Horizon Europe · Digital Europe · Erasmus+Independent pre-submission evaluation
ONE PROPOSAL · REPORT IN 15 MINUTES€499

Losing an EU proposal is expensive. Find the weaknesses before the real evaluators do.

A serious proposal takes hundreds of hours across your team, your technical experts, finance and your consortium partners. Submitting it without an independent challenge puts all of that at risk.

BidShark simulates how experienced EU evaluators are likely to assess your proposal — while you still have time to fix what they would flag. Built on a library of fifty evaluator profiles spanning different professional, sector and evaluation backgrounds.

Panel composition

Six independent readings

  • 01ExcellenceObjectives, methodology, state of the art
  • 02ImpactPathways, uptake, measurable change
  • 03ImplementationWork plan, resources, governance, risk
  • 04ConsortiumCapacity, complementarity, credibility
  • 05Red teamUnsupported claims, gaps, weak links
  • 06Sector specialistDomain depth for your call

Decision layer

One adjudicated score

What happens to your proposal

Six evaluators, one adjudicated score, every finding quoted

evaluator.copenhagenperformance.com

Part B.pdf

45 pages · Horizon Europe RIA

Upload your proposal.

Ask a real EU evaluator

Choose the evaluator who answers your questions

People who evaluate for EU programmes, ready to answer written questions about your own report. They do not read or rewrite your proposal.

  • Antonio

    Social Entrepreneur, Social Innovation Expert

    Italia · 12 yrs

    • Social Innovation
    • Youth Engagement
    • Stakeholder Engagement
    • +7
    Book this evaluator
  • Stamatia

    Founder & Managing Director, Thraxeon Strategy & Technology Ltd (in parallel: Senior Manager – Strategy, Growth & R&D, PwC Business Solutions SA)

    Greece · 10 yrs

    • R&D funding
    • innovation
    • agrifood
    • +7
    Book this evaluator

55 EU evaluators to choose from

Across Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, Erasmus+ — filter by programme, domain, country and years of experience.

Browse the evaluator marketplace

0

independent specialist readings

0–5

the official scoring scale, in half points

0 min

typical upload to finished report

page cited

every material finding

Transparent by design

Not one generic opinion. Six defined specialist roles.

Each evaluator scores independently, before it sees what the others found — the same rule a real panel works under, and for the same reason. Agreement between readings that never met is worth something; agreement between readings that influenced each other is worth nothing.

The evaluator behind seat 03

Sisu29 yearsdemanding

Senior security architect, national research and technology organisation

Security-first and very precise. Assumes optimistic claims are incomplete until proven otherwise, and treats a risk register with no entry for the obvious risk as evidence the register was written to be present rather than to be used.

Earns a five

  • a real threat model
  • governance and incident response
  • realistic operational testing

Taken from the evaluator brief this seat is conditioned on, not written for this page.

Fifty evaluator profiles are held in the library. Which six read your proposal is decided by programme, sector and type of action — the same rule every time, so the same proposal always draws the same panel.

What you receive

Not one assessment. Two.

Knowing you would score 12/15 instead of 14/15 is not enough. You need the assessment in the form the real evaluators use — and, separately, a clear plan for what to fix first. One report, both halves, €499.

PART ONE

The evaluation, in the official shape

The assessment as it would read after the official evaluation, in the format you will recognise from an Evaluation Summary Report.

  • Your likely score against the criteria for your type of action
  • Excellence, Impact and Implementation assessed separately
  • Strengths and weaknesses under each criterion
  • Consortium and sector-specific assessment
  • Threshold status and where you sit against it

What a panel’s verdict could look like — while you can still change it.

PART TWO

What is costing you points, and how to fix it

The part the official process never gives you: an actionable breakdown of what is holding the proposal back.

  • Page-specific findings — where each problem is, not generic advice
  • Claims that are asserted rather than demonstrated
  • Where the evaluators disagreed, and how it resolved
  • A red-team pass: where a sceptic would look to lower the score
  • Prioritised fixes, for the time you actually have left
  • How far you are from looking genuinely fundable, not merely passing

The first half tells you where you stand. This one tells you what to do about it.

What it costs against what it protects

Say five organisations spend a combined 250 hours developing a proposal — management, technical work, consortium meetings, partner inputs, budgeting, impact planning, work packages, revisions and approvals. At a conservative €75 an hour, that is over €18,000 of effort already spent.

The real question is not whether an evaluation costs €499. It is whether, after hundreds of hours, you can afford not to have the proposal independently challenged before you submit.

Effort already invested
≈ €18,000
This evaluation
€499
Share of what you have spent
under 3%

Where the people are

The reading is automated. Deciding what counts as good is not.

Six specialist readings arrive in about ten minutes, which no panel of people can do. What people do instead is everything that decides whether those readings are worth having.

01

They encode the marking scheme

Sub-criteria, thresholds, weightings and score-band descriptors are transcribed by hand from the published evaluation form for your type of action, and stored against the version of the form they came from. Not inferred by a model from what it has read about EU funding — that is the single most common way an assessment of this kind goes quietly wrong.

02

They write the evaluator briefs

What each seat scrutinises, how strictly it reads, and what it treats as evidence rather than assertion. Fifty profiles, each versioned, each drawn from how experienced evaluators actually read. A brief can be corrected when it turns out to be reading something the wrong way; a model's unstated instincts cannot.

03

They review the output

Reports are checked for quality, and what that review finds goes back into the schemes and the briefs rather than into your individual score. This is how a mis-transcribed threshold or a brief that misreads a criterion gets caught — and why the fix reaches every client rather than the one who complained.

And one thing they deliberately do not do

Nobody adjusts your score after the fact. A number a person quietly moved is a number you cannot check, and the whole value here is that every finding traces back to a page in your own document. Where a review finds a problem, the scheme or the brief is corrected and the evaluation is re-run — visibly, under a new version.

The part that is not automated

Put your questions to a real EU evaluator.

The score and the six readings arrive in minutes. What they cannot do is answer the question you have once you have read them — whether a reviewer would really see it that way, and what to do about it. For that there is a person who evaluates proposals for EU programmes, and who reads your report before replying.

01

A person, not a faster model

Answers take two to three working days because somebody reads the report and writes one. Nothing here streams a reply while you wait — the waiting is what you are buying, and saying so beforehand is the difference between an expert and a disappointment.

02

About your report, not about EU funding in general

They see the scores, every finding and the evidence the panel cited for it. So the question can be the specific one — whether a reviewer would really read §1.2 that way, what would have moved Impact above threshold — rather than the one a search engine already answers.

03

Fifteen written questions

Asked whenever you like, across whichever criteria matter, as the draft changes. They attach to your account rather than to one report, so a question saved for after the rewrite is still there after the rewrite.

Evaluation + Expert Q&A

€699 — the full assessment, plus 15 written questions.

See what it includes

Real proof of the output

Inspect the report before you buy.

The value is not the number. It is seeing which sentence produced each finding, where the evaluators disagreed, and what to change first.

Open the complete sample report

FINDING 07 · IMPACT · P. 28, §4 · SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS

“The pathway assumes stakeholder reach becomes adoption, but gives no conversion rate, minimum uptake threshold or evidence source.”
Raised by AtlasCited to your page 28Charged once, to Impact

Adjudicated

11.0 / 15

Excellence4.0
Impact4.0
Implementation3.0

Threshold status

Passes · not yet competitive

01

A score you can check

Every criterion carries the findings that produced it, each with the page and paragraph attached.

02

Disagreement you can see

Where evaluators differ materially, the report keeps both positions and shows how the decision was reached.

03

The limits, stated first

Anything the panel could not assess is on the first screen. A gap you are not told about is worse than a low score.

Confidential proposal data

Your proposal is not marketing material.

It contains budgets, unpublished methods, personal data and partner-sensitive information. How it is handled belongs before the upload button, not in a policy page nobody opens.

01

Processed for one purpose

Your documents produce the evaluation you asked for. They are not used to train models and are not shared with anyone outside that job.

02

Access only with your say-so

Our people can open a client proposal for technical support, and only after that client has agreed to it. Not as a standing permission granted by a terms page.

03

Isolated per organisation

Every stored record is scoped to the organisation that created it. Results are never shared between accounts, even for a byte-identical document — that alone would reveal somebody else had submitted it.

Why the number is worth anything

Judge the method, not the marketing.

This is a new service and it has no wall of logos to show you. What it has instead is a method you can check before you spend anything — and for a score you intend to act on, that is the thing worth checking.

01

Marking schemes

Transcribed by hand

From the published evaluation form for your type of action, stored against that form's version number. Not inferred by a model from what it has read about EU funding.

02

Every finding

Cited or dropped

A finding without a resolvable citation to your document is discarded before it can affect a score. That rule is enforced in the schema, not requested in a prompt.

03

Scoring order

Findings first

Each evaluator records what it found and classifies severity before any number is derived. A score written first and justified afterwards is rejected and re-run.

04

What we could not do

Said on screen one

Missing sections, an unverified scheme, a seat that failed — all stated at the top of the report rather than left for you to notice.

Every one of these is visible in the sample report before you pay for one of your own. Open it and check.

Questions before upload

The details a serious proposal team should ask.

No, and we would rather say so on the page than have you find out afterwards. The evaluation is simulated. The system holds a library of fifty evaluator profiles representing different professional backgrounds, sector expertise and ways of reading, and selects the relevant ones for your programme, call and subject matter. That produces a structured simulation of the questions a panel may bring — not fifty people reading your document. The Expert Q&A package separately adds written access to a real EU evaluator.

You have already invested in the proposal

Protect that investment before you submit.

€499one proposal
one complete report

Six specialist readings, a tested reconciliation, one adjudicated score, page-cited findings and a prioritised revision plan. No subscription.

Evaluate my proposal

or inspect the complete sample report first

One proposal. One deadline. One opportunity to improve it before submission.