three criteria: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of Implementation, each scored from 0 to 5 with a threshold of 3 out of 5. The minimum total score to be considered for funding is 10 out of 15.
Each section of Part B corresponds directly to one of these criteria.
Section 1 — Excellence
Excellence is the scientific and technical quality of the project. It is evaluated first, and it establishes the credibility of everything that follows. A proposal that scores poorly on Excellence will not recover in Impact or Implementation.
What evaluators assess in Section 1:
Objectives and ambition. The project’s objectives must be clear, specific, and aligned with the call’s expected outcomes. Vague objectives — “the project will advance knowledge in the field of X” — score poorly. Specific, measurable objectives that connect directly to the call topic score well.
Methodology. The scientific or technical approach must be credible, well-reasoned, and appropriate to the objectives. Evaluators assess not just whether the methodology is sound, but whether the team has the capacity to execute it. A methodology that would require capabilities the consortium clearly does not have is a red flag.
Innovation. What is genuinely new about this project? How does it go beyond the current state of the art? The proposal must demonstrate awareness of existing work in the field and articulate clearly what this project adds.
Interdisciplinarity and cross-cutting issues. Where relevant, proposals should address gender dimensions, open science commitments, and ethical considerations within the Excellence section — not as afterthoughts, but as integrated elements of the scientific approach.
Section 2 — Impact
Impact is the section that most first-time applicants underestimate. It is not a box to fill with general statements about how the project will benefit society. It is a structured argument for why this project matters — to the Commission’s priorities, to the specific research community, and to the wider world.
For Innovation Actions, the Impact criterion carries a 1.5 weighting in the ranking formula — meaning that in IA proposals, Impact counts for more than Excellence or Implementation in the final score. This is a significant detail that many applicants miss.
What evaluators assess in Section 2:
Contribution to the call’s expected impacts. Every call topic includes a list of expected impacts — the specific changes the Commission wants this investment to produce. The proposal must demonstrate, specifically and credibly, how the project contributes to each of these. Generic statements about advancing European competitiveness or addressing societal challenges do not score well. Specific, evidenced connections between the project’s outputs and the expected impacts do.
Pathway to impact. How will the project’s results actually reach the people or systems that need them? This includes dissemination (making results known), exploitation (using results commercially or in policy), and the broader uptake pathway. The plan must be realistic and specific — not a generic commitment to publish papers and attend conferences.
Measures to maximise impact. This includes the data management plan, the open access approach, and any intellectual property considerations. These are not administrative afterthoughts — they are evaluated as part of the impact assessment.
Section 3 — Quality and efficiency of the implementation
Section 3 is where the project moves from ambition to execution. Evaluators are assessing whether the consortium has the capacity and the plan to actually deliver what Sections 1 and 2 promise.
What evaluators assess in Section 3:
Work plan. The work plan must be coherent, realistic, and structured around well-designed work packages. Each WP must have clear objectives, clear outputs (deliverables and milestones), a realistic timeline, and a clear connection to the project’s overall objectives. Dependencies between work packages must be identified and managed.
Management structure and procedures. How will the project be governed? Who makes decisions, and how? How will risks be identified and managed? How will the consortium ensure quality across partners? A project that lists 12 partners but provides no credible governance structure raises serious questions about deliverability.
Consortium composition. Does the consortium have the right expertise to execute the proposed work? Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined? Is there unnecessary overlap between partners, or gaps in critical capabilities? Evaluators are experienced at identifying consortia that have been assembled for political or geographic reasons rather than scientific or technical ones.
Resources and budget. Is the budget justified? Are the resources requested proportionate to the work described? Evaluators are not looking for the cheapest proposal — they are looking for a budget that is credible, well-reasoned, and aligned with the work plan.
Page limits in 2026-2027: what changed
The revised application templates for the 2026–2027 Work Programme introduced lower maximum page limits. For Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) and Innovation Actions (IA), proposals are now limited to 40 pages, or 45 pages for topics using lump sum funding. CSA proposals are capped at 25 pages.
Evaluators are instructed to disregard content beyond the page limit. A proposal that runs over will be evaluated on a truncated version. Always leave a 1–2 page buffer and check the final PDF page count before submission.
The reduction from 45 to 40 pages for standard RIA and IA proposals is significant. It requires tighter writing, more precise argumentation, and harder choices about what to include. Proposals that relied on volume to convey completeness need to be substantially restructured for 2026 calls.
The most common mistakes in Horizon Europe proposals
Misalignment with the call text. Misalignment with the call topic is one of the main reasons for rejection. Evaluators compare the proposal against the call topic’s expected outcomes, scope, and conditions. A technically excellent proposal that does not address what the call is specifically asking for will not score well, regardless of its scientific quality.
Generic impact statements. Section 2 is where many proposals lose points. Statements like “the project will contribute to European competitiveness and address climate change” without specific, evidenced connections to the call’s expected impacts are a consistent weakness.
Vague work plans. A work plan that lists work packages without clear task descriptions, unclear deliverable specifications, or missing milestone criteria signals to evaluators that the consortium has not thought carefully about how the work will actually be done.
Assembling the consortium too late. Finalising the partner list at least two months before submission is strongly recommended. Late additions disrupt budget planning, work package design, and internal review cycles. A consortium that is still being assembled in the final weeks before submission cannot produce a coherent, well-integrated proposal.
Ignoring cross-cutting issues. Gender dimensions, open science commitments, and ethical considerations are evaluated within the three main criteria — they do not have a separate score, but failing to address them meaningfully depresses scores across all sections.
Exceeding the page limit. A straightforward mistake with a hard consequence. Always check the specific call text for page limits and verify the final PDF page count before submission.
Final thoughts
A Horizon Europe proposal is not a research plan with an application form attached. It is a structured argument — one that must simultaneously demonstrate scientific quality, articulate a credible path to impact, and convince evaluators that this consortium can deliver what it promises within the time and budget available.
The structure is consistent. The criteria are public. The templates are available in advance. The most competitive proposals are not necessarily those with the best science — they are those that understand what evaluators are looking for in each section and address it precisely, completely, and within the page limit.
And for the organisations that do get funded — the real test begins after the signature. The work plan that won the grant becomes the Grant Agreement that governs execution. Every work package, every deliverable, every milestone described in Section 3 is now a legal commitment. Kronis PMO is built to turn that commitment into a manageable operational reality — structuring execution around Annex 1 from day one, so that what was promised in the proposal is what gets delivered and evidenced.
NCPs, LEAR and Portal roles: who supports you when applying for Horizon Europe
The six agencies behind Horizon Europe: REA, ERCEA, EISMEA and beyond
