chore: reorganize repo around planning docs and tender materials

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288039_SPARTA_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101288039
+Proposal acronym: SPARTA
+Duration (months): 36
+Proposal title: SPARTA — Space-ATM Real-Time Awareness
+Activity: IR-02-WA5
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 81,130 1.97% 81,130 1.97%
+3 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 908,224.63 22.09% 908,224.63 22.09%
+4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 315,285.78 7.67% 315,285.78 7.67%
+5 ENAV SPA IT 176,917.31 4.30% 176,917.31 4.30%
+6 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 217,059.41 5.28% 217,059.41 5.28%
+7 ENAIRE ES 106,750 2.60% 106,750 2.60%
+8 Europe Space Centre GmbH DE 55,835.85 1.36% 55,835.85 1.36%
+9 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC 
+ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IT 242,383.75 5.90% 242,383.75 5.90%
+10 SkyNav Europe BE 842,928.98 20.50% 842,928.98 20.50%
+11 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 162,470 3.95% 162,470 3.95%
+12 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 73,237.5 1.78% 73,237.5 1.78%
+13 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 279,226.78 6.79% 279,226.78 6.79%
+14 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 190,400 4.63% 190,400 4.63%
+15 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC 
+CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
+CA 116,812.5 2.84% 116,812.5 2.84%
+16 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 59,745 1.45% 59,745 1.45%
+17 THALES LAS FRANCE SAS FR 114,625 2.79% 114,625 2.79%
+18 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 168,317.63 4.09% 168,317.63 4.09%
+19 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   4,111,350.12   4,111,350.12  
+Abstract:
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 1 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The development of an enhanced Network Real-time Monitoring Module and associated enhanced procedures and eventual enhanced supporting tools 
+for the management of space-launch and higher-altitude operations at the level of the European ATM Network Manager (NM). It includes space and 
+higher-altitude operations data integration (from Launch and Re-entry Operators (LRO), Launch and Re-entry site operators (LRSO), STM, Higher 
+Altitude vehicle and site Operators with the NM and ATM), looking to generate, maintain and broadcast a full European network wide situational 
+awareness picture. Note that this a continuation of ongoing research embedded in the SESAR 3 project ECHO 2, under the HORIZON-SESAR-2022-
+DES-IR-01 Call.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 13.62 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.40
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood 
+and fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, including the 
+underlying concepts, models, assumptions and interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the 
+integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research 
+outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates breakthrough 
+innovation potential.
+SPARTA proposal is in line with the call specifications of WA5-2 ‘’Highly automated ATM for all airspace users'' and addresses the Enhanced automation support 
+for space-launch management. The concept of operation covers the strategic, pre-tactical and execution of Space Transport Operations (STO) integrated with the 
+ATM systems and processes. 
+The proposal identifies two solutions. Solution 1 addresses the strategic and pre-tactical phase of STO Mission Planning integrated with ATM Systems to provide the 
+NM, ANSPs and State authorities with all the data necessary to assess the impact on the safe and regular management of the air traffic. Solution 2 focuses on the 
+execution of launches and re-entry operations. These Solutions shall also provide STO/HAO operators with clear and predictable processes. These objectives are 
+compliant with the call material. 
+The development of these Solutions is based on the work done on the previous ECHO2 project, but SPARTA extends the scope of launch and re-entry operations to 
+cover strategic and pre-tactical phases and introduces new elements such as planning frameworks, CDM processes, and the inclusion of HAO/HAPS in an 
+operational context to be validated at TRL6. This will be done by producing a complete set of deliverables and validated solutions that are ready for 
+standardization, regulation and eventual deployment. 
+The scientific methodology is clear and sound. The approach is aligned with the SESAR Framework and associated models, ensuring that the concepts, assumptions, 
+and architectural elements are applied. The proposal maturity target is well defined. The proposal explains what the solutions are aiming to achieve; however they 
+are not linked to clear performance objectives and the qualitative performance expectations are not sufficiently described. This is a shortcoming. 
+The validation activities for reaching the target maturity level are defined very briefly and the proposal explains that the validation activities will be defined in the 
+VALP. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The DMP, the open-science and FAIR aspects are covered to a satisfactory level. 
+The work of SPARTA is mainly based on previous projects ECHO and ECHO2 as the topic is new and not consistently implemented in Europe. SPARTA goes 
+beyond the state of the art proposing a standardized, interoperable and harmonized concept and prototypes in scope, with a higher maturity and integrated in the 
+ATM system. 
+However, the proposal does not adequately consider the new service delivery model and the level of automation. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The proposal defines that live operational systems will not be used to avoid procedural, security, and stability risks. However, it is not clearly determined how the 
+cybersecurity aspects will be handled. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.70
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 2 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will 
+contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The impact on the realization of the objectives and performance identified in the ATM Master Plan (MP) for the phase D can be found in the scope and objectives 
+of SPARTA. For each Solution, an assessment of the impact has been well-provided in the proposal. The solutions developed in SPARTA will impact operational 
+and safety, network performance, regulation and interoperability, demonstrating as such its potential breakthrough of the business as usual. By addressing these 
+elements, SPARTA contributes to making STO and HAO missions integrated in the Digital European Sky, where all the Airspace Users (AUs) have a seamless 
+access to the airspace with high degree of safety and efficiency as required in the ATM MP Phase D. 
+The breakthrough of SPARTA versus business as usual is the potential to shift STO mission management from today reactive posture and fragmented document-
+based exchanges, to a predictive, responsive and coordinated process at European network level. By enabling faster, more accurate and less disruptive hazard 
+management, the solution strengthens safety and improves overall efficiency of the network for accounting all kind of operations included STO and HAO. 
+The impact pathways, while credible, are largely qualitative. Quantitative indicators for assessing system-level benefits and D&E performance are not fully 
+elaborated. This is a shortcoming. 
+The outputs of SPARTA's Project Deliverables are suitable, concerning the contribution to standardization and regulation. OSED and Stand and Reg deliverables 
+will be used for submission to ICAO, EUROCAE, and the EUR STO Project Team, providing direct pathway into standardization, interoperability, regulation and 
+industrialization. 
+An initial plan of Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation (CDE) activities is formulated with sufficient details. This is also reflected in the dedicated WP 
+where activities, milestones and deliverables to be produced are sufficiently described. 
+The IPR aspect is properly addressed and an IPR framework at Consortium Agreement level will be also implemented.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.50
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The SPARTA Work Plan is structured to ensure that all Work Packages contribute to the delivery of two coherent SESAR Solutions, with evidence of strong 
+alignment across planning and operational phases as the proposal manages interdependencies both vertically (between phases of the same solution) and 
+horizontally (across solutions and cross-cutting WPs). The breakdown of the WPs is in line with the provisions of the SESAR Framework and Project Handbook. 
+The Initial Stand & Reg Deliverables are expected to be delivered late at month 18 for both of the solutions. Moreover, all the deliverables' final draft should be 
+provided two months before the Exit Maturity Gate, however some of them planned to be delivered later than the gate. This is a shortcoming. 
+The project structure complies with the Lump Sum approach and principles. 
+While the proposal outlines the main responsibilities of Work Package leaders and provides an overall view of consortium roles, it does not provide sufficient task-
+level details of the individual contributions. For example, there is no clear description of the activities to be performed by ANRA Technologies UK Ltd, which is 
+requesting funding under the project. The proposal does not clearly specify this partner’s concrete responsibilities, deliverables, or level of involvement in specific 
+work packages. This a minor shortcoming.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 3 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101288039/SPARTA-28/01/2026-10:01:27 4 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968685 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288550_SCAN_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,269 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101288550
+Proposal acronym: SCAN
+Duration (months): 36
+Proposal title: SCAN: Reviewing, Adapting and Developing CNS Infrastructure and Services to Ensure the Safe 
+Integration of HAO And STO Vehicles
+Activity: IR-02-WA3-2
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 137,681.25 1.42% 137,681.25 1.42%
+3 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 254,709.88 2.63% 254,709.88 2.63%
+4 EUROPEAN SATELLITE SERVICES PROVIDER SAS FR 95,988.2 0.99% 95,988.2 0.99%
+5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 56,147.79 0.58% 56,147.79 0.58%
+6 DIRECTION DES SERVICES DE LA NAVIGATION 
+AERIENNE
+FR 182,656.25 1.89% 182,656.25 1.89%
+7 SkyNav Europe BE 561,397.73 5.80% 561,397.73 5.80%
+8 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 124,162.5 1.28% 124,162.5 1.28%
+9 LINKOPINGS UNIVERSITET SE 99,225 1.02% 99,225 1.02%
+10 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 178,190.46 1.84% 178,190.46 1.84%
+11 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 3,586,975 37.03% 3,586,975 37.03%
+12 SKYDWELLER CANARIAS SL ES 1,339,800 13.83% 1,339,800 13.83%
+13 SKYDWELLER SL ES 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+14 PARQUE TECNOLOGICO DE FUERTEVENTURASA MP ES 164,281.25 1.70% 164,281.25 1.70%
+15 Elson Space España S.L. ES 911,562.75 9.41% 911,562.75 9.41%
+16 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 687,225.88 7.09% 687,225.88 7.09%
+17 PILDO CONSULTING SL ES 233,187.5 2.41% 233,187.5 2.41%
+18 ENAIRE ES 322,866.25 3.33% 322,866.25 3.33%
+19 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 81,279.63 0.84% 81,279.63 0.84%
+20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES UK LTD UK 193,909.63 2.00% 193,909.63 2.00%
+21 SKYPUZZLER APS DK 475,343.75 4.91% 475,343.75 4.91%
+22 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   9,686,590.7   9,686,590.7  
+Abstract:
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 1 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+In the context of integrating Space and Higher Altitude Operations in European ATM, there is a need to evaluate and mitigate the potential 
+performance gap between current CNS and HAO specific requirements. Moreover, it has been established that altimetry solutions based on 
+barometric measurements are not reliable for safe operations above FL 600. It is therefore needed to identify non-barometric altimetry solutions 
+compatible with HAO. 
+SCAN will build on the outcome of CNS infrastructure studies and flight trials currently ongoing in the ECHO2 project and will move forward with 
+the ambition to: 
+a. Propose a set of feasible technical components and services to serve the CNS needs for diverse vehicles operating in the higher airspace within 
+Europe and beyond; 
+b. Engage with airspace users (conventional aviation and HAO operators), ANSPs, industry and aviation authorities to align expectations on benefits 
+and operational acceptability of the proposed CNS solutions or new paradigms for air traffic management. 
+c. Support a clear path forward for future CNS developments, including standardisation and regulatory framework evolution to support the European 
+pioneer initiatives on HAO.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 14.76 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.90
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 2 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives: degree to which the objectives and scope are compliant with the call material, well understood 
+and fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions from their initial to their target maturity level, including the 
+underlying concepts, models, assumptions and interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the 
+integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research 
+outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates breakthrough 
+innovation potential.
+Proposal’s objectives are in scope of the call addressing R&I needs for IR-3-01 CNSaaS specific to HAO and IR-3-09 CNS for more robust ATM system. 
+The proposal is delivering one Solution “CNS means to serve HAO” with several clearly stated objectives around the CNS for Higher Airspace Operations (HAO) 
+including technological, financial, operational and regulatory and standardization goals, including flight trails of HAPs and a rocket launch, which is line with the 
+Call specification. The objectives are very clear and pertinent to the work program and the Call specification. The high level objective to identify the best CNS 
+means to serve HAO is highly relevant. 
+The proposal starts with TRL 2 and aims to reach TRL 6, in line with the call conditions. The proposal intends to complete TRL 6 based on validation in 
+operational environments with flights of different vehicles, which is adequate. 
+The objective to use the geometric altimetry in the higher airspace to deal with current limitations of barometric altimetry due to very low air density is relevant. 
+The combination of flight trials to collect CNS performance data in higher airspace, with a gap analysis and feasibility study of new CNS technologies is useful. 
+The methods used are straight forward and use mainly using legacy CNS technologies to be tested in HAO. A big number of technologies will be assessed using 
+different platforms, which is a plus. 
+The focus on quantitative assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) using flight trials (in upper airspace) is an effective way to select CNS technologies for 
+HAO. 
+Although the diversity is critical for testing the CNS solutions in varied operational environments, it is noted that the Skydweller operates up to FL500, while the 
+targeted environment is above FL500. The inclusion of this vehicle is insufficiently justified. However, as other vehicles are also included that operate above 
+FL500. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The inclusion of a CBA per technology is a useful consideration when selecting CNS technologies for HAO. 
+A list of CNS technologies to be assessed has been provided and it is sufficiently complete. 
+Although the notion of non-cooperating traffic is mentioned, a consideration is missing on the fact that for some HAO the control center may be on the ground with 
+no need for A/G communication. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The concepts, models and assumptions are clear and sound. The validation activities with different flying platforms are described in a very detailed, 
+comprehensive and credible way. The use of special directional antennas to avoid jamming and interference is strong. 
+The project adequately builds on the previous SESAR projects ECHO and ECHO2. An explanation of where the boundaries lie between ECHO2 and SCAN is 
+provided. The relation to the Concept of Operations developed by the ECHO project is sufficiently explained. 
+It is expanding the maturity of the current R&D towards feasible technical components and services in CNS for HAO. 
+There are a lot of ground breaking research items, especially the end-to-end layered approach that integrates all enablers, e.g. NAV, telemetry, data fusion and 
+distribution to authorized stakeholders in a novel approach. 
+The project’s methodology supports open science principles. Non-sensitive datasets, interface definitions, and technical documentation will be made openly 
+available, enabling other research and operational projects to build on SCAN’s outputs. The research data management activity is dealt with a Data Management 
+Plan (WP2) , maintained with update iterations during the length of the project. 
+The use of AI is not considered. 
+The topic does not aim at increasing automation to level 4 and it does not explain how the concept can operate in a level 4 environment. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact - weight 40%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )5.00
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 3 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Appropriateness of the contribution to standardisation and regulation: the extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the project will 
+contribute appropriately to the relevant standardisation and regulatory activities. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal is declaring in a clear and traceable manner the impact of its results. 
+The concepts and technologies supporting operations in high altitude airspace are not covered today. The proposal will assess CNS technologies with real flight trials 
+with various vehicles, hence various trajectories. This is essential for the further development of future High Altitude Operations (HAO). 
+The contribution of the project towards the expected outcomes of the topic in terms of KPA/KPI and the wider impacts (ATM Master Plan 2025), in the longer term 
+towards 2030 and 2045 are explained very well, are credible but they are not quantified. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+There is one WP dedicated to the development of CNS as a Service, which is in line with the New Service Delivery Model. 
+The relevance of HAO for telecommunications, disaster relief, antenna relay, earth observation and scientific exploration is explained adequately. 
+Standards and regulations issues are addressed very well and all related regulatory and standardization organizations e.g. ICAO, EUROCAE, EASA are identified. 
+The process of interacting with these organizations including the proper deliverables and processes are also very well explained. 
+The proposal convincingly justifies the clear and pressing need for updated standards and regulations across multiple domains, including ATM, UTM, CNS 
+tracking, deconfliction, and the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) framework. This requirement is thoroughly addressed, with all relevant regulatory 
+bodies and standardization organizations (e.g. EUROCAE) listed. 
+This is done by contributing validated evidence and operational concepts from European HAO trials to EUROCAE and JARUS, facilitating recognition as global 
+standards at ICAO level. 
+Moreover, the procedures for engaging with these organizations, along with the expected deliverables, are articulated with clarity and precision. 
+The communication, dissemination and exploitation (CDE) plan will consider the relevant measures that are introduced in the proposal. Target groups are identified 
+very well and grouped according to Communication and Dissemination activities. Target group(s) are also very well addressed (e.g. scientific community, end users, 
+military financial actors, public at large). 
+Exploitation is specifically mentioned but only at high level. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+IP aspects are briefly but sufficiently explained referring to the to-be signed Consortium Agreement (CA). 
+The results of the proposal will be shared with stakeholders and the society according to the content excluding those deliverables with security critical or sensitive 
+information. 
+All deliverables listed are of public (PU) nature.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation - weight 20%
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.80
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+WP tasks are aligned with allocated resources. 
+The work breakdown is clear and consistent with the needs of the project, distinguishing conceptual and analytical foundations from the validation exercises. The 
+proposal provides an extensive list of clear activities and milestones with adequate target dates as well as the Exit Maturity gate planned in line with the project 
+handbook requirements. 
+All technical deliverables are identified in accordance with the Handbook 
+Milestones including the Exit Maturity Gate milestone/date per SESAR Solution are identified 
+The final technical deliverables are planned for M34, while it should be M32 according to the project handbook. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The proposed work break down structure is compliant with the handbook. 
+The lump sum approach is applied. The allocated resources are adequate for the identified WP tasks. However, sub-WPs are defined but not the partners who are 
+working in the specific sub-WPs. Only for the flight trails of the different vehicle provides is clear who of the partners are the main contributors. In general, the 
+missing association of partner in the SOWs can lead to uncertainties within the partnership and worst case to duplication of work or no one doing the work needed. 
+This is a shortcoming. 
+A comprehensive risk assessment is provided with severities and impacts well defined. Also, several valid mitigation options are provided and are sufficiently 
+practical. 
+Although the budget seems very high for the development of a roadmap, it is actually justified by the need to work with single-use HAPS, including a sounding 
+rocket. 
+There are two partners with around 1% share of the efforts, another with less than 1% of the workshare (and significantly high rates), representing ANSPs. There 
+are other ANSPs in the consortium with more effort. There is not enough evidence provided where the two small partners are contributing. It cannot be expected 
+that there is specific know-how available from these ANSPs than from the other ANSPs involved. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The consortium looks very complete and fit to do the job. The consortium would operate under the lead of ECTL (that has been leading ECHO and ECHO2 
+already), with participation from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for High Altitude Platforms (HAPS) and Operators, ANSPs, U-space in dustry, 
+research institutes. 
+The individual partners are insufficiently providing evidence of their capabilities in similar activities. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+However given the nature of those companies developing HAPS, there is a high risk that these partners will get into financial issues and might drop out . There is a 
+risk associated that cannot be neglected. In the risk assessment this risk is not mentioned. This is a minor shortcoming.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 4 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 5 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+The subcontracting costs of SCEYE for external software and cybersecurity support and Elson Space cost for performance degradation of solar arrays would 
+benefit of further clarification. 
+ 101288550/SCAN-28/01/2026-11:07:46 6 /
+6 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)972016 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 7 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101288550_SCAN_EthSR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ethics Summary Report
+Call Reference HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+101288550Proposal Number
+SCANAcronym
+ 
+Ethics Issues
+Non-EU countries Yes
+Ethics Opinion
+Ethics clearance (the proposal is 'ethics ready')
+External Independent Ethics Advisor/Board
+In your opinion, would it be exceptionally necessary to appoint an external independent ethics advisor
+or an ethics board (with a minimum of three experts) reporting periodically to the
+Commission/Agency/funding body?
+No
+No ethics issues identified other than the participation of non-EU entities, with no associated ethics risk.
+General requirement applicable to all grants
+The beneficiaries must ensure that all ethics issues related to activities in the grant are addressed in compliance with
+ethical principles, the applicable international and national law, and the provisions set out in the Grant Agreement. This
+includes the ethics issues identified in this report and any additional ethics issues that may emerge in the course of the
+grant. In case any substantial new ethics issues arise, beneficiaries should inform the granting authority. For each ethics
+issue applicable, beneficiaries must follow the guidance provided in the How to complete your ethics self-assessment.
+11 /101288550/SCAN - 16/12/2025-15:47:45
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2025)11246335 - 16/12/2025
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101289612_QUANTAIR_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101289612
+Proposal acronym: QUANTAIR
+Duration (months): 24
+Proposal title: Quantum Technologies for Airspace Innovation and Resilience
+Activity: ER-03-WA1
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 167,350 17.70% 167,350 17.70%
+2 Qoro Quantum Ltd UK 435,086.16 46.02% 435,086.16 46.02%
+3 SkyNav Europe BE 342,890.63 36.27% 342,890.63 36.27%
+  Total:   945,326.79   945,326.79  
+Abstract:
+European air traffic management is becoming increasingly complex. The system now has to handle a growing variety of airspace users — from 
+hypersonic vehicles and high-altitude long-endurance platforms such as stratospheric balloons and HAPS, to conventional subsonic flights. These 
+vehicles often operate in overlapping altitude bands but have vastly different speeds, climb/descent profiles, and manoeuvring capabilities. 
+At the same time, environmental policy drivers are stronger than ever. The EU Green Deal, ICAO’s long-term aspirational goals, and national climate 
+strategies are pushing for measurable reductions in both CO₂ and non-CO₂ impacts, such as persistent contrails. Resilience has also become a priority, 
+with the network increasingly affected by severe weather, technical failures, and geopolitical events that can close or restrict airspace at short notice. 
+One of the biggest technical challenges in all of these contexts is that many stakeholders — States, ANSPs, airlines, and defence operators — cannot 
+freely share operationally, privacy, or commercially sensitive data. Without that data, current modelling and optimisation tools have to work with 
+partial information, limiting their effectiveness. 
+Previous European research has already demonstrated that Federated Learning (FL) can bridge this gap, enabling accurate predictions without 
+requiring data to leave its origin. QUANTAIR proposes to take this further by pairing FL with quantum optimisation — allowing us to integrate 
+richer, privacy-protected data from multiple stakeholders, and then solve the resulting large-scale, multi-variable problems at speeds suitable for 
+operational decision-making.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 11.30 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 1 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and 
+fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and 
+interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and 
+the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users 
+where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
+QUANTAIR proposal is well-structured, in scope and addresses the priority ‘Quantum Computing (QC) applications in ATM’ under Work Area 1. The four diverse 
+case studies give breadth and robustness to the analysis and ensures relevance across operational domains. 
+Objectives are realistic and very promising to obtain a collaborative modeling aligned with SESAR Digital European Sky ambitions. Objectives will be realistically 
+achievable. However, they are broadly defined and therefore their measurability and verifiability are difficult. This approach does not make it possible to establish 
+KPIs or more concrete expectations at project conclusion. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal fits in idea to application’s spectrum, and it properly identifies the work in early stages of R&I maturity, concluding at TRL1. 
+The proposal proposes investigation on AI-based techniques and/or systems. However, there is no concretion on which federated learning methods will be used, 
+leading to difficulty assessing the approach in explainable AI, considering the technical robustness, reproducibility, and reliability. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+The research framework proposed is well described and logic to explore how Quantum Federated machine Learning (QFL) can be applied in ATM. The four 
+exploratory cases identified are concise and will guide the investigation. They are well formulated and balanced for resilience, operational efficiency, integration 
+of new entrants and sustainability. Furthermore, limitations of the actual approaches are well argued and consequently, the expected outputs from each case are 
+very well identified. 
+The proposal does not fully provide an adequate rationale on how to address automation level 4 and/or how it would revert to conditional automation level 3. This 
+is a shortcoming. 
+The interdisciplinary methodology proposed is convincingly presented in order to achieve the expected outcomes of the project. However, the proposal does not 
+sufficiently detail candidate models and/or methods to be researched as well as the datasets to cover all cases to generate synthetic data, leading to an insufficient 
+level of technical insights. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal provides a solid explanation of how distributed learning enables privacy-preserving collaboration across fragmented data sources. It clearly defines 
+assumptions, limitations, and the role of quantum computing as a conceptual extension rather than immediate delivery. 
+Open science (OS) practices are of a high standard and are adequately managed in the proposal. OS are aligned with the Horizon Europe guidelines, disseminating 
+research outputs in open and accessible formats using FAIR rules such as publications, software and modelling artifacts and synthetic data generated. Other 
+relevant strategies proposed are knowledge-sharing channels and organization of technical workshops. The proposal provides a detailed plan for transparent 
+research outputs and open access. It includes clear information on documentation, repositories, and licensing. Besides, the proposal also identifies and justifies no 
+raw data will be disseminated. In addition, the use of open-source data for simulations is convincing. 
+The research data management plan is properly addressed following the FAIR principles. 
+The proposal is very innovative because it uses a distributed approach instead of a centralized one for training models with dispersed data sources, something very 
+common in the ATM environment. 
+The proposal demonstrates good knowledge of operations, however, the proposal is limited in terms of state of the art review on both, quantum methods and 
+federated machine learning, outside and inside SESAR, not including sufficient references of SESAR projects such as SINAPSE. This is a shortcoming.
+Criterion 2 - Impact
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 2 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal addresses very well the expected outcomes of the topic, i.e. investigate quantum computing applied to ATM. The project outcomes will positively 
+contribute to a better understanding of the uses, benefits and limitations of QFL in ATM. It also demonstrates awareness of policy needs and engagements required 
+to influence and promote across international organizations such as ICAO, EASA and EUROCONTROL. Therefore, the project results will support defining a 
+pathway in this domain and a research agenda to progress towards higher TRLs in a more structured manner. 
+The proposal includes strong policy alignment and situational awareness linkages to higher-airspace roadmaps, contingency frameworks and climate work. 
+The proposal presents a thoughtful impact prospectus by setting a credible goal for collaborative modelling ATM, both in medium-term and to the wider long-term. 
+ATM challenges are well suited through the four exploratory cases proposed: predictability, higher-airspace entrants, disruption response and contrail mitigation. 
+The proposal addresses the wider impacts of the ATM Master Plan and justifies adherence to SESAR Deployment Objectives (SDOs) 3, 5 and 8, although in very 
+general terms. SESAR Phase D implementation and Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are not well considered. This is a shortcoming. 
+Requirements and key barriers that may influence whether the pathways can be realized are well identified, being data privacy and sovereignty a driver to use 
+federated machine learning. Potential barriers associated with quantum computing and methods are overlooked in the proposal. The mitigation measures for the 
+recognized barriers are ambiguous because they are very generically addressed. This is a shortcoming. 
+Target groups and beneficiaries are properly identified and described. 
+The communication and dissemination strategy is effective and appropriate with well described common communication channels, target groups and potential 
+panels and forums at ICAO and EASA, attendance at conferences, marketing material, among others. Open science commitments and programme-level 
+dissemination routes are well covered too focusing on participation in conferences and publications. Measures to share and reuse outputs with open access and 
+repositories are proportionate. 
+However, no clear reference KPIs are established to define targets and assess the performance at project closure, as well as a preliminary list of potential and 
+relevant peer-reviewed journals for dissemination (publications targets), website and social media reachability targets. In addition, exploitation will be conducted 
+through institutional channels, but this is insufficiently described in the proposal. All this is a shortcoming. 
+The intellectual-property approach is generically described. Furthermore, access/licensing terms for reuse and any embargo logic are not clearly specified. This is a 
+shortcoming.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.30
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The work plan proposed is structured in four WPs. However, the work plan is not clearly articulated because the different concrete outputs between WP2 and WP3 
+are not clearly distinguished. In addition, there are no clear tasks and assignments of roles among partners in each WP to clearly identify the work and 
+responsibilities. There are inconsistencies regarding the duration of the work packages and deliverables according to the Project Handbook, because the duration of 
+the project is 24 months and the last 6 months are dedicated to CDE activities. This implies that technical deliverables should be delivered at M14, for instance, 
+deliverables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are incorrectly delivered. In addition, deliverables 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 should be delivered at M22. Furthermore, the GANTT chart shows 
+a duration for WP2 of 6 months and a duration of 12 months for WP3, whereas in the work package description the duration of WP2 and WP3 is 9 months each. 
+These issues are collectively hindering the implementation and consequently entail a shortcoming. 
+CDE activities are split into two different WPs and led by two different partners, which causes unclarity in responsibilities in this aspect. This is a minor 
+shortcoming. 
+All technical deliverables required for TRL1 are listed, as well as classified as PU. 
+Regarding milestones, they are not aligned with the Project Handbook, because there is no explicit “Exit Maturity Gate” milestone. This is a shortcoming. 
+There is a good list of critical risks identified and categorized with an adequate set of mitigation measures and strategies to manage them. Risk management is 
+tailored to TRL1 and include inconclusive findings and synthetic-data credibility with pragmatic mitigations as well. 
+Regarding efforts, allocations and distribution among partners and WPs are reasonable to perform the work, except for WP1. 
+However, it is noted that SkyNav employs more Person Months than the Coordinator in WP1; this may be justified by SkyNav’s CDE lead, but it is unusual for 
+management. Furthermore, there are clear incoherences between the information presented in table 3.1a and the information included in table 3.1f, in terms of 
+PMs allocated to the same partner (DLR WP1 10 PMs vs 5PMs; Ooro WP2 18PMs vs 14PMs). In addition, it is unclear whether the total PM for the project is 50 
+(from table 3.1a) or 78.8 (from table 3.1f). This is a shortcoming. 
+The project team combines researchers, distributed systems engineers and air traffic management experts. Their roles are clearly delineated, and the joint design 
+approach is well structured for conceptual integration rather than development. Technical work packages are properly distributed at high-level and consistent with 
+the knowledge and background of partners. Tasks are very convincingly assigned to members of the consortium according to their technical background and 
+expertise and covers the required scientific and technical disciplines. 
+The Consortium brings together the necessary expertise required by the project framework and the project coordinator demonstrates also relevant experience in 
+SESAR for undertaking the project management.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 3 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 4 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+Status:  Yes
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101289612/QUANTAIR-28/01/2026-09:48:41 5 /
+5 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)967916 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/101290642_STRATUS_ESR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Proposal Evaluation Form
+ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
+Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Evaluation Summary 
+Report - Research and 
+innovation actions
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Type of action: HORIZON-JU-RIA
+Proposal number: 101290642
+Proposal acronym: STRATUS
+Duration (months): 30
+Proposal title: STRATUS — Safety & Transformed Resilience for high-Altitude Traffic Unified Services
+Activity: ER-03-WA2
+N. Proposer name Country Total 
+eligible 
+costs
+% Grant 
+Requested
+%
+1 EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE 
+SAFETY OF AIR NAVIGATION
+BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+2 DFS DEUTSCHE FLUGSICHERUNG GMBH DE 73,235 3.56% 73,235 3.56%
+3 ENAV SPA IT 73,924.08 3.60% 73,924.08 3.60%
+4 LUFTFARTSVERKET SE 180,375 8.78% 180,375 8.78%
+5 NATS (EN ROUTE) PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY UK 119,684.75 5.82% 119,684.75 5.82%
+6 ENAIRE ES 95,975 4.67% 95,975 4.67%
+7 ENTE NAZIONALE PER L'AVIAZIONE CIVILE - ENAC 
+ITALIAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IT 102,268.75 4.98% 102,268.75 4.98%
+8 CONSORCIO AERODROMO AEROPUERTO DE TERUEL ES 88,000 4.28% 88,000 4.28%
+9 SkyNav Europe BE 253,269.75 12.32% 253,269.75 12.32%
+10 ECOLE NATIONALE DE L AVIATION CIVILE FR 78,250 3.81% 78,250 3.81%
+11 C.I.R.A. CENTRO ITALIANO RICERCHE AEROSPAZIALI 
+SCPA
+IT 53,907.5 2.62% 53,907.5 2.62%
+12 STICHTING KONINKLIJK NEDERLANDS LUCHT - EN 
+RUIMTEVAARTCENTRUM
+NL 157,795.25 7.68% 157,795.25 7.68%
+13 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC 
+CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATIONS
+CA 63,125 3.07% 63,125 3.07%
+14 INGENIERIA Y ECONOMIA DEL TRANSPORTE SME MP SA ES 97,575 4.75% 97,575 4.75%
+15 CENTRO DE REFERENCIA INVESTIGACION 
+DESARROLLO E INNOVACION ATM, A.I.E.
+ES 59,250 2.88% 59,250 2.88%
+16 INSTITUUT VOOR INFRASTRUCTUUR, MILIEU EN 
+INNOVATIE
+BE 33,462.5 1.63% 33,462.5 1.63%
+17 OpenUTM Ltd. IE 7,237.5 0.35% 7,237.5 0.35%
+18 DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT 
+EV
+DE 153,000 7.44% 153,000 7.44%
+19 SCEYE SPAIN S.L. ES 280,175 13.63% 280,175 13.63%
+20 ANRA TECHNOLOGIES OU EE 84,656.25 4.12% 84,656.25 4.12%
+21 HAPS Alliance US 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 1 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+22 UDARAS EITLIOCHTA NA HEIREANN THE IRISH 
+AVIATION AUTHORITY
+IE 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
+  Total:   2,055,166.33   2,055,166.33  
+Abstract:
+STRATUS (Safety and Transformed Resilience for High-Altitude Traffic Unified Services) will define a modular and scalable framework for 
+integrating Higher Airspace Operations (HAO) and Space Transport Operations (STO) into the European ATM framework. The focus is on the low-
+density airspace above conventional traffic, generally above flight level FL550. This is where high-performance supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, 
+automated High Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS) fleets, and sub-orbital operations are expected to multiply in the coming decade. 
+Building on the exploratory CONOPS produced in the ECHO project, and taking into account the work now underway in ECHO2, STRATUS will 
+expand the scope to cover a wider set of operational scenarios, vehicle types and service models. It will address the operational, functional, technical 
+and regulatory foundations required for integration, in line with the priorities of the European ATM Master Plan for higher-airspace operations, 
+dynamic airspace configuration, service-oriented architectures and cyber-secure digitalisation. Concentrating on the higher airspace, where traffic 
+density is relatively low, provides the opportunity to mature and validate innovative concepts and technologies while limiting operational risk to 
+existing ATM. 
+The objectives of STRATUS follow a logical progression from establishing operational demand in higher airspace, through the development of 
+concepts and supporting frameworks, to the consideration of regulatory and other relevant implications that may influence successful implementation.
+Evaluation Summary Report
+Evaluation Result
+Total score: 10.40 (Threshold: 10 )
+Criterion 1 - Excellence
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )4.00
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Clarity and pertinence of the proposal: degree to which the objectives, scope and requirements set out in the call material are well understood and 
+fully addressed. 
+- Soundness of the proposed methodology for developing the SESAR solutions, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions and 
+interdisciplinary approaches. This criterion also includes appropriate consideration of the integration of a gender dimension into R&I content and 
+the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users 
+where appropriate. 
+- Level of awareness of the state of the art: degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current operations and relevant previous R&D 
+work (both within and outside SESAR), explains how the proposed work will go beyond the state of the art and demonstrates innovation potential.
+The proposal's objectives are pertinent to the scope of the work programme responding to the identified R&I need 10. “Innovative methodologies for ATM safety, 
+security, and resilience.” The proposal is focused on developing methods that will integrate higher airspace operations (HAO) and space transport operations (STO) 
+into the European ATM framework. However, the objectives of the proposal are only briefly described. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal’s discussion of automation focuses only on the service architecture framework rather than automation level 4 functions. The targeted automation 
+levels of the proposed service architecture are not adequately specified. This is a shortcoming. 
+The proposal includes considering and assessing the potential impact of the proposed regulatory evolutions on military aviation, in particular military operations 
+and training. 
+The methodology is well-structured and coherent, following logical progression from problem definition and concept development to assurance and regulatory 
+analysis. It demonstrates awareness of SESAR’s expectations for Exploratory Research at TRL 2, with appropriate reliance on expert review and desk-based 
+validation rather than prototypes or flight trials. 
+The proposal initiates at less comprehensive TRL2 than the target TRL. So, the initial TRL is unclear lying between 1 and 2. This is a minor shortcoming. 
+Research data management is briefly described and appropriately built into the methodology. The data management plan (DMP) is planned early (M3) with an 
+update at M12 and is embedded in the Project Management Plan (PMP), ensuring findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) data, repository use and 
+open formats for primarily textual/desk-study outputs in line with open science practices. The gender dimension is considered: there is no gender dimension in the 
+research content. 
+There is a clear awareness of the state of the art, and the proposal builds on prior research in the area - SEC-AIRSPACE on cyber security, FARO on resilience 
+metrics, and FCDI.
+Criterion 2 - Impact
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.00
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 2 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call material. 
+- Suitability and quality of the measures in terms of maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation 
+(D&E) plan, including communication activities.
+The proposal does not demonstrate methodological depth for ensuring credible, transferable, and measurable results within the SESAR Performance Framework. 
+This is a shortcoming. 
+There is insufficient indication of which Key Performance Areas (KPAs) the proposed activities address. The performance metrics and assessment methods are not 
+adequately defined. This is a shortcoming. 
+As a result, it is not clear how the project’s outcomes will contribute to measurable improvements in ATM performance or align with SESAR’s overarching 
+performance ambitions. This hampers the credibility of the expected impact and the traceability of results within the SESAR Innovation Pipeline. This is a 
+shortcoming. 
+Broader societal and economic impacts are clearly articulated, even if brief. 
+The proposal provides only a general outline of the dissemination, communication, and exploitation (DCE) plan. Beyond listing a project website, workshops, and 
+participation in relevant events, there are insufficient details on objectives, target audiences, key messages, communication channels, or timelines. This is a minor 
+shortcoming. 
+The exploitation activities are not adequately described. The strategy for identifying or engaging potential users or for translating project results in concrete uptake 
+pathways in unclear. The limited level of detail hampers the project’s capacity to maximise visibility, stakeholder engagement, and long-term impact. This is a 
+shortcoming.
+Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
+Score:   (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )3.40
+The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: 
+- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan and assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources 
+overall. 
+- Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
+The proposal's work plan deliverables and target dates are consistent with the SESAR 3 JU Project Handbook requirements. 
+The work packages themselves do not sufficiently include any defined tasks or sub-tasks, which does not provide sufficient details on how the work will be 
+organised and implemented in practice, who will be responsible for specific activities, and how effort will be distributed among partners. This is a shortcoming. 
+The insufficiently described tasks hamper the traceability between objectives, activities, and expected outputs, reducing the overall credibility of the implementation 
+plan and the ability to monitor progress effectively. This is a shortcoming. 
+The exit maturity gate is specified at M22 with the production of the Exploratory Research Report (ERR, D4.3), although no explicit Exit Maturity Gate is identified 
+at TRL-2. This is a shortcoming. 
+Some of the participants have already worked together on relevant projects (i.e., ECHO and ECHO2) - this is evidence of a consortium that has the ingredients to 
+collaborate well and have the necessary expertise to achieve the proposal objectives.
+Scope of the application
+Status:  Yes
+Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
+Not provided
+Exceptional funding
+A third country participant/international organisation not listed in may exceptionally receive funding if the General Annex to the Main Work Programme 
+their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research 
+infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more 
+information, see the ) HE programme guide 
+Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. 
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
+Not provided
+Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
+Status:  No
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 3 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the 
+reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
+Not provided
+Use of human embryos
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
+Not provided
+Activities excluded from funding
+Status:  No
+If YES, please explain.
+Not provided
+Do no significant harm principle
+Status:  Yes
+If Partially/No/Cannot be assessed please explain
+Not provided
+Exclusive focus on civil applications
+Status:  Yes
+If NO, please explain.
+Not provided
+Artificial Intelligence
+Status:  No
+If YES, the technical robustness of the proposed system must be evaluated under the appropriate criterion.
+Overall comments
+Not provided
+ 101290642/STRATUS-28/01/2026-09:52:41 4 /
+4 
+Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)968292 - 28/01/2026
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/GA Declaration - GAP-101288550 - 870906450.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+DECLARATION OF HONOUR FOR BENEFICIARIES (DoH) (GRANTS)
+I, the undersigned:
+for natural persons: in my own name
+or
+for legal persons1: representing the following entity:
+SkyNav Europe
+Rue Coppens 16
+Brussels 1000
+Belgium
+PIC 870906450
+hereby confirm
+that (subject to the additional declarations below):
+1 — The information provided for action 101288550 — SCAN is correct and complete.
+2 — The information concerning the legal status in the Participant Register for me/my organisation
+is correct and complete.
+3 — I/my organisation commit to comply2 with the eligibility criteria and all other conditions set
+out in the call conditions — for the entire duration of the action.
+4 — I/my organisation:
+– are committed to participate in the action
+– have stable and sufficient sources of funding to maintain the activities throughout the
+action and to provide any counterpart funding necessary
+– have or will have the necessary resources needed to implement the action
+– acknowledge to be fully responsible for my affiliated entities which participate in the
+action
+– for research actions: are committed to comply with the highest standards of ethical
+principles and research integrity and confirm that the work is free of plagiarism
+– for actions involving EU classified information (EUCI): acknowledge that any sensitive
+information or material that qualifies as EU classified information under Commission
+1 This includes ‘entities without legal personality’ under Article 200(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the
+European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget
+of the Union (recast) (‘EU Financial Regulation’) (OJ L, 2024/2509, 26.9.2024).
+2 ‘Commit to comply’ means complying now and for the duration of the grant.
+1
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Decision 2015/4443 must be handled in accordance with specific rules and follow the
+instructions given by the EU
+– for coordinators of multi-beneficiary actions: are committed to act as the coordinator for
+this action.
+5a — For applicants from non-EU countries: I/my organisation:
+– undertake to comply with the obligations under the agreement and to:
+– respect general principles (including fundamental rights, values and ethical
+principles, environmental and labour standards, rules on classified information,
+intellectual property rights, visibility of funding and protection of personal data)
+– for the submission of financial certificates under the agreement: use qualified external
+auditors which are independent and comply with comparable standards as those set
+out in EU Directive 2006/43/EC
+– for controls under the agreement: allow for checks, reviews, audits and investigations
+(including on-the-spot checks, visits and inspections) by the granting authority, the
+European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and
+the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and any persons mandated by them
+– and confirm that:
+– we can be subject to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts.
+5b — For applicants which are international organisations: I/my organisation:
+– undertake to comply with the obligations under the agreement and to:
+– respect general principles (including fundamental rights, values and ethical
+principles, environmental and labour standards, rules on classified information,
+intellectual property rights, visibility of funding and protection of personal data)
+– for the submission of certificates under the agreement: use either independent public
+officers or external auditors which comply with comparable standards as those set
+out in EU Directive 2006/43/EC
+– for controls under the agreement: allow for checks, reviews, audits and investigations
+(including on-the-spot checks, visits and inspections) by the granting authority, the
+European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and
+the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and any persons mandated by them
+– acknowledge that nothing in the agreement will be interpreted as a waiver of the
+organisation’s privileges or immunities, as accorded by its constituent documents or
+international law
+– acknowledge that special rules apply concerning applicable law and dispute settlement
+3 See Commission Decision 2015/544/EU,Euratom of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified
+information (OJ L 72, 17.3.2015, p. 53).
+2
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+– acknowledge that if the organisation has concluded a framework agreement with the EU,
+it may rely on the provisions set out in that framework agreement, provided that they
+do not call into question the decision awarding the agreement or breach the principle of
+equal treatment of applicants or beneficiaries.
+6 — For applicants which are subject to Articles 138 and 139 of the EU Financial Regulation: I/my
+organisation:
+– are NOT subject to an administrative sanction  (i.e. exclusion or financial penalty
+decision)4
+I/my organisation (or persons with unlimited liability for debts):
+– are NOT in one of the following exclusion situations5:
+– bankrupt, being wound up, having the affairs administered by the courts, entered
+into an arrangement with creditors, suspended business activities or subject to any
+other similar proceedings or procedures
+– in breach of social security or tax obligations
+I/my organisation (or persons having powers of representation, decision-making or control,
+beneficial owners or persons who are essential for the award/implementation of the action):
+– are NOT in one of the following exclusion situations6:
+– guilty of grave professional misconduct7
+– committed fraud, corruption, links to a criminal organisation, money laundering,
+terrorism-related crimes (including terrorism financing), child labour or human
+trafficking
+– shown significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations under an EU
+procurement contract, grant agreement, prize, expert contract, or similar
+– guilty of irregularities within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation
+No 2988/95
+– created under a different jurisdiction with the intent to circumvent fiscal, social
+or other legal obligations in the country of origin (including creation of another
+entity with this purpose).
+4 See Article 138 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+5 See Articles 138 and 143 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+6 See Articles 138 and 143 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+7 ‘Professional misconduct’ includes, in particular, the following: violation of ethical standards of the profession;
+wrongful conduct with impact on professional credibility; breach of generally accepted professional ethical standards;
+false declarations/misrepresentation of information; participation in a cartel or other agreement distorting competition;
+violation of IPR; attempting to influence decision-making processes by taking advantage, through misrepresentation,
+of a conflict of interests, or to obtain confidential information from public authorities to gain an advantage; incitement
+to discrimination, hatred or violence or similar activities contrary to the EU values where negatively affecting or risking
+to affect the performance of a legal commitment.
+3
+
+=== PAGE 4 ===
+– intentionally and without proper justification resisted 8 an investigation, check or
+audit carried out by an EU authorising officer (or their representative or auditor),
+OLAF, the EPPO, or the European Court of Auditors.
+7 — I/my organisation are NOT subject to a conflict of interest in connection with this grant and
+will notify — without delay — any situation which could give rise to a conflict of interests.
+8 — I/my organisation have NOT and will NOT, neither directly nor indirectly, grant, seek, obtain
+or accept any advantage in connection with this grant that would constitute an illegal practice
+or involve corruption.
+9 — I/my organisation havenot received any other EU grant  for this action and will give notice
+of any future EU grants related to this action AND of any EU operating grant(s) 9 given to my
+organisation.
+10 — I/my organisation are aware that false declarations  may lead to rejection, suspension,
+termination or reduction of the grant and to administrative sanctions (i.e. financial penalties and/
+or exclusion from all future EU funding, such as grants, tenders, prizes, contribution agreements,
+expert contracts, etc).
+and acknowledge
+that:
+1 — The grant will be signed and managed electronically, through the Funding & Tenders Portal
+Electronic Exchange System (accessible via your Funding & Tenders Portal account10).
+2 — Access and use of this system is subject to the Funding & Tenders Portal Terms & Conditions11.
+3 — Personal data submitted or otherwise collected by the EU will be subject to the Funding &
+Tenders Portal Privacy Statement12.
+4 — Payments under the grant are done at consortium-level, through the coordinator, and will be
+automatically lowered if one of the consortium members has outstanding debts towards the
+EU (granting authority or other EU bodies). Such debts will be offset in accordance with the
+conditions set out in the grant agreement.
+8 ‘Resisting an investigation, check or audit’ means carrying out actions with the goal or effect of preventing, hindering
+or delaying the conduct of any of the activities needed to perform the investigation, check or audit, such as refusing
+to grant the necessary access to its premises or any other areas used for business purposes, concealing or refusing to
+disclose information or providing false information.
+9 See Article 183 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509.
+10 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/myarea/projects.
+11 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/ftp/tc_en.pdf.
+12 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/legalnotice.
+4
+
+=== PAGE 5 ===
+SIGNATURE
+For the applicant:
+[--TGSMark#signature-870906450_75_210--]
+5
+
+=== PAGE 6 ===
+ 
+ 
+Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
+ 
+ 
+  
+ 
+This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your 
+organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally 
+sealed. 
+This digital signature mechanism, using a public -private key pair mechanism, uniquely 
+binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European 
+Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integr ity. 
+Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your 
+organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. 
+Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic 
+signature, which can b e verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation 
+symbol. 
+More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders 
+Portal.  
+(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) 
+ 

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Invitation Letter including the information out of ranking.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Project: 101288550 — SCAN
+GAP invitation letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we are pleased to inform you that your proposal has passed this
+phase and that we would now like to start grant preparation.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR) for your proposal.
+Invitation to grant preparation
+Grant preparation will be based on the following:
+1. Project:
+Project number and name:  101288550 — SCAN
+Topic:  HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02-WA3-2 — Enhanced CNS capabilities
+Type of action:  HORIZON JU Research and Innovation Actions
+Requested grant amount (proposal):  9 686 590.70 EUR
+Maximum grant amount (after evaluation):  9 686 590.70 EUR
+Project duration:   36  months
+2. Timetable and deadlines:
+Preparation of grant data and annexes:  3 weeks after receiving this letter
+Declaration of honour (DoH):  6 weeks after receiving this letter
+Signature:  within 3 months after receiving this letter (planned date)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020943 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+The grant agreement data and annexes (description of the action, estimated budget, etc.) must be based on the
+proposal you submitted and the clarifications we requested (if any). You may normally NOT make changes to the
+project/project budget/consortium composition (except if required by us). Please immediately inform your project
+officer if you need to make a change (e.g. bankruptcy, etc.).
+Once we have checked the information you have encoded, you will have 2 weeks to submit your final version
+— to bring it in line with our comments.
+3. Participant Register
+All partners participating as beneficiaries or affiliated entities must be registered and validated in the Participant
+Register.
+Please note that some of your legal and financial data in this Register is read-only and can be updated only by
+a LEAR (via the Portal My Organisation(s) page). If you do not already have one, we will contact you soon for
+their nomination.
+4. How to contact us
+Project officer: Nefeli POLITI STERGIOU
+Grant preparation and grant signature will be done exclusively through the Funding & Tenders Portal (login via
+your Portal account). The Portal allows you to upload documents, send Messages and Formal Notifications. Avoid
+contacting us via other means (email, letter, etc.); this will allow us to keep the full project file all in the same place.
+Please note that affiliated entities cannot directly access the Portal Grant Management System; grant preparation
+will therefore have to be done by their beneficiaries for them.
+5. Other
+Detailed guidance on the Grant Agreement Preparation steps will follow up within the next 2 weeks at latest.
+For more information on grant preparation, see the Online Manual.
+ Please note that this letter does NOT constitute a formal commitment for funding . The final
+decision on your project (including the grant amount to be awarded) can be taken only later, when we
+have finalised grant preparation and the checks that still need to be done (LEAR appointment, legal
+entity validation, financial capacity assessment, non-exclusion check, ethics review, security review,
+etc.).
+We will try to proceed as swiftly as possible, but we rely on your good cooperation. If you do not
+reply to our requests or repeatedly miss grant preparation deadlines, we will consider that you are no
+longer interested in our grant (and reject your proposal).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+For any questions, please contact us via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Project(s) >
+Actions > Manage Project > Process communications.
+2
+
+=== PAGE 3 ===
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+3

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - QUANTAIR.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Andreas SPÖRL
+DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUR LUFT - UND
+RAUMFAHRT EV
+LINDER HOHE
+51147 KOLN
+GERMANY
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Project: 101289612 — QUANTAIR
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020198 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - SPARTA.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-IR-02
+Project: 101288039 — SPARTA
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020589 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2

docs/Tenders/past tenders/tmp_pdf_extracts/Rejection decision Information Letter - STRATUS.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+
+
+=== PAGE 1 ===
+Ovidiu DUMITRACHE
+EUROCONTROL - EUROPEAN
+ORGANISATION FOR THE SAFETY OF
+AIR NAVIGATION
+Rue de la Fusée 96
+1130 BRUXELLES
+BELGIUM
+Subject: Horizon Europe (HORIZON)
+Call: HORIZON-SESAR-2025-DES-ER-03
+Project: 101290642 — STRATUS
+Rejection letter
+Dear Applicant,
+I am writing in connection with your proposal for the above-mentioned call.
+Having completed the evaluation, we regret to inform you that your proposal, despite its merits, can
+unfortunately not be funded, given the budgetary resources available for the call.
+Please find enclosed the evaluation summary report (ESR).
+More information on the evaluation of the call is published in a topic update in the Funding & Tenders
+Portal.
+I would be grateful if you could inform everyone involved in your proposal of this letter.
+We thank you for your interest and hope that you will not be discouraged from applying to our calls
+in the future.
+Yours faithfully,
+Andreas BOSCHEN
+Executive Director
+Enclosure: Evaluation summary report (ESR)
+1
+Ref. Ares(2026)1020185 - 29/01/2026
+
+
+=== PAGE 2 ===
+Information on the means of redress
+If you believe that the rejection of your proposal was based on an error in the selection procedure, you can submit a:
+– request for admissibility/eligibility or evaluation review (redress review) — within 30 days of receiving this letter
+(via your Funding & Tenders Portal account > My Proposal(s) > Actions > Follow-up > Launch new interaction
+with the EU)
+– action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU — within 2 months of receiving the letter (by application to the
+EU General Court).
+ Please be aware that complaints against decisions taken by an EU executive agency or other EU body must be directed
+against that agency/body, NOT against the European Commission.
+ You are free to choose any of the above means of redress. However, in the interest of good administration and procedural
+efficiency, it is recommended to use first the available administrative review procedures (if any). The objective of these
+procedures is to re-examine the circumstances of the selection procedure and to reach a final decision on your application.
+Deadlines for further redress will therefore run as from when you receive our reply with the final position.
+For more information and conditions (including on other types of complaints, such as to the European Ombudsman, etc),
+please see the Online Manual and IT How To.
+2