EDIH 2.0 Call for Proposals

All Seals of Excellence listed in the Commission’s Implementing Decision 2023/1534 are eligible candidates. The assessment of their expected implementation and impact will be based on the description of their past operations as an EDIH.

The Seal of Excellence continues to be recognised in the current financial framework 2021-2027, even without the submission of a new application under the Call for EDIH 2.0. 

The Calls for EDIH 2.0 are competitive calls on a reduced budget. Eligible EDIHs are the EDIHs cofinanced by Digital Europe as well as those with a Seal of Excellence. Both may equally submit a proposal. Although it is a restricted Call, we want to select high-quality proposals. There is no moral hazard that EDIH 1.0 leads automatically to EDIH 2.0. 

Given the reinforced AI focus, and the need to convince of the ability to deliver services on the basis of your achievements and experience, it is strongly advised to rethink your EDIH 1.0 proposal and submit a relevant, coherent, high-quality proposal.

For the EU/EEA, the national allocation of budget was determined according to the same approach as the Calls in 2022/2023. The national allocations are fixed per country.

After correcting the proposal in line with the expert recommendations, an EDIH can resubmit in Call 2, if there are still coverage gaps as a result of Call 1 and pending remaining national budget allocation.

The first call is for the EDIHs of the regions open in Call 1. There may however be no overlap between EDIH 1.0 and EDIH 2.0 operations. The earliest day to start EDIH 2.0 is the next day after the end of the EDIH 1.0.

The signature of a Grant Agreement is not linked to the starting date of the EDIH. A later date, or earlier date, is possible. In the case of retroactive starting dates, it allows an EDIH 2.0 to continue its operations from the EDIH 1.0 even if the new Grant Agreement is not signed yet (until the Grant Agreement is signed, the EDIH 2.0 bears the risks and costs of its operations). Currently, the earliest EDIH 1.0 end dates is 31/8/25, therefore a starting date by 1/9/25 is most likely, even if retroactive starting dates could go back to May 2025.

The relevant national ministries were consulted and informed us of their decision to go for Call 1 or later calls.

As the EDIH initiative is based on national allocations, the countries that are not open in Call 1 have their full budget allocation in Call 2. The countries that are open in Call 1 will have the remaining budget transferred to Call 2, possibly with opening for specific regions with a coverage gap, as per Art. 16 of the DEP regulations.

After having been individually assessed, a country panel will determine the EDIHs to be retained for funding according to the selection rules similar to the Calls in 2022/23.

While the Commission takes utmost account of the country strategies, the national authorities do not have decision power on the evaluation results. 

As in Call 1, proposals must describe the alignment of the EDIH with regional realities (not only public but also private), how it complements and works in synergy of the digitalisation and AI strategies in a region/country. Refer to the relevance criteria, "Alignment with regional and European initiatives" (identical to Call 1).

Member States were asked to describe relevant existing regional initiatives to help evaluators better understand the national/regional policy context in digitalisation and AI. This information was requested from regional representatives (>< not in the proposal). 

As in Call 1, proposals must describe the alignment of the EDIH with regional realities (not only public but also private), how it complements and works in synergy of the digitalisation and AI strategies in a region/country. Refer to the relevance criteria, "Alignment with regional and European initiatives" (identical to Call 1).

Member States were asked to describe relevant existing regional initiatives to help evaluators better understand the national/regional policy context in digitalisation and AI. This information was requested from regional representatives (>< not in the proposal). 

The Work Programme indicates an opening of the 2nd Call by Q4. Opening date 4/11 – closing date not decided yet.

Duration: Depending on the needs to ensure no gaps between EDIH 1.0 and EDIH 2.0, we might envision a shorter opening, although by default, we plan currently for a duration of 3 months.

We plan to ask Member States in September 2025 about their views on Calls 2 and 3.

Please refer to the presentation of the former webinars (latest being 20/2) for the mechanism of transfer and references.

Without counting their own decision and preparation time, ERDF Managing Authorities have to count that REGIO takes 6 months to assess, make recommendations and finally amend their Cohesion Programme. 

The transfer in 2026 can only take place if the financial decision is taken in 2025.

EDIHs position themselves by submitting a proposal in Call in which they are eligible. 

Country and regions eligible for Call 1 was announced already. After the call evaluation, the remaining national budget allocation and remaining coverage gap will determine whether a specific region in a country will be open in Calls 2 (and 3). 

If the ministry of your country decided for Call 2, there is no other positioning possible for the moment (your EDIH is not eligible). The national allocation is untouched by Call 1.

Again, if eligible in Call 1, an EDIH can position itself for Call 1 before the Call closing date, by submitting a proposal.

There is no granting of Seal of Excellence foreseen for EU-funded EDIH 1.0 that would stop operations.

The Seal of Excellence continues to be recognised in the current financial framework 2021-2027, even without the submission of a new application under the Call for EDIH 2.0. 

There is no need to apply again to keep the Seal of Excellence.

The new Calls now award the STEP Seal, recognizing the strategic dimension of the reinforced AI focus.

If the score is below one of the evaluation thresholds, the EDIH will not pass the evaluation and not be granted the STEP Seal.

Given that the objectives of the new Calls are with a reinforced AI focus, it is expected that the proposals will also be different on this point (obviously while continuing to ensure solving the needs of businesses and PSOs). Therefore, the EDIH will not lose the Seal of Excellence on the past approach that was proposed 3 years ago.

In the case of such a late starting date, with still so many activities in services and KPI to be reached, it is not advisable to submit it in Call 1. EDIHs with a starting date in 2027 are strongly advised to run for later Calls. 

The starting date is fixed independently of the contract signature date, which would allow for the EDIH2.0 to start the next day following the end date of EDIH 1.0. The contract signature needs to take place before February 2026. The starting date of 1/7/2026 would however be acceptable.

No overlap is allowed. EDIH 1.0 has to have reached its end date before EDIH 2.0 starts. 

After the end date of EDIH 1.0, the EDIH 1.0 has still to report, submit cost claims and undergo a review (typically after 60 days after the end date – if under ERDF, only after ERDF Managing Authority gave the authorization to submit to DIGITAL)

Your EDIH has its end date in September 2027. Although your EDIH might be eligible, it has still to achieve most of its objectives and deliver services. It is not advisable to submit it via Call 1.

EDIHs 2.0 with a starting date in 2027 are strongly advised to run for later Calls.

The Grant Agreement specifies contractual start and end dates. These are the dates to be used. In the case of the EDIH 1.0, there will indeed remain reports to be submitted within 60 days after the end of the Grant Agreement (or longer if under ERDF synergy grant) and a final review, and they will take place in the execution of the EDIH 2.0. The costs however of these final steps have to be borne by the EDIH 1.0. Both grants will be seen as distinct: the EDIH 1.0 partners remain accountable of the achievements and finances of the EDIH 1.0.

Applicants must have stable and sufficient resources to successfully implement the projects and contribute their share

The financial capacity check will be carried out on the basis of the documents you will be requested to upload in the Participant Register during grant preparation 

profit and loss account and balance sheet, business plan, audit report produced by an approved external auditor, certifying the accounts for the last closed financial year, etc

The analysis will be based on neutral financial indicators, but will also take into account other aspects, such as dependency on EU funding and deficit and revenue in previous years

The check will normally be done for all beneficiaries, except: 

• public bodies (entities established as public body under national law, including local, regional or national authorities) or international organisations
• if the individual requested grant amount is not more than EUR 60 000

Please consult Rules for Legal Entity Validation, LEAR Appointment and Financial Capacity Assessment  

Further information: Grant Agreement Preparation for EDIHs - Information Day  

Basic knowledge of writing proposals is not the focus of this webinar. Please read the general documents, such as the Annotated Grant Agreement that provides wealth of information and concrete examples, as well as the other guidelines in reference. 

It is also strongly advised to participate as a partner to gain first experience, rather than aiming for a coordinator role.

There is no specific guidance. The overall consortium has to demonstrate a role for each partner and as a consortium with complementary expertise. There might however be a limitation to the participation of specific vendors in an EDIH.

Yes, merging two EDIHs is is possible if the added value and impact can be demonstrated. You would need to describe the relevant aspects from the two original EDIHs and how the newly formed EDIH will combine it. Also please ensure operational continuity: no overlap or gaps between the EDIHs. However, cross-country mergers could be challenging for the member states' co-funding side. 

The candidate EDIH will have to describe convincingly their maturity to provide services, and their operations, taking into account the lessons learnt from the EDIH 1.0. The proposers can use any elements to demonstrate their track records, taking into account however the page limit (e.g. rather than a list of clients, some key indicators on their numbers and distributions). 

The list of previous projects is mainly to establish the links with the previous EDIH(s) and previous activities relevant to the service delivery presented in your proposal. It could be used for newly added partners to present their experience. However, please keep these annexes to the point (no experience and activities superfluous or irrelevant to the EDIH objectives). It is moreover important to properly argument the expertise of the consortium, the maturity, etc in the proposal part B and only refer to the annexes for complementary information.

The best scenario is when merged EDIHs demonstrate the coherence of their objectives and reinforcement of their impacts. 

In order to trace back the merged EDIHs to their EDIHs 1.0, the proposal will have to indicate clearly the EDIHs it is merging, and their specific track records.

Also: the designation letters of the original EDIH 1.0 to be added as Annex.

It is not required by Digital Europe that the EDIH has a legal personality. On the contrary, the majority of EDIHs does not have a legal personality.

If there is a decision to join, not all the paper work is required at the time of submitting a proposal. This would however need to make progress during the GA preparation if the proposal is retained for funding.

If there is no decision, the partnership might evolve over time. Entities may join at a later moment. However, it is critical to determine whether joining the consortium brings necessary, complementary competences and to define the expectations, roles, tasks for these entities.

Remember: EDIHs target deployment of digital innovations, the consortium should have the right number of partners to achieve its objectives, not more, not less.

As a rule, partners bring complementary expertise and competences. 

However, only the entities listed in the consortium (beneficiaries, affiliated entities, …) are entitled to claim costs for the actual incurred efforts.

In this specific case, one must question whether the university is necessary, and whether the foundation should rather not be a beneficiary. 

There might be cases, however, where a foundation has a weak financial situation that would otherwise prevent it from participating as a beneficiary, and where the university provides the financial liability for the foundation as an affiliated entity to the university. 

As for EDIH 1.0, each EDIH 2.0 will have to suggest KPI, and their targets, in their proposal. There is a list of KPIs specified in the Call text, but it remains the responsibility of each EDIH to determine how it translates for their specific operations.

As in EDIH 1.0. The Call text specifies that EDIHs would define AI-specific subindicators.

This comes from a few EDIHs that preferred to use a Horizon-style approach to deliverables. The EDIHs have the flexibility to propose consolidated reports covering all services instead of individual Deliverables.

Yes

Additionally, will the DMA be updated to better assess AI impact, possibly through an AI Maturity Index, while avoiding complications from multiple DMA versions?

For the current DMA platform improvements, please contact with specific cases the DTA (info@edihnetwork.eu) with G. Demur in copy (Gaspard.DEMUR@ec.europa.eu).

 There is a new version of DMAT that takes into account the AI dimension, to be used as much as practically possible. The DMAT however stops short of being an AI diagnostics tool.

Yes, as accompanying companies in their digital journey is an objective of the EDIHs, not only previously serviced companies but also companies not having benefited from services by the EDIH.  On the previously serviced companies, you will want to assess their evolution through the DMAT (e.g. by using the DMAT 1.0 that will still be available for comparison).

This is up to the EDIH to define their KPI whether to count services or count companies, to improve the digital transformation of the regional economy and industry. 

The choice of addressing more SMEs or performing more services per SME should also be discussed with your other regional/ national co-financer. 

No specific number. EDIHs could address both types of clients. However, take into account that EDIHs are to have an ambitious transformative impact on the territory for the proposed budget. The level of ambitions is an integral part of the assessment of your proposal.

In our region, we have exhausted regional funds for providing services and have faced delays exceeding a year due to issues with national co-funding and delineation costs. When combined with other financial reporting requirements, the management workload is becoming excessively high compared to the resources allocated for actual service delivery.

Preamble: the EDIHs have their justification in the service delivery to companies willing to undertake a digital transformation, and EDIHs are responsible to ensure a balanced financial plan, notably for their co-funding. 

Although there is no expected percentage of service execution, it is expected that a significant majority will be delivered. It might require to consider a higher financial contribution from companies benefiting EDIH services to compensate the lack of co-funding or any other financial plan to execute the Digital Europe Grant Agreement. 

Each partner brings unique expertise to the consortium. As is currently the case, each partner must play an active role but does not necessarily need to provide a service directly.

The focus should be on how each partner contributes to the success of the EDIH (be it in awareness raising, services, …).

Experience of EDIH v1.0 has shown that involvement of all partners is key for success and creates a positive dynamic.

Consider the importance of complementarity between partners' expertise.

Awareness raising activities on technology could take place without the use of technology. However, to qualify for a test-before-invest service, it should come with a technology prototype, demonstrator, MVP, …

A detailed definition is not expected. This would be for your EDIH handbook, catalogue of services or … that you  use internally to communicate the services so that each partner can talk to prospects about your services.

You should however define your services in the proposal to give evaluators enough confidence about the what? for whom? And that it forms a coherent portfolio of services for which you have the necessary competences in the EDIH to deliver these services. 

Of course, and it is already the case in EDIH v1.  There is a requirement to describe these at proposal stage, to give the assurance that you have carefully reflected on the services and their delivery.   However, you have the flexibility to adapt the services over time to fit the market needs and technology evolutions at best. Your project officer will guide you whether it requires an amendment, or a simple exchange of documents is sufficient.

The objective remains unchanged: guiding companies towards technologies that suit their needs and help them to overcome their problems.

Desired improvement: strengthen practical and concrete aspects (avoid mere exchanges, as seen in some cases).

Advice: Be as specific and tangible as possible to provide substantial and concrete input to beneficiaries.

It is preferable to break down a service in EDIH 1.0 into finer-grain services if longer service duration is planned, with some of these smaller services to be finished in EDIH 1.0 and some others in the EDIH 2.0. 

From an accounting perspective, it is also preferable to close EDIH 1.0 before starting EDIH 2.0. There is no budget transfer possible between EDIH 1.0 and EDIH 2.0.

Extensions are not mandatory but could be considered to optimize budget use.

The logic of the public intervention to provide affordable digitalisation services remain. EDIHs are a demand-driven approach, to provide technological solutions to problems, and not a technology-push or innovation transfer agency. These problems are specific to some production or sector, and are not necessarily formulated as a request for a specific technology.

Yes.

Reference to an AI toolbox is meant to be your own AI tools and competences available in your EDIH (or from other EDIHs through the network). There is dedicated AI toolbox developed by DEP.

By suggesting an AI Helpdesk, the EC proposes a conceptual name to consolidate various AI-related support services. It leaves room for EDIH’s creativity to define more specifically its content, which can include all AI-related service categories: Innovation advice, Links to technology, Awareness-raising, technological awareness, substantial support for upgrading (TBI), staff skill development (S&T), referrals to AI providers (ECO), etc.

The DTA will be tasked to share best practices and coordinate FAQs from the EDIH’s AI helpdesks, both on regulatory and technology dimensions.

More information on the AI Innovation ecosystems at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/support-ecosystem-ai-innovation-europe. 

Experts will have to assess overall how you approach the use of AI across the digital journey of clients and delivery of services, how you would plan a flexible journey of a company across the various European AI innovation infrastructures and how you would approach the AI helpdesk.

Remember that the offers of EDIHs is driven by the demand and needs of companies (and PSOs) rather than pushing specific technologies. In this context, what is asked from socalled cyber- or hpc- focused EDIHs is to increase their AI competences and toolbox, so they could take the opportunities of client needs to provide cyber of hpc services that would be richer in AI.

There is no such percentage. It is critical to avoid artificially designing a proposal in the hope to please evaluators. The overall proposal should be coherent and address efficiently the needs of companies.

The use of AI internally to the EDIH should not be thought as an overall integration project of partners’ IT. There are several quick wins possible. 

The objective of the EDIH is not to develop an internal AI platform, but rather to use AI & the recent spree of AI tools whenever it would help you reach out to prospects and clients more easily, to deliver services more efficiently, … 

Think of it as well as a matter of credibility towards clients, when you propose to adopt specific AI technologies, whereas you would not be using them yourselves?

Not all details need to be known at proposal time, but you need to give credible description that you have seriously considered this collaboration. 

Do not remain only vaguely intentional. Give concrete examples.

Collaboration involves understanding how AI Factories onboard clients, so that you can appropriately refer clients while supporting them in their digital journey. The EDIH should provide complementary services, not replicate the AI Factory services.

No, EDIHs are asked to improve their toolbox & competences with AI, but the logic of intervention is to start from client needs. If the solution is AI, the increased competences and collaboration with AI innovation ecosystems will help the EDIH to provide better services.

Yes. It will be critical to credibly describe the mode of operations and providers of these services however.

EDIHs are not R&I projects aimed at delivering next-generation AI technologies. 

When you disseminate and communicate, remember how it could support the objectives of the EDIH, to attract prospects, to evidence your service delivery, ... AI should be mainstreamed in your communication activities. Reflect whether highlighting AI improves a specific communication.

For example, success stories of your clients having digitally transformed through AI; or highlighting your services as an EDIH, of which AI is one of the different elements of your services.

Large firms are not eligible clients for EDIHs under Digital Europe. However, collaborating with these large firms to support the digitalisation of their innovation ecosystems, suppliers, … in the form of SMEs and mid-caps is valuable and could be pursued. There is no provision in the Call to formalise this collaboration with large firms.

Indeed, and this is already the case today for several EDIHs: an EDIH may have different sources of cofinancing, including from service fee from clients, as long as the overall finances of the EDIH remains balanced, that prices are transparently announced and that there is equal treatment (e.g. we do not want to see SME in agrifood covered 50/50 with an SME in health covered 50/0). 

Please check as well the general FAQ (FAQ: European Digital Innovation Hubs | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network), section E.

The purpose of the list of service prices is compliance with state aid regulations. It allows to pass on State aid to clients of the EDIH through the value of the service delivered to these clients. In this case, the State aid does not “stick” with the EDIH: that is, for aid that is passed on to clients, the EDIH is not subject to State aid. Note that when the aid is for operations of the EDIH which have not been (in part or entirely) factored in the prices of service, that part of State aid remains with the EDIH (usually using GBER Art. 27, aid to clusters, in which all partners in an EDIH may benefit).

If the EDIH does not receive national/regional co-financing, the list remains necessary but should mention that State aid passed on to clients is zero. Point for attention: national/regional public funding can be provided directly (through grant) to the partners, or indirectly (e.g. subsidy to a university as part of their overall mission). 

It is important not to confuse with the fact that the DIGITAL EUROPE programme funding is based on the costs  actually incurred to deliver these services and other operations of the EDIHs and not on the prices of the services. 

Experience has also shown that a list of services helps to structure the EDIH, and could be a useful marketing/business development tool. Additionally, the list of services and their prices helps in the reporting of KPIs at the time of determining the value of a service to be declared.

Please check as well the general FAQ (FAQ: European Digital Innovation Hubs | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network), section E, and notably E1, E2 and E5.

The approach remains the same as in EDIHs 1.0 (which was however often misunderstood), that is there is no obligation to match the total budget (costs) with total service prices. 

The formation of a price  is based on the costs incurred to deliver a service, but may depart (e.g. it would lead to an unrealistic service price when incorporating too many non-service-related costs).

Some activities may occur whose costs are not attributed to services: the budget equals service costs plus a percentage for common activities (e.g., communication, management). These activities, if funded by national/regional public funds, are subject to State aid declaration by the EDIH partners (this aid is not passed on in the form of services to clients).

There are different sources of financing: EU, regional, partner, and company funding. Describe credibly what is your mix.

Yes (refer to the other questions in this section for more details). Digital Europe is a programme based on the incurred costs.

Please check as well the general FAQ (FAQ: European Digital Innovation Hubs | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network), section E.

When forming the price of a service, you need to take into account the costs incurred to deliver a service. As this service is offered at a discount or for free, it is important to target a realistic market price, in order to avoid distorting the prices of services in your region. For example, you might want to increase the price by integrating parts of other costs that may not be passed on as services, such as awareness raising, management or networking.

Prices for services may be presented in different ways: as a lump sum per service, as a bracket of minimum/maximum prices, as a price per unit of work (such as hourly average), …

The financial plan should be clear overall, leading to a balance of costs vs sources of financing. Such an overall balance might require that you reflect on your price list, in the form of price increases  or a part of the service prices to be paid by the client. In your proposal, present a credible financing plan and overall justifications on how you reach a balance.

The reply here is in no way a legal consideration, but rather a layperson’s description!

• Broadly, State aid is whenever public funding from the country or the region is used to support companies or public sector organisations.

  pay attention not only to direct public funding, but also indirect public funding

• EU funding is not considered State aid, if the decision to finance an entity has been taken independently from national influence (“imputability”). 

Other conditions to consider EU funding as not under State aid are for example in art. 8 GBER.

• By contrast, cofunding from private sources does not trigger State aid compliance. These are sponsorship, private partner’s own contribution, revenue from paid services to companies, …

Please check as well the general FAQ (FAQ: European Digital Innovation Hubs | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network), section E, and notably E6 and E10.

The price list is a helper to ensure that initiatives funded by the EU are given the means to comply with the State aid regulations.

For countries like Italy, where the budget was split between DEP and RRF, will this mechanism continue in the next calls?

The delineation of costs was required due to RRF constraints, which will not be used in the next calls, so this will not be necessary.

This delineation of costs (split) was an exception, required due to RRF constraints. Since RRF will not be used in the next calls, this exceptional structure is not allowed. 

Possible (mix of) cofunding sources:

• DEP – 50% funding rate
• ERDF - operational programmes
• National/regional budget
• Private: EDIH own funding, client payments

The 50% matching contribution may come from multiple sources.

If regional funding is planned, a commitment letter specifying the amount and percentage is not required. 

Please however be clear on the financial plan. If you have a letter of intent, please attach it to add credibility to your proposal, but it is also not compulsory.

Given the project duration (3 years), changes may occur: the proposal must reassure evaluators of the consortium's ability to sustain co-financing throughout, and that it has got a credible funding plan.

The 50% matching contribution may come from a mix of multiple sources (regional, national, own, SME contributions, …). Whatever your selected options, make sure to provide a credible financial plan. 

If you have a reasonable confirmation of national cofunding, even if not fully decided yet, please present a plan that integrates these elements – there is no need to “invent” a different financing plan. Identify it as a risk, and reflect on the contingency measures.

Digital Europe is based on costs actually incurred, and therefore management and activities are part of the funding scheme by Digital Europe. The other 50% might not be covered, and they could be partly integrated in the prices of your fee-paying services. Other schemes exist, such as own investments by partners, …

Countries in Call 2 have expressed an interest in the ERDF transfer to the DEP programme.

Transfer to DEP is only foreseen with synergy programmes, such as Cohesion Policy Programme (of which ERDF is a part).

Remaining service amounts paid by client companies can indeed be used as a source of cofinancing. It will require to form the prices of the services in consequence.

No, this would be considered as double funding, even if both funding have different objectives.

Sustainability concerns how the EDIH will be able to provide services after the grant agreement ends. By default, it will concern 100% of the proposed operations. The EDIH might want to provide only a reduced set of services and this perimeter of operations has to be described in regards to the proposed sustainability plan.

Sustainability concerns how the EDIH will be able to provide services after the grant agreement ends. 

This request is triggered by the fact that 

1. the financial decisions concerning EU Programmes will only be taken by 2027-28, when the MultiAnnual Financial Framework for the next programming period will have been decided by the Heads of State.
   1. the EDIH network is a very valuable initiative to digitally transform our economy. In the absence of visibility on future financing possibilities, we have to ask EDIHs to responsibly reflect on the sustainability of the operations.

By default, we expect that 100% of the proposed operations to be sustainable.

However, the EDIH might want to provide only a reduced set of services, and this perimeter of operations has to be described in regards to the proposed sustainability plan.

Such a deliverable at M36 is not requested but could be integrated in the final management report. It will be more important at M36 to have put in place the sustainability measures.

Public national or regional funding is under the State aid regime. Usually, their share determines what is considered as State aid (either to the EDIH for its own operations, or passed on to clients in the form of services)

Both schemes are possible. 1) The management costs may be covered by private investments of the partners or by national/regional funding for the EDIH operations (such as in GBER art. 27). 2) The management costs (or a part of these) may also be integrated in the prices of the services, whose value is said to be transferred to clients in the form of these services (see list of service prices).

It is asked to the EDIHs to scan their environments for sources of financing. It is critical that not all investment support would rely only on public support.

The amount of requested funding is determined by the EDIH with respect to their proposed operations and their level of national/regional cofinancing. Evaluators will assess the overall use of budget on the basis of a credible financial planning.

The financial regulation of the EU considers that up to 30% of costs may be subcontracting costs. Higher subcontracting costs are possible, provided adequate justification. It is more important at proposal stage to justify the need for subcontractors and give confidence of their role and competences, and why it is not (sufficiently) present in the consortium partners. Minimal expertise is however expected in the consortium. 

Note that management may not be subcontracted.

There are several options to identify and name subcontractors:

Option 1: Identified subcontractors listed in the proposal, reassure evaluators about resource availability (and reputation) – do not forget to include a description of the named subcontrators. Public procurement thresholds will apply during EDIH operations.

Option 2: No specific experts identified; a call for subcontracted tasks will be launched (except in proven exclusivity cases). A description of available expertise in a specific region reassures evaluators (e.g., niche market). Public procurement thresholds will apply during EDIH operations.

Option 3: When subcontractors are individual experts: hiring expert as an in-house consultant, whose cost can be covered as personnel costs (not a subcontractor).

At the proposal stage, public procurement thresholds are not critical but must be developed during contract negotiations.

Please refer to the Annotated Grant Agreement for more details: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf

Please refer to the rules regarding subcontracting outlines in the Annotated Grant Agreement https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf. It is important to ensure that no conflicts of interest arise.

As a rule, the same financial conditions apply. Please refer to the general FAQ (FAQ: European Digital Innovation Hubs | European Digital Innovation Hubs Network), in particular, section D, as well as the Annotated Grant Agreement https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf.

The 7% indirect cost rate remains.

There is a possibility to purchase equipment at full cost, with the requirements to provide the necessary justification, and whether amortization would not be a better option.

No, application preparation is not an eligible cost. 

The increase from 50 to 70 pages was decided following criticism received during the first call. This is not an obligation to fill 70 pages but provides a more comfortable framework for drafting Part B. A concise presentation is always appreciated by evaluators. 

Among the “usual” elements, please do not forget to include the following elements: 

• Continuity between EDIH 1.0 and 2.0 
• AI focus (flexible journey among AI innovation infrastructures, AI helpdesk, …) 
• Co-financing
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
• List of services 

There is no imposed architecture of the work packages: the EDIH selects the most appropriate implementation for its specific case. This project organisation is assessed by the evaluators under the criterion of implementation.

While there is a guidance document on collaboration with EEN and clusters (https://european-digital-innovation-hubs.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-hub/guidance-documents/guidance-edih-een-cluster-cooperation), it is up to each EDIH to reflect on how to design the synergy mechanisms to work best with these ecosystems.  

A CSIRT is typically operating very differently from an EDIH, positioning the CSIRT in dynamic information of vulnerabilities and countermeasures, reaction to attacks, in emergency and damage control mode. 

An EDIH, on the contrary, would work more upstream, to equip companies to put the necessary equipment, process, … in place ahead of an attack.

There is indeed some overlap in the objectives in between, such as awareness raising. It would require a strong management to draw boundaries and avoid that one mission would take over from the other mission.

Moreover, noting that CSIRTs also benefit from other sources of funding, including from the EU, it risks bringing more complexities than solutions.

In conclusion, it is possible but will require careful description, additional planning and monitoring, to ensure a coherent synergy and reaching both objectives with integration of a CSIRT in an EDIH. 

EDIHs can continue being regional.

At the initiative of ministries, there might be discussions in some countries, to elevate regional EDIHs to the national level, but this is not true for all countries.

EDIHs are asked to specialize in line with the territory in which they operate, according to the needs of companies (and PSOs) in this territory. We certainly do not prescribe or limit the sectors to these 3. On the contrary.

The best scenario is when merged EDIHs demonstrate the coherence of their objectives and reinforcement of their impacts. 

While the Commission takes utmost account of the country strategies, the national authorities do not have decision power on the evaluation results.

This also guarantees that EU funding is not requalified as State aid

The EDIH proposal has to self-assess their ethical aspects in the part A of the participant portal.  Evaluators review the self-assessment on the basis of the justifications as well as the credibility of the description in part B. 

Given the reinforced AI focus, it is expected that the EDIH will give advices compliant to the AI Act and ethics guidelines.

Full details in https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/how-to-complete-your-ethics-self-assessment_en.pdf