Annual Activity Report 2013 - europarl.europa.eu€¦ · Annual Activity Report 2013 . Written Procedure 2014 ––

Annual Activity Report 2013

Written Procedure 2014 – 06 GB AAR 2013 Page 2 of 119

~ Page intentionally left blank ~

Page 3 of 119

1. FOREWORD 5

2. INTRODUCTION 8

3. KEY OBJECTIVES 2013 AND ASSOCIATED RISKS 9

ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 9 3.1

RISK MANAGEMENT 15 3.2

4. CLEAN SKY GOVERNANCE 24

GOVERNING BOARD 24 4.1

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 25 4.2

ITD STEERING COMMITTEES 25 4.3

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD 26 4.4

NATIONAL STATES REPRESENTATIVES GROUP 26 4.5

GENERAL FORUM 27 4.6

5. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 29

REMINDER: CLEAN SKY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 29 5.1

CLEAN SKY 2ND INTERIM EVALUATION PANEL REPORT 30 5.2

6. ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE MEMBERS 31

SFWA - SMART FIXED WING AIRCRAFT ITD 31 6.1

GRA – GREEN REGIONAL AIRCRAFT ITD 35 6.2

GRC – GREEN ROTORCRAFT ITD 40 6.3

SAGE – SUSTAINABLE AND GREEN ENGINE 45 6.4

SGO – SYSTEMS FOR GREEN OPERATIONS 48 6.5

ECO – ECO-DESIGN 52 6.6

TE – TECHNOLOGY EVALUATOR 54 6.7

7. CALLS FOR PROPOSALS 57

STATISTICS 57 7.1

EVALUATIONS OUTCOME 59 7.2

GLOBAL EVALUATIONS OUTCOME 61 7.3

REDRESS STATISTICS CALLS 1-15 63 7.4

EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION PROCESSES 63 7.5

8. COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES 64

9. SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 66

HR MANAGEMENT 66 9.1

HOUSING 68 9.2

ICT 68 9.3

LEGAL 70 9.4

10. FINANCIAL REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTING RULES 77

11. INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK 77

MANUAL OF FINANCIAL PROCEDURES – FINANCIAL CIRCUITS AND WORKFLOWS 77 11.1

SPECIFIC CONTROLS ON OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE 77 11.2

EX-POST CONTROL OF OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE 80 11.3

AUDIT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 94 11.4

INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY 94 11.5


12. BUDGET EXECUTION AND FINAL ACCOUNTS 97

BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION 97 12.1

FINAL ACCOUNTS 99 12.2

13. INDICATORS 100

14. ANNEXES 101

ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10(4) OF THE FINANCING AGREEMENT WITH THE 14.1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 101

ANNEX 2: ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE CLEAN SKY JOINT 14.2

UNDERTAKING 103

ANNEX 3: SCOREBOARD OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR: 105 14.3

ANNEX 4: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2013 107 14.4

ANNEX 5: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CLEAN SKY 2ND INTERIM EVALUATION PANEL REPORT 110 14.5

ANNEX 6: MATERIALITY CRITERIA 115 14.6

ANNEX 7: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 119 14.7

1. Foreword

The JU experienced one of its busiest periods during 2013, on its way to achieving the

demonstrations foreseen at the completion of the programme and confirming the

environmental benefits linked to the key technologies.

All Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) have progressed towards their objectives,

most of them according or close to the expected schedule. Significant pieces of hardware

were delivered and went through tests which are important milestones before the integrated

demonstrations. Among many examples, very significant and successful aero-acoustic tests

for the Open Rotor were completed and evidenced that the noise issue, which could have

been a show-stopper for this novel engine and aircraft architecture, was now a well-

mitigated risk. The turboshaft engine demonstrator, for helicopters, was started and went

through a first series of successful tests, while the large engine demonstrator, already started

in 2012, was continued. A composite fuselage barrel was manufactured – being one of the

main structural, full-scale demonstrators dedicated to regional aircraft. Important TRL

milestones have been passed for more-electric aircraft equipment like the wing ice

protection, the environmental control system and the skin heat exchanger. A second

assessment by the Technology Evaluator was performed – while slightly delayed - based on

the state of play of technologies by end of 2012, and confirmed the consistency of

environmental forecasts with the initial objectives in most areas.

The schedule of some demonstrators was reconsidered in order to take into account some

technical contingencies, as it is natural in a research and technology programme. While the

ground test of the Open Rotor was confirmed for 2015, the flight test was postponed to a

further programme – Clean Sky 2 in principle – in order to take the results of this ground

test into account and to increase the representativeness of the flight hardware with a wider

set of objectives. A laminar wing ground based wing demonstrator was almost ready at the

end of 2013, but the flight test was postponed by several months (to end 2015) in order to

cope with temporary difficulties regarding, in particular, the structural loads and interfaces.

For both demonstrators, the commitment of the concerned industrial companies was fully

reaffirmed.

The operational and financial optimisation towards the completion of the program had

started in late 2011 and continued through 2013. This is about defining or re-defining

priorities, within and across the ITDs, and down-selecting technologies in order to focus on

the most promising ones. In Green Rotorcraft, two demonstrators objectives were upgraded

from TRL 5 to 6; in SAGE, a proposal to fly an engine initially intended, to be limited to

ground tests is under consideration.

The outcome of this work resulted in the first revision of the programme budget envelopes

of the individual ITDs in March 2013 – and was adopted by the Governing Board. This

monitoring and coordination role of the JU is progressing and is regularly reconciled with

the Governing Board. A second revision took place in October 2013 to assign the overall

budget for calls for proposals at JU level rather than to individual ITDs, as a flexible

approach for the last call planning exercise.

The involvement of Partners has continued through the launch of another three Calls for

proposals, whose evaluation has been performed within the year. The participation rate to

calls and the success rate of topics have not evolved significantly compared with previous


years: the JU is performing very well in attracting SMEs to the programme (36% of call

funding so far). At the last review, the JU is on track to meet and surpass the minimum

200m € funding for partners. The last Clean Sky call (Call 16) was published in December

2013. Beyond their day-to-day link with the JU and the Members, SMEs have been

specifically addressed on two occasions: an SME day in May, with the participation of SME

managers and CEOs involved in Clean Sky, ITD leaders and Members of the European

Parliament; and the General Forum in November, with dedicated workshops on several

areas for further improvement of JU processes, topics contents and other items.

The internal control system of the JU underwent several layers of audits and evaluations in

2013 and, as a consequence financial and operational controls for the core business

processes were improved. The Internal Auditor of the JU, as well as the European Court of

Auditors provided positive opinions on the internal control system, whilst pointing out the

need for further improvement in respect of the operational verification of the execution of

the grant agreements and the timely implementation of the overall program budget.

Like in the year 2012, one of the major elements for assurance was the ex-post audit activity

of the JU. The error rates established through the audit process 2013, confirm the

achievability of the program control objective for the accumulated residual error rate of

maximum 2%. It can be seen that the quality of cost claims and certificates received from

Clean Sky Members and the related validation process of the JU has improved year by year

since the beginning of the program.

As the operational program is moving more and more towards delivering the demonstrators,

monitoring and dissemination of research results has gained momentum in 2013 and will

require full attention of all actors in 2014.

While internal processes are now mature to deal with the challenges of managing such a

complex programme from an operational and administrative point of view, the JU focused

on making processes as lean and efficient as possible while preserving the core elements

needed for managing such a programme and fulfilling expectations of the private and the

public sector. However, despite all efforts the JU continued to suffer from a lack of adequate

staffing level.

Clean Sky actively participated to the Paris Air Show in June, with a quite successful stand,

where representative pieces of hardware or mock-ups were on display. Clean Sky

contributed to the “Innovation in Action” show and conferences, organised by the five JTIs

together in the European Parliament. Many positive reports on Clean Sky were published in

the specialized press, in Europe and abroad. The Communication Plan put together at the

beginning of the year was fulfilled. However, it is a shared view by the Executive Team and

the Governing Board that the awareness of the general public must still be better enhanced

through actions to the general press and other means.

The second interim assessment of Clean Sky, organised by the European Commission, took

place from April to October, through many interviews of the Executive Team and, on-site,

the ITD leaders, as well as consultative bodies. This resulted in a very positive report,

available on Clean Sky website. Here is a quote from the Executive Summary: “The Panel is

convinced that the CSJU has successfully demonstrated the viability of the Public- Private

Partnership (PPP) concept for research in aeronautics. Indeed the Panel collected evidence

that the CSJU has been effective in delivering on its main objectives and has been able to

reinforce Europe's role for aeronautic R&D. The Panel found the research undertaken

Page 7 of 119

within CSJU of high quality. Today, a number of demonstrators are already running or

have been tested, and in many cases, the preliminary assessments of the environmental

benefits confirm the capability of achieving the overall targets at completion of the

programme.”

Overall, despite the challenges the JU faces, the progress achieved so far is an indicator, that

the JTI concept is the right instrument for implementing a complex research program. While

being in a pivotal position, which is close to industry on the one side and which ensures the

public interest on the other side in parallel, Clean Sky JU can be viewed as proof of a

successful new model for European Research.

This is one of the reasons why the European Commission proposed in July 2013, within the

European Innovation Investment Package, to continue Clean Sky in the framework of

Horizon 2020: a Clean Sky 2 draft Regulation was built on the basis of the Joint Technical

Proposal put together by the leading companies, “founders” of Clean Sky 2, coordinated by

the JU. The Executive Director was given a mandate to deal with this coordination, while

interacting with the European Commission for the preparation of the legal implementation.

The draft Regulation was accepted by the Competitiveness Council on December 3rd

, 2013,

with a few amendments. The European Parliament had then to give its own opinion, before

a final decision by the Council was taken on 6th May 2014. The new regulation comes into

force at the end of June and the new programme is expected to start immediately after. The

first call for core partners will be launched on the 9th

July 2014.

Clean Sky 2 should be more than twice the size of Clean Sky, with widened scope and

objectives: higher level of integration of technologies while taking also into account some

lower-TRL, longer-term targets; reaching for a new set of environmental targets – assuming

that those of the current Clean Sky will actually been achieved as expected – while ensuring

the future global leadership of the European industry and supply chain, creating jobs

through a reinforced competitiveness.

The JU was very busy in 2013 in preparing this new programme and the three years

transition phase, where Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2 will be run in parallel. The completion

of Clean Sky remains the first priority, and a smooth transition must be organised on a case-

by-case basis. A dense information campaign was started in November 2013, in order to

inform the potential participants about the technical content and to get feedback from them.

An impressive momentum was created, from large industry to SMEs to Research

Organisations and Academia, which shows that Clean Sky is actually becoming the flagship

of aeronautical European innovation.


2. INTRODUCTION

Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CSJU) is a unique public private partnership aiming to

develop environmentally friendly technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial

aviation with the aim of contributing to the ACARE targets for reduction of emissions and

noise in Air Transport in Europe1 thus contributing to improving the Air Transport system

worldwide. It shall spearhead the contribution of aviation in minimising the impact of

anthropogenic activities on climate change, thus provide socio-economic benefits to

European citizens and society and increase the competitiveness of the European aeronautical

industry.

To implement the Clean Sky Programme, the European Union, represented by the European

Commission (EC) and the major aeronautical stakeholders in Europe have agreed to set up a

Joint Undertaking as a legal entity for the period up to 2017. The Council Regulation2

setting up the CS JU was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 20 December 2007, and

was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 February 2008. The

Statutes of the CSJU are an integral part (Annexed) to the Council Regulation.

The objective of the CSJU is achieved through the coordination of research activities that

pool resources from the public and private sectors, and that are carried out by the main

aeronautical stakeholders (private Clean Sky members) directly and by partners selected

following the response to open and competitive Calls for Proposals. The total budget of CS

JU, equally divided between the EC and private members and divided between the EC and

partners according to funding rules similar to FP7, is up to € 1.6 billion.

Clean Sky is organised in six Integrated Technology Demonstrators, each led by two

founding members and active through a matrix structure:

- Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and Saab;

- Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aermacchi and EADS Casa;

- Green Rotorcraft (GRC) led by Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter;

- Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran;

- Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace;

- Eco-Design (ECO) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft;

A Technology Evaluator (TE) led by Thales Avionics and DLR is at the core of CS with the

purpose of assessing the environmental performance of the technologies developed in CS at

sub-system, system and system of systems level.

The present Annual Activity Report (AAR) describes the status of the execution of the

activities of the CS performed during the year. Now more than 600 entities are participating

in Clean Sky, either as Members or as Partners selected through calls, compared with 500

entities in 2012. The JU staff was kept at a level of 24, like in the previous year, despite this

increased number of beneficiaries.

1 Europe in this context means Member States and countries associated to the 7

th Framework Programme

(FP7) i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia, Serbia, Albania and Montenegro (April 2008). 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 O.J. L 30 4.2.2008 p.38

Page 9 of 119

3. KEY OBJECTIVES 2013 AND ASSOCIATED RISKS

Achievement of objectives 3.1

Objectives for 2013 to 2017 The overall objectives for this period are:

- To run all the demonstrators (ground or flight demonstrators)

- To achieve the environmental targets.

These objectives are linked to the multi-year commitment appropriations received by the JU

in 2013, which cover the full remaining period.

The two tables below give respectively the list of the demonstrators and the environmental

forecasts:

DEMONSTRATORS

SFWA

High Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator

Low Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator

Innovative Engine Demonstrator Flying Test Bed ('CROR engine - demo

FTB')

Long Term Technology Flight Demonstrator

Innovative Empennage Demonstrator

GRA

Static & Fatigue Full Scale Ground Demonstration Test

Large scale Wind Tunnel Test Demonstration

Flight Simulator on ground

ATR-72 Based Integrated In-Flight DEMO

GRC

Innovative Rotor blades on Ground / in Flight

Drag reduction on Ground / in Flight

Medium helicopter electrical system demonstrator including

electromechanical actuation for flight controls

Lightweight helicopter electromechanical actuation

Electric Tail Rotor Prototype

Diesel powered flight worthy helicopter Demonstrator

Flightpath operational Demonstrations

Rotorcraft Eco Design Demonstrators

SGO

VIRTUAL IRON BIRD

PROVEN (Ground test rig at Airbus Toulouse)

AVANT (Thermal test rig at Airbus Hamburg)

In house electrical technologies demonstrators

AIR LAB, MOSAR & GRACE simulations


SAGE

Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 1

Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 2

Advanced Low Pressure System (ALPS) Demonstrator

Geared Turbofan Demonstrator

Turboshaft Demonstrator

Lean Burn Demonstrator

ECO

COPPER BIRD®

Thermal Bench

'Clustered technologies' parts Demonstrators

Out of these demonstrators, one major change inccurred in 2013: the SFWA “Innovative

engine demonstrator flying test bed”, dedicated to the Open Rotor, was postponed and taken

out from Clean Sky Development Plan. Considering the ground test scheduled by end 2015

in SAGE, and the necessary technical evolutions which will have to be implemented

afterwards, a full roadmap was re-defined and a new set of objectives, with a higher

representativeness, were defined for the flight test.

Such a test was included in the Clean Sky 2 Technical Proposal, and scheduled for 2019-

2020, clearly beyond the Clean Sky Programme deadline (2017). The remaining budget

remaining on this line up to 2016 was transferred to the High-Speed Smart Wing

Demonstrator (called “BLADE”) which had to face technical contingencies. All the other

demonstrators remain in the Clean Sky schedule.

Page 11 of 119

Environmental forecasts

The following figures, summarized here for the relevant air transport segments within the

Clean Sky scope, are based on the 2012 TE Assessment. They were also stated like this in

the Annual Implementation Plan 2013. The next assessment is scheduled for mid-2014.


Besides these objectives to completion of the programme, annual objectives, both

operational and administrative, were set. They are recorded below, with the actual

achievements.

Operational Objectives Outcome

The Calls for Proposals result in less than 5

redress procedures per 100 proposals

Achieved. 2%

The time to grant is lower than 8 months3

from the date of the call closure for 50% of

the Grant Agreements for Partners

Objective achieved for Call 14, launched in

2013.

The average percentage of GAPs signed

within the target deadline for 2013 (2 calls)

has been 41%. The management strives to

continue the positive trend.

The proportion of SMEs in the winners is

above 35% in the Calls for Proposals

Achieved. 36%

The ITD deliverables, milestones and

budget curves are followed along the year

and are within 90% of the prevision end of

year

Not achieved.

Budget execution (foreseen level) is 88%.

The rate of deliverables delivered vs planned

is only 70%4. The JU will increase the direct

monitoring of progress and plans.

See below for the results by ITD.

The Preliminary Design Review of the

Open Rotor ground demonstrator is held in

the SAGE ITD before July, and the work

plan is followed according to its conclusions

without delay

Achieved.

The Preliminary Design Review was delayed

by a few months but was performed for all

main modules in Q4 2013 and will be closed

in Q1 2014. This enables to start the detailed

design activities.

The Critical Design Reviews for the

Regional Aircraft flight test and the

Rotorcraft Diesel Engine are held

Done according to the schedule.

The ground runs for the Large Three-Shaft

Engine and the Turboshaft Engine

demonstrators are successfully completed

Done according to the schedule.

A fully-fledged communication set for the

Technical Evaluator process and last

assessment is available at mid-year

Done, with limitations. The assessment based

on 2012 data was available before mid-year,

but communications on environmental data

has still to be improved.

3 This objective was revised during the year in order to bring the time to grant in line with the new provisions

set out in the H2020 rules, i.e. 8 months from the call closure, instead of 6 months. 4 This does not take into account a partial maturity level reached by a deliverable. Ony the total achievement of

deliverables is considered in the reporting.

Page 13 of 119

Administrative Objectives Outcome

A reliable financial management and

reporting to the JU's individual

stakeholders is ensured, in order to

maintain the confidence of the financing

parties, i.e. the European Community and

the industrial members and partners of CS

Achieved.

A clean opinion was reported by the European

Court of Auditors.

90% of cost claims are formally dealt with

(validated, put on hold or rejected) before

end of May

Achieved. 90%

Annual or multi-year Grant Agreements

for Members are signed by the Executive

Director in the first quarter of 2013

Not achieved.

4 Grant Agreements for Members were signed

in Q2 and 3 at the beginning of Q4 2013. The

delays were due to the JU review which

required updates to the original texts received

in the first quarter.

Ex-ante controls performed by the CS

team on costs claimed by beneficiaries are

based on a reliable procedure and identify

all exceptions visible from a desk review

of transmitted reports

Achieved.

Following the review by external auditors, all

exceptions identified in 2012 reports were

dealt with appropriately by the financial

officers.

The ex-post audits are performed

according to the plan and show a

materiality of errors lower than 2 % of

operational expenditure

Achieved: the residual error rate of the ex-post

audits (EPA) 2013 is 1.68%. However, due to

the high error rates of the EPA 2011, the

accumulated residual error for the EPA 2011

to 2013 remains still above 2 % (2.50%)

Besides this, a revised Clean Sky Development Plan (CSDP) was adopted by the Governing

Board in December 2013. This document updates, once a year, the strategic targets of the

JU: environmental forecasts, key technologies, demonstrators contents and schedule. The

main evolution concerned the cancellation of the Open Rotor flight test in Clean Sky, with

an expected inclusion in Clean Sky 2, the update of all major demonstrators’ planning,

based on progress of activities in 2013. The format of the document has also been improved

for better readability and track changes.


As regards the monitoring of operations, the results are summarized via a dashboard on the

CSJU level, for an efficient, quarterly reporting to the Governing Board.

Resources (%) Consumed (MM)

vs planned

Deliverables (%) Delivered vs

planned

Milestones (%) x Achieved vs

planned

SFWA 97 58 57

GRA 92 67 100

GRC 80 69 65

SAGE 99 76 70

SGO 92 76 71

ECO 91 80 65

TE 95 75 75

Weighted average5 96 70 67

The ITD performance reached a high level of budget execution, whereas the progress of

work achieved remained at a lower level. This was mainly due to delays and postponement

of activities with potential increased final costs in some major demonstrators. The JU will

reinforce the monitoring of activities and the cost to completion plans, to ensure the

achievement of the key demonstrators / TRL gates.

The foreseen budget execution of the Grant Agreement for Members for the full year

indicates an overall level of consumption6 as good as in 2012, while some of the ITDs

slightly improved compared to the previous year, as seen in the following table:

ITD 2012 GAM Execution

2013 GAM Execution

(%) SFWA 98% 92%

GRA 99% 82%

GRC 77% 75%

SAGE 91% 91%

SGO 88% 92%

ECO 82% 84%

TE 91% 96%

Weighted average 91% 88%

5 The weighted average has been calculated by considering the relative share of the individual ITD budgets of

the total operational annual budget. 6 This represents the foreseen GAM 2013 execution, based on the best validation status of ITDs costs at the

time of finilising the Annual Accounts.

Page 15 of 119

The global situation is satisfactory despite the shift of the flight test of the Open Rotor as

described in detail in the chapter 5 on SFWA (pages 31-34) and well in line with the

schedule of the activities. Most of the integration activities for finalizing the demonstrators

are still to come, where the highest costs will occur. In 2013, as described into more details

in Chapter 5 below, the SAGE 3 demonstrator (large engine) was continued and the SAGE 5

demonstrator (turboshaft for helicopters) was started.

The concern raised in 2012 by the relatively low level of budget execution and operational

activity in SAGE was solved in 2013, with a significant ramp-up. The annual review could

confirm a satisfactory level of activity and a technical progress in line with the plan.

The JU and the SAGE coordinators having reconsidered the full programme to completion,

it was acknowledged that a budget reduction of 2 M € could be agreed with minimal impact

on the final objectives of Work Packages 1, 3 and 6. All other Work Packages remain

unchanged. This amount was transferred to GRA in order to answer further needs for two

technical areas (environmental control system and cockpit structure), the scope of work of

which was expanded.

More widely, the JU continued questioning the appropriateness of all ITD budgets,

including internal budget distributions, compared to the current consumption and tasks

execution. This is a permanent task now, until the completion of the programme, in order to

optimize the global output of the programme. So far, no important demonstrator or

“technology streams” appears as defaulting. While some internal adjustments are made

within each ITD in order to focus on the priorities, no further transfer from ITD to ITD was

deemed appropriate in 2013.

However, as a matter of fact, the “BLADE” demonstrator of a Laminar Wing (high-speed

smart wing flight demonstrator) faced technical and management difficulties in 2013,

resulting in a delay of the demonstration flight but also a cost-to-completion increase, the

funding of which is still under consideration and not currently available within Clean Sky.

This demonstrator has been re-confirmed as a high priority for Clean Sky and for the SFWA

coordinators, Airbus and SAAB.

More key performance indicators are available to the Executive Director, for a closer

monitoring of all core processes of the JU. They are presented in Annex 3.

Risk management 3.2

3.2.1 General approach to risk management

As one major element of its Internal Control Framework, the JU assesses and manages with

a dedicated process the potential risks, which may be detrimental for achieving its

objectives. A Risk Register is maintained for the JU, providing information on the

description of the risk, the risk type (financial, operational and reputational), the related

business process and the required mitigating action.

The risk mitigating actions aim to contribute to the achievement of the following four

categories of objectives:


- Strategic (high-level goals, aligned with and supporting its mission)

- Operations (effective and efficient use of its resources)

- Reporting (reliability of reporting)

- Compliance (compliance with applicable laws and regulations).

The risk assessments are performed on different management levels:

- top-down assessment of the CSJU management team

- bottom-up assessment of the entire CSJU team through regular process reviews

- harmonised risk assessment on ITD level performed by the individual ITDs and

reported to the JU.

The following matrix shows the allocation of objectives to the levels of risk management in

the JUs organisation:

Top-down assessment

of CS management team Bottom-up assessment

of entire CS team ITDs’ risk assessment

Strategic high-level

goals X X

Effective and efficient

operations X X X

Reliable reporting X X

Regularity compliance X X

Program related objectives are closely monitored through the risk management within the

ITDs, for which the JU has identified its requirements in its Management Manual. ITDs’

risks, which can impact the objectives of the program, are consolidated in the CSJU Risk

Register.

For each Level 1 Work Package of the program, a risk analysis is conducted by the Work

Package Manager regarding the technical performance (achievement of the objectives) and

the schedule. They are assessed in the ITD annual reviews. Recommendations for improving

this risk management at operational level have been made in most reviews (in particular to

improve the consistency across ITDs).

The Internal Audit function of the JU, which is shared between the JU’s Internal Audit

Officer (IAO) and the Internal Audit Service of the Commission, had performed a separate,

independent risk assessment in 2011, which had been updated by the IAO in the year 2012

and 2013. A summary of results from the IAO’s risk assessment is reported in the Internal

Auditor's annual report, as mentioned in following paragraph 3.2.2.

The main risks for the JU relate to the operational objectives of the programme and to some

core management processes, which could have an impact on the implementation of the

overall programme.

Page 17 of 119

3.2.2 JU Level Risks:

Critical risks:

Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013

Comments on mitigation of

risk

The delays incurred for

developing the BLADE

demo could result in missing

the 2016 deadline

The criticality of the risk had not

been foreseen at the time when

the AIP was established.

The BLADE demonstration

program is based on an A340

FTB, whose problems of

availability has been discussed

at length; the configuration is

still being finalized as well as

the contribution of the different

actors in the supply chain (both

ITD associates and Partners).

The project requires a constant

attention to avoid slippage. The

JU is having periodic meetings

with the ITD coordinators in

order to monitor the remaining

activities and the related budget

impact.

The JU is actively following the necessary steps to have a detailed roadmap for the BLADE

Laminar Wing demonstrator defined as soon as possible with the aircraft industry and its

full supply chain members (see also section 6.1 dealing with this issue).

Very important risks:

Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

The initial delay and slow

ramp-up of Counter Rotating

Open Rotor (CROR) demo

resulted in missing the 2016

deadline in CS; the feasible

target remains the Ground test

of the demonstrator engine

(SAGE2).

Detailed roadmap secured.

Having got the “go–no go”

decision, the program needs

implementation at engine

manufacturer with constant

monitoring by the GB.

Being the Ground demonstrator

confirmed in 2015, the

preparatory phase for the flight

testing has continued with

contribution of the airframe.

The revised new roadmap was

constantly monitored in 2013.

Further attention will be

implemented in 2014, to avoid

any possible shift.

The JU will have periodic

reviews or meetings at ITD

Leaders level, to ensure the full

commitment of all the actors

involved.

Following the mitigating actions

taken during the year 2013, the

risk is considered as very

important compared to critical

during the year 2012.


Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

A late availability of ITD

aircraft models for the

Technology Evaluator (lack

of prioritization or lack of

technical inputs) could

prevent the environmental

benefits assessment to be

efficiently performed.

Tightly monitor the work

progress on this item through the

Project Officers and the GAMs.

Have preliminary models

implemented where needed.

The updated interfacing and

joint program between the ITDs

and TE for the finalization of the

models and the TE assessment

was consolidated in 2013, by

aligning the related Grant

Agreements.

In 2014, further monitoring of

the deliverables’ content and

dates will be implemented as a

mandatory action, to avoid

partial completion or late

delivery of the TE report.

Conflicts of priorities may

happen within industrial

companies, or change of

strategy, resulting in a lack of

resources available for Clean

Sky and delays in the

completion of the activities.

Have an early warning

capability through quarterly

reports and alert at Governing

Board level.

Propose re-orientations when

needed and possible.

Attention has been brought to

this risk at highest level and

action has been taken by the GB.

In 2013, the status of critical

activities related to

demonstrators in all ITDs and

members / associates involved

in critical tasks, was reported to

the GB.

In 2014 dedicated reviews will

be proposed on the most critical

areas, as a further action to

mitigate the risk.

The “share of the pie” logic

could result in a lack of focus

on the major, critical

activities.

Reinforce the role of steering

Committees and GB in

monitoring and solving issues.

Challenge the ITDs in order that

they focus on optimising the

global output.

As the position of each ITD is

typically to keep the ITD budget

unaffected and redistribute

internally, without consideration

for release to the JU of any

unspent budget, the role of the

JU and the GB becomes

essential in avoiding that some

funding remains unallocated or

allocated to non-essential

activities; a first step was

proposed at GB level in 2013,

by the shift of some budget

among ITDs.

This will be further

implemented in 2014 by

monitoring on a quarterly basis

the actual execution of the

programmes at ITD level, again

proposing to the GB to consider

budget modification where

appropriate.

Page 19 of 119

Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

Topics failures in CfPs could

hamper the realisation of the

demonstrators, or cause

delays in the execution of the

planned activities.

Implement the dedicated action

plan; improve the calls

dissemination, involve the

NSRG better, anticipate

focussed technical presentations

for “risky” topics.

In 2013 dedicated information

meetings took place for critical

topics involving targeted

potential applicants. The

dissemination was reinforced on

all calls and critical topics.

ITD were alerted on the need to

define plans B for the activities

defined in the topics as soon as

possible, to avoid too high

impact on the plans.

However, in 2014 further

prevention of low participation

rates for certain topics will be

ensured, by involving the NSRG

in special dissemination and

promotion of the Call launched

by the JU

A delay or a lack of topics for

CfP in some ITDs could

prevent from achieving the

200 M€ target.

Check the capability of each

ITD and re-balance funding

accordingly.

Monitor the global JU funding

level for CfPs without the

constraint of allocation to each

ITD.

Call 16 published at end 2013 is

targeted to be the last one for

Clean Sky. The achievement of

the target is to be closely

monitored and regularly

discussed in ITD meetings. In

2013 a continuous assessment of

the situation involved also the

check of execution of the active

GAPs and the consideration to

close those GAPs which are not

performing as expected or where

negotiation was dragging

beyond acceptable limits; thus

releasing the allocated budget

and allowing a more precise

assessment of the committed

GAP budget.

In 2014, with the intense

promotion of the Call 16, the JU

expects to reach or even

overshoot the 200 M€ threshold.

However, options for mitigating

or compensating a possible gap

to target are already considered.


Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

The pressure to execute the

CfP budget could lead to

defining topics of lower

interest to the demonstrators.

Check the topics abstracts and

the topics descriptions at JU

level and rebalance funding if

necessary, to the most relevant

topics.

Through the approval of the list

of topics for Call 16 by the GB

before actual publication the JU

ensured the relevance of the

final selected topics. At the JU

management level, topic

descriptions were closely

analysed and monitored, leading

in some isolated cases to

rejection of topics by the JU’s

Project Officers.

Technical setbacks in one or

several ITDs may result in a

significant under-spending of

annual budget.

Re-balance the budget across

ITDs and with Partners if

necessary at mid-year, according

to the 2nd

quarterly reports.

As a result of the monitoring of

the JU, a revision of the budget

envelopes of individual ITDs

was adopted by the GB in

March 2013 to reflect the

updated technical roadmap. This

revision took due account of the

outcome of calls within each of

the ITD budgets also.

There is a risk that IPR /

confidentiality issues may

result in vague information to

the end-user/interested party

and therefore compromise the

JU reputation for

disseminating the research

information gathered through

the CS programme.

Harmonize the dissemination

plans of ITDs

Monitor the dissemination

actions

Have a global Clean Sky

technical conference in 2013

Define a template for the PUDF

(Plan for Use and Dissemination

of Foreground) and PEF (Plan

for Exploitation of Foreground)

for all ITDs

Implementation is in progress

through ITD coordination.

On the 2013 reporting side, the

JU has defined, as committed in

the previous AAR, two specific

templates, the « PUDF » (Plan

for Use and Dissemination of

Foreground) and the « PUEF »

(Plan for Use and Exploitation

of Foreground) which are

applicable to all ITDs and will

be included in the latest revision

process of the Management

Manual in the 1st Quarter 2014.

With regard to the PUDF, the

ITDs are requested to collect

and report on the data at ITD

level (not at single beneficiary

level) and to collect also data

from the relevant GAPs

beneficiaries contributing to

their respective ITD.

Page 21 of 119

Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

There is a risk of insufficient

communication from the JU

and ITDs resulting in loss of

interest / support from

industry and EU institutions

in short-term and long-term

which could lead to

reduction/abandonment of

participation.

Improve lobbying actions

towards EU key players.

Continue dissemination /

lobbying activities with Member

States rep. and national

industrial associations.

Continued actions have been

taken during the year to improve

the EP awareness of CS through

specific meetings with MEPs.

In addition the JU management

met Member States

representatives in Brussels

(COREPER level), in particular

those holding the EU

presidency.

On the occasion of the Airshow

Le Bourget, the JU raised the

awareness of policy makers

about the CS programme’s

technical achievements, e.g.

meeting with Members of the

French Parliament and Senate,

visit of the EU Commissioners

cabinets (Transport and

Research) to the JU’s stand,

meeting with a national minister

for Economic Affairs (of the

Netherlands).

The rigidity of the current

MSPP7 in allowing the

allocation of more staff to the

JU, despite the Governing

Board’s support, could result

in a continuous backlog of

grant agreements and

resulting payments affecting

both activities progressing

and budget execution of the

JU both within the JU and in

the ITDs.

Get support from the Members

according to the Statutes, and/or

make use of framework

contracts to service providers, to

be signed during Q2 2013 after a

public procurement.

The JU procured the services of

its members through a

procurement process and

finalised its tender for the

provision of external support to

the JU; it used the services of its

members from September 2013.

However, these procurements

have not yet fully met the need

and could not prevent certain

delays in processing grant files

and related payments.

The above mentioned

understaffing could result in

insufficient ex-ante control,

resulting in an error rate

above the limit of 2%.

Same action as above.

Educate the members and apply

the recently defined procedure

to make sure that potential errors

from previous year are checked

and detected in cost claims.

The JU ex-ante controls have

been strengthened with the

experience gained and as a result

of lessons learned; in addition,

the JU continues to provide

information sessions to

beneficiaries and in 2013,

invited the CFS auditors to

attend an info workshop for this

purpose; the declining error rate

detected in the ex-post audits of

2012 and 2013 indicate a

positive trend of enhancing

robustness of ex-ante controls.

7 Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan


Risk Description

Action Plan Summary

from AIP 2013


risk

The rigidity of the current

MSPP8 in allowing

promotions within the JU

could result in a turnover of

staff and loss of experience

and knowledge of the JU and

efficiency.

Ask again for such promotion

possibility in the next MSPP.

The CSJU together with other

JUs insisted further in meetings

with the Commission to have

this right for its staff; this

possibility is to be re-opened for

the CS2 Joint Undertaking.

In the course of the year 2013, two risks have been identified, which were not considered as

very important at the time of establishing the risk register for the AIP 2013.

Risk Description

Action Plan Summary


risk

The lack of experience in

European Research

Programmes from many

Partners (SMEs) could result

in a difficult and late closure

process of their projects.9

Reinforce the information,

mainly through relevant

Information Days and Web

conferences; reinforce the role

and the awareness of Topic

Managers.

In 2013, the ITD were alerted on

the need for proper profile of the

appointed Topic Manager for

CFPs; and for guaranteeing

adequate support for the partners

being selected, through the

dedicated Info Days or Info

Sessions, including IP/ Financial

aspects, to prevent long

negotiation times and ineffective

execution of the projects. This

was implemented for Call 14

published and evaluated in the

year.

In 2014 the selected Projects from

Call 15 and those of Call 16, will

be further monitored by the POs

to prevent unjustified delay in

finalization.

CS2 program may impact the

strategic approach and

interests of some of the

industrial key players in the

current program under FP7,

thus hampering the JU

achieving its strategic

environmental objectives.

Make sure the focus on CS

activities is not affected by the

preparation phase of CS2.

Maintain proper commitment of

all JU staff on the CS Grant

Agreements and GAP

monitoring.

The GB members and the JU

management together with the

ITD Coordinators monitor closely

the implementation of the

strategic planning on member

level. Deviations from the CSDP

require adequate justification. The

CS2 Joint Technical Proposal

(JTP) is built under the

assumption that CS objectives are

met. Any reorganisation of

CS/CS2 technical roadmaps and

the alignment of the 2

programmes are performed under

control of the JU management and

GB.

8 Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan

9 Meanwhile this risk has been incorporated in the JU’s risk register and is reflected in the AIP 2014.

Page 23 of 119

3.2.3 ITD Level Risks:

The ITDs manage the risks inside their projects via risk registers, using the methodology

defined by the JU management although applying different formats; they discuss the

evolution of the risks in the Steering Committees of the ITDs as a standard item. The overall

responsibility for the risk management of each ITD lies with the ITD Co, who receives input

from the ITD associates according to internally defined processes in the consortium.

Risks have been addressed at 2 levels:

- associated to the CSDP and associated technologies and demonstrators

- associated to the Annual work plans and associated to work packages

and with a view to 4 categories of targets:

- technical (WP, TRL & Environmental)

- schedule

- costs

- input and resources planned and needed

The following list presents the significant risks at ITD level, whose evolution in 2013 has

had an important effect on the ITD activities and achievement of objectives; in some cases

the mitigation actions have not resulted in a significant reduction of risk, either due to a lack

of an effective risk mitigation strategy or unexpected changes, which were detrimental for

the actions taken.

ITD Risk Comment

ECO Actual assessment of

effort needed to develop

an LCA for aeronautical

products

Verify and monitor the execution of the LCA activities in

ECO, in order to be consistent with the scope and the

budget to completion of the ITD.

GRA Content and timing of

flight demonstrator Constant monitoring of the two major demonstrators

(ATR 72 FTB and Cockpit ground demo), with dedicated

reviews where appropriate. GRC Consistency of GRC

projects Some overspending in a few important projects in GRC

and the request for increased funding to complete the

activities to higher TRL levels, make it necessary to

verify and discuss the allocation of budget to the ITD, as

cost to completion. This together with the need to

monitor the actual spending of the ITDs, where some

under spending appeared at end of 2013. SAGE CROR See JU Level Risks

SFWA CROR/BLADE See JU Level Risks

SGO Availability of electric

FTB This flight test is being discussed and finalized at last for

2015. Verify and monitor the planning of the A320 FTB

in SGO, in order to be consistent with the scope and the

budget to completion of the ITD.

TE Availability of inputs

from ITDs to perform

assessment

Although specified in the interfaces between ITDs and

TE, both in technical content (models’ characteristics)

and in timing, the inputs to TE are delayed, with Impact

on the planned issue of TE Assessment Studies. This has

consequences on the deadlines also at JU level and on the

JU visibility. Unchanged and covered by above Very

Important Risk at JU level.


4. CLEAN SKY GOVERNANCE

No changes have been introduced in the CSJU governance in 2013. It is composed of three

bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive Director and the ITD Steering Committees. It is

also supported by three advisory groups: the Scientific and Technological Advisory Board,

the General Forum and the National States Representatives Group.

Governing Board 4.1

The Governing Board is composed of 19 members: the EC, with veto rights on matters of

public concern, the 12 founding members of Clean Sky and one Associate member for each

of the 6 ITDs, representing itself and the other Associates in the same ITD. These

Associates in 2013 were: ONERA, MTU, Hellenic Aerospace, NL Cluster, Diehl

Aerosystems Holding GmbH and ATR. The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Governing Board

are elected for one year term, renewable once. On the meeting of December 13th 2012, the

Governing Board elected Alessandro Franzoni (Alenia Aermacchi) as Chairman and Ric

Parker (Rolls-Royce) Vice-Chairman for 2013. At the beginning of May, the Chairman

informed CSJU that he had to resign from the Chairmanship. CSJU organised then the

written procedure n° 2013 – 09, to allow the GB Members to elect a new Chairman.

Massimo Lucchesini (Alenia Aermacchi) was elected.

The CS JU Governing Board had 4 meetings during 2013, on:

22 March 2013

2 July 2013

11 October 2013

13 December 2013

The Governing Board has adopted during 2013 the following key documents in its

meetings:

22nd

March 2013

Strategic Audit Plan 2013 of the Internal Audit Officer

Revision n°1 Budget to completion

Budget amendment 2013 n°1

2nd

July 2013

Annual Implementation Plan 2013 - Amendment n°1

Assessment of Annual Activity Report 2012

11th

October 2013

Revision n°2 Budget to completion

Budget amendment 2013 n°2

13th

December 2013

Adoption by the Governing Board of the call 16 topics list

Clean Sky Development Plan v 4

Annual Implementation Plan 2014

Budget 2014

Establishment Plan 2014

Page 25 of 119

Code of conduct for the prevention and mitigation of conflicts of interest of the private

members of the Governing Board

It can be noted that most of the decisions have been adopted unanimously or very close to

unanimity, showing a smooth and efficient decision-making process. Each Governing Board

is prepared by a "Sherpa Group" meeting, chaired by the JU. The GB acted according to its

adopted Rules of Procedures, which remained unchanged in the year 2013.

The following 12 written procedures were successfully adopted:

2013 - 02 Decision n° 78 on the validation of the in-kind contribution provided by

non-EC members to the CSJU through the execution of the Grant Agreements 2008,

2009, 2010 and 2011

2013 - 03 Provisional Accounts and Budgetary Implementation Report 2012

2013 - 04 Revision of the GAM and GAP models

2013 - 05 Call 13 outcome

2013 - 06 Carry over 2012-2013

2013 - 09 Chairman Elections

2013 - 010 Clean Sky Development Plan

2013 - 011 Validation of in-kind contribution 2012

2013 - 012 Final Accounts 2012

2013 - 013 Call 14 outcome

2013 - 014 CSJU procurement procedure “Provision of External Support for the

Clean Sky Joint Undertaking “ Ref. CSJU.2013.OP.01

2013 - 015 Validation of the in-kind contribution provided by non EC members

2008-2012

Executive Director 4.2

The Executive Director is the legal representative and the chief executive for the day-to-day

management of the CS JU in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board in line

with Article 6 of the CS Statutes.

The Executive Director is supported by two managers: the Coordinating Project Officer and

the Head of Administration and Finance. One Project Officer per ITD and the TE allows the

JU to play its coordination role. In September 2013, the Executive Director decided to

appoint the TE Project Officer as Deputy to the Coordinating Project Officer and as Clean

Sky 2 Programme Manager Ad Interim.

The JU’s management acts on the basis of its quality system documents, which are listed in

the JU’s Quality Manual. Interactions with the ITDs are mainly governed by the

Management Manual.

ITD Steering Committees 4.3

Each Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) is in charge of one specific technology line

within the CS programme. The ITD and Technology Evaluator (TE) Steering Committees

are responsible for technical decisions taken within each ITD and the TE and have met

regularly in the course of 2013. The relevant Project Officer, supported when needed by the


Coordinating Project Officer or the Executive Director, attends these meetings. The

Executive Director in particular chairs the TE Steering Committee meetings.

Scientific and Technical Advisory Board 4.4

The Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB) is a body of now 10 high-level

scientists and engineers, all independent from CS JU stakeholders. Its purpose is to focus on

the scientific and technical analysis of Clean Sky from different perspectives: besides

environmental impact; technology and scientific forecast; societal aspects; economics.

Chaired by David Ewins, Professor at the Bristol University and the Imperial College, it met

five times in 2013: besides the planned meetings, two extraordinary meeting were held to

discuss the evolution of Clean Sky and the criteria for the assessment of the technical

proposals.

The STAB provided recommendations on the necessity to focus on the mainstream of large

demonstrators, on the schedule management, the strengthening of the system-level vision

and the management of resources in the leading companies. Two STAB members, on

average, participated in each ITD annual review, according to their expertise area, mostly

with the same distribution as in 2012, for continuity purposes, while some rotation is also

organized for the sake of cross experience and for bringing fresh views. The main

recommendations and general views on the technical progress issued by the STAB were

forwarded by the Executive Director to the Governing Board on 11th

October 2013.

In 2013, “interim progress reviews” involving for each ITD the reviewers, the JU Project

Officer, Coordinating Project Officer and Executive Director, the coordinators and when

necessary the work package leaders, were held six months after the annual review, in order

to check the implementation of the recommendations and to update the reviewers on the

technical progress. These interim reviews proved quite helpful and demonstrated a

satisfactory situation in most work packages, or sub-projects.

Besides this, dedicated reviews were organized when deemed necessary by the Executive

Director: examples of this were a specific review of the TE activities and the link with ITDs

about model preparation, held before summer, and a review at the end of the year on

BLADE demonstrator issues.

National States Representatives Group 4.5

The National States Representative Group (NSRG) is an advisory body to the Clean Sky

Joint Undertaking. Article 10 of the Council regulation setting up Clean Sky outlines that it

will, review information and provide opinion on programme progress in the CS JU,

compliance and the meeting of targets, updating of strategic orientation or links to

Framework Programme Collaborative Research. It shall also provide input to Joint

Undertaking on the interface with relevant national research programmes and identification

of potential areas of cooperation, as well as specific measures taken at national level with

regard to dissemination events, dedicated technical workshops and communication

activities.

Page 27 of 119

It consists of one representative of each EU Member State and of each other country

associated with the Framework Programme. It is chaired by one of these representatives. To

ensure that the activities are integrated, the Clean Sky Executive Director and the Chair of

the Governing Board or his representative attend the NSRG meetings and the Chair of the

NSRG attends as an observer at the Clean Sky Governing Board.

During 2013 the NSRG met five times and was represented at the Governing Board

meetings. Two of the meetings were held outside Brussels, both in Italy, one at Agusta

Westland where members were presented the proposal for the CS2 demonstrator based on

Next generation Tilt Rotor, while the other was hosted by Alenia Aermacchi in Pomigliano

where the members visited the laboratories and assembly of the One Piece Barrel fuselage

demonstrator.

Again in 2013 the NSRG members were invited to participate in the General Forum in

November. The NSRG continued to be very supportive of Clean Sky and members take a

proactive and supportive role particularly in its relations with the European Council.

The Group has taken an active interest in the rules and conditions being used for Calls for

Proposals and the selection of Partners in order to ensure and demonstrate transparency and

accountability. The NSRG has received and discussed the reports of the independent

observers.

The NSRG has also been interested in monitoring the development of the different ITDs and

the maturing of the Technology Evaluator.National States have continued their supportive

view on the continuation of the JTI instrument under H2020.

Following the study carried out in previous years on the role and activities of the NSRG, the

specific actions identified were actively pursued. These related to:

Representation from all relevant states and their attendance at meetings.

Coordination with national programs.

Information dissemination and Info days

Participation to major Clean Sky events. Involvement of NSRG members in

Communication activities of JU; participation of the new JU Communication Officer

to some meetings in order to define a plan.

General Forum 4.6

The General Forum is a statutory assembly open to all members and partners of the Clean

Sky programme.

Clean Sky 2013 General Forum took place on 20th

November in Brussels. In the presence of

a large number of Members and Partners, the management of Clean Sky Joint Undertaking

presented a general update about the current Clean Sky programme, the stay of play of 2013

activities and an overview of the implementation of the budget. The event was followed by a

Clean Sky 2 General Information Day on 21st November, attended by 340 participants. The

meeting was divided in two parts: a plenary session in the morning, followed by workshops

on specific topics in the afternoon.

The plenary session was focused on programme implementation in 2012 (technical and

financial), forecast for the year 2014 and implementation of recommendations from 2012

General Forum among others.


The four workshops organized in the afternoon had the objective to develop

recommendations around the following aspects:

Dissemination of results and patenting CS outputs

What is the “Ideal Size of Topics” in the view of Members and Partners, taking

the lessons learnt from Clean Sky in CfP into consideration?

Experiences of relationship between Topic managers and partners

Root causes of unanswered topics

Each workshop gathered on average 20 participants and the discussion between the

participants was very fruitful.

In total, 19 recommendations were proposed to improve the processes in Clean Sky, to

capture Clean Sky lessons learnt and to implement the best practises from the early stage of

Clean Sky 2. They were all presented during the conclusion of the general session. The main

recommendations were the following:

It was proposed to develop tools for dissemination, exploitation and use of foreground or

to support applicants to disseminate their results and to patent the best technologies. A

first step is now under way with reporting templates proposed to the beneficiaries.

In view of the preparation of Clean Sky 2, participants from SMEs presented their

research activities and the way they are handled in the frame of the Grant Agreement for

Partners. In order to increase benefits of projects on both side (Partners and Members),

they recommended to open activities to Partners lasting at least 2 years, with a minimum

budget of 500k €. They also mentioned the need to better define topics at the time of the

launch, and to address this definition in a 2 stage-approach process, explaining that this

should allow a better understanding of needs and requirements and it should provide a

better visibility on potential use and exploitation during and beyond the project. This is

part of the lessons learnt for Clean Sky 2, the last Clean Sky call having been published

at the end of 2013.

The current relationship (both legal and operational) between Partners, Topic Managers

and Project Officers was deeply discussed and it was agreed to confirm and clarify the

technical and strategic role of Project Officers in this process, to develop the necessary

links to tie all actors involved, to make explicit financial aspects related to Service

providers in Call text description and to adjust the Implementation Agreement template

to the complexity and size of projects.

Finally, it was debated how the success rate on calls could be increased both in Clean

Sky and in Clean Sky 2. Some recommendations complemented the workshop on the

“ideal size of topics” proposed a more open process without any fixed budget (mainly

indicative) to allow a certain flexibility to adjust the content during the evaluation or

along the course of the project, while keeping the compliance with the rules. It was

deemed essential to better assess the link between proposed activities and their impact

on the work programme, to better communicate and explain the process as it may appear

complex and to avoid any overlaps between calls linked to the collaborative research

and Clean Sky.

Page 29 of 119

5. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Reminder: Clean Sky Research Objectives 5.1

Clean Sky supports research activities carried out by the non-EC members of Clean Sky and

by partners selected following open and competitive Calls for Proposals, independent

evaluations and negotiations leading to the conclusion of grant agreements with partners.

CSJU aims to create a radically innovative Air Transport System based on the integration of

advanced technologies and full scale demonstrators, with the target of reducing the

environmental impact of air transport through reduction of noise and gaseous emissions, and

improvement of the fuel economy of aircraft. The activity covers all main flying segments

of the Air Transport System and the associated underlying technologies identified in the

Strategic Research Agenda for Aeronautics developed by the Aeronautics Technology

Platform ACARE.

Clean Sky is built upon 6 different technical areas called Integrated Technology

Demonstrators (ITDs), where preliminary studies and down-selection of work will be

performed, followed by large-scale demonstrations on ground or in-flight, in order to bring

innovative technologies to a maturity level where they can be applicable to new generation

“green aircraft”. Multiple links for coherence and data exchange will be ensured between

the various ITDs.

The ITDs are:

The Small Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD (SFWA), focused on active wing technologies

that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well as on new aircraft

configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing concepts.

The Green Regional Aircraft ITD (GRA), focused on low-weight configurations and

technologies using smart structures, low-noise configurations and the integration of

technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines, energy management and

mission and trajectory management.

The Green Rotorcraft ITD (GRC), focused on innovative rotor blades and engine

installation for noise reduction, lower airframe drag, diesel engine and electrical

systems for fuel consumption reduction and environmentally friendly flight paths.

The Sustainable and Green Engine ITD (SAGE) integrates technologies for low

noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high efficiency, low NOx and low

weight core, novel configurations such as open rotors or intercoolers.

The Systems for Green Operations ITD (SGO) focuses on all-electric aircraft

equipment and systems architectures, thermal management, capabilities for “green”

trajectories and mission and improved ground operations.

The Eco-Design ITD (ED) addresses the full life cycle of materials and components,

focusing on issues such as optimal use of raw materials, decreasing the use of non-

renewable materials, natural resources, energy, and the emission of noxious effluents

and recycling.

A Technology Evaluator will be the first available European complete integrated tool

delivering direct relationship between advanced technologies, still under development, and

high-level local or global environment impact. It considers inputs from both inside and


outside the “Clean Sky” perimeter to deliver environmental metrics and the levels of

aircraft, airport and aircraft fleet level.

As aircraft fuel economy is also influenced by a flight trajectory management strategy, CS

JU has established links with the SESAR Joint Undertaking which investigates Air Traffic

Management (ATM) technologies in line with the "Single European Sky" initiative of the

European Commission. These links are established via the Technology Evaluator, as well as

via the SGO ITD that develops the avionics equipment interfacing with ATM, and via

management meetings involving the relevant staff members of the two JUs (i.e. for Clean

Sky, the SGO Project Officer, up to the two Executive Directors).

In the following chapters, the detailed description of activities and achievements by ITD and

TE is provided, with indications and explanations of significant deviations compared with

initial planning, where applicable.

Clean Sky 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel Report 5.2

The Clean Sky Second “interim assessment” report was released last November by the

Panel of independent experts appointed by the European Commission. Among other

positive comments, it highlights that “the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators

portfolio is of high quality” and “is convinced that the Joint Undertaking has created an

effective dialogue between industry and research around a common strategic agenda and

has successfully implemented it”. Beyond this general statements, many recommendations

for further improvements have been put together, in particular for Clean Sky 2, in various

areas like the project management processes, the TRL monitoring, the overall

management by the Executive Team, the flexibility within and across ITDs.

More information is available in the Annex 5: Executive Summary of the Clean Sky 2nd

Interim Assessment Panel Report 2013.

Page 31 of 119

6. ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE MEMBERS

SFWA - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD 6.1

In 2013, the majority of activities in the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft – Integrated Technology

Demonstrator (SFWA-ITD) are related to the preparation, testing and evaluation of diverse

large ground based demonstrators and wind tunnel tests and the detailed design and the start

of manufacturing of the BLADE (Breakthrough Laminar Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe)

flight test demonstrator hardware. This project is the key one in SFWA and therefore, it is

accounting for approximately half of the activities, respectively spends in SFWA in the year

2013.

Accommodated by Airbus, the work package SFWA3.1, led in 2013 to the completion of

most of the design and preparation work before manufacturing and assembly for all major

components of the hardware contributing to convert the Airbus A340-300 MSN001 test

aircraft to the BLADE flight test vehicle. The key focus was to secure the start of the flight

test activities in the years 2015/2016, and therefore the work plan was partially reviewed. As

result, in 2013 the schedule and work sharing was updated. To improve some issues and to

converge in the integrated design, detailed structural design, and geometry and interface

loads the work share of Airbus was increased. This was especially true for the fuselage pod

and fixed trailing edge activities. As a risk mitigation means, the shift of the camera pod into

the VTP (vertical tail plane) was investigated, in order to ensure aircraft stability and to ease

the fulfilment of load and strength requirements; to reduce parts manufacturing was aimed

as well. Visualisation of laminar flow in a similar way is a key objective by this transfer

investigation. In order to ease and ensure ‘permit to flight’ some activities of the respective

design work will be now accomplished under the leadership of Airbus with assistance of the

respective associate. Final decisions are expected beginning of 2014. A dedicated

management process with quarterly review meetings was successfully applied in order to

handle the activities of such a complex project with more than 20 partners with completely

different background.

The “Low Speed Demonstrator” flight test program was updated taking into account the

different levels of maturity of the required technologies. As a result, two demonstrators, one

for a “smart flap” and one for an “active system” started in 2012. The latter one is to

attenuate vibrations caused by flow separation. This work has reached sufficient maturity in

2012 allowing a go-ahead decision for the corresponding demonstrator in January 2013. The

vibration control demonstration PDR was passed at the end of November 2013.

Another major objective of the SFWA-ITD in 2013 was the development and maturation of

advanced concepts for the integration of alternative environmentally friendly engines, here

with focus on the Counter Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) concept for next generation large

passenger short range aircraft, in innovative turbofan engines for business jets.

A significant number of wind tunnel tests and numerical simulations have been performed

on the integration of the CROR concept into a future “single aisle” short range aircraft.

These activities have come close to completion with a principle analysis and review of the

results in mid-2013 as well as the validation consolidated with Computational Fluid

Dynamics. The outcome, namely the plan for flight testing of a full scale CROR

demonstrator engine on an Airbus A340 test aircraft will be revised and eventually further

detailed. The test itself, which is now scheduled to take place beyond the Clean Sky


programme following the SFWA activities, will require a significant modification of the

aircraft, whose preparatory work will continue until 2016 on the developed status in 2013.

For business jets an entirely new noise-shielding rear empennage has been designed in

SFWA in the previous years. The promising results achieved in 2012 led to the decision to

build a full scale structural demonstrator. The detailed design work continued through 2013

supported with numerical studies and a number of large scale wind tunnel tests. The flutter

tests devoted to specific aero-elasticity phenomena which appear in U-tail intersecting

surface configurations passed the PDR in June 2013.

SFWA-ITD work depends to a large extent on knowhow which is not always available in

the SFWA consortium. Hence for specialist activities the programme relies on external

partners which enter the programme via Call for Proposals (CfP). The support provided by

those partners in the past is highly appreciated and expected to continue on a high level in

2014.

Integration of SFWA-ITD technologies

The development, integration and large scale ground and flight testing of the SFWA-ITD

technologies are based upon a structured maturation of the underlying principle

technologies. In 2013, the majority of technologies are advanced at technology readiness

levels typically between TRL3 to TRL4. In other words, the majority of activities were

focused on the integration and ground testing of principle technologies.

In parallel to ground and wind tunnel testing, the assessment of the SFWA was performed

and a defined set of aircraft concepts was conducted. A generic short range aircraft model

and two different types of business jets models provide this virtual environment. The

assessment of the technologies developed in SFWA and in the related Integrated

Technology Demonstrators will be supported in the Clean Sky Technology Evaluator. The

related actors in SFWA2.3 and the coordinator contributed to a dedicated Clean Sky

technical audit to identify and remove the root causes of late and incomplete deliveries to

the TE in 2012 and early 2013. Recovery measures proposed by the reviewers have been

successfully implemented in the work program during the year.

Wind tunnel tests and ground demonstrators

Six out of eight wind tunnel tests were conducted in 2013. Most of the models required for

these tests have been designed and manufactured in the SFWA-ITD in the years 2011 and

2012.

In early 2013 noise and aerodynamic performance of a CROR propulsion demonstrator were

measured in the DNW (German-Dutch Wind Tunnels). Three different propeller blade

designs and two CROR engine propulsion simulators can be used on a 1/7 scale full span

model of a generic passenger aircraft. The model is heavily instrumented to allow an

extensive evaluation and comparison of the different CROR configurations.

For investigating an innovative tail design for business jets, two wind tunnel tests are

planned to investigate the tail design in combination with advanced turbofan engines. One

test will focus on the aerodynamic design and one on the noise footprint. Both tests were

prepared in 2013 to be conducted in 2014. The tests will be accompanied by numerical

Page 33 of 119

simulations and studies evaluating the flutter behaviour of the configuration’s rear end

design.

Improvement of the low speed performance of wings is another key topic in SFWA-ITD. A

series of smaller research type wind tunnel tests were conducted in 2013 looking into

several passive and active flow control technologies, to enhance the performance of the

wing, particular at the trailing edge of high lift devices, to evaluate the aerodynamic

efficiency of grooved paint surfaces and to pursue activities related to gust alleviation. The

latter are devoted to the identification of the response of an aero-elastic model to an

impacting gust under transonic flow conditions. An Open loop control model (an aerofoil

equipped with a trailing edge flap) is prepared for wind tunnel testing in early 2014.

In 2013 many partners who joined SFWA-ITD via Call for Proposals in 2010, 2011 and

2012 completed their contracted work. These partners are primarily small and medium-sized

enterprises, but also research establishments and universities from all over Europe.

For the development of the laminar “smart wing” wing concept for large passenger aircraft,

a ground based wing section demonstrator including a moveable Krueger high lift device are

close to completion at the end of 2013.

Wing ice protection creates another challenge for laminar wings. In SFWA-ITD an ice

protection system, tailored particularly for integration into leading edges of laminar wings,

is tested in a ground demonstrator to validate design and manufacturing methods. These

tests are accompanied by bird strike and lightning strike tests as well as repair concepts.

Many of the preparatory activities of the ground demonstrators are carried out with strong

support of Clean Sky Call for Proposal partners who joined SFWA-ITD in 2010 and 2011.

For testing the low drag business jet wing concept developed in SFWA, a full scale wing

leading edge ground based demonstrator was designed in 2013, to be tested on the ground

and in an icing tunnel in 2014.

SFWA-ITD looks also into improvement of Riblet technology which reduces surface drag in

turbulent boundary layers. Since 2011 in-flight data are collected on Riblet patches applied

to two Airbus A340 #300 passenger aircraft in commercial operation. The data are supposed

to provide information on the long term performance of Riblet under real life conditions.

This activity is performed by an airline which joined SFWA-ITD via a Call for Proposals

contract which ended in 2013 with the presentation of the results.

Workshare of partners through CfP-topics

Knowhow and support from external partners is important for reaching the envisaged

technology readiness levels in SFWA-ITD. In 2013 sixteen individual work packages were

defined for publication in Call for Proposal #15 and #16. The scope of activities cover the

development and integration of special measurement equipment into the test aircraft, the

integration of advanced high lift devices into natural laminar wing structures and support in

the experimental ground and flight test campaigns. Concerning CROR, the manufacturing of

an advanced pylon beam including the necessary structural support in the airframe able to

carry a large size test engine is another key topic being offered to external partners. Other

topics concerned the development and calibration of instrumentation for measuring the flow

pattern close and behind such an engine, the development of equipment for measuring the


deformation of propeller blades in flight and, finally, conducting wind tunnel tests related to

the integration of an advanced engine.

All external partners joining via Call for Proposal actions will have to start their work

package in 2014 and complete the work in 2015 or 2016, respectively.

Major achievements of the year 2013 were:

• Completion of the Critical Design Review process for the Airbus A340 based

BLADE flight test demonstrator (“Maturity C” phase to continue in 2014)

• Completion of all detailed design activities for BLADE

• Start of manufacturing of main sub-assemblies for BLADE

• Start of the procurement process for the Hangar and equipment for the BLADE

“final assembly line”

• Start of the assembly activities for the BLADE laminar wing articles, in particular

the preparation of required tooling

• Completion of the CROR propulsion integration feasibility study

• Concept freeze and the design work for the CROR-engine demonstrator Flying Test

Bed (CROR demo-FTB) launched

• Low speed vibration control flight test demonstration launched

• Conduct of the Preliminary Design Review for the Business-Jet innovative

empennage demonstrator

• Completion of the smart wing leading edge structural feature demonstrator and

preparation for testing

• Test of a wing ice protection concept for the laminar wing leading edge

• Preparation and conduction of a wind tunnel tests with concepts for the integration

of innovative engines on business jets.

• Complete wind tunnel test activities for active flow control

• Complete long endurance in-flight tests of functional surface coatings on in-service

aircraft including analysis of the measurements

• Evaluate, select and contract new partners for work packages published in

subsequent CleanSky Call for Proposals

• Complete the development of a set of concept aircraft models for the evaluation of

SFWA technologies in the CleanSky Technology Evaluator

Page 35 of 119

GRA – Green Regional Aircraft ITD 6.2

The year 2013 saw the finalisation of the detailed concept of the GRA Flight and Ground

integrated technology Demonstrators, supported by a significant range of laboratory tests.

The original Programme master phasing plan has been fulfilled in terms of research targets,

mostly at TRL 4 with two outstanding at TRL 5 as monitored and controlled through the

“technology watch” plan, and furthermore implementing the experts panel

recommendations.

GRA-ITD performance models were improved towards the ACARE targets: GRA Aircraft

Simulation Model for Reference (Year 2000 Technology) & Green (Year 2020 Technology)

90 pax and 130 pax A/C, based on 2nd

activities loop, were delivered to TE

The GRA Flight Simulator (ATR-72 600 A/C configuration), integrating green enforced

flight management system (Green FMS), successfully performed the following functions

tests:

Green Cost Index function, flying from Naples to Venice (Green FMS 1st release),

Optimum Flight Level and Windows altitude Constraints, flying from Rome Fiumicino to

Milan Linate (Green FMS 2nd

release).

GRA-ITD reviewers visited the A/C Demonstrators, namely the section of fuselage and the

wing item, also attending some tests proving the strength of key structures against hail

sphere up to 2.75 cm in diameter and against drop of tools up to 30J of energy.

The GRA advanced research risk management plan (“risk of risks”) was improved and

dedicated risk management plans by single integrated Demonstrators were implemented and

tested throughout all Demonstrators critical design reviews, reducing to 5 the Programme

high risk items; GRA- ITD’s interdependencies still represent the critical risk factors for

Flight Demo.

To improve the effectiveness of Programme strategies, GRA adapted their own policy to the

changing market requirements and requested extra budget in order to finalize by 2015 the

Cockpit Demonstrator, controlled by EADS-Casa, and the Environmental Control System

equipment for flight testing, provided by Liebherr (the Governing Board approved this

allocation in March).

Referring to GAM 2013 value, in total, GRA’s utilization of resources in 2013 was around

92% of planned value vs. about 67% progress in deliverables. The reason is a discrepancy

between actual expenses for producing hardware and intermediate test results, reflecting real

needs and risk mitigation against pre-programmed value of work and formal process of

deliverables approval.

Ten topics (out of GRA 101 topics) were devoted to Ground Demonstrators, which enlarged

by 27 Units the large “GRA Family”, consisting now of 176 Partners (through GAPs), from

which thirteen winners were SME’s. All Projects impacting GRA Flight and Ground

Demonstrators were progressing on schedule.

Forty Dissemination events were registered throughout the year: GRA-ITD Dissemination

Plan for Use and Dissemination of Foreground (PUDF) and GRA-ITD Plan for Use and

Exploitation of Foreground (PUEF) were implemented too.


0. Low Weight Configuration (LWC)

In 2013, the In-Flight and On-Ground Demonstrators (Fuselage Demo and inner Wing Box)

Critical Design Reviews represented the major events of Low Weight Domain.

Furthermore, static, fatigue and any other tests execution (i.e. acoustic, electrical, and

lightning) on large panels for second down selection were carried out. Updated technical

solutions for Cockpit have been also assessed and provided.

With respect to the In-flight demonstrator, a detailed design of the tools and parts including

in the demonstrator has been carried out.

The manufacturing of the first tools for manufacturing/assembling of in-flight Demonstrator

has been performed.

The design and the manufacturing of components, subcomponents and elements for

experimental activities needed for Permit to Flight started.

The preliminary issues of the crown panel modification justifications for flight clearance

have been provided.

Information on sensors, flight test instrumentation and flight telemetry instrumentation for

SHM to be included on panel to be tested in-flight has been preliminarily provided.

With respect to the On-Ground demonstrators, a detailed design of the tools and parts

including in the demonstrators (fuselage barrel, cockpit, wing box) have been carried out.

Drawings/CATIA models and analyses related to fuselage barrel (including skin, stringers,

frames, floor grids etc.), of wing box (including skin, stringers, ribs etc.) and of cockpit have

been carried out.

Information on sensors to be applied for SHM on fuselage barrel and wing box

demonstrators has been preliminary provided.

The manufacturing of the tools for manufacturing/assembling of fuselage barrel have been

completed. The definition of the cockpit tooling needed to manufacture the skin with

integrated stringers and elements considered sub-structure (frames, floors, longitudinal

beams or pressure bulkhead) have been completed.

The manufacturing of first components of ground demonstrators has started.

Milestone status: 2 milestones have been planned and 2 have been successfully performed.

CfP status: in 2013, GRA LWC has launched 4 successful topics. In a significant part they

will support preparation of ground demonstrations, for example the characterization of

structural behavior for High Frequency Phenomena, inspection approaches and automated

systems for monitoring CFRP damages.

1. Low Noise Configuration (LNC)

In 2013 the main activities in the frame of LNC domain were concerning: i) completion of

the development of enabling technologies related to advanced wing design; ii) progress in

the development of low-noise enabling technologies for Main and Nose Landing Gears; iii)

first part of application studies of down-selected wing technologies tailored to future GRA

configurations; iv) specification and preparation (model design) of WT demonstration of the

above down-selected technologies. Such activities are hereinafter briefly recalled.

Virtual Validation of Load Control & Alleviation (LC&A) functions on 130-seat

Open Rotor A/C aero-elastic and aero-servo-elastic models. Tuning of control laws

and final assessment of LC&A technologies performances tailored to the Geared

Turbo-Fan (GTF) rear-engine 130-seat A/C. Relevant achievements can be

Page 37 of 119

summarized as follows: a) Lift-to-Drag ratio improvement through combined

deflections of T/E devices (small tabs and split ailerons) from 2% to 7% and from

4% to 7%, respectively for nominal (3000 nm) and typical (500 nm) flight mission

profile; b) wing root bending moment from gust load first peak reduced by 35%

through ailerons symmetrically deflected.

First part (sub-components structural design and integration) of detailed modelling

of actuation/kinematic system of High-Lift Devices (Krueger slat and T/E flap) and

of LC&A devices sized to the GTF 130-seat A/C

Completion of the aero-acoustic design, supported by relevant feasibility studies, of

low-noise concepts/technical solutions for main and nose landing gears sized to a

future high-wing Turbo-Prop 90-seat A/C configuration. Such concepts have been

applied both to the gear architecture (e.g. strut fairing, wheels hub caps), in order to

reduce noise induced by vortical flows around the gear leg and the wheel pack, and

to the bay configuration (e.g. acoustic liners, additional doors partially closing the

bay opening) in order to reduce bay cavity noise.

Support was provided in terms of test requirements definition and innovative WT

models specification to the activities (some of them being already in progress)

planned in the frame of projects under CfP for the demonstration of down-selected

technologies through large-scale WT tests. In particular:

a. Demo of transonic NLF wing design and of LC&A devices steady

performances for GTF 130-seat A/C on a half-wing flexible 1:3 (≈5m span)

WT model, in project ETRIOLLA (CfP GRA-02-019) – status: on-going;

b. Demo of gust load alleviation strategy for GTF 130-seat A/C on a 1:7 (≈2.5m

span) aero-servo-elastic A/C half-model, in project GLAMOUR (CfP GRA-

02-22) – status: going to start;

c. Demo of high-lift performances and S&C aerodynamic data set of both GTF

130-seat and 90-seat A/C on 1:7 complete A/C powered WT models,

respectively in projects ESICAPIA (CfP GRA-05-007) – status: on-going,

and LOSITA (CfP GRA-02-020) – status: just started;

d. Demo of MLG and NLG low-noise configurations through aero-acoustic WT

tests respectively on 1:2 and full-scale mock-ups, in project ALLEGRA (CfP

GRA-02-017) – status: on-going.

The work package LNC has partially met its goals in 2013. Relevant pending activities (in

some cases just a matter of technical reporting) will be completed in 2014.

Milestones status: 1 (of 1) planned milestones has been successfully achieved.

CfP status: In 2013, GRA LNC has successfully launched the following topics:

“Experimental Optimization and Assessment of an Advanced Turbo Prop Regional

Aircraft through Innovative Complete Aircraft Powered Wind Tunnel Model” (CfP

GRA-02-020) – winner proposal: LOSITA (see above);

“Highly-accurate/reliable WT test demonstration of low-noise innovative MLG

configuration” (CfP GRA-02-021), relevant to full-scale WT demo of MLG final

low-noise design – winner proposal: ARTIC (status: negotiation in progress);

“Technological optimisation and experimental validation through an aero-servo-

elastic innovative WT model of gust load alleviation control system for advanced

regional aircraft” (CfP GRA-02-022) – winner proposal: GLAMOUR (see above);

“Highly-accurate/reliable WT tests for Community Noise assessment of an

Advanced Turboprop Regional A/C integrating HLD innovative low-noise design”


(CfP GRA-02-025), relevant to aero-acoustic WT tests on the 90-seat A/C – winner

proposal: WITTNESS (status: negotiation in progress);

“Highly-accurate/reliable WT tests for Community Noise assessment of an

Advanced Geared Turbofan Regional A/C integrating HLD innovative low-noise

design” (CfP GRA-05-008), relevant to aero-acoustic WT tests on the 130-seat A/C

– winner proposal: EASIER (status: negotiation in progress).

On the contrary, one CfP topic (GRA-02-024), relevant to the manufacturing and test of 3D

morphing flap mechanical prototype was unsuccessful (no proposal above the evaluation

threshold).

2. All Electrical Aircraft (AEA)

Implementation of Level 1 (Architectural level), Level 2 (Functional level) and Level 3

(Behavioral level) simulation models have been completed and integrated into the Prototype

Shared Simulation Environment (SSE) which has been finally delivered. Those models are

essential related to the simulation of the on-board systems. Improvement/industrialization of

the SSE is being managed by of a Partner via CfP, it is progressing and will terminate by

middle of 2014.

Regarding the “Application studies” a number of steps have been achieved:

Successfully performed the TRL4 review of Electrical Power Generation Systems for

AEA. Close to be reviewed the TRL3 for E-ECS

Delivered the Analysis of function and performance of on board systems for the 130

Pax Electrical future regional A/C (Activities were based on the input from WP 3.1.1

and WP 3.1.2 as well as data from GRA New Configuration Domain - A/C

configuration definition).

Completed the analysis and definition of functions and performance of on-board systems

interested to in-flight demonstration, including definition of the modifications of the A/C

demonstrator in order to integrate and to test in flight the innovative technologies for

selected on-board systems:

Electrical Environmental Control System (E-ECS),

Electrical Energy Management (E-EM),

Electro mechanical actuation for LGS (Landing Gears: main and nose) and

FCS (Flight Control System).

Completed the Definition of the related other modifications such as Flight Test

Instrumentation (FTI) introduction and the modification of the A/C Electrical Power

Generation for the Demo purposes.

Completed the Specification of a Simulation model of the Electrical Power Generation

and Distribution of the Demo Electrical channel of the A/C demonstrator.

In a significant part those activities have been performed through research at COPPER

Bird® - common development of ITDs (GRA, ECO and SGO). Preparation of flight

Demonstration for AEA has been advanced by performing:

Delivering of the “Verification and Validation Plan for the Flight Test activities.

Designing of systems, parts and structural modification for the modifications to be

implemented on the A/C demonstrator:

Electrical Environmental Control System (E-ECS),

Electrical Energy Management (E-EM),

New Electrical Power Generation for Demo Supply Channel,

EMA’s Loads and associated Bench Test introduction on-board.

FTI

Page 39 of 119

Started Preparation of the documentation for the Flight clearance of the modified

aircraft.

Milestone status: 1 milestone has been planned and 1 has been successfully performed.

CfP status: In 2013, GRA AEA did not launch any CfP.

3. Mission and Trajectory Management

The development of green FMS has continued: a second release (including a subset of MTM

functionalities) of green FMS was finalized and related tests were performed on GRA flight

simulator (WP4.3).

The following main activities have been continued according to GRA MTM planning:

preparation of upgraded prototyping tool

development of ATM scenario model

development of Advanced communication interface model

The third release of the Green FMS planned for December ‘13 was postponed to June ‘14

for development issues encountered during the process.

CfP status: in 2013, GRA MTM did not launch any CfP.

4. New Configurations

During the year 2013 GRA has performed:

Definition of high level requirements (thrust on spot point table agreed, power

extraction, acoustic, emission, mass and geometry) for green Advanced Turbofan A/C

engine (loop 3).

Definition of high level requirements (thrust on spot point table agreed, power

extraction, acoustic, emission, mass and geometry) for green Geared Turbofan A/C

engine (loop 3) only for the best A/C configuration between under wing engine mounted

or rear engine installation.

Specification of the requirements of the overall activity foreseen in the frame of the

project ESICAPIA (under CfP JTI-CS-2012-2-GRA-05-007) for experimental validation

of assessment at low-speed condition.

Updating of Aircraft Simulation Model for Reference & Green A/Cs 90 pax

configuration to Technology Evaluator - (based on 2nd

activities loop).

Final Turboprop (equipped with Snecma and Rolls Royce engines) Aircraft sizing and

configuration definition, Weight & Balance Analysis and performance evaluation (loop

3).

Green Turboprop final configuration definition: CAD file (Loop 3).

Final Advanced Turbofan (equipped with Snecma and Rolls Royce engines) sizing and

configuration definition, Weight & Balance Analysis and performance evaluation (loop

3).

Green Advanced Turbofan final configuration definition: CAD files (loop 3).

Final aerodynamic database release for Turboprop A/C configuration (loop 3)

Milestone Status: 1 milestone has been planned and 1 has been successfully performed.

CfP Status: new topic has been launched regarding aero-acoustics WTT relative to 130 pax

aircraft configuration.


GRC – Green Rotorcraft ITD 6.3

Main GRC deliverables and milestones are as follows:

For innovative blades (GRC1): active twist specimen tests; preliminary design of 3D

optimised blade shape (PDR); design of major components for full scale rotor with

active Gurney flaps (PDR);

For airframe drag reduction (GRC2): wind tunnel tests about passive shape optimisation

and active means on the fuselage completed (TRL4); concerning optimised hub fairings

aerodynamic design freeze achieved (TRL3). Comprehensive analysis completed for air

intakes and exhaust nozzles integration (TRL3).

For on-board energy (GRC3): equipment design specifications at preliminary design or

critical design levels, agreed between integrators and suppliers at TRL3, with the Starter

Generator, Thermal Energy Recovery and Electric Landing gear progressing to TRL4

For the Diesel-powered helicopter (GRC4): demonstrator engine critical design review

(TRL 3); first power pack delivered for ground test article; frozen configuration and

specification of the optimised helicopter.

For environment-friendly flight paths (GRC5): Computational chain for the aero-

acoustic analysis of helicopter and tilt-rotor procedures completed; Erica acoustics

database released; Verification of Toulouse and Seo de Urgel procedures with respect to

EC155 performance and FMS capabilities done; In-flight validation of Low noise

optimised flight path for LPV procedure done.

For eco-design for rotorcraft airframe (GRC6): design and manufacturing of moulds for

demonstration articles completed; parts manufactured (partially).

Concerning the GRC contribution to TE (GRC7): third annual release of rotorcraft

software and data package for the TEH was delivered to the TE. Slightly behind

schedule for December 2013, TEM will be delivered to the TE in the first quarter of

2014 with no negative impact to their assessment schedule.

Activities performed in 2013 are detailed here after and the description is given against

each work package of the ITD GRC, from GRC0 to GRC7.

0. GRC0 – ITD Management

The main activities concerning the ITD Consortium Management performed in period P6

(2013) were performed through the preparation of the Management Committees, Interim

Progress, Steering Committee meetings and annual reviews:

Call for Proposals: one call was planned in 2013. GRC submitted a total amount of 4 topics

(including 2 resubmitted topics).

Shared Information Repository: the GRC on-line repository is hosted and maintained by

Agusta Westland, with the support of three CfP projects (TRAVEL, MANOEUVRES and

ANCORA) and to activities on Active Gurney flap -GRC1. All documents (deliverables) are

uploaded.

1. GRC1 – Innovative rotor blades

In 2013, GRC1 activities proceeded predominantly as to the initial planning, although

delays were encountered on elements of programme thought technical challenges and in one

case from resource limitations. The latter is being addressed. A decision was made in 2013

to take the AGF system to flight test.

Page 41 of 119

The Active Twist technology advanced significantly with the successful testing of the model

rotor system at DLR which has since been reported. For the scale blade test section

(laboratory test), work continued and testing is to commence in 2014.

The work on the Optimised Passive blade continues as expected. The optimization results

using different tools and methods have been generated and compared by DLR and ONERA.

The detailed loft design of the blade for whirl tower testing has been started.

The AGF 2D test at Twente achieved CDR as planned and the constituent parts were

manufactured closely to expected schedules. Only last minute problems uncovered during

final assembly /data system integration prevented testing being achieved as planned before

the end of the year. The testing will take place in early 2014 (week 4).

For the AGF Model rotor activity the work has been delayed due to technical complexities

and to the fact that the company developing the critical AGF components was in the process

of moving to a new facility. However, they achieved a notable success with the

demonstration that their system would work under extremely demanding physical conditions

by testing it on a whirling arm rig at representative levels of CF. Efforts are underway to

minimise the timeframe implications for the remainder of the programme.

The design of the AGF main rotor blade gathered momentum and a single design solution

evolved by the year end, allowing a formal Design Review to be held. Resource restrictions

have been a risk to this activity (designs were due to have been released from another task

but were delayed), however this was being addressed by year end. The Donor blades

provision (to be modified to receive the AGF components) was started.

A further assessment of the performance and acoustic benefits of GRC1 technologies, along

with mass and electrical power penalties, was also completed and supplied to GRC7.

CfP partners were undertaken as planned and a final CFP partner (COMROTAG - CFD

developments) was selected.

2. GRC2 Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic systems activities

In GRC2 (Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic systems activities) the main tasks were

focused on the optimisation of the rotor hub, the fuselage and the engine installation. The

aerodynamic optimisation of landing skid fairings and new aft body shapes of the EC135

fuselage concluded and wind tunnel campaign to assess the benefit has been concluded in

the context of the ADHERO project, achieving an overall benefit in terms of drag reduction

of about 18%. Moreover, the aerodynamic and structural design of new full scale hub

fairings is concluded with the PDR successfully achieved. Concerning the reduction of

airframe drag, especially for blunt aft bodies and for the tail, improved aerodynamic design

of the common helicopter and tilt rotor platforms had been conducted, incorporating passive

flow control systems. Concerning the common tilt rotor platform, optimization of all

components was completed, thus achieving TRL3. The optimized tilt rotor geometry will be

tested in wind tunnel within the partner project DREAm-TILT.

Concerning engine installation tasks, aerodynamic studies and noise propagation analysis

about new side air intakes integrations for the light helicopter of ECg was performed.

Aerodynamic and structural designs of a new side intake have been concluded with a PDR.

As far as the common tilt rotor platform is concerned, a study for evaluation of emission,

engine performance and noise had been accomplished and TRL3 was achieved. The

optimized engine intake geometry will be tested in wind tunnel within the partner project

TETRA.

In 2013 GRC2 supported GRC7 in defining the aerodynamic characteristics of fuselage and

empennage of the first update of the Single Engine Light (SEL) and for the Twin Engine


Medium (TEM) helicopter models for the “Y2020 reference” and “Y2020+CS conceptual”

fleets. Moreover the reference Tilt-Rotor model (TLR-R) was defined.

3. GRC3 Integration of Innovative Electrical Systems for Rotorcraft

In GRC3 (Integration of innovative electrical systems activities), analysis reports covering

technologies across differing helicopter types were delivered and data from the CfPs

regarding system mass and future electrical power requirements were provided to GRC7.

Deliverables this period included data for SEL & TEL configurations.

System power management strategies were refined and principles aligned with the evolving

CfP technology developments and leading power supply technologies.

High level architecture analysis, and updated requirements and solution documents were

completed. Optimised electrical architectures were further refined in Electrical network

simulations utilising software models provided by SGO. Delays in the provision of new

software tools had shifted some anticipated deliverable to the next period.

The technologies for improved electrical system efficiency were further developed, with all

major projects progressing with CfP partners. The Starter Generator passed a CDR,

manufacturing equipment was launched, and electrical and thermal simulation of power

electronics architectures was performed.

The Power Converter and Energy Storage CfPs successfully held a PDR. Some hardware

revisions were necessary towards the end year resulting is some detail system redesign. Now

resolved, the system will be ready for a rescheduled CDR in Q1 of period 7.

The Energy Distribution & Consumer Systems analysed configurations, ensuring

compatibility with evolving CfP technologies.

In Thermal Energy Recovery, two demonstrators were manufactured. The Energy Recovery

Management, went through a CDR, and provided a test plan and updated interface

document. The EMA for Flight Control System progressed through CDR and moved to the

demonstrator manufacture.

The EMA for Landing Gear has been assessed using a TRL Review and concluded with a

Final Report.

The EMA for Rotor Brake provided benefit analysis; modelling report and completing a

CDR. Delays in some test hardware provision are anticipated to require extended activities

in period 7.

Electrical tail rotor drive, for both conventional and fenestron tail rotors, provided

innovative concepts allowing suppression of usual hydraulic systems. The open rotor

solution included a CDR and a new task of definition and design concept in support of the

further system development using electrical test facilities and an airframe ground test rig at

AW. The fenestron system provided a Preliminary Concept, with a decision on the activity

stop after the identification of a No-Go issue.

The power supply for the Energy Supply System for the Piezo Actuation sought agreement

on cancellation of the CDR for PPSMPAB10

, replaced by continuous technical meetings.

The manufacturing of the PPS began in November.

The Electrical Test Bench/Copper Bird harmonization of technology continued with ICDs &

Test Plans were issued, including the preparatory work for the integrated ground test

demonstration with the scheming and design of equipment specific adaptation kits. The

Energy Recovery test plan and an update interface document were issued and delivered to

EDS. A final versions of the HEMAS test plan and the Adaptation Kit interface document

were issued and delivered to the EDS.

10

Piezo Power Supply Module for Piezo Actuator Bench

Page 43 of 119

Overall in 2013 GRC3 progressed against its work plan, and delivered 72% of its planned

reports, due to delays in some testing activities.

4. GRC4 – Integration of a Diesel engine on a light helicopter

Regarding the definition of the “Optimal Helicopter Architecture”, the study of the optimal

helicopter configuration has been concluded in October after a review in Brussels with the

Clean Sky JU Project Officer and experts.

On the Demonstrator H/C frame, due to over-costs at Partners’ level, an additional

subcontract has been put in place in order to maintain the global scope of the project, which

is to run the Ground Tests on a flightworthy demonstrator. This additional subcontracting

enabled the partners to write the substantiations necessary to obtain the permit to fly.

On GRC4 – Demonstrator frame, the main objective for the Period 6 was to start the Iron

bird bench and to finish it at the end of 2013. The first rotation of the Iron bird was done at

the end of October 2013, and will continue until mid of February 2014. During the Period,

some technical issues arise with the newly developed Powerpack, which resulted in a

limited impact on the schedule. Furthermore, the bench availability was extended in order to

complete the test program at the beginning of 2014.

5. GRC5 – Environment-friendly flight paths

After the re-organization of the activities on specific and well-defined Technology Products,

in 2012 GRC5 (Environment-friendly flight paths) TPs were grouped in four Technology

Streams: eco-Flight Procedures, eco-Flight Planner, eco-Flight Guidance and eco-

Technologies.

The main activities completed in 2013 were:

For eco-Flight Procedures: computational chain for the aero-acoustic analysis of helicopter

and tilt-rotor procedures; Erica acoustics database; Verification of Toulouse and Seo de

Urgel procedures with respect to EC155 performance and FMS capabilities; In-flight

validation of Low noise optimised flight path for LPV procedure.

For eco-Flight Planner: Requirements and specifications for Eco-Flight Planner; SW

Platform implementation; Low emission Planning Algorithm.

For eco-Flight Guidance: Development of an On-Board Software Module to Manage Low-

noise Flight Paths; VFR noise abatement flight procedures defined; Pilot display

development.

For eco-Technologies: all the expected numerical tools for sound diagnosis and synthesis

were deployed; Pollutant measurement system implemented on PZL SW-4 Helicopter; SW-

4 pollutant emission flight tests performed.

6. GRC6 – Ecodesign Rotorcraft Demonstrators

In GRC6 the manufacturing of the demonstrators has been the main topic during 2013.

These demonstrators are two thermoplastic composite structures (A stiffened helicopter tail

cone and co-melted panel and an aerodynamic fairing) for composite manufacturing

technologies and two metallic demonstrator groups (a tail rotor gear box including a

thermoplastic drive shaft and a main rotor gear box) for new treatment methods. All moulds

for curing tailcone components and thermoplastic frames have been manufactured and first

frames were made available. The design and manufacturing plan for the thermoplastic

fairing were completed and the stamp forming tools are currently being machined. Surface


treatments on metallic parts (tail gear-box and main shaft) have been subcontracted. The

assembly of the main rotor gear box and of the thermoplastic components had to be delayed

until August 2014.

Due to the delay of the mould manufacturing and surface treatments it should register some

underspending in 2013 which will be recovered in 2014. Those tasks have been re-planned

until completion, including a recovery plan, corresponding milestones/ deliverables and an

updated risk analysis. The Call for proposal Defcodoor was completed in July 2013. Budget

and time consumption developed as expected, the delays had no impact on the overall

budget planning.

7. GRC7 – Interface with the Technology Evaluator

GRC7 had five external deliverables and four milestones relating to the delivery of the

Phoenix platform V3.1 and V4.1 for the Technology Evaluator’s (TE)’s Third and Fourth

Assessments respectively. The data and software packages deliverables for the Twin Engine

Heavy (TEH) generic rotorcraft was delivered to the TE as planned. The Twin Engine

Medium (TEM) due to industry resource availability was subject to a minor delay to its

planned delivery date of December 2013, now forecast for the first quarter in 2014. The

rescheduled delivery of the TEM has no impact on the TE’s fourth assessment which is due

to start in June 2014.

In addition, a parallel internal GRC7 activity of the Tilt Rotor Reference point (TLR-R) to

prevent a generic rotorcraft bottle neck in 2016 was planned for completion in December

2013. This generic rotorcraft based on ERICA is close to completion with a minor delay that

will have no impact on external GRC7 deliverables to the (TE). Progress was made with the

development of SELU1 and DEL due for delivery in 2014.

GRC7 milestones are based on the receipt and integration of the Phoenix V3.1 into the TE’s

platform and the generation of their assessment results.

Page 45 of 119

SAGE – Sustainable and Green Engine 6.4

2013 has been a crucial year for the SAGE ITD to demonstrate delivery against plans. There

have been critical decisions made throughout the year, projects have started to come to

fruition and two engine demonstrations in SAGE 3 and 5 were completed.

The focus in SAGE has been largely delivery of demonstrations and preparation for

demonstrators in the coming years: defining technology demonstration requirements and

validation strategies, managing the risk to engine demonstrations by raising the Technology

Readiness Level of selected technologies through sub-system rig testing, developing engine

test component designs and enabling manufacturing technologies and reviewing the

demonstrator plans.

Key decisions and significant commitments have been made in 2013 to freeze the

demonstrator configurations and finalise the technological designs. SAGE 6 submitted a

request for additional funds for an increase of scope to include a flight test demonstrator.

First engine demonstrations in SAGE3 (advanced dressing) and SAGE5 were performed, all

other SAGE programme plans have continued to ramp up activities in preparation for

demonstration

SAGE1 has continued to develop Geared Open Rotor Technology.

The significant technologies to be developed and finally demonstrated are the open rotor

assembly including the counter rotating blades, the blade pitch control and the transmission

systems.

The CROR technology acquisition effort under SAGE 1 proceeded in parallel to the SAGE

6 Lean Burn demonstration, to assist in the outstanding SFWA CROR key decisions in

2013. As such, support to the rule making process for CROR flightworthy assessment

including associated engineering effort was provided to enable definition of key

technologies to be demonstrated and to enable CROR demonstration after the current Clean

Sky. An installation Functional Hazard Analysis for the demonstrator engine has been

carried out in 2013 to identify major installation risk and design recommendations for future

ground and flight test demonstration. Evaluations of CROR blade design and material

options as well as aeromechanical implications and methods have been progressed. Design

and manufacturing methods for the rotating structures have been further investigated. Aero-

acoustic design and prediction methods related to Far Field and Near Field Noise as well as

Transposition to Flight methodologies linked to test data for validation has been further

developed in close cooperation with SFWA activities.

The programme of work is focused on the R&T necessary to develop the TRL of the

fundamental enabling technologies and assess the feasibility of the open rotor concept for

full demonstration. This will be achieved by both on-going design studies, methods and tool

development and validation and component rig test programmes. Additional rig testing at

aircraft level have been completed in the Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD in 2013.

For SAGE2, a Concept Review took place in 2012 to consider the feasibility and

configuration of the open rotor demonstrator. Preliminary design studies of the open rotor

Integrated Powerplant Propulsion System (IPPS) have been finalized. They encompassed

the composite propeller, pitch control, power gearbox, power turbine, fixed and rotating

nacelle and structures, lubrication and cooling and control sub-systems and the integration

of the sub-systems into the IPPS. The Preliminary Design Review has been performed for

all main modules in Q4 2013 and will be closed in Q1 2014. This enables to start the

detailed design activities which will be completed by the end of 2014 with the last Critical


Design Review planed by December 2014. First Long Lead Time Items (LLTI) forgings

have been ordered. The concept of the test bench for the Ground Test Demonstration was

frozen and the preliminary design has been achieved. For the propeller module, the aero-

acoustic tests were successfully performed in July 2013 in ONERA facilities enabling the

completion of aerodynamic and acoustic design tools calibration and validating the key

parameters of the propulsor. Regarding CfPs, several projects are running, new CfPs have

been launched to support the Open Rotor demonstrator and new proposals have been issued

during the calls of 2013.

The SAGE3 project demonstrates technologies for large 3-shaft turbofan engines and

delivered its first engine demonstration of Advanced Dressings technology in January

2013. The second engine test, to demonstrate the composite fan, is scheduled to commence

in 2014 and work in 2013 focused on completing design work, component manufacture,

engine build and completion of associated rig tests. At close of 2013 the engine build was

almost complete and demonstration of composite fan blades, the composite annulus fillers

developed through Call for Proposal and a second generation development of the Advanced

Dressings is imminent. Engineering preparations for flight test of the composite fan blades

and annulus fillers progressed well in 2013 and all enabling hardware components were

received ahead of flying test bed engine build planned in 2014.

Technologies to support higher temperature capability and lower weight intercase structures

have been demonstrated through a series of rig tests and have completed the final

test. Demonstration of low pressure turbine technologies commenced through rig testing in

2012 and tests continued in 2013, both in preparation for the engine tests and to provide

direct validation data. Critical design review of the LP turbine module for engine

demonstration was passed in 2013 and some forgings and cast parts have been received for

final machining and module assembly, supporting the planned engine demonstration in

2014.

Project SAGE4, the Geared Turbo Fan Demonstrator Project, has successfully completed

detail design efforts. After successfully passing preliminary design review DR4 in July 2013

and a successfully passed critical design review DR5 in November 2013, the SAGE4

demonstrator has cleared all hurdles for a general production release.

Technology development is on-going and has been closely tied to demo schedule to allow

insertion into the demonstrator at appropriate risk levels. To properly validate the individual

technologies, an instrumentation verification matrix and an instrumentation layout as well as

test cycles have been pre-defined and approved in a test concept review in April 2013. Also

a SAGE4 demonstrator engine health and monitoring concept is established.

A major change of the demonstrator technology portfolio resulted from the decision to

perform the validation of the new fan drive gear system on a gear test bed and not to

integrate it into the SAGE 4 demonstrator. The advantages of testing the gear system under

adverse operational conditions outweigh the disadvantage of a missing system integration

into the donor engine.

Long lead time items like airfoil castings have been commissioned at a quite early stage of

the detail design phase. Meanwhile, all suppliers of raw parts and all manufacturers of

finished parts have been selected and close monitoring of demo H/W has been established to

ensure parts and components availability for module and engine assembly.

Efforts on supporting TE have continued and improved/new engine data and models have

been submitted to GRA in order to study and establish rear mount and under-wing A/C

models for GRA-130 Pax Regional A/C. Besides processing of already set-up CfP topics,

additional three SAGE4 CfP topics have been contracted and have started technology work

Page 47 of 119

in 2013. Defined risks levels decreased favourably and no high risk element is currently

under special attendance.

Necessary resources to accomplish the tasks have been available at a whole and helped to

execute the program according to plan which is reflected in achieving all 2013 milestones

and deliverables and an approximate 100% budget consumption.

Project SAGE5 has delivered its first engine demonstration early 2013. Final parts for the

first build were delivered end 2012, engine has been assembled, and delivered for test early

2013. The First Engine Test occurred in Q1 2013, then build 1 test campaign follows on

during year 2013, it consisted in solving some technical issues and measuring performance

at various ratings.

Preparations for the second engine build incorporating hot section technologies has

continued with final detail design activities being completed and manufacturing of

components, although final delivery of all parts is expected early 2014. First Engine Test is

expected in Q1 2014.

The aim of the SAGE6 lean burn project is to demonstrate a lean burn whole engine system

to a TRL6 maturity level, suitable for incorporation into civil aerospace applications in the

30,000lb to 100,000+ thrust classes.

Lean burn combustion is a vital technology acquisition for the European aerospace industry

to remain competitive in the world marketplace and comply with future CAEP & ACARE

emissions legislation.

Significant technologies that have started to be developed in 2012 consist of, but are not

limited to, Combustion, hydro-mechanical fuel control, control laws and associated sensing

devices, whole engine thermal management, acoustic attenuation, turbo machinery thermo-

mechanical integration and system health monitoring and maintenance functions. To

increase current TRL levels of subsystems from typically TRL 3-4 to TRL-5 a proposal has

been made to develop a new demonstrator vehicle based on a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000

engine for ground test and suitable for installation on a flying test bed.

The LEVER project (through CfP call 8) has completed the design activities for a System

Test Facility in support of the engine tests, hardware has been ordered and commissioning is

planned for summer 2014.


SGO – Systems for Green operations 6.5

In 2013 SGO has been focussed on achieving progress on all developed technologies to

prepare the major demonstrations – both in flight and on ground – which are planned

between mid-2014 and 2015.

For all technology streams, significant steps forward have been made, as described in each

work-package below and positively assessed by the external reviewers, both during the

Annual Review in June and in the mid-term meeting end of November.

A significant evolution of the program budget distribution between members was validated,

with an increase of budget associated to Ice detection and Electrical Power distribution

system, while confirming the technical objectives of these technology threads.

With reference to the annual grant agreement, the overall consumption of resources amounts

to 92% of the planned value 2013, including the amendment applied during 2013.

For large aircraft, WP1 has started the update of datapackages and master Validation &

Verification plans of both MAE and MTM streams for cycle 2 of SGO. Unfortunately, only

the Mission Data-package update could be finalised in 2013. The MTM V&V plan is close

to completion and entered final review. MAE documents have suffered delays as resources

were mobilised on development of cycle 1 technologies. In WP1.3, exchanges with SESAR

have been increased in 2013, with a technical workshop held in March where topics of

common interest have been reviewed, leading also to further exchange of documents.

In WP2, work on technologies for electrical and thermal energy management has moved on.

Throughout 2013, some equipment and systems have been delivered to the various ground

test rigs and supported the successful execution of different TRL reviews. However, some

developments are behind their schedules and dedicated TRL reviews had to be delayed.

Based on the large aircraft cycle 1 assessment results in 2013, the work on cycle 2

architectures and guidelines has been initiated. In 2012 a workshop on cycle 2 created a list

of potential technology improvements which will feed into cycle 2 definitions. The follow

up of this workshop, originally foreseen in 2013, was held in January 2014.i. Anyway, some

ideas on radical electrical architectures, created in 2012, have already been more detailed

during 2013 and are now to be assessed for implementation into further hardware studies.

The manufacturing of the electrical power centre (EPDC) featuring modular power

electronics has been completed and development tests started in the last quarter of 2013.

Although partially impacted by late components but thanks to found mitigations, the EPDC

can be delivered to PROVEN ground test rig early 2014 for further system testing in

relevant aircraft environment carried out in the frame of WP4 test campaign.

The MAE Wing Ice Protection technology demonstrators for large aircraft have been

successfully tested during the IWT ground test campaign in 2012. Based on these results, in

2013 dedicated TRL4 reviews have been held and open actions from these reviews have

been completed by end of the year. Now, the preparation of flight test hardware (one

electro-thermal and one electro-mechanical solution) has begun. The associated flight test

campaign has been shifted to end 2015 beginning 2016 allowing synchronization with the

campaign for Ice Detection and Electrical ECS technologies. The Ice Detection technology

Page 49 of 119

also passed the TRL4 milestone successfully mid-2013 and now the flight test prototype is

under development.

After the required design adaptation of the electrical ECS Large Aircraft flight test

demonstrator in 2012, the updated roadmap towards flight tests which are now planned at

the end of 2015/beginning 2016 has been created and agreed. In 2013, the work on the re-

sized flight test hardware (50kW) has begun and in parallel the work on the (original)

demonstrator (70kW) which will be used for performance test on ground has moved on.

In the frame of the eECS work for regional aircraft, a flight test preliminary design review

has been held mid-2013 and fixed the design as well as the roadmap towards flight test

beginning 2016.

In the frame of thermal management activities, various challenges had to be tackled. The

flight test campaign of the Skin Heat Exchanger, planned at the end of 2013, is delayed to

mid of 2014 now due to questions regarding the aircraft operatorship and budget. These

issues are now solved and an update of the work plan towards the flight test campaign is on-

going. Nevertheless, the heat exchanger hardware passed successfully the TRL 4 review at

the end of 2013.

The compressor of the vapour cycle system (VCS) needs a partial re-design after

performance issues identified during its test campaign in 2013. This will delay the

development schedule for this equipment by almost one year, but will not hamper the

overall schedule in Clean Sky since the final test means for the VCS, the thermal test rig

AVANT, is also not available before 2015. In order to cope with the risk of AVANT

availability, a mitigation plan has been defined proposing an alternative, already existing,

thermal architecture test rig which will be used for VCS testing prior to the AVANT

campaign.

Another technology which will be finally tested at the AVANT test rig is the Thermal

Management Function. After re-organization of the work package end of 2012, the work on

this load management function made good progress in 2013, completed by its successful

TRL3 review in December 2013.

In the frame of electrical engine nacelle, the electrical nacelle actuation system has been

tested in 2013. Due to technical issues on the test rig, the campaign was stopped and the rig

was repaired. Due to this delay, the TRL5 gate of the nacelle actuation system had to be

shifted by 7 months to April 2014.

The work on equipment and systems for electrical power generation and distribution

progressed well in 2013 and first equipment have been delivered to both large aircraft

PROVEN test rig and the other aircraft COPPER Bird test rig. Early 2013 a robust channel,

including a permanent magnet generator and induction motors, was delivered to PROVEN

for a dedicated WP4 test campaign. Equipment for integration into COPPER Bird i.e.

generators, control units, rectifier units and switching components have been delivered in

the second half of 2013. Two starter-generators will be delivered beginning of 2014. Some

equipment are delayed by half a year but in the most cases sufficient mitigation solutions

have been found, not to delay test campaign by more than three months.

An electromechanical actuation system for a helicopter swashplate will be developed in

cooperation with GRC ITD. Mid 2013 this system went through a critical design review,

held with SGO and GRC participation. The overall system design has been confirmed and

now the manufacturing is on-going. Nonetheless, a risk to meet not the delivery date


(beginning 2015) to GRC / Copper Bird test rig and consequently to miss the test slot has

been identified. Various mitigation options i.e. another test slot later in 2015 are currently in

discussion with GRC and Copper Bird team.

In the field of WP3 – Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM), 2013 has brought major

progress towards the main demonstrations planned in 2014 and 2015.

Flight management functions have now all passed TRL4: functions covering the climb

(Multi Criteria Departure Procedure), Cruise (Multi Step Cruise) and final approach

(Adaptive Increased Glideslope) phases reached TRL4 between September and December

2013. At this stage of validation, new tests cases have been applied to consolidate the

estimated environmental gains and the specification of the functions into a representative

FMS architecture has been derived. This allowed initiating the implementation in the FMS

code, which will be pursued in 2014 to lead to the TRL5.

In the field of advanced Weather Radar algorithms, new mock-ups have been developed for

signal filtering and hazard classification algorithms. Tested on realistic sets of weather

scenarios, these algorithms will be included in the AWxR, being subject of TRL4 review

planned to early 2014 (delayed from Q4 2013).

The prototype implementation of mission optimisation functions have progressed, paving

the way to demonstrations in 2014 and TRL5 the following year.

In the field of the Smart Operations on Ground, the TRL4 at system level has been achieved

in October 2013 for the advanced wheel actuator with a few months delay. The roadmap to

the system level TRL5 has been clarified.

Using the inputs from SESAR gathered by WP1.3 (OSED level documents), an updated

analysis of the SESAR Concept of operation was issued.

In WP4, the work on major demonstration has accelerated in 2013. On the PROVEN

electrical rig, the first ground test campaign has been completed and the second campaign

has started with major modifications to the rig in order to accommodate the Electrical Power

Distribution System from WP2, which delivery is slightly delayed to 2014. The so-called

robust generator has been installed and completely tested on the rig.

Concerning the thermal test rig AVANT, the activity in 2013 has mostly addressed system

rig specification and also the elaboration of a mitigation plan related to the schedule to

construct the test building.

WP4.2.3 has finalised the exploitation of icing wind tunnel test results to issue a test report.

In WP4.2.5, the virtual electrical test activity was kicked off. The test objectives and test

platform were defined in collaboration with new partners that have joined SGO via Call for

Proposals.

As far as flight tests are concerned, a dedicated project, e-FTD, has been set-up to cover

eECS, WIPS and PFIDS activities. This project has passed a key milestone in June 2013:

the concept freeze review and is now on a good way towards its Preliminary Design Review

planned early 2014.

The preparation of the flight test of the Liquid Skin Heat Exchanger (LSHX) has continued

with the signature of the Flight Test Request and the delivery of all design changes for the

installation of the LSHX on the test aircraft. Unfortunately due to a slight delay in the

qualification of the equipment and some industrial constraints regarding the choice of the

aircraft, the test campaign had to be postponed to 2014.

Page 51 of 119

The Dispatch Towing Vehicle has continued its full-scale tests with an A320 and has now

completed the research phase in Clean Sky and is ready for industrialisation.

During 2013, WP5 benefited from the increased maturity of the technologies developed

within the other technical work packages from the ITD (WP2 & WP3). In the field of

industrial exploitation, the list of topics of common interest in terms of certifications &

operations is frozen and two related reports on “More electrical aircraft enabling

technologies” and “A/C operations: EFB impact on airline/crew operations” have been

issued. However, the lack of skilled resources to further work on certification is still

accurate and must be carefully monitored. Challenging thematics were studied in the area of

the impact on the Design Standard. Three reports have been issued on Power quality,

Cooling Fluids and Modeling and Simulation of Power Systems. In the field of industrial

exploitation, two common topics have been selected: magnetic and electronic (switch) parts.

In the area of the General Assessment, the first assessment of the progress in terms of

environmental benefits & maturity (TRL level) provided by all the SGO technologies has

progressed, but the official release of the document has been postponed to Q1 2014 to take

into account all the data provided by TRL gates for a number of relevant technologies,

which were achieved in Q4 2013. Interface with SFWA has matured: the exhaustive list of

all technologies to be integrated in SFWA is closed and the detailed schedule of SGO

deliveries to SFWA is now synchronized with the deliveries of SFWA to the TE.


ECO – Eco-Design 6.6

The Eco-Design ITD used 91% of the resources planned for 2013. The ITD is organized in

the two major areas of EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) and EDS [Eco-Design for Systems

(small aircraft)].

The EDA part of the Eco-Design ITD is meant to tackle the environmental issues by

focusing on the following challenges:

To identify and maturate environmentally sound (“green”) materials and processes for

aircraft production.

To identify and maturate environmentally sound (“green”) materials and processes for

aircraft maintenance and use processes.

To improve the field of end-of-life aircraft operations after several decades of operation,

including reuse, recyclability and disposal (“elimination”) issues.

To provide means for an eco-design process in order to minimize the overall

environmental impact of aircraft production, use/maintenance, and disposal.

In 2013, the work performed in the frame of EDA was a continuation on the following

Work Packages:

1. WP A.2 Technology Development,

2. WP A.3 Application Studies,

3. WP A.5/A.6 Ground Demonstration.

In WP A.2, the work was dedicated to continuation of the maturation of the selected most

innovative technologies. The development of around 110 individual technologies has been

carried out either by ITD Members or Partners through about 40 supporting GAP projects.

The WP was intended to close October 2013 but some follow-up of remaining activity is

still active in 2014. An update of the WP A.2 reports will then be performed in 2014.

At end of 2013, about 70 technologies reached TRL 5 or more, 30 reached TRL 4. They are

ready to enter into ground demonstrators to assess ‘green’ benefit from an LCA perspective.

Maturation of technologies will be completed in 2014.

WP A.3, WP A.3.1, A.3.2 and A.3.3 were active:

In WP A.3.1, the work continued in the field of LCA. Three LCA tools has been

developed and delivered on 2013:

LEAF: a simplified tool based on an Airbus the existing ATALYS tool,

ENDAMI simplified tool base on the GaBi existing tool,

EDAMI advanced tool.

The data collection for current technologies and new technologies is on-going and will be

pursued on 2014.

Eco-assessments on consolidated list of reference parts for current technologies were carried

out on 2013 and will be finalised beginning of 2014. Eco-assessments on reference parts for

new technologies (Clean Sky reference aircraft) started end of 2013 and are key to ensure

the EDA program output.

WP A.3.2 which is meant to extrapolate the technologies developed in WP A.2 to

industrial conditions, thus validating these technologies for industrial applications. These

on-going activities are supported by 4 GAP projects.

Page 53 of 119

The activities in WP A.3.3 continued on 2013 to develop Eco-Design Guideline to

optimize the aircraft design, production, and end of life phase from an overall environmental

perspective. A first issue of the web tool under development has been presented on

September.

WP A.5/A.6, ground demonstration activities were carried out on the 18 demonstrators (12

demonstrators for airframe and 6 for equipment). All airframe demonstrators are now under

manufacturing and preparation. One equipment demonstrator has been completed and 2

others will be early 2014. Test Plans preparation were undertaken and remaining

demonstrators are on track to provide the expected results.

The general objective of the EDS part of the Eco-Design ITD is to gain a valuable and

comprehensive insight into the concept of all-electric aircraft. It is expected that the use of

electricity as the only energy medium, by removing the hydraulic fluid and by the use of on-

board power-by–wire will offer significant benefits in terms of aircraft maintenance and

disposal environmental impact, and will yield new possibilities in terms of energy

management (e.g.: intelligent load shedding, power regeneration on actuators, sharing of

Electrical Control Unit over actuators).

The work performed in 2013 consisted in pursuing the common activities (WP S.1),

performing the characterization of the business jet sub-systems architectures (WP S.2) and

continuing the preparation of the bench related activities (WP S.3 and WP S.4).

The WP S.1 activity led to the finalisation of the simulation process (WP S.1.1) and

associated platform including electrical, thermal, energy and “ecolonomic” model. The

modelling activities (WP S.1.6) have been pursued in 2013. The definition of the Generic

Architecture (WP S.1.3) was finalised and the synthesis has been produced on 2013. The

activities pertaining to the definition and the development of the subsystems populating the

architectures which will undergo tests (WP S.1.5) continued throughout 2013 for a

finalisation beginning of 2014.

On WP S.2 main activity was the characterization of the main sub-systems populating the

Business Jet architecture candidates (WP S.2.3). The definition and the development of the

associated equipment items which populate the test architecture continued (WP S.2.4). The

modelling activities related to the Business Jet configuration continued on 2013 (WP S.2.5).

The WP S.3 (Electrical Test Bench) activities continued in 2013. The manufacturing

operations continued (WP S.3.3) to be finalised beginning of 2014. The integration of the

components has been carried out on 2013 and continues beginning of 2014 (WP S.3.4). The

definition of the electrical tests was undertaken and came to closure on mid-2013 (WP

S.3.2). Four GAP on-going projects supported WP S.3.3. The plan is a bit behind schedule

and recovery needs to be pursued in 2014 to ensure the expected results.

The WP S.4 (Thermal Test Bench) activities also continued in 2013 with finalisation of the

definition of the bench systems (WP S.4.1) and continuation of their manufacturing (WP

S.4.3). The preparation of the integration of the thermal mock-ups and their supporting

systems (WP S.4.4) has been pursued. Three Falcon fuselage parts are under preparation in

FhG (Holskirchen). The definition of the thermal tests to be performed continued in 2013

(WP S.4.2 The activity and related GAP need to be carefully monitored to fully ensure the

test activity execution in 2014.) for a finalisation on the 1st Quarter of 2014.


TE – Technology Evaluator 6.7

All TE Work Packages had activities and deliverables (or outputs) in 2013:

WP0: TE Management and Coordination

WP1: TE Requirements and Architecture

WP2: Models Development and Validation

WP3: Simulation Framework Development

WP4: Assessment of impacts and Trade-off studies

In 2013 only partial assessments were performed. The next overall assessment is planned for

end of June 2014.

In WP1, during 2013 the trade-off studies activities planned for 2014 were defined and the

integrated TE technical planning updated, which specifies the TRL development within the

ITD aircraft models from 2013-2016 and its linkage and timing to the TE assessments. Part

of this is also the linkage between the ITD aircraft models and demonstration activities of

the ITDs.

In WP2 in 2013 delays were encountered in the delivery of some ITD aircraft models

(SFWA, GRC) due to difficulties in software development and delayed engine module

inputs. Some aircraft modelling was also performed by the research establishments for

aircraft “normal technology evolution”, turboprop acoustic modelling and a specific tool for

trade off studies dealing with business jet noise exposed people around airports. It must be

noted that in WP2 the TE consortium operates as a de-facto supply chain manager: all the

major component conceptual models are delivered by the Aircraft ITDs.

The 2013 ITD aircraft model development scope included:

SFWA LR (Long Range): further development of the PANEM model (Parametric

Aircraft Noise and Emissions Model) for the long range aircraft with a SAGE 3 engine

SFWA SMR (Short and Medium Range): further development of the PANEM model

(Parametric Aircraft Noise and Emissions Model) for the short medium range aircraft

including a SAGE 2 CROR engine and a natural laminar wing.

SFWA business jet: Update of the ‘High-Sweep’ business jet configuration with mainly

an emission optimization

GRC: delivery of the Twin Engine Heavy model (TEH)

GRA: delivery of an update of the GRA Simulation Model (GRASM) for loop 2 GRA-

90 Turboprop and GRA 130 Geared TF aircraft.

Below the aircraft results of the TE 2011 and 2012 Assessment are shown in tabular form as

shown in the DJU 4.6-2 part III document. This part III and the two other “2012”

assessment report documents were completed at the end of the 1st quarter of 2013. Overall,

we can conclude that good progress can be shown towards Clean Sky’s environmental

objectives as stated in the Clean Sky Development Plan (CSDP). In 2013 additional

assessment updates have been produced for the HSBJ business jet and the Regional

aircrafts. For the HSBJ aircraft a fuel reduction of up to 21% and NOx reduction of up to

29% was achieved. The GRA 90 turboprop aircraft update showed a fuel reduction of up to

31%.

Page 55 of 119

1 In accordance with ACARE Goal of -10 EPNdB ‘per operation’, figures have been calculated from cumulative

margins

and averaged as noise benefits per single operation 2 N/A: not available/performed anymore, no results produced yet, to be done in later assessments

3 Results are given in terms of "up to"

4 Results are available in in % of noise footprint area reduction (-37% for APL2 and -28% for APL3) 5 Operational measures means inclusion of trajectory optimization, this has not yet been considered in 2011/12

assessments, but will be done in subsequent assessments

The next overall assessment will encompass additionally the long and short/medium range

aircraft updated through the PANEM model and two additional rotorcrafts (TEH and TEM).

Two more full assessments will be performed until the end of the project, i.e. one in mid-

2015 and one in mid-2016.

In WP3 the TE-Information System was further developed in 2013 by adding Computation

of result summary tables for the mission and airport levels. Connection via web-service to

the ATS platform was specified. 2012 assessment results have been added in the TEIS

repository part for all three levels.

WP4, or ‘Assessment of Impacts and Trade-Off Studies’, contained the key output from the

TE to the JU in 2013, i.e. the 2nd Assessment Report (2012 Assessment but only delivered

at end of 1st quarter 2013). Also trade off studies have been performed on the demand of

SGO on the topic of Mission Trajectory Management and on the demand of SFWA Dassault

concerning business jet noise exposed people around airports with a high business jet traffic

proportion.

Leading up to the 2014 assessment, other key activities and deliverables included:

Detailed specification report of the mission-level assessment

Detailed specification report of the airport level assessment

Detailed specification report of the ATS level assessment

Source noise

reduction

Operational

measures5

Source noise

reduction

Source noise

reduction

Business

Regional

TP90 2020 -25 to -30 -39 -23 -25 to -30 -59 -46 -1 to -3.3 -1 to -2 0.25 -2.9

GTF130 2020 -27 to -35 -30 -23 -27 to -35 -53 -46 -4 to -7 -1 to -2 N/A2 -7

ATF130 2020 -27 to -35 -40 N/A2 -27 to -35 -44 N/A2 -4 to -7 -1 to -2 -5.6 N/A2

Mainliners

APL1/2 2020 -25 to -35-30

(APL1)-30 (APL2) -25 to – 35 N/A2 N/A2 -2 to -3 -2 to -3 N/A2 N/A4

APL3 2020 -7 to -12 N/A2 -20 -7 to -12 N/A2 -21 -3 to -4 -2 to -3 N/A2 N/A4

2020 CS

Concept

Aircraft

CS goal CO2

[%] TE 20113 TE 20123 CS goal NOX

[%] TE 20113 TE 20123

CS goal Noise [EPNdB]

TE 20113 TE 20123

Average single operation1

LSBJ 2020 -30 to -40 -30 -32 -30 to -40 -32 -28

-7.5 to -10

-5 -5(tbc wrt operations

element)

HSBJ 2020 -25 to -35 N/A2 -22 -25 to -35 N/A2 -26

-2.5 to - 5

N/A2 -5.3(tbc wrt operations

element)


The 2nd Assessment planned for end of 2012, was delayed due to the late delivery of

aircraft models from the ITDs to the TE and completed only in begin of April of 2013.

Supply chain issues in the ITDs (e.g. SAGE to SFWA) were the main factor of delay in this

respect.

The delivery of the delayed 2012 Assessment in April 2013 constitutes a good step towards

the full spectrum of Clean Sky concept aircraft, with now only additional rotorcraft due in

the coming two years (Twin-Engine Medium, Twin-Engine Heavy, the Diesel-powered

Light Helicopter and the Tiltrotor). The phasing of these rotorcraft concepts has been agreed

in close cooperation with GRC and the performance of the GRC/TE joint assessment

activity is exemplary.

As a consequence of the delays encountered for the 2nd

assessment and technical difficulties

in the provision of conceptual aircraft models from SWFA (in particular the ‘SMR/CROR’)

an independent technical review of the ‘model chain’ and workflow from SAGE/SFWA into

the TE was done in April 2013 which pointed out the importance of a regularly monitored

“integrated” planning between the ITDs aircraft model supply chain and the TE.

Page 57 of 119

7. CALLS FOR PROPOSALS

At least 200 M Euro of the EU funding to the CSJU must be allocated to Partners selected

via Calls for Proposals. Topics are defined by each ITD. They serve the dual purpose of

widening the participation to Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D

performers called in to participate to the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners

selected via Calls for Proposals are being funded in compliance with the upper funding

limits set in the Rules of Participation of the 7th

Framework Programme.

Activities to be carried out by Partners selected via Calls are an essential part of the core

R&D activities of Clean Sky and have to lock in with the activities carried out by CSJU

private members.

What is peculiar for Clean Sky Calls for Proposals is that the content of the activities is

much more focused, i.e. they are topics and not research themes, with limited duration and

specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels). The topics are

prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the

Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.

Another difference from collaborative research calls is that the budget is defined by the

topic value, and not by the maximum funding: this is to allow a wider participation from all

types of entities, independently from the actual eligibility for funding. Furthermore, a single

entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created. Differently from

Collaborative research, there is always one winner per topic, provided suitable proposals are

submitted and positively evaluated.

Statistics 7.1

Clean Sky Calls for Proposals results, from Call 1 to Call 15 at a glance:

Total cost: 429.1 M€

Total funding: 321.9 M€

Average funding rate: 64.25%

Number proposals received: 1584

Number of topics: 625

Number of topics successfully applied to: 489

Number of winning participations: 940

Average number of participants by topic: 2,5

Number of partners: 525 (NB: there are less partners than “winning participations”,

because of entities being multi-winners, in several topics along time)

Average SME share: 36.2% in funding

Average Academia share: 25.4 % in funding.


The details relating to each of the 15 Calls launched by Clean Sky are shown in the

following figure:

Response to the Calls for Proposals (1 to 15)

In the first 15 calls published, the total max funding value is more than 321 M€.

A total of 130 topics were published in 2013 in the Call 14 (2013-01) and Call 15 (2013-02)

as displayed in the table above, plus Call 16 (2013-03), which will be evaluated in 2014.

The average response in the year was 2.5 proposals per topic, i.e. more than 1544 proposals

in total for 625 topics (estimated figure over the 15 calls).

The success rate of topics in the average is 78%, due to the low performance of call 14 that

achieved a low success rate since few proposals were submitted to evaluation.

The JU has taken all available actions to improve participation, such as more accurate

description of some topics, a still wider dissemination and a dedicated, early communication

with potential applicants for the most critical topics. Several Info Days have been organized

with successful participation. In addition, for call 15 a new instrument, such as the Webinar

teleconference, was introduced for several topics in order to improve participation. The

success rate for these topics of call 15 has been 100%.

The monitoring of the members involvement in calls for proposals has continued in 2013

and the amount allocated to members through the CFP was 6 m€. Therefore, the JU shall

have calls for a value of 206 m€ in order to allocate at least 200 m€ to new partners (and

non-members) of the JU. The rebalance will take place at a global level taking the entire

funding of 800 m€ including running costs, interest on the JU’s bank

Page 59 of 119

account, members and CfP budget into consideration. The JU does not foresee a risk not to

achieve a satisfactory result by the end of the programme – for all participants to the

programme.

Evaluations outcome 7.2

The following diagram illustrates statistics per country in terms of participants to the Call 14

and 15.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Call 14 - 15 Participants


The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of winning coordinators for calls

14 and 15.

The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of participating partners in

winning proposals (both coordinators and participants).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20Winners Calls 14-15 (coordinators)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Winners Calls 14-15 (participants)

Total

Page 61 of 119

The diagram below shows the sharing of the funding per country for these last two calls.

Global evaluations outcome 7.3

The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of participants for all the

proposals submitted from call 1 to 15.

€ 0

€ 1

€ 2

€ 3

€ 4

€ 5

€ 6

€ 7

€ 8

€ 9

€ 10

Mill

ion

s Winners Calls 14-15 funding per country

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

UK FR ES IT DE SE EL BE NL AT CH PT PL RO IE CY IL CZ HU NO FI DK BG TR

Calls 1-15 Participants


The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of coordinators and participants of

winning proposals for up to call 15. The chart shows also the role of the participants in the calls (as

coordinator or participant).

This diagram indicates how the funding for the calls from 1 to 15 is shared between

countries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

UK FR ES IT DE SE EL BE NL AT CH PT PL RO IE CY IL CZ HU NO FI DK BG TR

Coordinator

Participant

CfP 1-15 Participation per country

€ 0.00

€ 5.00

€ 10.00

€ 15.00

€ 20.00

€ 25.00

€ 30.00

€ 35.00

€ 40.00

UK FR DE ES IT NL SE CH BE AT PL EL PT RO IE NO HU IL TR CZ DK CY BG FI

Mill

ion

s

Winners Calls 1-15 Funding per country

Page 63 of 119

Redress statistics calls 1-15 7.4

In calls 14 and 15 published in 2013, there were 7 redress cases in total (5 for call 14 and

two for call 15). This represents a similar average as experienced in previous years; in fact

Call 11 and call 14, both had 5 redress cases. This can be attributed to the fact that these

calls received the largest number of proposals. 159 proposals were received for call 11

(which had 69 topics) while 169 proposals were received for call 14 (for 54 topics). No

other correlation appears valid as each redress is a specific topic in different ITDs.

In all cases the Redress Committee assessed the details of the redress and the underlying

elements of the evaluation. In all cases no change occurred to the ranking list resulting from

the evaluation.

Evaluation and negotiation processes 7.5

To ensure a high degree of transparency, the CSJU invited, as observer in 2013, Fulvia

Quagliotti for both the call 14 and 15. The observer had full access to all stages of the

evaluation and to consensus meetings. Her evaluation reports are available on the website

(http://www.cleansky.eu).

Since Call 5, a dedicated Negotiation Kick-off meeting involving the winners of the topics

and the related topic managers is held by the JU after about 4 weeks after evaluation, in

order to expedite the dialogue between the future partner and the topic manager, and the

preparation of all documents needed for the signature of the Grant Agreement for partners.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20

10

-01

20

10

-02

20

10

-03

20

10

-04

20

10

-05

20

11

-01

20

11

-02

20

11

-03

20

12

-01

20

12

-02

20

12

-03

20

13

-01

20

13

-02

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

# Redresses

# redress

http://www.cleansky.eu/


8. COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES

The communication activities are managed according to the Communication Strategy

adopted by the Governing Board, and updated when necessary. The last update dates back to

December 2012. On the basis of this strategy, a detailed Action Plan is drafted every year,

identifying objectives, target audiences, messages and tools.

The awareness of the European institutions about Clean Sky achievements is the first

priority, concerning both the satisfactory progress to the objectives and the wide

participation to the programme. In 2013 this translated into regular, constructive and

positive communication, meetings and events with the European Commission, the European

Parliament and the EU Member States. Added to this there has been a noticeable growth of

interest in Clean Sky JU overall due to Clean Sky 2 and what lies ahead. The content and

key features of Clean Sky 2 are now inherent to any communication activity, given the high

expectations from any target audience, both on the political side as well as from potential

industrial and scientific stakeholders.

The other key priorities in 2013 were: brand building and visibility, expanding networks and

improving our printed and digital communication means.

Special communication actions were taken to promote the high level of SME participation

in the programme, through the Calls for Proposals via 1) the organisation of a well-attended

SME Day in May 2013 in Brussels and 2) the involvement of the NSRG group that

intensified its efforts to further connect Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2 nationally.

Clean Sky was actively involved throughout the entire 2013 in the European Commission’s

communication campaign for Horizon 2020 by sharing messages, providing information on

respective national events. Clean Sky JU provided regular inputs on achievements and/or

updates on country participations when requested.

The following large events took place in 2013: the above mentioned Clean Sky SME Day in

May, Clean Sky 2 Information Days in Brussels, Lisbon, Birmingham and the Clean Sky

General Forum in November. In addition, Clean Sky together with the other Joint

Undertaking Initiatives organised “Innovation in Action” in October, an event at the

European Parliament with the support of many Members of the European Parliament. The

one-week joint Exhibit and a series of conferences highlighted the JTIs’ value proposition

and their contribution to Europe and Europeans’ quality of life.

The Clean Sky JU participation at the Paris Air Show in June 2013 deserves a special

mention, with a demonstration stand, in close cooperation with integrated technology

demonstrator (ITD) leaders and the support of the European Commission. Clean Sky

displayed objects that represent cutting–edge technology developed to help meet the

environmental goals by 2020 set by ACARE. Some examples of hardware were an open

rotor mock-up and actual blade, a morphing wing flap, the laminar wing demonstrator

mock-up, a model of helicopter diesel engine, as well as equipment related to the more

electric aircraft concept. They had been tested and evaluated and will be part of the

performing aircraft of tomorrow. Clean Sky received many visitors at its stand including

members, professionals and public at large. On the institutional side, Clean Sky welcomed

representatives of the European Commission national delegations of parliaments and

governments, MEPs and others. An effort was also made to raise the interest of students to

Page 65 of 119

aeronautics, environment and Europe: mainly thanks to the long-term involvement of CSJU

with a European association of aeronautics students, resulting in a dedicated session with

students at the Clean Sky Stand.

On digital and printed communications, Clean Sky website www.cleansky.eu has seen its

traffic increase steadily in 2013. “Skyline” magazine which is published three times per

year and the electronic monthly E-news have seen their dissemination lists optimised

enabling the expansion of our news and activities to other networks, for the sake of better

visibility and brand support.

The new Communication Officer took up duties in February 2013 and was also

complemented by a trainee and a consultant in specific tasks.

http://www.cleansky.eu/


9. SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

HR Management 9.1

Establishment Plan – constraints

Clean Sky JU is composed of 18 temporary agents and 6 contract agents (24 staff). The

team is divided in three parts: the operational team dealing with monitoring the technical

activity and performance of the ITDs and TE; the Administrative and Financial team dealing

with the administration of the projects, financing and reporting obligations and setting up

and providing the adequate logistics for the JU meetings for project management; and the 3

staff reporting directly to the Executive Director, namely the Accounting officer, the

Internal Auditor and the Communications Officer.

Unfortunately, the risk set out in the AIP 2013 relating to the underachievement of

objectives relating to time to grant and time to pay in particular, materialised in 201311

due

to understaffing of the JU. Despite the lean processes of the JU, the workload on the teams

dealing with project management and administration, proved to be too high for the allocated

resources. In order to demonstrate the volume of work within the JU, a few key figures are

shown below:

The team of 7 Project officers, 2.5 Financial Officers, 1 Legal Officer were responsible for:

Finalised negotiations for GAPs: 99

Signed GAPs in 2013: 106

Amendments of grant agreements:

- GAPs= 134 requested and 106 finalized

- GAMs = 10

Payments to Partners: 105

Payments to Members: 13 (covering individual payments to 210 beneficiaries)

Grant Agreements for Partners (GAPs) under negotiation at the end of 2013: 128

Lastly, the JU administrates all of its running costs internally, e.g. salaries, mission

costs, utility invoices, experts reimbursements (over 800 individual payments).

Snapshot of future workload:

Number of grant agreements to be established for Partners:

Calls 1 to 14: 31 GAPs are still in negotiation (currently dealt with by 6

Project officers who already have on average 55 on-going grant agreements for

Partners each to manage; the TE Project Officer does not have GAPs).

Call 15: 35 projects are foreseen to be negotiated

Call 16: 30 topics published; 30 projects are foreseen to be negotiated

- Number of Grant Agreements for Partners foreseen to be amended based on past

experience: 100.

Total number of interim or final reports from Partners to be treated:

11

See KPI scoreboard in Annex 3.

Page 67 of 119

579 for the currently existing GAPs - this number is growing as more GAPs

are signed.

240 for grants presently in negotiation or for still ongoing calls. The number is

based on 96 grants under negotiation and topics to be launched at 2.5 periods

per GAP.

Total reports foreseen: 819

Number of grant agreements to be amended and monitored for Members:

4 annual and 3 multiannual amendments (annexes 1A and 1B), which entail a

total number of 210 beneficiaries

7 annual reports for a total number of 210 beneficiaries.

Since no long term solution was found during 2013, CSJU has opted to make use of interim

staff as a temporary mitigation action. Due to the lack of continuity and the inefficiency

caused by frequent changes of staff, the core business processes dealing with the operational

and financial grant management face important risks of underachievement. Since the JU’s

management cannot compromise on the legality and regularity of its transactions in

particular in respect of payments to third parties, timely delays are inevitable.

Lean management efforts:

Since the beginning of its autonomy, the JU’s management has assessed the potential for

saving posts and increasing efficiency through establishing leaner processes to the extent

possible.

The JU shares the IT infrastructure maintenance and support costs with 4 other JUs residing

in the same building by using a common IT helpdesk and support contract. In addition, the

JUs share and run common facilities such as meeting rooms and mail collection.

The JU handles crucial HR processes, like recruitment procedures, departures of staff,

performance evaluation and the entire administration of the existing team of more than 24

people, through an HR assistant, who is at the same time Assistant to the Executive

Director.

The pool of 3 secretaries has been reduced to 2 staff by allocating the tasks relating to calls

support and administration to one former secretary.

The Internal Auditor is performing a coordination and management role for the increasingly

heavy burden of the ex-post audit process. In addition this function is combined with the

role of quality management officer for the JU.

By organising its staff and tasks in the way described, the JU is saving 4.5 posts, which

would normally be covered individually in a similar structure.

Staff movements in 2013:

In 2013, all 18 of the Temporary Agents posts available from the initial Governing Board

decision and all 6 contractual agents’ positions were filled during the year.

In January the Contractual Agent FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer) was recruited, followed by

the Temporary Agent AD7 (Communication Officer) and the Temporary Agent AD9

(Project Officer) in February. In addition the Contractual Agent FG II (Secretary) joined the

JU team in April.


Also, in the course of the year the recruitment for the following positions was launched

following an adaptation of the job description for the position and in order to better meet the

JU requirements: the Temporary Agent AD7 (Project controller) in May and the Contractual

Agent FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer) in November. Furthermore, in December the JU has

launched the first recruitment for Project officers in order to establish a reserve list which

could then be used, once the establishment plan is adopted12

, by the Governing Board after

the adoption of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Council Regulation.

External service provider – Interim agency (Start People):

As mentioned above, the expected increase of workload materialised in 2013 and this could

not be covered by the current team. It became necessary to make use of 7 interim staff for

2013 in order to give assistance to the Project Officers and Administration and Finance

teams. The functions covered were:

2 Administrative Assistants (one for preparing CS2 and one for CS)

2 Project Support Officers to help the Project Officers in the management of projects and

the calls for proposals.

1 Budget officer

1 Legal Officer

1 IT Assistant

Trainees:

Clean Sky JU has recruited one trainee in 2013 to support the Communication officer.

Housing 9.2

The JU continued to use its allocated space on the 4th

floor of the White Atrium building,

sharing this with the FCH JU and the other 3 JUs for common meeting facilities. This is

working well and the 5 JUs constructively discuss day-to-day management of the premises

as necessary.

ICT 9.3

During 2013 Clean Sky continued to develop and mature in the area of Information and

Communications Technology (ICT). On top of the regular activities and support, some

notable advances were made.

Clean Sky joined several more framework contracts of the European institutions for ICT

hardware and service procurement. This provides more options and flexibility to meet future

requirements.

A Business Continuity containing elements of Disaster Recovery were adopted and will be

revised annually to accommodate changes. While not entirely an ICT activity there is a large

ICT component involved with alternative working arrangements to be supported. Additional

12

The legislative financial statement for the CS2 Joint Undertaking includes an increase of the number of posts

allocated to the JU in 2014 from 24 to 37 positions.

Page 69 of 119

data backup capacity was added to increase the secure off-site data retention from 25 to 57

weeks and ensure coverage of more than one fiscal year.

The capacity of the telephone exchange consul (PABX) was doubled and it can now support

several hundred devices. The number of external telephone lines for the JTIs in the building

was increased from 30 to 60. Both of these measures lay the foundation for planned

expansion in 2014, particularly for Clean Sky 2.

The cabling in the server room was upgraded with colour coded cables of the optimum

length installed to make the over 1,000 cable connections there much more organised and

ready for future expansion.

Also in the server room, a temperature sensor and monitoring equipment for the cooling

units were installed in 2013. This is linked to a new alert system which will inform the

person responsible in the event of a problem. A service contract was also put in place in

2013 to ensure regular maintenance of the cooling equipment.

The core memory of the servers was increased by the purchase of new chips in 2013. On the

client side, new hard disks and memory chips were purchased to give all the Clean Sky

desktop computers a mid-life upgrade. This was a very cost effective use of resources.

The photocopying facilities were upgraded with the addition of stapling capacity and the

stock management of consumables centralised to provide better service to consumers of this

much used office facility.

More use was made of our on-line capabilities with web forms increasingly used for

interaction with current and future stakeholders. For example, the web pages for requesting

access to the Clean Sky 2 proposal document and the detailed web form for submitting

structured feedback on it.

Early in 2013 the project to organise our document management, which was begun in 2012

was completed. The upgrade to the 7th

floor meeting centre facility was also completed.

Concerning IT security, in addition to the regular updates to keep ahead of evolving security

threats, the IT Officers of the JTIs met with the CERT-EU (Computer Emergency Response

Team of the EU) to see how we could make use of their facilities and we now receive their

regular alerts to newly discovered vulnerabilities and hacking threats. During 2013 the

Internal Audit Service of the EC conducted a risk assessment of the IT facilities of the JTIs

and the IAS report was positive.

A new system for on-line publication of job vacancies and application processing was

implemented with the first posts published in December 2013. This greatly streamlines the

recruitment process, increasing efficiency and quality in the back-office, and providing the

applicants with a much more professional and modern interaction with Clean Sky. The IT

platform used for this facility is being shared, in a securely segregated way, by the co-

located JTIs in a good example of synergy and cooperation. The same software is also being

used to implement a time recording and absence management system for the existing staff.

Additional computers, telephones, printers, and other equipment were purchased for the

increasing number of staff. EC framework contracts were used to acquire mobile


connectivity solutions. A project was begun to digitise the ICT inventory and all equipment

is now bar coded for future integration into a computerised stock management system.

More progress was made in integration with the relevant I.T. systems of the European

Institutions in 2013. The deliverables assessment report facility in the EC SESAM system

was made available to the Clean Sky project officers. During 2013, Clean Sky also

participated in the planning and requirements definition for the Horizon 2020 Grant

management Systems to be introduced in 2014. An exercise was begun in conjunction with

the EC to migrate Clean Sky staff to internal ECAS (European Commission Authentication

System) accounts. This will permit the use of even more EC systems in 2014.

Concerning ICT management, stricter service level agreements and closer monitoring was

put in place with suppliers. An upgraded IT Incident Management system was put in place

to monitor the help tickets and produce statistics for ensuring compliance with SLAs and

better reporting to management with relevant key performance indicators.

If there is one predominant attribute which is clear from the above summary of 2013 it is the

emergence of a more mature and stable ICT environment which identifies future

requirements and provides for those needs in good time. This is important to maintain as

Clean Sky develops with new staff, increased office space, the Clean Sky 2 programme,

plus new tools and business rules for Horizon 2020.

Legal 9.4

Revision of GAM/GAP models

A revision of the GAMs model (Core, Annex II, Annex V, Special Clause n°1) and of the

GAP model (Core, Annex II, Annex V, Annex VI, special clause n. 5) was carried out by

the CSJU and approved on 29 March 2013 by the Governing Board13

.

The revision was required to apply at grant management level the modifications brought by

the revision of the EU General Financial Regulation and the entry into force of EU

Regulation n. 966/2012 adopted on 25 October 2012 repealing EC Regulation n. 1605/2002

and Commission Decision of 14th

December 2012 applying modifications to the FP7 model.

The main simplifications consisted in the reduction of the timeline for the payment of the

pre-financing and the interim payment from 45 to 30 days and the elimination of the

obligation to report to the CSJU the interests gained on the pre-financing. Other

modifications were due to the introduction by the above mentioned Commission of Decision

of the electronic-only submission of the Form C which was applied by the CSJU at GAP

level. The latter the simplification could not be applied at GAM model since GAMs are

managed through the specific “GMT” tool for which the need for such a specific

development and the related costs were considered to be assessed at a later stage in the light

of the H2020 grant management tools and their possible application at CSJU level.

13

Written procedure doc. n° CS-GB-2013-04.

Page 71 of 119

Decision of the Executive Director n° 90

The Executive Director adopted Decision n° 90 on the internal procedure for assessing

requests of increase of JU contribution in GAPs. The JU was addressed with specific

requests in different ITDs. To ensure equal treatment of beneficiaries and to establish a

specific procedure in order to assess such cases in a consistent manner, an executive

decision was taken to allow the increase of JU contribution in a GAP only when this would

not result in exceeding the maximum topic value of the call for proposal and in order not to

deviate in course of implementation, from the eligibility criteria of the call.

Proposal of Regulation on Clean Sky 2 JU

The JU performed across the year 2013 consultation with the Commission and its Members

related to the draft Council Proposal of Regulation on Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking. The

internal process was carried out by a round of consultations with the Legal Sherpas and the

GB Sherpas. A specific action was performed also to define the private Members’

Declaration on additional activities in Clean Sky 2 JU and its applicable legal framework

which was handed over, together with the Joint Technical Proposal on Clean Sky 2, to the

Commission during the Paris Air Show on 19 June 2013.

The proposal for Regulation was published by the Commission on 10 July 2013 as part of

the Commission “Innovation Package”. The JU was actively involved in the legislative

process by interfacing with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament by

meetings, consultations and provision of technical and legal amendments though the several

steps of the legislative process in view of the expected adoption of by Council in May 2014.

The preparation of the Clean Sky 2 JU Regulation initiated also a legal revision and update

of the list of Associates of Clean Sky JU which was carried through and resulted in an

updated list which is a formal Annex of the Clean Sky 2 JU Regulation.

The on-going legislative process and the need to ensure a smooth finalization and the kick-

off of the Clean Sky 2 Programme under the proposed Council Regulation required the

planning and preparation of a set of legal acts and documents necessary to ensure the launch

of the Programme in due time and the prompt adoption of all the legal documents required

to launch the first call of Clean Sky 2 JU before summer 2014. The CSJU initiated a set of

consultations with the GB Sherpas, LSG and the Clean Sky 2 Task Force in order to proceed

to the preparation of all the draft legal basis and documents needed in Clean Sky 2 JU, such

as the rules of procedure of the Clean Sky 2 Governing Board, the Work Plan, the Rules for

the submission of proposals, the Clean Sky 2 model Grant agreement to be based on the

H2020 documents. This set of preparatory actions are expected to be finalised in the first

quarter of 2014 in order to ensure prompt adoption of all the legal acts basis and documents

by the first Governing Board of Clean Sky 2 JU.

Code of conduct on the prevention and management of conflicts of interests

The CSJU developed an internal code of conduct on the prevention, mitigation and

management of conflicts of interests applicable to the Executive Director, the JU staff and

other JU actors such as interim staff, contractors and external experts. The code includes

also a declaration of interest form to be filled in by the JU staff upon recruitment. After

consulting the GB Sherpas and in agreement with the Governing Board, a decision was

taken to elaborate a separate GB Decision laying down the rules applicable to the private


Members of the JU. This decision was adopted by the Governing Board on 12 December

2013.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

The CSJU organized a workshop on the management of IP in GAMs and GAPs in order to

reinforce the exploitation, protection of IP and the correct and interim implementation of the

plan on the dissemination of project results especially at ITD level. Presentations from

experts were delivered and all the material was published on the Clean Sky JU website in

order to ensure proper information and advice to the whole public. The workshop and the

discussions with the ITDs brought the JU to launching a revision of the Management

Manual (September 2013 version) by proposing a new reporting methodology applicable at

ITD level on the exploitation and dissemination of foreground by means of specific

reporting templates to be filled in by the ITDs.

CSJU Management Manual (legal aspects)

A comprehensive legal revision of the CSJU Management Manual was carried out (version

September 2013), specific paragraphs related to legal aspects of the grants management

were revised such as IPR, role of the Topic Manager, subcontracting, addition of third

parties (e.g Affiliates) to the grant agreement, eligibility of third parties outside the EU etc.

A parallel revision of the CSJU Guidelines on Subcontracting was carried out by

introducing a set of procedural clarifications.

Registration of the Clean Sky JU logo as Community Trademark (CTM)

A legal pre-assessment was carried out by the CSJU in cooperation with the Commission

“Joint Research Centre” in view of proceeding in the first quarter of 2014 to the official

filing of the registration of the logo as “CTM” before the competent authority (OHIM14

).

The Governing Board meeting of 13th

December 2013 expressed its agreement to the need

to proceed to such an action in order to protect the logo and name of the Programme (Clean

Sky) in order to ensure adequate protection of the Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2 brand at EU

and international level.

14

The Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) registers the community trademarks in the

European Union.

Procurement Procedures, contracts signed in the year 2013 15

Subject Document reference Selection procedure Contractor Signature date Amount

> 5000 Euro

CSJU SME Event on 30th May 2013 -

Conference room and catering facility

CSJU.2013.NP.01

Service contract

Negotiated procedure with

at least three tenderers (art.

79 of CSJU FR16

)

Hotel Renaissance 05/04/2013 14.649

Paris Airshow 14th - 23rd June 2013

Le Bourget - Stand, catering and

conference services

CSJU.2013.NP.02

Service contract

Negotiated procedure with

at least three tenderers (art.

79 of CSJU FR)

Sélène Concept 22/05/2013 59.552

External support to the CSJU 1)CSJU.2013.RP.01

Service contract CIRA

2) CSJU.2013.RP.01

Service contract

EADS CASA

Call for expression of

interest restricted to CSJU

Members (art. 75.5 of

CSJU FR)

CIRA

EADS CASA

30/07/2013

16/09/2013

82.000

82.000

Communication support and related

consultancy services

Service Contract –

external expert

Amendment no. 1

Amendment no. 2

Call for expression of

interest for external experts

(art.107 of CSJU FR )

B. Parisseaux

08/03/2013

14/05/2013

17.920

17.920

Audit Specific contract N°

01_115

Specific contract within

BUDG FWC17

Moore Stephens LLP 07/10/2013 15.276


IMI-2011-SC-100-

CLEAN SKY 2013/09


IMI FWC

KPMG AG 25/06/2013 173.500


IMI-2011-SC-100-

CLEAN SKY 2013/10


IMI FWC

LittleJohn LLP 25/06/2013 19.994

15

It can be recalled that all of this was accomplished with one statutory Legal Officer and one interim Legal Officer. 16

Financial Rulesof the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking 17

Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Framework Contract




IMI-2011-SC-100-

CLEAN SKY 2013/11


IMI FWC

KPMG AG 14/08/2013 53.000


IMI-2011-SC-100-

CLEAN SKY 2013/12


IMI FWC

LittleJohn LLP 14/08/2013 156.747

General Forum (20/11/13)

Clean Sky 2 Info day (21/11/13)

Purchase order N°

2013-228

Special negotiated

procedure (art. 104 of the

FR applicable to the

general budget of the Union

and art. 134 (c) of its rules

of application)

TMAB 19/11/2013 91.000

GMT database development CSJU.2013.OP.02 Open procedure with

publication on OJ (art. 79

of CSJU FR)

NETSAS 25/11/2013 Maximum

500.00018

GMT database development

Specific contract

N°1/2/3/4/5.1/6/7/8-

2013


FWC CSJU.2013.OP.02

NETSAS 19/12/2013 119.190

Provision of External Support for the

Clean Sky JU

CSJU.2013.OP.01

Lots n°1 and n°3

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

BearingPoint, Sonaca,

EUTurn, Emakina,

TMAB

10/12/2013

20/12/2013

Maximum

3.200.00019

Provision of External Support for the

CSJU

Specific contract

Lot3/EU-

Turn/01/2013


FWC CSJU.2013.OP.01

EU-Turn 20/12/2013 31.200

Interim Purchase order N°

2013-20

Open procedure with


CSJU FR)

Start People 04/01/2013 26.982

18

This amount is the maximum value allocated to the Framework Contract. The amount that has been committed is the one referred to in the specific contract. 19

Idem

Page 75 of 119


> 5000 Euro


2013-19

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 04/01/2013 32.944

Interim

Purchase order N°

2013-04

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 10/01/2013 32.944


2013-39

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 26/02/2013 14.894


2013-81

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 26/04/2013 38.478


2013-60

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 25/05/2013 43.846


2013-103

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 18/06/2013 36.088


2013-102

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 18/06/2013 34.789


2013-101

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 18/06/2013 26.982


2013-100

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 18/06/2013 34.789


2013-143

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 08/08/2013 29.343



> 5000 Euro


2013-144

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 08/08/2013 22.596

Interim

Purchase order N°

2013-188

Open procedure with


of CSJU FR)

Start People 10/10/2013 10.542

General Telecommunications services

2013

Purchase order under

FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot2-SP03

Negotiated procedure

without prior publication

(art. 134.1 a) of the RAP)

Getronics 27/02/2013 13.623

General IT Services 2013 Specific contract for

services under

FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot1-SP04




RealDolmen 08/03/2013 58.014

Purchase of new 10 desktop

telephones, Polycom and associated

licenses & support.


FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot2 – PO2013-123




Getronics 09/07/2013 6.225

Purchase of computers and peripherals Purchase order under

FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot1 – PO2013-138




RealDolmen 31/07/2013 15.252

Purchase of 15 desktop telephones, 1

Polycom and associated licenses &

support for expansion to new floor

with new staff.


FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot2 – PO2013-246




Getronics 05/12/2013 8.686

Purchase of printers, computers and

peripherals for expansion to new floor

with new staff.


FWC

JTI/IT/2010/NP/01-

Lot1 – PO2013-257




RealDolmen 17/12/2013 60.662

10. FINANCIAL REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTING RULES

On 25 October 2012, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EU,

Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union

(hereinafter "Financial Regulation") repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No

1605/200220

. This Regulation introduces new rules applicable as from 1 January 2013.

The Commission adopted in 2013 a revised Framework Financial Regulation for EU

agencies and a specific PPPs model Financial Regulation for bodies under art. 209 of the

Financial Regulation.

The CSJU will assess the immediate impact of the new EU Financial Regulation and will

monitor the on-going preparation of the two above mentioned texts in order to assess the

opportunity to proceed, for legal certainty and consistency with procedures and revised

models for procurements and grants, to a timely revision of its Financial Rules.

11. INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK

Manual of financial procedures – financial circuits and workflows 11.1

The Executive Director adopted the last version the Manual of financial procedures (v 0.2)

on the 25th

September 2013. In revising the Manual of Financial Procedures, much effort

has been devoted to ensure the improvement of the checklists, delegations of authority and

back-up system and to provide clarity and consistency between financial procedures. The

addition of the project controller as financial verifier officer helped to better distribute the

number of files dealt with by management. Correspondingly, the budget officer took over

some verifying and authorising officer responsibilities through a delegation from the

Executive Director for the administrative expenditure.

Specific controls on operational expenditure 11.2

The so-called ‘GMT’ tool or ‘Grant Management Tool’ was further developed in 2013 and

was used to process the 2012 GAM cost claims. GMT provides a reliable depository and

workflow for the processing of the financial and technical reports of the ITDs’ GAMs. In

particular, through the GMT application, the two processors of the basic technical and

financial reports are inextricably linked before a beneficiary’s report can be fully validated

by the JU.

This linking of the two arms of the validation process (technical and financial) has provided

an intrinsic means, as part of the process, to have a close cooperation between the different

aspects of the ITD GAM reporting to the JU.

As a result, procedures have been established, which aim at a shared responsibility for the

validation of cost claims between the operational and financial units of the JU and which

enhance the internal supervision of the final approvals taken. The new procedures have been

applied for the assessment of GAM execution 2012.

20

OJ L298, 26.10.2012, p.1


Consequently to the new developments of GMT completed in 2013, the JU made significant

progress on the validation of partial payments and in-kind contributions processes which are

now performed through the system, providing an overall increased level of efficiency for

these particular procedures.

Moreover, in late June 2013 the JU published the open procedure “GMT Database

Development (Development, Maintenance, Hosting and Training services)”, within which in

November a Framework Contract has been awarded and signed for a maximum duration of

4 years and a maximum value of 0.5 M Euro. According to the tender specifications defined

by the JU and the annex to the first specific contract, the new developer will have to deliver:

a user manual of the GMT tool, internal trainings, a security audit, new development

features as described in the work packages; maintenance and hosting of the database; annual

trainings on new functions available etc.

The outcome of the future implementation of above mentioned new developments of GMT

will render the JU the opportunity to positively address several important recommendations

issued in the Accountant Officer’s Validation of the Accounting Systems of CSJU -

Financial systems for processing operational expenditures.

The external platform of GMT, which is used by the Members and ITD Coordinator as an

information exchange tool, has been used in 2013 for submitting Financial Statements and

Certificates, as well as the annual technical reports. Whilst users appreciated the simplified

and efficient reporting channels, some technical shortcomings still have to be solved with a

view to the assessment of the technical reports.

Financial controls

In accordance with its GAMs, the JU expects to receive the technical and financial reports

within 60 days of year end for year n-1. The JU, together with the ITD coordinators made

progress on the timely delivery of reports to the JU compared to previous years. However,

after the first review of reports, many cost claims needed to be complemented with more

information (e.g. consistency of usage of resources reports, more complete technical

explanations etc.). In addition the JU financial officers had many instances where further

clarifications from the CFS auditors were needed to have a complete overview of the cost

claims.

The JU took the lessons learned from all previous exercises and had already provided a

financial workshop to the beneficiaries in 2012 – this was repeated again on 18th

October

2013. Over 100 participants including beneficiaries and CFS auditors attended the

workshop. Many clarifications were provided and the JU team answered questions raised

directly during the workshop. The JU also took the opportunity to hear the views of

beneficiaries on the overall process and their experience with claiming costs through the JU

and its GMT application.

2013 was the second year where the JU had at its disposal the results of the ex-post audits

launched in 2011 and 2012. It therefore had to integrate the results of these audits, where

there were recoveries in favour of the JU, into its work between March and May 2013 in

order to have a clear picture for establishing the final accounts 2012. This involved close

cooperation between the ex-post audit team and the financial officers. This was a successful

cooperation as 99% of the recoveries needed were cashed before the final accounts were

established (see the following Ex-post control of operational expenditure subchapter).

Page 79 of 119

The JU management also held meetings with Project Officers and Financial officers in order

to discuss the outcome of their validation exercise – this was done in 3 cases with

documentation. Due to a lack of time, the other validations were done through the GMT

application only and verified by management in a separate and second instance.

Clarifications were sought bilaterally as needed.

Operational controls:

The Annual Reviews of each of the ITDs were the most important events in the year for the

ITDs to present and explain the status of technical progress, use of resources, achievements

and implementation of the recommendations from the previous Annual Review as

formulated by the external reviewers and the JU. The outcomes of the Intermediate Annual

Reviews, held at end of the previous year, were also taken into account.

The Project Officers, besides the continuous monitoring and the approval of the deliverables

and of the annual reports, were involved in the ITD Steering Committees and participated to

the most significant technical meetings like Preliminary Design Reviews, Critical Design

Reviews, other Technical reviews, and technical visits to both members and Partners, when

planned.

Periodic monitoring of ITDs was performed through the Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs)

(according to the Management Manual) and the Mid-Year Assessment (taking place at the

time of Q2, anticipated to end of May); the QPRs provide information on the progress of

activities with respect to the Milestones and Deliverables planned for the period, and the

associated Resources spent.

The Project Officers judged the content of the reports, together with the Financial Officers

and the Project Controller. A summary of the QPRs for all ITDs were presented to the

Governing Board after the internal assessment, up to the applicable quarter preceding the

GB.

The check point at Mid-Year was a fundamental element of the assessment of progress of

operational activities, as the ITDs had to state the actual situation of project execution and

consistency of actuals achieved against plan for the year, confirming the expected efforts

and targets for the end of the current year; when the deviation is significant, an amendment

to the GAM can be required. The POs played an essential role in revising the ITDs’

statements.

With a view to Partners’ activities, the POs followed the evaluation of calls for proposals,

the approval of ranking of selected proposals, the negotiation phase until the signature of the

Grant Agreement for Partners; specific care is then dedicated to the monitoring of execution

of the projects. An increased attention was paid to the formulation of the topics to be

managed, with increased interaction between the Project Officers and the Topic Managers.

The JU organised Kick-Off meetings for the selected Partners at start of negotiation, as well

as technical reviews of the on-going projects; the continuous monitoring of activities was

ensured through the cooperation of Project Officers, Topic Managers and the Partners.

In 2013 the role of the STAB (Scientific and Technological Advisory Board) continued in

the assessment of technology and strategy of the different ITDs; some of the STAB

members were again acting as external reviewers in the ITDs’ Annual reviews.


in the ITDs and the revision of environmental targets. In 2013, STAB has been also

involved in the discussion on content and scope of H2020 and related continuation of a

Clean Sky initiative. Again some of the STAB members were formally involved as experts

in the evaluation of the Joint Technical Proposal for CS2.

The interaction with ITDs about transversal issues, like CFPs (topics, evaluation, GAP

management), content of Management Manual, preparation of documents for GAMs; budget

revisions; and technical reviews, is dealt with at the ITD Coordination Group, which meets

at least quarterly, just before the GB Sherpa Group, with involvement of all ITD

Coordinators and Project Officers.

The case of unreported GAPs

The JU established in 2013 a general list of unreported GAPs for the first calls (2009-2010)

and added subsequently on a case by case basis unreported GAPs from other calls.

Following this, a dedicated process with a reminder mechanism was established on how to

adequately follow-up these cases internally and externally.

A series of template reminder letters was established and a series of mailings took place to

beneficiaries who had not reported within the deadlines set in the GAPs. A total of 106

letters were sent out. From this, the JU had a response rate of 64%. The remaining

unanswered letters received a second letter (the so-called ‘Breach of contractual obligations’

letter); if appropriate, a further letter for ‘Termination of the Grant Agreement’ was sent out.

In total, the JU has proposed to terminate 7 grant agreements as a result of these letters. In

all cases, actions have been taken to report. The JU, due to lack of resources, continues to

struggle to monitor these cases but has made significant progress in 2013. In addition, as the

Commission IT tool FORCE and SESAM are now used for all GAPs, automation of this

part of the process has been achieved.

The JU is currently examining further ways to automate this reminder process in order to

satisfy the target of closing GAPs as soon as the project has ended in accordance with the

provisions of the GAP21

.

Another automatic reminder system was defined, concerning the deliverables to be produced

by the Partner; in this case the deadlines of the planned deliverables are extracted from the

GAP data, and use to generate reminder messages to the Partner and in copy to the Topic

Manager and the PO, sent by e-mail, on a monthly basis. The messages are sent firstly one

month before the expected date, then just after the date is passed.

Ex-post control of operational expenditure 11.3

The results of the Ex-Post Audit (EPA) process represent a significant element of the

Internal Control System of the JU.

The main objectives of the EPAs are:

Through the achievement of a number of quantitative targets, assess the legality and

regularity of the validation of cost claims performed by the JU’s management

Provide an adequate indication on the effectiveness of the related ex-ante controls

Provide the basis for corrective and recovery activities, if necessary

21

It can be noted that one of the functions the JU wanted to recruit was a GAP coordinator – already since

2011 – unfortunately, this request was refused in light of the wider ‘across the board’ staff cuts in all EU

bodies.

Page 81 of 119

Scope of EPA exercise 2013

On the basis of the Clean Sky Ex-post audit Strategy, as adopted by the CS Governing

Board, two new audit exercises have been performed in the year 2013 and several remaining

audits from the previous years 2011 and 2012 have been finalized:

Table 1a:

Audits launched in 2013 batch 11,12 (2013) batch 9,10 (2013) batch 1(2011), 7,8(2012) total

Audited value 58,781,771 4,717,468 0 63,499,238

Audits finalised in 2013

Audited value 21,384,016 3,397,200 15,747,397 40,528,613

1. The batch assignments EPA 9 and 10/2013 were launched in June 2013. Scope of the audits

was 19 Grant Agreements for Partners. The audits were assigned to two external audit firms.

The audited value of these two audit batches was Euro 4,717,468 (JU contribution). 5 audits

could not be finalized within the EPA exercise 2013, reducing the audited value of the

audits, which are reflected in the calculation of the 2013 error rates, to Euro 3,397,200.

2. The second EPA exercise was launched in August 2013 covering 20 Members. Two

external audit firms were involved. The audited value of these two audit batches was Euro

58,781,771. 10 audits could not be finalized within the EPA exercise 2013, reducing the

audited value of the audits, which are reflected in the calculation of the 2013 error rates to

Euro 21,384,016.

3. In addition to the audits launched in the year 2013, the results of 5 audits stemming from the

previous EPA exercises of the years 2011 and 2012 are considered in the exercise of the

year 2013. The concerned audit reports were delivered by the audit firms with a delay and

results could not be reflected in the calculation of error rates of the years 2011 respectively

2012. The audited value of these 5 audits was Euro 15,747,397.

In total, the results of 19 audits stemming from all batches launched in 2011 to 2013 were

not final at the time of this report and therefore were not included in the calculation of the

error rates 2013. They will form part of the EPA exercise 2014.

Consequently, the calculation of the error rates for the EPA exercise 2013 takes into account

a total audited value of Euro 40,528,613 as presented above in Table 1a.

There are several reasons for the delays in finalizing the audits. In most cases the timely

execution of the audits was hampered by organizational issues of auditees and/or auditors

combined with a lack of resources on both sides. In some cases the requested information or

evidence was not provided by the auditees in time or in sufficient detail in order to assess

the complex accounting systems of the audited companies. The JU will focus in the EPA

exercise 2014 on finalising the backlog of open audits of the previous years.


Based on the results of the pre-final and final audit reports, recovery of overpayments

including the financial impact of extrapolation of systematic errors has been performed and

completed until the end of May 2014. A recovery rate of nearly 100% has been achieved.

Final representative and residual error rates have been calculated and are considered by the

Executive Director in his final annual assurance declaration 2013, see Annex 1.

Audit sample 2013 and coverage

The sample considered in the ex-post audit exercise 2013 and included in the calculation

of the error rates 2013 is composed of four parts22

:

(A) 1 remaining audit stemming from the EPA exercise 2011 not included in error rates

2011 or 2012

(B) 4 remaining audits stemming from the EPA exercise 2012 not included in 2012 error

rates

(C) 14 audits launched in June 2013 on GAPs with final audit results

(D) 10 audits launched in August 2013 on GAMs with final audit results

Table 1b:

Totals GAMs 2008 GAMs 2009 GAMs 2010 GAMs 2011 GAMs 2012 GAPs 2010 GAPs 2011 GAPs 2012

27,714.14 27,714.14

1 1

1

15,719,682.78 807,099.78 4,054,337.09 6,795,148.63 4,063,097.28

29 6 7 10 6

4

3,397,199.68 1,333,185.61 1,927,855.72 136,158.35

23 14 8 1

14

21,384,016.14 9,912,622.84 11,471,393.30

16 9 7

10

40,528,612.74 834,813.92 4,054,337.09 6,795,148.63 13,975,720.12 11,471,393.30 1,333,185.61 1,927,855.72 136,158.35

69 7 7 10 15 7 14 8 1

29

(C)audited value

number of cost claims

( B) 4 remaining audits from EPA exercise 2012 not included in 2012 error rates (Batch 7 & 8)

Audits launched in June 2013 (Batch 9 &10) on GAPs

audited value


number of audits

number of audits

(D)audited value

number of audits


Audits launched in August 2013 (Batch 11&12) on GAMs

totalaudited value

number of audits


number of audits

1 remaining audit stemming from the EPA exercise 2011 neither included in 2011 nor in 2012 error rates

Audit exercise

(A)audited value


The sample consisted of validated cost claims from GAMs stemming from the years 2008 to

2012 and from GAPs related to projects finalised from 2010 to 2012.

22

The following description of the sample refers only to audits with sufficiently final audit results, which are included in the calculation

of the error rates. The sample of audits launched is higher in numbers and values.

Page 83 of 119

For the calculation of the audit coverage, the accumulated audited value covered by the EPA

exercises 2011, 2012 and 2013 is compared to the accumulated total amount of validated

cost claims until the end of the year 2013.

Table 2a:

Accumulated audit coverage based on audits finalised:

Audit population and finalised audits Euro

audited value from EPA exercise 2011 44,266,851

audited value from EPA exercise 2012 39,495,744

audited value from EPA exercise 2013 (A+B+C+D) 40,528,613

Total audited value of the years 2011 to 2013 (a) 124,291,208

Total audit population (b) 601,957,593

Final coverage (a/(b) 21%

The samples in 2013 were established according to the methodology described in the ex-

post audit strategy considering the following elements:

Most significant cost claims (all CCs until a certain coverage starting from the biggest

ones)

Representative sample selected at random (by counting)

Risk based sample (2 beneficiaries have been selected on the basis of a risk

assessment)

As presented in tables 1a and 1b, a specific sample for GAPs has been launched and

performed in the year 2013. Together with an earlier audit exercise on GAPs performed in

the year 2012, the following data can be summarized to describe the audits finalised so far

on GAPs and the related coverage achieved:

Table 2b:

Audit coverage for GAPs of EPA 2013 exercise based on audits finalised:

Accumulated audit population and finalized audits of GAPs Euro23

Accumulated audited value from EPA exercise 2012 and 2013

for finalized audits of GAPs (a) 4,157,734

Total audit population of GAPs (b) 29,427,210

Coverage (a) / (b) 14%

23

The amounts represent the CSJU contribution


External audit firms under contract

Audits have been assigned to external auditors in line with the EPA framework contract in

batches. In 2013 specific contracts have been signed with 2 individual audit firms for 4

batch assignments as follows:

EPA sample launched in 2013

Table 3a:

Audit Firms Number of audit

engagements

Number of cost

claims

Audited value

Euro

KPMG Germany 22 38 15,113,286

PKF Littlejohn UK 17 25 48,143,540

Total 39 63 63,499,238

Ex-post audits included in the EPA 2013 exercise but launched in batches 2011 and 2012

had been assigned as follows:

Table 3b:

Table Audit Firms Number of audit

engagements

Number of cost

claims

Audited value

Euro

PWC NL 1 1 27,714

PKF Littlejohn UK 4 29 15,719,682

Total 5 30 15,747,396

Audit results

Quantitative results (indicators):

1. Audits launched, on-going, closed

Table 4:

Audits launched in 2013:

Status of audits number share of total

launched

Launched in 2013 39 -

Draft audit reports received (1.version) 39 100%

Pre-final reports received 23 59%

Final reports received 16 41%

Page 85 of 119

Table 5:

Audits launched before 2013:

Status of audits number share of total

launched

Launched in 2011 & 2012 (remaining open

audits for EPA 2013)

9 -

Draft audit reports received (1.version) 8 89%

Pre-final reports received 8 89%

Final reports received24

4 44%

2. Adjustments and detected error rates

Tables 6a and 6b:

24 All audits of the EPA batches 2011 could be finalised until the date of this report.

Table 6a:

Audit exercises -

individual and

accumulated until 2013

Total audited

value/requested

contribution of

final audits Adjustment

Adjustment in

favour of CSJU

Adjustment in

favour of the

beneficiary

Detected error

rate in favour of

the beneficiary

Detected error

rate in favour of

CS JU

Representa-

tive error rate

in favour of

the

beneficiary

Representa-

tive error rate

in favour of

CSJU

Systematic error

in favour of CSJU

Systematic error

rate in favour of

JU

Total unaudited

cost claims of

audited

beneficiaries

(E )

Remaining audits from

batches 01, 02 & 03/201127,714.14 -13,001.34 -13,001.34 0 0.00% -46.91% 0.00% -46.91% -13,001.34 -46.91% 657,063.04

remaining audits from

batches 07, 08/ 2012

(detected results incl. non

representative)

15,719,682.78 -633,148.71 -643,278.10 10,129.39 0.06% -4.09% -526,326.54 -3.35% 11,498,521.76

remaining audits from

batches 07, 08/ 2012

(representative results excl.

risk based items) 6,107,434.27 -81,771.29 -88,969.53 7,198.24 0.12% -1.46% 0.12% -1.46% -66,910.51 -1.46% 9,736,119.81

batches 07, 08/ 2012

Risk based sample:9,612,248.51 -551,377.42 -554,308.57 2,931.15 0.03% -5.77% -459,416.04 -4.78% 1,762,401.95

Batches 9 & 10 / 2013

partners3,397,199.68 -32,843.35 -66,245.38 33,402.03 0.98% -1.95% 0.98% -1.95% -60,572.18 -1.78% 4,254,073.13

Batches 11 & 12 /2013


representative)21,384,016.14 -495,814.39 -592,125.37 96,310.98 0.45% -2.77% -501,559.48 -2.35% 19,282,147.26

Batches11 & 12/ 2013


risk based items) 21,384,016.14 -495,814.39 -592,125.37 96,310.98 0.45% -2.77% 0.45% -2.77% -501,559.48 -2.35% 19,282,147.26

batches 11 & 12/ 2013

Risk based sample:0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 87 of 119

Table 6b:

Audit exercises -

individual and

accumulated until 2013

Total audited

value/requested

contribution of

final audits Adjustment

Adjustment in

favour of CSJU

Adjustment in

favour of the

beneficiary

Detected error

rate in favour of

the beneficiary

Detected error

rate in favour of

CS JU

Representa-

tive error rate

in favour of

the

beneficiary

Representa-

tive error rate

in favour of

CSJU

Systematic error

in favour of CSJU

Systematic error

rate in favour of

JU

Total unaudited

cost claims of

audited

beneficiaries

(E )

Results audit exercise

201144,266,850.86 -1,569,365.79 -2,686,685.42 1,117,319.63 2.52% -6.07% 2.52% -6.07% -2,186,524.10 -4.94% 43,363,736.30

Results audit exercise 2012


representative)39,495,743.74 -1,373,270.95 -1,788,282.04 415,011.09 1.05% -4.53% -686,952.68 -1.74% 65,276,835.18



risk based items)32,898,244.96 -365,833.96 -780,304.90 414,470.94 1.26% -2.37% -686,952.68 -2.09% 54,809,095.66



representative)40,528,612.74 -1,174,807.79 -1,314,650.19 139,842.40 0.35% -3.24% -1,101,459.54 -2.72% 35,691,805.19



risk based items)30,916,364.23 -623,430.37 -760,341.62 136,911.25 0.44% -2.46% -642,043.51 -2.08% 33,929,403.24

Accumulated results all

audit exercises


representative)

124,291,207.34 -4,117,444.53 -5,789,617.65 1,672,173.12 1.35% -4.66% -3,974,936.32 -3.20% 144,332,376.67

Accumulated results all audit

exercises


risk based items)

108,081,460.05 -2,558,630.12 -4,227,331.94 1,668,701.82 1.54% -3.91% -3,515,520.29 -3.25% 132,102,235.20


The (ex-post) detected error rate is an indicator of the quality of the ex-ante controls as it

gives an estimate of errors that remain undetected after the ex-ante controls have been

performed.

The accumulated (ex-post) detected error rate 25

in favour of the CSJU identified so far in

the audited population, is 4.66% (see table 6b). The rate represents a weighted average of

the individual rates detected. 26

The results of the EPA exercise 2013 include 2 out of 3 risk

based audit engagements.

The corresponding rate for the individual audit exercise of the year 2013 alone is currently

at 3.24% in favour of the JU.

The representative error rate, which indicates the error rate applicable on the entire

population of cost claims before corrective measures, at the moment amounts to 3.91% for

the accumulated audit results of all EPA exercises performed so far; the individual annual

result for the year 2013 alone is 2.46%. This error rate does not include risk based audits,

which are not part of the representative sample by definition.

The (ex-post) residual error rate indicates the “net-errors” that remain in the total

population after implementing corrective actions resulting from the ex-post controls

including extrapolation of systematic errors to non-audited cost claims. The residual error

rate is calculated according to the following formula:

Taking into account the systematic adjustments proposed by the auditors in the audits

performed in the year 2013 so far, the following residual error rates are calculated:

Table 7a:

Calculation of residual error rate (ResER%): 2013

total non-audited cost claims of audited beneficiaries (E ) = 33,929,403.24

Total population (P) = 188,310,829.16

Audited population (A)= 30,916,364.23

Representative error rate (RepER%) = -2.46%

Systematic error rate (RepERsys%) = -2.08%

ResER% - numerator= -3,166,265.22

ResER% 2013 = -1.68%

25 Errors actually detected in the audited sample related to the total amount of the sample 26 According to the CSJU Audit Strategy, the average representative error rate is calculated as simple average of all individual rates detected.

In our view, the result of this simple average error rate is misleading. Using a non-weighted average of all error rates discovered in each of

the cost claims, irrespective of the value of the total amounts involved, would require a sufficiently big sample size and population to

arrive at a meaningful representative result.

Page 89 of 119

Table 7b:

Calculation of residual error rate (ResER%): Accumulated 2008 to 2013






ResER% - numerator= -15,019,877.24

ResER% acc2011-2013 = -2.50%

The specific result of the audit batches related to audits on GAPs indicate so far a residual

error rate of 1.22% as presented in the following table:

Table 7c:

Calculation of residual error rate 2013 (ResER%): GAPs EPA 2013






ResER% - numerator= -173,993.58

GAPs ResER% 2013 = -0.89%

Table 7d:

Calculation of accumulated residual error rate (ResER%): GAPs EPA 2012

and 2013






ResER% - numerator= -435,933.32

GAPs ResER% acc 2012-2013 = -1.22%


Extrapolation

The extrapolation of systematic errors for the audit exercise 2013 has been launched during

the months February to May 2014 for all beneficiaries, for which audits have identified a net

systematic error rate of all cost claims included in the individual audit of one beneficiary

exceeding 1%. The extrapolation for the audit exercise 2013 is in its final stage; for the status

of implementation see section V. Implementation of audit results.

Materiality

The following materiality thresholds have been agreed with the audit firms:

- Overall materiality for qualification of the auditors opinion: 2% of total audited

value of cost claims included in the audit report

- Reporting materiality for adjustments to be listed in the audit reports: Euro 150

- Sampling approach:

First sample layer: Selection of significant cost items in all cost categories (i.e.

individual items with a value equal or above 10 % of the total costs declared in the

individual cost claim (Form C))

Second sample layer: In addition, a random, statistical or judgemental sample of the

residual amounts will be drawn and tested.

Based on the Pre-final and Final audit reports, 13 out of 29 opinions have been qualified by

the auditors because of material adjustments proposed (i.e. over 2% of respective total

declared costs audited).

Implementation of audit results

1. EPA exercise 2013

Overpayments identified in the ex-post audits carried out in the year 2013 have been

recovered during the year 2013 directly from the audited beneficiaries.

Likewise, the financial effect of the extrapolation of systematic errors detected in the ex-post

audits 2013 on unaudited cost claims has been recovered.

The current status of the implementation of corrective actions is reflected in the following

table:

Page 91 of 119

Table 8a:

Implementation of corrective actions (all batches EPA 2013):

Correction of audited financial statements for EPA exercise 2013 all batches Audited value Adjustments in

favour of CSJU per

audit reports

related

overpayment

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

40,528,612.74 -1,314,650.19 -690,447.78 -670,741.65 97.15%

Correction of unaudited financial statements Value of unaudited

financial statements

of audited

beneficiaries

total value of actual

extrapolation

launched (100%)

related

overpayment

based on

extrapolation

launched

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

35,691,805.19 -1,230,207.97 -617,564.08 -617,598.94 100.01%

Total corrective action implemented Total value of


of audited

beneficiaries

total value of

corrections (100%)

related

overpayment

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

76,220,417.93 -2,544,858.15 -1,308,011.86 -1,288,340.59 98.50%

The correction of errors detected for the audit of GAPs and the related recovery of the

extrapolation effects are shown in table 8b.

Table 8b:

Implementation of corrective actions (batches 9 & 10 for GAPs):

Correction of audited financial statements for EPA exercise 2013batches 9&10

Audited value Adjustments in

favour of CSJU per

audit reports on

contribution level

related

overpayment

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

3,397,199.68 -66,245.38 -66,245.38 -57,325.17 86.53%

Correction of unaudited financial statements

Value of unaudited


of audited

beneficiaries

total value of actual

extrapolation

launched on

contribution level

related

overpayment

based on

extrapolation

launched

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

4,254,073.13 -4,920.20 -4,920.20 -4,920.20 100.00%

Total corrective action implemented Total value of


of audited

beneficiaries

total value of

corrections (100%)

related

overpayment

recovered

overpayment

recovery rate for

overpayments

(%)

7,651,272.81 -71,165.57 -71,165.57 -62,245.37 87.47%


Until the date of this report, the correction of overpayments incurred for GAPs has been

achieved with 87%, a percentage which is not as high as the implementation of audit results

for Members. This is due to the comparatively high number of audits performed with

relatively small values of the detected errors. Since the detected representative error rate

stemming from the audits of GAPs is below 2%, the results of the implementation can be

considered as acceptable for assurance purposes.

Assessment of the ex-post audit results

The results of the ex-post audit exercises 2011 to 2013 pertain to validated cost claims for

GAMs and GAPs of the years 2008 to 2012.

As described in the materiality criteria in Annex 6 of this report, the control objective of the

JU is to ensure for the CS program, that the residual error rate, which represents the remaining

level of errors in payments made after corrective measures, does not exceed 2% of the total

expense incurred until the end of the program.

Up to now, the accumulated audit coverage of the validated financial statements pertaining to

GAMs and GAPs for the years 2008 to 2012 is 21%.

The indicators established from the samples covered in 3 annual audit exercises carried out in

the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, reflect an accumulated representative error in favor of the

JU in the validated operational expense of -3.91% (compared to -4.49% for the accumulated

exercises 2011 and 2012).

For the annual audit exercise 2013 alone, the representative error rate in favor of the JU is

-2.46% (compared to -2.37% for the year 2012 and -6.07% for the year 2011).

When comparing the levels of representative errors detected in the individual annual EPA

exercises, it can be stated, that the positive trend of the year 2012 has been manifested by the

results of the EPA 2013.

Taking into consideration, that the audit results of the EPA exercise 2013 are properly

implemented, which means overpayments in audited cost claims are recovered and systematic

errors are corrected in unaudited cost claims of audited beneficiaries, it can be justified to use

for assurance purposes the error rate after cleaning mechanisms have taken place, i.e. the

residual error rate:

The accumulated residual error stemming from the audit exercises 2011 to 2013 remaining

after cleaning the population from systematic errors amounts to -2.50%, the corresponding

residual error rate for the EPA exercise 2013 is -1.68%.

The population of GAPs is meanwhile covered by two specific samples (16%), which resulted

in a representative error rate of -1.59% and a residual error rate of -1.22%. The results

available at present do not indicate a significant risk for undetected overpayments to Partners.

The corrective measures for all audit batches, carried out in the years 2011 to 2013, have been

fully implemented (98.5%). Hence, the results of the residual error rates can be considered as

a relevant indicator for the remaining error in the population of validated cost claims or

respectively in the operational expense as reflected in the Annual Accounts of the JU.

Page 93 of 119

Due to the specific situation of the CSJU with its named beneficiaries receiving 75% of the

entire operational funds, and with a view to the comparatively high share of systematic errors

detected so far (RepERSys% = 3.25% versus RepER% = 3.91% ), the potential for excluding

errors from not audited cost claims in the future is high. Therefore, it can be assumed, that the

high detected errors stemming from the first audit exercise of the year 2011, which are

keeping the accumulated residual error rate still on a level of above 2%, are in fact not truly

representative anymore for the subsequent populations of validated cost claims.

Furthermore, with a view to the stable population of beneficiaries (named beneficiaries for

GAMs) until the end of the CS program, one can expect a significant decrease in detected

errors in the following years through experience made by the beneficiaries. The rules and

guidelines for FP7 projects foresee measures (liquidated damages) to penalize beneficiaries,

who include the same systematic errors in future cost claims already identified through

previous ex-post audits.

By sharing the information on systematic and non-systematic errors detected in the EPA

process with the Financial Officers of the JU, the quality of the ex-ante validation of cost

claims for GAMs is continuously improving.

The results of the EPA process 2013 reflect the legality and regularity of the validation

process for GAM and GAP execution 2008 to 2012. Thus, they do not directly relate to the

entire budgetary expenditure incurred by the JU until the end of year 2013. Furthermore, the

error rates cannot be directly applied to the pre-financing made for GAMs and GAPs 2013.

However, the JU’s EPA strategy is implemented through an ongoing process, which produces

accumulated representative results applicable to the expense incurred for the CS program until

a certain point of time. At present we have audit results stemming from payments incurred for

GAMs and GAPs 2008 to 2012. The EPA coverage and identified error rates have to be

evaluated with a view to the multiannual EPA strategy, which will continue until the end of

the program. Under this multi-annual aspect, we consider the individual annual result of the

year 2013 as well as the accumulated results of the EPA process 2011 to 2013 relevant and

appropriate to provide assurance for the operational expense as recognized in the Final

Accounts 2013.


Audit of the European Court of Auditors 11.4

In 2013, the JU was audited by the European Court of Auditors as set out in the Statutes. The

results of these audits were published in the Court’s Report on the Annual Accounts 201227

.

In its Statement of Assurance, the Court issued to the CSJU a positive opinion on the

reliability of the annual accounts and on the legality and regularity of the underlying

transactions.

In its comments, the Court mentions in the report the rate for payment appropriations of 75%

in 2012, which was lower than the utilisation rate for commitments (84%), mainly due to

delays in the implementation of activities of Members and in the finalisation of grant

agreements with Partners.

The Court also states, that the JU further improved its management, administrative, financial

and accounting procedures and considers the development of the grant management database

and system (GMT) as significant achievement, which needs to be further enlarged.

Findings and comments raised by the Court during the 3 audit visits performed until June

2013, in particular regarding ex-ante controls for grant payments, have been taken up by the

JU and actions have been developed to further improve the procedures of the JU and enhance

controls.

In respect of the Court’s recommendation regarding monitoring and reporting of research

results the JU has developed in the second half of 2013 the related process to be implemented

by the ITDs, see mitigation of risks in subchapter 3.2.2, page 17.

Internal Audit Activity 11.5

Internal Audit Service (IAS):

Based on its Strategic Audit Plan for the years 2012-2014, the IAS has performed in

November 2013 an assurance audit on the topic “Grant Management – Financial

implementation”. In January 2014 the JU has received the Draft Audit Report, final

recommendations were not yet issued at the time of this report.

The JU has implemented during the year 2013 actions pertaining to the recommendations of

the IAS from the previous year. The status of these actions will be assessed and stated by the

IAS in its Annual Internal Audit Report 2013 for the CSJU, which was not yet issued at the

time of this report.

The action plan stemming from the IAS risk assessment 2011 has been implemented by the

JU to a large extent. An update of the residual risks has not yet been performed by the

auditors.

The results of the IAS’ update of its risk assessment since 2011 have not been communicated

to the JU at the date of this report.

27

Report on the Annual Accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, dated

22.10.2013

Page 95 of 119

Internal Audit Officer (IAO):

The IAO of the JU has summarised her main activities in the IAO’s Annual Report 201328

.

In the year 2013, the IAO has focused mainly on the implementation of the JU’s ex-post audit

process. The objectives to close a significant number of audits launched in 2012 until the

Final Accounts 2012 (in May 2013) and to support the financial unit of the JU to achieve a

next to 100% recovery rate of the audit results were fully accomplished. Two new audit

exercises on GAPs and on GAMs were launched and results will feed into the calculation of

the error rates 2013.

Similar to the previous years, the IAO has provided in 2013 consultancy services in order to

advise the JU’s management on further improving the processes and enhancing the necessary

controls.

An assurance audit included in the updated Strategic Audit Plan of the IAO for the year 2013

has been performed in November 2013. In cooperation with an external audit firm the IAO

has coordinated and performed an audit on the JUs business processes related to

“Coordination and monitoring of the ITDs activities” and on “Management of the Partners

activities”. Recommendations have been issued related to management of interdependencies

between ITDs, effectiveness of review and approval of Partners’ deliverables, scope of

steering committee meetings, management of changes in ITDs’ annual work programs, JU’s

control over deliverables from Members, review and approval process of the ITDs’ annual

reports, consistency of quarterly reporting from the ITDs to the JU.

Due to the limited volume of assurance work performed, no overall opinion has been issued

by the IAO on the status of the Internal Control framework of the JU.

Main areas of consultancy activities of the IAO have been:

- Ex-ante validation process for operational expense

- Implementation of Ex-post audit results

- Risk assessment of the JU

- Preparation of the CSJU regulatory framework for CS2

The annual report of the IAO also summarises the status of the agreed upon actions to

mitigate very important management risks identified in previous risk assessments.

As a result and following an update of the risk assessment at the end of the year 2013, the

IAO concludes that the following processes still presented significant residual risk levels:

annual and multiannual planning processes, which require a strong role of the JU in

managing the completion of the program in technical and budgetary respect;

payment and recovery transactions, which have become more demanding with a view

to implementing ex-post audit results;

28

Annual Report 2013 of the Internal Audit Officer, dated 14.02.2014


management of the reporting cycle for GAPs, where the JU faced delays incurred by

partners in submitting final reports (operational and financial)

validation process for the approval of technical reports for GAPs

the ex-post audit process, which is still hampered by resources constraints and manual

data preparation

monitoring of the ITDs’ activities with a view to the discrepancy between program

execution versus resources consumption

management and safeguarding of Members’ deliverables, for which the JU currently

has not established a secure repository system under its own control

HR management with a view to a notorious understaffing, which is mitigated by an

disproportionate number of interim staff.

For most of the processes listed above, the JU management has actively and successfully

striven during the year 2013 to enhance the controls by implementing already agreed upon

actions or developing new ones. Internal procedures and guidelines have been streamlined and

backlogs have been reduced, but subject to the availability of resources. More details are

provided in the IAO’s Annual Report.

Independence of the IAO:

Due to repeated involvement in management tasks, the IAO disclosed to management and GB

a lack of objectivity in respect of some specific activities and operations of the JU, for which

the IAO took over direct operational responsibility. The activities concerned were:

- validation of cost claims 2008 to 2012

- ex-post audit process 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Instead of assurance audits, consultancy services are provided by the IAO in order to develop

the concerned processes further and establish the necessary controls until the objectivity of the

IAO related to these processes is ensured again.

Page 97 of 119

12. BUDGET EXECUTION AND FINAL ACCOUNTS

Budgetary Implementation 12.1

Budget management in general:

The JU managed its largest ever budget in the year 2013 for commitment appropriations

(250.4m €29

). Compared to 2012, this represented a 22% increase of available commitment

appropriations. Of this, it executed 91%30

through new financial commitments.

On the other hand, the available payment appropriations decreased by 5% compared to the

previous year to 158.2m €. Of this amount, 88% was paid out during 2013. This represented a

13% improvement compared to the same result of 2012.

At a glance, a breakdown of the areas of commitment and payment is illustrated.

29

This figure excludes the unused CA carried over from previous years but not needed in 2013. 2013 was the

last year of FP7 and all remaining CA for the CS programme were allocated to the JU in 2013. 30

Excludes the appropriations which were foreseen to be unused at year end


Facts and figures by title of the budget:

Title 1 & 2: The running costs of the JU had a very high rate (95% CA) of use in 2013

showing a reliable budgetary planning for this part of the JU budget. Staff expenditure

budget (Chapter 11) was mainly used for the statutory staff of the JU, although other

external support was also hired in by the JU to cope with the increased workload (Chapter

12 used). The JU also performed procurement for services of its members to provide

support to the JU team. In addition, the procurement for the next wave of development of

the GMT application was completed and the first set of work packages were defined and

contracted.

***

Title 3: The operational costs relating to the ITD grant agreements for Members (Chapters

30-36) show a high rate of commitment (90.5%). In the case of Green Rotorcraft, the ITD

did not commit the amount originally foreseen due to technical reasons. Originally the

ITD has planned to have a multi-annual (3 year) grant agreement beginning in 2013. Due

to the mutual decision of the ITD and Project officer, the amount committed finally only

covers the 2013 part of the technical activity. Therefore, and for sound technical reasons,

this ITD did not use the available CA. On the payments side, the payment execution rate

for 2013 comes up to 88.3% versus 75.1% in 2012. Particularly high is the execution rate

Title 1 & 2 Budget (m €) Executed (m €) % rate

CA 6.4 6.1 95.0 PA 6.4 4.6 72.2

Title 3 Budget (m €) Executed (m €) % rate

CA 244.0 220.9 90.5

PA 151.8 134.1 88.3

Page 99 of 119

for the Calls for Proposals payment of 99% as CSJU paid a significant part of Pre-

Financings for the winning proposals (78% of the GAPs payments in 2013 have been pre-

financings). In addition, the JU processed 105 cost claims worth 8.69 m € as it launched a

series of reminders to partners who were late reporting to the JU.

In addition, the JU de-committed the amounts not needed directly within 2013 in order not

to carry these forward as automatic carry forward. This allows a clearer picture of the

actual budget consumption at year end for calls and for the GAM.

Final Accounts 12.2

The main tables of the Final Accounts 2013 of the CSJU are included in the Annex 4 of

this report. They comprise of the Balance Sheet, the Economic Outturn Account, the

Statement of changes in Net Assets and the Cash Flow Analysis. A detailed explanation

to assets and liabilities of the JU and to the economic result of the year 2013 is provided in

the Notes to the Final Accounts, which form part of the Final Accounts document itself.

Economic Outturn

The economic outturn account presents the economic result of the CSJU in the reporting

period (01.01.2013 – 31.12.2013).

The most substantial component are the operational expenses incurred in-cash and in-kind

for implementing the aeronautical research programme funded by the JU. The operating

expenses (“administrative expenses”) cover the running cost of the JU.

Due to the specific accounting rules applied by CSJU the funds received from the

Commission and from the other members of the JU are shown as Contributions received

from members in the Net Assets of the Balance Sheet and not as revenue in the economic

outturn.

The Non-exchange revenues represent adjustments for contributions from members

previously recognised in the Net Assets due to subsequent changes in already validated

cost claims (e.g. through ex-post audits) and miscellaneous administrative revenues.

The financial income mainly comprises of interest earned by the JU on Commission

funds, which is added to the global budget envelop of the CS program in line with the CS

Financial Rules.

Balance Sheet

The balance sheet reflects the financial position of the CSJU as of 31.12.2013. Assets,

comprise mainly of cash in bank balances, pre-financing incurred for the execution of the

grant agreements and fixed assets; liabilities include the “Net Assets” on the one side, and

current liabilities like amounts payable, accruals and provisions on the other side.

The bank balances of the JU slightly decreased compared to 2012 (2012: 25,7M Euro,

2013: 24,7M Euro).


The increase in fixed asset is mainly due to the further development costs of the grant

management tool (GMT).

The balance of the Net Assets at the end of the reporting period present the accumulated

contribution received by the JU from its members (Commission, industry and research

organisations), which has not been spent yet for funding the research program.

The Net Assets in the Balance Sheet of the JU’s Final Accounts 2013 show a negative balance

of 39,8 Million Euro.

This is mainly due to the fact that the reported 2013 operational expenses are already booked

on the economic outturn while only the in-kind contribution approved by the Governing

Board is recognised in the Net Assets of the CSJU. Several cost claims related to 2013 and to

the previous periods have not been validated by management at the date of the preparation of

the Final Accounts (“on-hold” claims not meeting with all the reporting requirements and

delayed claims) which are recognised in the economic outturn but not yet in the Net Assets.

The validated part of these in-kind contributions are planned to be approved by the Governing

Board by December 2014.

The in-kind contributions for those cost claims not yet approved by the Governing Board are

reflected in the liabilities of the Balance sheet as “contributions to be validated”. Following

validation of cost claims by management and approval by the Governing Board later in 2014,

these in-kind contributions will be transferred to the Net Assets of the CSJU. Therefore, the

current status of the Net Assets has to be considered as transitional and do not indicate any

risk of solvency, but are the consequence of the accounting method applied according to the

specific accounting rules and guidance provided by the Commission for Joint Undertakings.

13. INDICATORS

A number of key performance indicators has been used by the JU’s management during the

year 2013 in order to monitor achievement of targets and objectives by the JU’s team and by

the ITDs.

A summary of KPIs and their year-end results for 2013 is presented in a table in Annex 3.

Page 101 of 119

14. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Statement of assurance referred to in Article 10(4) of the financing 14.1

agreement with the European Commission

I, Eric Dautriat, Executive Director of Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, in my capacity as

authorizing officer hereby state that I have reasonable assurance that:

- the information contained in this report gives a true and fair view;

- the resources, both financial and human, assigned to the activities described in this

report have been used for their intended purpose and in accordance with the principles

of sound financial management, and the control procedures put in place give the

necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying

transactions;

- this reasonable assurance is based on my own judgement and on the information at

my disposal, such as:

The certificate of the Accounting Officer

The results of my supervisory activities

The JU’s risk management process

The key performance indicators in place

The reporting of the Internal Control Coordinator

The intensified ex-ante controls of our operational expenditure

The findings of the European Court of Auditors to date

The Internal Auditor’s reports

The summary report on the implementation and results of the ex-post audit

process in the year 2013 and before

The implementation of the recommendations arising from the validation of

the JU’s accounting systems made by the Accounting Officer

The reporting of the Data Protection Officer

Additional comments:

- The short remaining margin for finalising the BLADE demonstration program could

result in missing the 2016 deadline for this important demonstrator. The project is

under the constant monitoring of the SFWA Coordinators and the JU, involving all

actors including the ITD associate and Partners who are contributing to the program.


- With reference to the validation of cost claims and the related accounting data, I have

taken steps to enhance controls through a dedicated application for Grant Agreements

for Member and through procedures governing the coordination of the validation in

the operational and the financial units;

- With reference to the management of the programme implementation, I have

enhanced the monitoring ability of the JU through the management manual and annual

reviews and separately have successfully proposed a re-allocation between ITDs of

their programme financial envelopes;

- The balance sheet of the JU as at 31.12.2013 shows a negative balance of the Net

Assets, which is due to the accounting policies applied in line with the Commission

guidance and which will be adjusted as soon as the validation is finalised;

- Based on the quantitative and qualitative results established through the ex-post audit

exercises performed in previous years, controls have been enhanced to improve the

effectiveness of the underlying processes for validating cost claims by the JU team

(ex-ante). Together with increased guidance provided by the JU to its members and

CFS auditors regarding the eligibility of costs and the expectation from the JU towards

the CFS auditors’ role and tasks, this will contribute to further reduce errors in the

coming years and to achieve the multiannual control objective of the JU. The final

results of the ex-post audit exercise 2013 confirm the positive trend of the

accumulated residual error rate approaching the target of 2%, which the JU could

successfully achieve with the annual residual error rates of 2012 and 2013 already

now.

- As stated in the report the inadequate staffing level of the JU has delayed the timely

administration of the programme.

I am not aware of anything not reported here which could harm the interests of the

Joint Undertaking.

The information provided is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and exhaustive.

Eric Dautriat

(Signed)

Page 103 of 119

Annex 2: Assessment of the Annual Activity Report by the Governing Board of 14.2

the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking

GOVERNING BOARD OF CLEAN SKY JU

ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT 2013

The Governing Board of Clean Sky JU took note of the Annual Activity Report 2013

(Authorising Officer's report), the provisional version of which was made available on

20th

February 2014, and the final version on 29 May 2014.

The Board is of the opinion that this document sets out the relevant highlights of the

implementation of the 2013 activities of the Joint Undertaking from both an operational

and administrative point of view.

The progress of technical activities is in line with the Clean Sky objectives. The

achievement of milestones in 2013 has largely been achieved and adequate measures have

been implemented to monitor the remaining open issues. The Board takes note that a

constant monitoring of the final achievement of deliverables needs reinforcement

involving both the Executive team and the private members of the JU. In 2013, the JU

processed the highest number of reports, (which in turn led to the closure of the highest

number of GAP projects) compared to previous years.

A relevant risk management has been implemented, for technical and financial risks, and

reported to the Board. The Board takes note of the schedule risks identified for some

demonstrators and supports the JU’s management to confirm and follow a detailed

roadmap defined with the industry.

As regards the Technology Evaluator, the Board repeats its support for this periodic

assessment welcomes the results achieved and confirms its commitment in taking all

necessary steps to make the relevant process successful.

The JU has fulfilled its monitoring tasks through the implementation and usage of

dedicated key performance indicators for the achievement of strategic research and

management objectives.

Regarding the financial implementation of grant agreements, the Board acknowledges the

further progress made by the JU to improve the effectiveness of all beneficiaries’

reporting. The further developments of the GMT application for Grant Agreement for

Members reporting have proven to assist the JU and the ITD coordinators to more

efficiently manage their resources.

Ex-post audits have been duly implemented and processed. The Board takes note of the

stabilised positive trend visible in the achieved error rate levels assessed in the ex-post

audit exercise 2013 (the 2013 residual error rate being well below the targeted 2%).

Although the audit results concerning cost claims for Grant Agreements execution 2008 to

2012 still indicate control weaknesses, the target of reducing the accumulated errors for


the entire Clean Sky programme to 2% is considered as achievable. Mitigating actions to

enhance preventive and remedial measures will be supported by the Board.

The Board takes note of the overall improvement of budget execution and in particular

relating to payment appropriations and supports a continuing trend in this direction.

Done in Brussels, 1 July 2014

Ric Parker

(Signed)

Chairman of the Governing Board

Clean Sky JU

Page 105 of 119

Annex 3: Scoreboard of key performance indicator: 14.3

Indicator ID Indicator

short name Description of

indicator Target set in AIP 2013 Result 2013

Ind 1.4.A SME share -

value share of SME funding

in total funding >35% 38%

Ind 1.4.B SME share -

numbers number of SME

participation versus

total number of

beneficiaries

>40% 36%

Ind 1.4 C SME share in

CFPs -

numbers

number of SME

participation in CFP

versus total number of

applicants

>30% 43%

Ind 2.5.1 B Topics success

rate percentage of topics

resulting in signature

of GAP

>90% 75%

Ind 2.5.4 B Redress

procedures -

all

Number of redress

requests

<5% 2%

Ind. 2.5.4 D Selection of

proposals

percentage of eligible

proposals selected for

evaluation

no target in AIP accumulated value:

92.1%

for evaluations 2013:

93.4%

ind 2.5.6 A Finalising of

GAPs

Percentage of contracts

signed in less than 8

months after the call

closure

50% of GAPs for period

after call closure (call 14

of 2013)

50%

Ind. 2.6 A Deliverables

(Final Reports)

of GAPs

Percentage of final

reports due from

partners behind the

schedule

<20% 69%

Ind. 2.7.1 A AIP execution

by members -

resources

percentage of

resources consumption

versus plan (members

only)

>90% 96%

Ind 2.7.1 B AIP execution

by members -

deliverables

percentage of

deliverables available

versus plan (members

only)

>90% 70%

Ind 2.7.3 C Annual

reviews -

recommendati

ons

percentage of

recommendations

implemented in due

time

no target in AIP 80%

Ind 2.9 C Budget

execution -

payments

operational

percentage of

payments made within

the deadlines

>85% 88%


Indicator ID Indicator

short name Description of

indicator Target set in AIP 2013 Result 2013

Ind 2.11 A Dissemination

of results Number of

publications from

ITDs registered at JU

level

3*ITD: 21 > 21

Ind 3.2.5 B Budget

execution -

salary

payments -

delays

percentage of


the deadlines


Ind 3.7.3 A Budget

execution -

payments

running costs

percentage of


the deadlines


Ind 5.3 A Ex-post audits

- coverage

(accumulated)

Percentage of

operational expenses

covered by ex-post

audits

>40% 21%

Ind 5.3 C Ex-post audits

- material

findings

Total amount of

material findings (in

favour of the

JU)including

extrapolation effect

no target in AIP accumulated (2011-

2013) adjustment in

favour of the JU:

- on the level of

reported costs: KEuro -

8,659

- on the level of the

contribution paid:

KEuro -4,366

Ind 5.3 D Ex-post audits

- error rates

Representative and

residual error rates

resulting from audits at

the beneficiaries per

year and accumulated

for the programme.

<2% accumulated

representative error

rate 2011-2013:

-3.9%

accumulated residual

error rate 2011-2013:

-2.5%

annual representative

error rate 2013:

-2.5%

annual residual error

rate 2013:

-1.7%

Page 107 of 119

Annex 4: Financial Statements 2013 14.4

Ref. 2013 2012

REVENUES

NON-EXCHANGE REVENUES

Other revenue 3,842,966.05 5,029,283.15

Exchange gains 0.00 23.44

TOTAL NON-EXCHANGE REVENUES 3,842,966.05 5,029,306.59

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES

Operational expenses funded by CSJU in cash 152,332,937.34 130,404,787.99

Operational expenses contributed in kind by members 103,773,662.84 93,520,379.99

TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES 256,106,600.18 223,925,167.98

OPERATING EXPENSES 2.4.3

Administrative expenses

Staff expenses 2,438,942.76 2,296,415.12

Depreciation & amortisation of fixed assets 75,338.78 30,212.55

Rent of building 249,384.29 367,331.02

Rent of furniture 0.00 0.00

Office suppliers & maintenance 14,515.49 10,454.20

Communication & publications 293,711.02 184,692.13

Transport expenses 3,623.55 3,544.75

Recruitment costs 1,371.18 2,989.34

Training costs 11,740.21 18,616.91

Missions 176,516.61 169,845.05

Experts and related expenditures 905,262.36 557,003.72

IT costs - external service 117,051.12 87,473.31

Other external service provider 1,452,512.94 577,168.09

Provisions for other liabilities 0.00 57,922.87

Total administrative expenses 5,739,970.31 4,363,669.06

Other operating expenses

Exchange losses 26.7 445.61

Total other operating expenses 26.7 445.61

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,739,997.01 4,364,114.67

OPERATING RESULT (258,003,631.14) (223,259,976.06)

FINANCIAL INCOME

Bank interest on pre-financing from EU 185,699.01 425,763.83

Interest on late payment (income) 0.00 0.00

Interests on pre-financing given to Members 12,862.46 13,181.68

Total financial income 198,561.47 438,945.51

FINANCIAL EXPENSES

Financial expenses 0.00 0.30

Total financial expenses - 0.30

FINANCIAL RESULT 198,561.47 438,945.21

ECONOMIC RESULT OF THE YEAR (257,805,069.67) (222,821,030.85)

2.4.4.2

ECONOMIC OUTTURN ACCOUNT

2.4.2

2.4.3.1

2.4.3.2

2.4.4.1

2.4.1


ASSETS 31/12/2013 31/12/2012

A. NON CURRENT ASSETS

Tangible fixed assets (net) 71,098.51 81,218.68

Intangible fixed assets (net) 208,813.14 150,340.14

TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 279,911.65 231,558.82

B. CURRENT ASSETS

Short-term pre-financing 14,014,675.82 19,247,464.51

Short-term pre-financing Clean Sky JU - members 0.00 6,631,081.68

Short-term pre-financing Clean Sky JU - partners 14,014,675.82 12,616,382.83

Short-term receivables 3,695,849.37 9,223,323.87

Short term receivables - recoveries from members and partners 3,239,683.00 8,770,689.69

Other short term receivables 21,393.92 11,768.10

Deferred charges and accrued income 434,772.45 440,866.08

Cash and cash equivalents 24,769,712.62 25,717,633.28

TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 42,480,237.81 54,188,421.66

TOTAL ASSETS 42,760,149.46 54,419,980.48

LIABILITIES 31/12/2013 31/12/2012

C. NET ASSETS

Contributions received from Members (EU & industry) 524,447,608.99 396,799,526.40

Contributions in kind received from Members (Industry) 365,726,978.60 223,124,982.90

Contributions used during previous years (672,182,227.38) (449,361,196.53)

Contributions used during the year (EOA) (257,805,069.67) (222,821,030.85)

TOTAL NET ASSETS (39,812,709.46) (52,257,718.08)

D. CURRENT LIABILITIES

Members contribution to be validated 33,356,975.06 74,184,690.50

Accounts payable and accrued charges 48,929,963.53 31,623,460.88

Amounts payable - consolidated entities 134.21 0.00

Amounts payable - beneficiaries and suppliers 23,886,891.47 19,775,434.46

Amounts payable - staff 249.50 4,985.50

Other payables 107,562.58 3,395.36

Accrued charges 24,935,125.77 11,839,645.56

Provision for risks and charges - short term 285,920.33 869,547.18

Provision for risks and charges - short term 285,920.33 869,547.18

TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 82,572,858.92 106,677,698.56

TOTAL LIABILITIES 42,760,149.46 54,419,980.48

2.3.1

2.3.2

2.3.4

2.3.3

BALANCE SHEET

Page 109 of 119

Statement of changes in net assets 2013

Cash-flow analysis

Changes in Net Assets and Liabilities EURO EURO

Net Assets

Balance as of 31st December 2013 (52,257,718.08)

Contributions received from members during the year 2013:

EC (cash) 124,613,566.00

Other members (cash) 3,034,516.59

Other members contributions in kind from 2008-2012 validated in 2013 142,601,995.70

Total contributions in 2013 270,250,078.29

Economic Outturn for 2013 (257,805,069.67)

Balance as of 31st December 2013 -39,812,709.46

(257,805,069.67)

75,338.78

(583,626.85)

5,232,788.69

5,527,474.50

17,306,502.65

(230,246,591.90)

(123,691.61)

0.00

0.00

(123,691.61)

127,648,082.59

103,773,662.84

(1,999,382.58)

0.00

229,422,362.85

(947,920.66)

25,717,633.28

24,769,712.62

Extraordinary items

Net Cash Flow from financing activities

Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period

In kind expense contribution from Members

Reduction in members' contributions due to rejected and negative claims

Extraordinary items

Net Cash Flow from investing activities

In cash contributions from Members (EC & Industry)

Financing activities

Extraordinary items

Net Cash Flow from operating activities

Acquisition of tangible and intangible fixed assets

Proceeds from tangible and intangible fixed assets

Cash Flows from investing activities

(Increase)/decrease in Short term Receivables

Increase/(decrease) in Long term liabilities

Increase/(decrease) in Payables and Accruals

(Gains)/losses on sale of Property, plant and equipment

Depreciation and amortisation

Increase/(decrease) in Provisions for risks and liabilities

(Increase)/decrease in Stock

(Increase)/decrease in Short term pre-financing

Cash Flows from operating activities

Surplus/(deficit) from operating activities

Adjustments


Annex 5: Executive Summary of the Clean Sky 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel 14.5

Report

The report presents the results of the 2nd

Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint

Undertaking (CSJU) performed between March and September 2013.

In line with Council Regulation 071/2008, the 2nd

Interim Evaluation has assessed the quality

and efficiency of the CSJU and the progress towards the objectives. The evaluation was

performed by a Panel of five independent experts (hereinafter referred to as the "Panel") based

on the Terms of Reference, defined by the Directorate General for Research and Innovation of

the European Commission. Two experts out of five have participated in the 1st Interim

Evaluation as well. Part of the mandate was to further elaborate and adapt specific questions

addressing the evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency and quality to the CSJU and the

JTI technical areas (Integrated Technology Demonstrators - ITDs). Key in the assessment was

the evaluation of the technical progress achieved and its contributions towards the Advisory

Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) goals. The technical progress was

made visible to the Panel thanks to visits to most of the companies involved in the ITDs. The

Panel drew recommendations for the remaining activities under Clean Sky and - based on the

lessons learnt - formulated recommendations for future public private partnerships under

Horizon 2020 (Clean Sky 2).

The present evaluation is based on a number of documents provided to the Panel by the

European Commission and by the CSJU, i.e. general Clean Sky information provided at the

Kick-Off Meeting, Annual Review Reports for all ITD's and meeting presentations. The Panel

built its assessment on (a) internal documents and published information, (b) direct

observations through the technical visits on site, (c), information gathered in interviews with a

wide range of Clean Sky stakeholders e.g. representatives of Members, Partners and ITD

leaders, members of CS bodies e.g. Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Board

(STAB), National State Representative Group (NSRG) as well as representatives of the CSJU

Executive Office. The technical visits were essential to deepen the analysis of the technical

progress within CS. The Panel recognises the added value of such technical visits, which

turned out to be extremely helpful for the assessment. Due to time pressure, the GRC and ED

ITDs were not covered by a technical visit but their assessment is based on presentations and

interviews.

The structure of this report follows largely the one of the 1st Evaluation Report for consistency

reasons. The initial sections deal with the overall assessment of Clean Sky respectively in

terms of overall progress and effectiveness (Section 2), organisation and efficiency (Section

3) and quality (Section 4). The bulk of the report is then devoted to the detailed technical

status of each ITD mainly acquired through the technical visits on the sites where the research

activities are actually performed (Section 5). A separate section describes the evolution since

the 1st evaluation (Section 6) followed by recommendations both for Clean Sky (Section 7)

and for Clean Sky 2 (Section 8). Following the evaluation of the CSJU performance, a SWOT

analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) was performed in order to place

the assessment in a broader setting, to review findings and to develop recommendations also

for future activities under Clean Sky 2.

The Panel is convinced that the CSJU has successfully demonstrated the viability of the

Public- Private Partnership (PPP) concept for research in aeronautics. Indeed the Panel

collected evidence that the CSJU has been effective in delivering on its main objectives and

has been able to reinforce Europe's role for aeronautic R&D. The Panel found the research

undertaken within CSJU of high quality. Today, a number of demonstrators are already

Page 111 of 119

running or have been tested, and in many cases, the preliminary assessments of the

environmental benefits confirm the capability of achieving the overall targets at completion of

the programme.

The Panel acknowledges the work of the previous evaluation in 2010 and endorses a number

of statements and recommendations that in spite of the progress made are still fully relevant

after the 2nd

Interim Evaluation. In particular,

• Setting up the CSJU as an entirely new Public Private Partnership (PPP) organisation

has been a significant success on its own.

• The initial 'top-down' work plan has been complemented by a detailed 'bottom-up'

work plan. The corresponding schedule foresees achieving key demonstrator targets within

the Clean Sky timeframe. Furthermore, the CS timing for demonstrators seems well-

synchronized with industrial deployment strategies.

• The CSJU has been highly successful in attracting a high level and wide participation

from all EU key industries and a large number of SMEs. CS has led to new collaborations and

the participation of new organisations is thus enhancing European integration.

• The CSJU is successfully stimulating developments towards the ACARE

environmental targets.

The first interim evaluation identified many strengths, but also some areas for improvement.

The Panel appreciates that both the Governing Board and the CSJU have been responsive to

the recommendations of the first interim review and have made much progress in

implementing them. A major improvement is the substantial technical progress that has been

noted, in particular during the technical visits on site. At the time of the 1st evaluation (2010),

it was noted that the gains were difficult to quantify because the CS programme was still in its

infancy.

The main conclusions drawn by the Panel after this 2nd

assessment are further elaborated

hereafter.

The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders' consultation in 2012 that the form of

the PPP with the JU as an instrument allow for multiannual continuity and visibility. This is

one of the strengths of Clean Sky in FP7 as it has enabled to avoid the fragmentation typical

of smaller short term projects, and has established the appropriate pan-European structure for

meeting the ACARE goals set in Vision 2020s.

Overall the Panel considers that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of

the programme and delivery of calls and projects and is convinced that the CSJU has created

an effective dialogue between industry and research around a common strategic agenda and

has successfully implemented it. However, steps for reducing administrative work, increasing

the organisational efficiency and enhancing internal and external communication are still

required. Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant progress in speeding

up processes and reaching operational efficiency, the Panel recommends that some further

adjustments are carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well

established, the balance of skills between general administration and project management in

the Executive Office needs to be enforced.

Regarding the technical progress, the Panel agrees with the first review Panel that significant

delays may have accumulated in some ITDs because of the CSJU set up time. The Panel

agrees that the slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of

preparedness, both administrative and technical, when starting the Joint Undertaking. It is

noted that, since then, some of the ITDs have caught up with the planning whereas others

have accumulated delays especially when the research content was complex. For some

demonstrators, those delays exceed two years.

Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of

high quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as the flagship for Public


Private Partnership supported aeronautic R&D in Europe. Overall the Panel was of the

opinion that alongside considerable strengths and achievements of the CSJU, there were areas

that needed some further attention and where opportunities should be taken. There is no doubt

about the quality and the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky, but

the problems of resource allocation together with "slipping" schedules may jeopardize this

quality is some cases.

A full set of detailed recommendations is listed at the end of this report (see Section 7).

According to the Panel, the most important recommendations are the following:

• The Panel assesses the CSJU as an ambitious European initiative with the potential to

become an innovative model of a public-private-partnership. The Panel underlines that the

CSJU strongly contributes to achieving the roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between

all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and recommends this

to be continued in the future.

• The CSJU should seek to maximize the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support

for the remaining calls and other activities at all levels. The Panel considers information

exchange between the JU and NSRG very important and recommends that the NSRG

continues to play a crucial role in ensuring coherence of national programmes with Clean Sky.

The Panel recommends that the STAB involvement be preserved and enhanced for example in

drafting the future updates of the SRI A. The role of the STAB is considered very significant,

in particular in view of a follow-up of Clean Sky by Clean Sky 2.

• The Panel agrees that due to the expected change in aircraft replacement strategy, the

Clean Sky targets could no longer be achieved in the original CS 2016 time frame for some

demonstrators. There is no longer any clear indication about the actual time frame for the

aircraft replacement strategy; it raises the question about some contributors' motivation to

dedicate resources for a long period of time.

• Some areas of CS are addressing operations which are highly affected by particular

interests of stakeholder groups (the entry into service of the replacement aircraft for the A320

was initially foreseen for 2025, but due to the introduction of the A320Neo, has now been

postponed to a later date). An early and close interaction with airlines, air navigation service

providers, airports, etc. is recommended to ensure successful deployment. It is recommended

to create a "market" advisory group to the CS Governing Board (GB) to better align JU

decisions with the market evolution and trends and to advise the GB about the inputs the

Technology Evaluator (TE) should feed back to the JU.

• It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both the ATM focused JTI

SESAR and ACARE also at working group level to share a better view within the JU at large

about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholder communities.

• In order to facilitate the CSJU management process, the Panel endorses the

recommendations of the previous evaluation and reiterates that the Governing Board should

focus on strategic decisions and increase the level of delegation of routine management issues

to the Executive Director. The executive power of the Executive Director needs to be

strengthened towards managing all programme activities. Responsibility for the

implementation of the agreed executive team maximum budget should be fully given to the

Executive Director.

• The Panel considers the number of the technical staff as being insufficient and

recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff requirements to ensure that the

Executive Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same

time the Panel recommends a review of potential horizontal services to be shared with other

JUs and of administrative services that could be outsourced.

• The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst

ITDs (as the transfer occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step to provide

Page 113 of 119

budget flexibility. The Panel is of the opinion that contingency budget can bring about

transversal flexibility and regrets that there is no contingency budget at this stage. Therefore

the Panel recommends to the Governing Board to consider introducing in the future a 5-10%

contingency budget to increase flexibility.

• A detailed roadmap of technical progress should be established in order to compare

achievements against the plan. This roadmap should include key decision-making points and

technological milestones.

• The TE is not yet fully operational. It is not yet used to feed data back to the ITDs.

This feedback is considered of great importance to contribute to the consistency of the CS

activities. The sensitivity of the aircraft models and the confidentiality of the data about

performance improvement associated to technologies should be acknowledged and the

benefits of establishing an additional advisory group should be considered. The reader is

referred to the recommendation of creating a "market" advisory group to the GB.

• The envisaged developments involve safety-critical systems and operations.

Consequently, certification issues need to be considered already at early design and

development stages.

• The quality of the process of Call for Proposals is considered to be good, provides the

appropriate flexibility to adapt to individual ITD requirements and attracts a satisfactory rate

of applicants. However the Panel notes that the number of CfPs is very high in some ITDs and

is not systematically related to the size of the ITDs. Some other ITDs have experienced delays

in CfP preparations and unsuccessful topics.

Regarding the setup of potential future PPPs (i.e. Clean Sky 2) the Panel has compiled a

detailed

list of recommendations (Section 8) of which the main ones are listed below:

• The Panel recommends that before starting a future PPP, the Commission should

ensure that resources including a contingency budget and management tools are available and

that an in- depth review of the technical programme is carried out.

• The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy allows for more efforts

dedicated to communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only

to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at European and

national levels. Both NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.

• The Panel believes that communication between ITDs can be improved by using to a

larger extent the TE as a tool to feedback information and to discuss efficiency in technical

matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could also

improve this communication process. The JU team should be more involved in this process

and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.

• It is noted that the TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the Clean Sky plan. By the

time the TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts, technological developments and

implementation directions have been committed to a great cost. The Panel recommends an

early evaluation of the TRL potential and its environmental benefit when a technology is

considered for Clean Sky. Lessons learnt from Clean Sky work should also be considered

regarding technologies that have been stopped.

• Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate

framework to implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level

2 projects. It is important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring

technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of contributing

to a flying full scale platform demonstrator. It is important that this type of industry-led

projects is run directly by the JU without interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.


This report is the result of a joint effort and the Panel wishes to acknowledge the support of

the European Commission and the CSJU for the organisation of the site visits, and to thank all

companies involved and interviewees for their openness and valuable input.

Page 115 of 119

Annex 6: Materiality criteria 14.6

This annex provides a detailed explanation on how the CSJU defines the materiality

threshold as a basis for determining significant weaknesses that should be subject to a

reservation to the annual declaration of assurance of the Executive Director.

Deficiencies leading to reservations should fall within the scope of the declaration of

assurance, which confirms:

- A true and fair view provided in the AAR and including the Annual Accounts

- Sound financial management applied

- Legality and regularity of underlying transactions

Because of its multiannual nature, the effectiveness of the CSJU’s controls can only be

fully measured and assessed at the final stages of the program’s lifetime, once the ex-post

audit strategy has been fully implemented and systematic errors have been detected and

corrected.

The control objective is to ensure for the CS program, that the residual error rate, which

represents the level of errors which remains undetected and uncorrected, does not exceed

2% of the total expense recognised until the end of the program (see explanations to the

weighted average residual error rate underneath).

This objective is to be (re)assessed annually , in view of the results of indicators for the

ex-ante controls and of the results of the implementation of the ex-post audit strategy,

taking into account both the frequency and importance of the errors found as well as a

cost-benefit analysis of the effort needed to detect and correct them.

Notwithstanding the multiannual span of the control strategy, the Executive Director of

the CSJU is required to sign a statement of assurance for each financial year. In order to

determine whether to qualify this statement of assurance with a reservation, the

effectiveness of the control systems in place needs to be assessed not only for the year of

reference but also with a multiannual perspective, to determine whether it is possible to

reasonably conclude that the control objectives will be met in the future as foreseen. In

view of the crucial role of ex-post audits, this assessment needs to check in particular,

whether the scope and results of the ex-post audits carried out until the end of the

reporting period are sufficient and adequate to meet the multiannual control strategy goals.

Effectiveness of controls

The basis to determine the effectiveness of the controls in place is the cumulative level of

error expressed as percentage of errors in favour of the CSJU, detected by ex-post audits

measured with respect to the amounts accepted after ex-ante controls.

However, to take into account the impact of the ex-post audit controls, this error level is to

be adjusted by subtracting:

- Errors detected and corrected as a result of the implementation of audit conclusions

- Errors corrected as a result of the extrapolation of audit results to non-audited cost

claims issued by the same beneficiary


This results in a residual error rate, which is calculated in accordance with the following

method:

1) REPRESENTATIVE ERROR RATE

As a starting point for the calculation of the residual error rate, the representative error rate will

be established as a weighted average error rate identified for an audited representative

sample.

The weighted average error rate (WAER) will be calculated according to the following

formula:

(er)

WAER%= ----------------------- = RepER%

A

Where:

(er) = sum of all individual errors of the sample (in value). Only the errors in favour

of the JU will be taken into consideration.

n = sample size

A = total amount of the audited sample expressed in €.

2) RESIDUAL ERROR RATE

The formula for the residual error rate below shows, how much error is left in the auditable

population after implementing the outcome of ex-post controls. Indeed, the outcome of ex-

post controls will allow for the correction of (1) all errors in audited amounts, and (2) of

systematic errors on the non-audited amounts of audited beneficiaries (i.e. extrapolation).

(RepER% * (P-A) – (RepERsys% * E)

ResER% = ---------------------------------------------------------

P

Where:

ResER% = residual error rate, expressed as a percentage.

Page 117 of 119

RepER% = representative error rate, or error rate detected in the representative sample, in

the form of the Weighted Average Error Rate, expressed as a percentage and calculated as

described above (WAER%).

RepERsys% = systematic portion of the RepER% (the RepER% is composed of

complementary portions reflecting the proportion of systematic and non-systematic errors

detected) expressed as a percentage.

P = total amount of the auditable population of cost claims in €

A = total amount of the audited sample expressed in €.

E = total non-audited amounts of all audited beneficiaries. This will consist of all non-

audited cost statements for all audited beneficiaries (whether extrapolation has been launched or

not).

This calculation will be performed on a point-in-time basis, i.e. all the figures will be

provided as of a certain date for the specific annual audit exercise actually performed.

However, in order to arrive at a meaningful residual error rate for the entire cumulative period

covered by ex-post audits during the execution of the CS program, the weighted average

residual error rate (WAvResER%) shall be calculated for the whole duration of the program

until the end of each audit period according to the standard formula for a weighted average

(sum of weighted terms (=term multiplied by weighting factor in relation to the population in

value (p)) divided by the total number of terms) as follows:

n

∑ (Res ERi*pi )

i=1

WAvResER% = ------------------------------

n

∑ pi

i =1

The control objective is to ensure, that the residual error rate of the overall population

(recognised operational expense) is below 2% at the end of the CS program.

If the residual error rate is less than 2%, no reservation would be made.

If the residual error rate is between 2 and 5% an additional evaluation needs to be made of

both quantitative and qualitative elements in order to make a judgment of the significance of

these results. An assessment needs to be made with reference to the achievement of the overall

control objective considering the mitigating measures in place.

In case the residual error rate is higher than 5%, a reservation needs to be made and an

additional action plan should be drawn up.

These thresholds are consistent with those retained by the Commission and the Court of

Auditors for their annual assessment of the effectiveness of the controls systems operated by

the Commission. The alignment of criteria is intended to contribute to clarity and consistence

within the FP7 program.

In case it turns out, that an adequate calculation of the residual error rate during or at the end

of the program is not possible, for reasons not involving control deficiencies but due to e.g. a

limited number of auditable cost claims, the likely exposure to errors needs to be estimated


quantitatively by other means. The relative impact on the Declaration of Assurance would be

then considered by analyzing the available information on qualitative grounds and considering

evidence from other sources.

Adequacy of the scope

The quantity and adequacy of the (cumulative) audit effort carried out until the end of

each year is to be measured by comparing the planned with the actual volume of audits

completed.

The data is to be shown per year and cumulated, in line with the current AAR

presentation of error rates.

The Executive Director should form a qualitative opinion to determine whether

deviations from the plan are of such significance that they seriously endanger the

achievement of the control objective for the program. In such case, he would be expected

to qualify his annual statement of assurance with a reservation.

A multiannual control strategy requires a multiannual perspective to assurance

It is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of controls only during the period of

reference to decide, whether the statement of assurance should be qualified with a

reservation, because the control objective is set in the future. The analysis must also

include an assessment of the likely performance of the controls in subsequent years and

give adequate consideration to the risks identified and the preventive and remedial

measures in place. This would then result in an assessment of the likelihood that the

control objective will be met in the future.

Page 119 of 119

Annex 7: List of abbreviations 14.7

AAR: Annual Activity Report

AIP: Annual Implementation Plan

ATM: Air Traffic Management

CDR: Critical Design Review

CFP: Call for Proposal

CROR: Counter Rotating Open Rotor

CSJU: Clean Sky Joint Undertaking

DAR: Draft Audit Report

EC: European Commission

ECO: Eco-Design

EPA: Ex-Post Audit

FMS: Flight Management System

FO: Financial Officer

GAM: Grant Agreement for Members

GAP: Grant Agreement for Partners

GRA: Green Regional Aircraft

GRC: Green Rotorcraft

IAO: Internal Audit Officer

ICT: Information and Communication Technology

ITD: Integrative Technology Demonstrator

NSRG: National States Representatives Group

MAE: Management of Aircraft Energy

PDR: Preliminary Design Review

QPR: Quarterly Progress Report

SAGE: Sustainable and Green Energy

SFWA: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft

SGO: Systems for Green Operation

STAB: Scientific and Technical Advisory Board

TE: Technology Evaluator

TRL: Technology Readiness Level

PO: Project Officer

Annual Activity Report 2013 - europarl.europa.eu€¦ · Annual Activity Report 2013 . Written Procedure 2014 ––

Documents