Meeûs – a self-help resource for the FP7 user community

In order to be reimbursed at your budgeted allocation, must you meet both the actual incurred eligible cost and the man months budgeted?

For example – if the original budget was noted as  100,000 Euros  and 50 man months, would a company be reimbursed at the full 100,000 Euro budget if they showed that they incurred 100,000 Euros of eligible cost with only 40 man months?

The concern is that the actual labor costs may be higher per man month than was originally budgeted and we want to ensure that we will not be required to spend 50 man months in order to receive the original budgeted allocation of 100,000 Euros.

This also assumes that the deliverables are met in a satisfactory manner within the 40 man month timeframe.

Thank you

Hello,

as far as I know it is possible to employ external consultants (self-employed individuals) on an hourly basis to work on an FP7 project and include their payment as normal personnel costs. What are the conditions attached to this?

Can the consultant work from his own office? Can that be in another country? Outside the EU? The invoices will be on an hourly basis, but is an overall time-sheet for the consultant necessary showing his/her work on other projects?

Thank you

I know this is about an FP6 subject, but it is also very relevant for FP7.

EARTO (www.earto.eu) has reported that several of its members have recently had FP6 projects audited and that many of them have been seriously criticised by the auditors.

There have been two main points of criticism.

One is that many of these research organisations have been using average personnel costs. Audit checks on individual projects have shown that the claimed costs were out of line with the real costs. The research organisations seem to have worked on the principle that over a number of FP6 projects the average and real costs would be more or less in line and therefore acceptable to the Commission. Clearly, the Commission expects costs to be accurate for each individual project. In other words: you can use average costs for interim reporting, but you need to correct for real costs at the latest when you make your final claim.

The other issue is more fundamental and potentially of very grave consequences. It has to do with the definition of “productive time” (“invoiceable days”). Many research organisations count as productive time only the hours that are available for invoicing to customers. So they deduct things like holidays, weekends, public holidays and sick leave, of course, but also internal management time, training and education time, equipment maintenance time, marketing time and so on. Some auditors, at least, have refused this, saying that things like general management time and marketing time have to be included. This can have big consequences: one research organisation calculated its number of productive hours per employee to be around 1,100 hours per year; the auditors said it should have included general management and marketing time, which gives a total nearer 1,600 hours per year. It makes a big difference to the reimbursed daily rate if you divide your total salary bill by 1,100 or 1,600.

EARTO is organising a workshop for its members on December 10th about these issues. Maybe there will be some more information after then.

In the meantime, has anybody else experienced FP6 audits recently? If so, what issues have been raised and with what consequences?   

The Commission has begun under FP6 to force institutions onto employment contracts for their postgraduate Marie Curie students in Research Training Networks. Many have resisted because of the inherent difficulties of this approach. However, it now appears that we must employ these students from now on or reject ITN contracts with early-stage researchers.

I would be interested to hear from other universities in the UK and other countries how they have addressed these problematic issues, for example (not a comprehensive list, feel free to raise other issues you have encountered):

1) A contract of employment usually implies a mutuality of obligations. A service is provided and payment is made for this service. In the case of a Marie Curie research student, it is arguable whether any service could be said to be made to the University.

2) Discipline, Performance Management, Grievance – This is potentially the most problematic area. Where problems arise with a Marie-Curie student’s’ health or performance, or where a student might wish to raise a complaint, there are likely to be two separate sets of procedures in place to deal with such issues. Which one should apply?

3) Health and Welfare – students and staff have access to a range of different services in relation to health and welfare, with students having significantly more beneficial terms with respect to accommodation, pastoral care, counselling, financial benefits for childcare, etc.

4) Equality – as the employees, the Marie Curie students would be on fixed term contracts for the period of the award, they would be covered by the terms of the EC fixed term workers regulations which require the Employer not to treat them any less favourably than other employees. We would therefore be obliged to offer them the full range of benefits offered to staff, including:
- occupational Maternity, Paternity, Birth and Adoption support leave,
- access to flexible working
- access to the merit pay scheme
- redundancy payments at the end of the contract
- assistance with redeployment at the end of the fixed term.
Needless to say, none of the above would be covered by the Marie Curie award.

5) Recruitment – students and staff are recruited through different processes. As employees, it would be essential that before appointment, the “Procedures for confirming an appointment”, which confirm entitlement to work in the UK and show proof of ID and address were followed.

6) Payment – The complex nature of the funds under the Marie Curie scheme which are made up of a number of allowances make administration of payment through the payroll complex. This is in part since, as employees the students would be entitled to cost of living rises and incremental progression and inclusion in the merit award scheme, and cannot therefore be paid a flat fee over three years. In addition the awards are made at a fixed rate for the full period of the award, and funds awarded by the scheme are awarded in Euros so there may be currency fluctuations.

I hope we can get a discussion going on this subject that has been an issue for many of us of the past couple of years!