Many applicants preparing Horizon Europe proposals, especially under Lump Sum calls, focus on personnel and travel costs, which are relatively straightforward. However, categories like other purchase costs, subcontracting, and other cost categories create confusion, and important nuances are often overlooked.
We will walk through some of these common pitfalls and explain why they often lead to critical comments from evaluators.
When preparing a Horizon Europe proposal, most applicants invest significant effort in the Excellence and Impact sections, often overlooking the Quality and efficiency of the implementation section and, of course, the budget. Both are frequently treated as formalities, something to finalise once the technical work is complete. This approach can be risky.
From a proposal-writing perspective, leaving the budget discussion until the end can create major issues within the consortium, including misaligned expectations, difficult negotiations, and the need to force activities into an already constrained call budget. It also increases the likelihood of overlooking essential cost items such as events, equipment, consumables, software, or dissemination activities, gaps that can lead to serious and lasting challenges during project implementation if the proposal is successful.
At the same time, evaluators do not assess budgets in isolation. They use them as a lens to judge the credibility, feasibility, and overall maturity of the proposal. Missing or poorly justified cost elements can signal weak planning and insufficient organisational capacity, issues that are very likely to be reflected in the final evaluation score.
This becomes even more critical in Horizon Europe Lump Sum calls, where the budget is not only a financial plan but also a structural reflection of the work. Since there is no cost reporting during implementation, evaluators place greater scrutiny on the budget at the proposal stage, hence the introduction of the Detailed Budget Table (DTB). Any inconsistency, ambiguity, or weak justification can directly affect the overall evaluation.
Unlike traditional grant-based calls, Lump Sum proposals require a thorough understanding of the planned activities and a clear estimation of the associated effort and non-personnel costs. Importantly, several of these cost elements must be explicitly justified. For example, equipment or infrastructure costs need to be detailed in a dedicated “Depreciation costs” sheet, while subcontracting, as well as other purchase costs and other cost categories (when exceeding 15% of personnel costs), should be explained in the “Any comments” sheet. Similarly, higher-than-average person-month (PM) rates, particularly those above the 80th percentile for a given country as indicated in the Horizon Dashboard for lump sum evaluations, require proper justification.
These are easy details to overlook. However, since the introduction of Lump Sum funding, evaluators have become increasingly strict in assessing budget consistency and compliance with these requirements.
For this reason, it is essential for proposal writers to engage with the DTB early in the process, allowing sufficient time to identify gaps, ensure alignment with the work plan, and avoid avoidable but potentially costly mistakes.
Personnel and travel costs are usually straightforward
Applicants are generally comfortable with personnel and travel costs. These categories are familiar, relatively easy to estimate, and typically based on established internal rates or past project experience. In Lump Sum proposals, this process becomes somewhat more complex, as these costs must be carefully distributed across work packages, taking into account the timing of activities, meetings, and reporting periods. Nevertheless, compared to other budget categories, this remains the most straightforward part of completing the Detailed Budget Table.
But these categories can create a false sense of confidence
Because these categories feel manageable, there is often an assumption that the rest of the budget will follow naturally. As a result, less attention is given to the more complex cost categories, and the sheets where explanations and justifications are required are often overlooked, left incomplete, or even entirely empty. This is precisely where evaluators tend to identify issues.
Incomplete depreciation calculations, misalignment between planned purchases and charged costs, and missing justifications for significant non-personnel expenses can ultimately make the difference between a simply well-written proposal and an actually successfully funded project.
Other purchase costs
This budget category frequently causes confusion in Horizon Europe proposals. All purchase costs that exceed 15% of the personnel costs have to be justified in the Detailed Budget Table. This may include equipment, consumables, meetings, software, services, or dissemination activities, yet applicants often group items too broadly or fail to clearly explain their necessity, even in cases where an explanation is provided.
The most frequent issue is the lack of a clear link between costs and activities. Simply listing amounts is not enough; evaluators expect to understand why each cost is necessary and how it contributes to the project. Without proper justification, these costs can appear inflated or disconnected from the work plan. This is particularly true for items such as “consumables,” where it is not always clear what is included or how the requested amount has been calculated.
This is one of the most common issues identified during Horizon Europe proposal evaluations, particularly in Lump Sum projects.
Another important detail is that, following recent updates to the proposal template, several cost-related tables that were previously mandatory in the Quality and efficiency of the implementation section have been removed from Part B and are now expected to be completed directly in the DTB. As a result, much of this information, apart from major equipment costs, which should still be reflected in table 3.1h of the proposal, will be assessed directly through the budget.
Evaluators will therefore rely on the DTB and cross-check the provided justifications against the proposal text, making consistency and clarity more important than ever.
Subcontracting in Horizon Europe proposals
Subcontracting is another sensitive area. Unlike most cost-related tables that have been removed from Part B, the subcontracting table (section 3.1g) is still required in the proposal text, and applicants are expected to provide a clear description there. However, as a matter of good practice, we suggest that the same justification should also be included in the DTB under the “Any comments” sheet, alongside other non-personnel cost explanations.
Evaluators expect a well-defined rationale explaining why certain tasks cannot be performed by consortium partners. Vague descriptions or disproportionately large subcontracting budgets can raise concerns about the consortium’s capacity, the allocation of responsibilities, and the overall soundness of the project design.
Other Horizon Europe cost categories
Categories such as internally invoiced goods and services or indirect support mechanisms are particularly complex and often misunderstood or overlooked. It is essential to provide clear justifications for these costs in the DTB, as the corresponding cost tables, where such explanations were previously included, have been removed from the updated Part B template.
Failure to provide adequate explanations, misclassification of costs, or a lack of detail can introduce inconsistencies that undermine the credibility of the entire budget and, in some cases, jeopardise the proposal’s chances of being funded.
Horizon Europe evaluators look for clarity and logic
Evaluators are not just checking numbers; they are assessing whether the budget tells a coherent and consistent story. They will actively cross-check the Detailed Budget Table (DTB) with the proposal text to verify that costs are justified, correctly allocated, and fully aligned with the described activities.
A well-structured, transparent budget reinforces the credibility of the proposal and demonstrates control over project implementation. Conversely, inconsistencies, missing justifications, or unclear cost allocations can quickly raise doubts about the consortium’s planning capacity and the overall feasibility of the project.
Weak budgets raise concerns
Even strong technical proposals can be undermined by weaknesses in the budget. Unclear, inconsistent, or poorly justified costs may signal inadequate planning, hidden implementation risks, or limited familiarity with Horizon Europe requirements. Evaluators may question whether the consortium truly understands the scope and complexity of the work, or whether key activities have been properly resourced.
In many cases, evaluators interpret unclear budget structures as a sign of weak implementation planning.
In Lump Sum calls in particular, where the budget is closely tied to the work plan, such issues can have a direct and negative impact on the overall score.
A Horizon Europe budget is more than a financial breakdown; it is a strategic part of the proposal narrative. It reflects how well the consortium understands the project, its activities, and the resources required to deliver them. Paying close attention to complex cost categories, ensuring consistency between the DTB and the proposal text, and clearly justifying all expenses can make a significant difference.
In highly competitive Horizon Europe calls, these details are often what separate a good proposal from a successful one.
If you are preparing a Horizon Europe proposal and need support with budget planning during the proposal-writing process, Future Needs can support you in developing well-structured, and evaluation-ready budgets aligned with the project’s work plan and implementation strategy. For questions or support related to DTB preparation, Lump Sum budgeting, or proposal development, feel free to contact the team at proposals@futureneeds.eu.
