On-site innovative robotic and automated solutions and techniques for more sustainable and less disruptive building renovation and construction -

EVALUATION results

Published: 16 September 2025

Deadline: 17 February 2026

Available budget: EUR 318.000.000

D3-01

D3-02

D3-05

D3-07

D3-08

D3-10

D3-12

D3-13

D3-14

D3-18

D3-19

D3-20

D3-22

D3-24

D4-01

D4-02

D4-03

D4-04

D4-05

D4-06

Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)

35

28

26

74

43

20

19

2

33

12

56

43

20

118

72

75

59

50

56

35

Number of inadmissible proposals

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

0

Number of ineligible proposals

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

30

1

0

2

2

0

0

1

1

7

Number of above-threshold proposals

20

20

11

61

20

8

13

1

17

9

10

21

15

48

34

41

39

20

13

14

Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals

(EUR/millions)

212.82

79.03

79.20

300.18

100.54

64.03

52.10

10.00

33.07

80.71

79.75

202.79

129.23

281,80

169.26

163.30

194.10

98.32

51.96

102.22

Number of proposals retained for funding

3

2

2

3

3

3

2

1

3

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

Number of proposals in the reserve list

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Funding threshold[1],[2]

14.50

15.00

13.00

15.00

13.50

14.50

15.00

12.50

14.50

14.00

15.00

15.00

13.00

14.50

14.00

15.00

14.50

14.00

14.00

14.50

Ranking distribution

Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14

9

11

1

10

2

4

7

0

5

2

4

7

0

15

8

11

10

3

3

5

Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13

6

3

2

19

5

3

3

0

5

5

3

7

3

17

3

9

7

3

2

7

Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10

5

6

8

32

13

1

3

1

7

2

3

7

12

16

23

21

22

14

8

2

[1] Proposals with the same score were ranked according to the priority order procedure set out in the call conditions (for HE, in the General Annexes to the Work Programme or specific arrangements in the specific call/topic conditions).

To determine the ranking for ‘Innovation actions’, the score for ‘Impact’ is given a weight of 1.5.

[2] According to the specific condition of HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-01, to ensure a balanced portfolio coverage, grants are awarded to proposals not only in order of ranking but at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within the area of liquid advanced biofuels and at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within the area of liquid renewable fuels of non-biological origin, provided that proposals attain all thresholds (and subject to available budget).

According to the specific condition of HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-05, to ensure a balanced portfolio coverage, grants are awarded to proposals not only in order of ranking but at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within the area of concentrated solar power (CSP) and at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within the area of solar thermal heat and/or cold, provided that proposals attain all thresholds (and subject to available budget). Therefore, additional proposals are retained for funding to fulfil this condition.

According to the specific condition of HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-08, to ensure a balanced portfolio coverage, grants are awarded to applications not only in order of ranking, but priority will be given to high-ranking proposals that ensure, collectively, the best coverage of the different European sea basins (Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Black Sea, North Sea and Mediterranean Sea), provided that the proposals attain all thresholds. Therefore, additional proposals are retained for funding to fulfil this condition.

According to the specific condition of HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-14, to ensure a balanced portfolio coverage, grants are awarded to applications not only in order of ranking but at least also to one project that is the highest ranked within area 1., 2. or 3., provided that the applications attain all thresholds. Therefore, additional proposals are retained for funding to fulfil this condition.

According to the specific condition of HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-24, to ensure a balanced portfolio coverage of both (i) point-source capture and (ii) direct air capture technologies, grants are awarded to not only in order of ranking but at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within each area, provided they attain all thresholds (and subject to available budget).

Summary of observer report:

The process was professionally organized and executed with rigor. It was fair, impartial, expertise-driven, and transparently documented at every step. Consensus Reports, the definitive outputs of the evaluation, consistently met high quality standards, closely aligned with the published and communicated guidance, and complied with all applicable rules. Panels were composed to ensure balanced expertise, and newly introduced Vice-Chairs facilitated discussions that were structured, respectful, and evidence-based. Divergent assessments were addressed through focused, criterion-by-criterion debate, and rationales were clearly recorded to ensure traceability.

Robust safeguards supported integrity and consistency. Conflict-of-interest declarations were systematically collected and enforced. Calibration briefings promoted a common understanding of scoring scales and evaluation criteria, enabling consistent judgments across proposals and panels. Quality control mechanisms, including cross-checks, effectively harmonized outcomes without compromising the independence of assessments. Confidentiality was maintained throughout. Access controls in the SEP system and teleconferencing platforms were appropriate, data handling was secure, and sensitive information was treated with due care.

Operationally, the evaluation benefited from clear timelines, timely support to evaluators, and a reliable digital infrastructure. The documentation was complete and accessible, and the SEP system provided full transparency over inputs and decisions. Overall, the exercise adhered to its core principle, namely impartiality, fairness, and confidentiality throughout. The resulting evaluation summary reports and ranking list are consistent, well-reasoned, and aligned with the guiding documents.

We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.

For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.