|
Question |
Answer |
|---|---|
|
Small project funds |
|
|
Is it possible to manage the small projects of SPF in the same Jems system as the "normal" projects (the SPF beneficiary having to set up its own system)? Are there any pitfalls? |
If Jems shall be used to manage the small projects within an SPF we strongly recommend to create a separate Jems instance for Small project funds. It can run on the same server as the main (MA) system, this will result in synergies in terms of resource provision and support/maintenance. In principle, it may be feasible to have a dedicated call for small projects in the MA system. However, we recommend testing carefully. Issues to be considered are:
|
|
Assessment |
|
|
A place to document workflow (dates + related documents; notification letter to LP, Info to MC) |
The assessment workflow can be documented in the Assessment and Decision section, using assessment steps and decisions explanatory notes text fields and the Attachment section. There is also the possibility to have a Checklist template defined with what type of info needs to be collected and filled by a (programme) user for each application assessed. As for notification letters, the Shared folder can be used Shared folder. |
|
When can we see/use a consolidated form of the answers from 2 Checklists? 4 eyes principle of 2 different assessors? |
When drafting a consolidated checklist, it might be helpful to copy values of one of the cunderlying input checklists into it using the copy function. 2 or more Checklists can be shown in different Browser windows arranged next to each other on the screen, or checklists can be printed to pdf, which provides a more condensed format for comparison. |
|
Modifications |
|
|
If there are changes to the project, will the tracking of changes be visible for verification prior to the validation by the JS of the amended AF? Will this be done directly with the audit log or will a Jems module be used to interface with the logging tool? |
The basis for project modifications is the versioning feature of the application form. The versioning of application/project data will also be functional during project implementation. A project can be opened for modification, and this will lead to a new version of the application form. The system will store all versions and allow users to compare any two of them. Historic versions can be viewed directly in the system in an easy and user-friendly way (not in the audit log). To track changes visibly, please follow the steps outlined in manual: Export - Comparison of AF versions through PDF A programme user can lock and unlock sections of the application form for modification Modification of the Application form | Opening a modification. This helps to reduce the comparison effort to only the sections concerned. |
|
Technical assistance |
|
|
Will the calculation of the Technical Assistance (flat rate of the amounts declared on the different axes) be automated in the system? Is a TA tracking table planned? |
Technical Assistance amounts can be entered manually in sections for Payment Applications to EC and Annual Accounts. Further internal management of Technical Assistance by programmes is not provided in Jems. TA funds will be reimbursed to programmes as a flat rate, with no further monitoring obligations imposed by EC. However, programmes are free to use another Jems installation for Managing authority to monitor Technical Assistance funds and contracts separately. |
|
Reporting module/ Cost categories |
|
|
When reporting staff costs by beneficiaries, would it be possible to integrate the information about the total percentage of working time dedicated to the project when using the method foreseen by art 39.1b (Interreg regulation) to allow an automatic calculation of staff costs? |
Such feature is not implemented. |
|
Audit, corrections and irregularities |
|
|
Is an automatic extraction (or standard export) of data envisaged for the Commission's planned Interreg sampling for second-level audits? |
yes, see Standard common audit sample |