It is something you would like to avoid since it is always a challenge and an extra annoyance in your working load. However, the decision of an evaluation committee over your proposal or final report might be mistaken, wrongly interpreted, or just missing the point, but with an unpleasant outcome.
In our experience, a wrong judgement on behalf of evaluating teams relates either to the initial discernment of administrative, exclusion, and eligibility criteria related to an application form, or the final report after project termination.
In the former case, the critical notification suggests that a document to be mandatorily attached to the application is missing, a signature was not put on a declaration of honour, a paper is not duly filled in, a partner is not eligible due to its legal profile, etc. Not having delivered the right documentation or having included a non-eligible partner in the consortium leads unavoidably to the exclusion of the proposal from the evaluation process.
In the case of a final report, some expenses might not be recognised due to wrong or not clear evidence submitted, some expenditures are not reimbursed because they were not following the rule or were meant to the wrong beneficiary, etc. The missing recognition of what partners have spent during the project implementation leads to the recovery of a smaller amount of the financed budget which can be a considerable loss especially if this affects small organisations with limited financial resources.
This is the bad news. The good news is that the refusal of the submitted documentation is usually accompanied by the statement: “Should you believe that your rights have been adversely affected by this decision you might consider appealing within x calendar days from the receipt of this notification”. It is the project manager’s chance to show that the decision taken is inaccurate and that the proper documents, eligibility, expenses are to be taken as valid. But this has to be proven!
The actions in this instance can be various, according to the type of justification and evidence which shall support the appeal. In some cases, a more thorough explanation of what submitted might do it, in others the need for further detailed information is necessary. It also helps, in the case of documents or partners’ eligibility, to show what holds in the national and legal context where the organisation is legally registered. You might find yourself having to admit light negligence in forwarding the documentation or in double checking what you had submitted the latest version of a signed paper. Showing evidence that in other similar cases the decision taken by evaluators was in the opposite direction can also be a strategy, as long as it is motivated and courteously presented.
Yes, the way the appeal is submitted plays also a role. The letter shall be detailed, clear, meticulous, and up to the point. Here facts are relevant, not opinions, therefore objective information and additional documents are the ones that can make it through a revision of judgement. Consequently, the style of the appealing letter should be blunt, though polite, and open to further demands or discussion.
It takes energy, care, precision, somewhat discretion, and a lot of patience drafting the answer to a rejected proposal or reimbursement, but if the right arguments are disposed a change of assessment is predictable.
Do not forget: appeals do not apply to the ultimate decisions taken by the funding agency with regards to the quality of a submitted proposal! Here, what is left to the project manager, is to carefully read the motivations of rejection and re-submit the proposal in an upcoming call, by amending – obviously! – the weaknesses which are reported.