Lump-sum Horizon proposals: define the work-package completion test before the budget

Lump-sum funding is becoming a mainstream Horizon Europe design condition. The General Introduction to the 2026–2027 work programme says that 50% of the call budget of that work programme will be implemented through lump sums, particularly for topics intended to result in grants below EUR 10 million. The exact funding form still has to be checked in the live topic and submission system, but proposal teams should now expect lump-sum design to be a frequent requirement rather than an exceptional one.

The administrative simplification is material. The Commission's June 2026 guide explains that lump-sum grants require less administration than actual-cost grants and involve no reporting of actual costs. Once the lump sum is fixed in the grant agreement, later changes in the prices of goods or services do not reopen the agreed amount.

That does not make the budget an arbitrary headline figure. In a project-based, or type 2, lump-sum proposal, applicants must provide realistic estimates for each relevant cost category, beneficiary or affiliated entity, and work package. Evaluators assess those estimates against the proposed activities under the applicable award criterion; for Horizon Europe, the guide points to quality and efficiency of implementation. A proposal therefore needs both a convincing technical design and a defensible allocation of effort and resources.

The stronger way to prepare a lump-sum proposal is to start with a completion test for every work package. Ask what an informed project officer would need to see to conclude that the activities described in Annex 1 have been carried out. Then work backwards into tasks, deliverables, milestones, dependencies, responsibilities, person-months and other resources.

The Commission's guide says that Horizon Europe work packages are assessed on the basis of the activities carried out. Objectives and milestones should be achieved, but a successful research outcome is not itself the test for completion. Essential work must be done, deliverables normally need to be completed and accepted, and deviations need to be justified. Where several beneficiaries contribute to one work package, the work package cannot be declared complete until all of them have completed their parts.

This creates a practical consortium risk. A work package may look coherent at proposal stage while concealing one partner's unconfirmed data access, delayed equipment, missing permit, unclear subcontract, unrealistic staff effort or dependency on an external decision. If that contribution is essential, the problem can affect the completion position for the whole work package.

Before the detailed budget is locked, each work-package leader should complete one controlled sheet with six fields:

1. Completion statement — one precise sentence describing the essential work that will have been carried out.

2. Evidence set — the deliverables, accepted outputs, records, datasets, prototypes, approvals or other evidence that will demonstrate implementation.

3. Contributor map — each beneficiary, associated partner, affiliated entity, subcontractor or other actor and the exact contribution expected from it.

4. Dependency register — inputs, permits, data, sites, equipment, preceding tasks and external decisions required before the work can finish.

5. Resource logic — person-months, purchases, travel, subcontracting and other estimates connected to specific activities rather than divided by negotiation convenience.

6. Recovery route — the early warning indicator, responsible owner and decision route if an essential contribution slips.

This sheet is a PRINCEPS proposal-control method, not an official European Commission template. Its value is that it forces the technical narrative and budget table to describe the same project.

The guide is explicit that, at final reporting, the degree of partial completion is linked to the share of activities carried out, not to expenditure or use of resources. Interim payments cover lump-sum shares for work packages completed during the reporting period and accepted by the project officer; there is no interim payment for a partially completed work package. Partial payment for partial completion is possible only at the end of the project and remains subject to assessment.

The proposal implication is straightforward: spending the allocation does not prove delivery, and underspending does not by itself prove non-delivery. The consortium must be able to show that the agreed work was performed. A budget defence should therefore explain why the proposed resources are reasonable, while the work plan separately makes completion observable.

Before a lump-sum Horizon Europe proposal is frozen, the coordinator should run a work-package completion review. Every leader should confirm the essential work, evidence, contributors, dependencies, resource estimates and recovery route. Cross-work-package dependencies should be reconciled, and each partner's budget should match its declared activities and capacity.

This review does not guarantee a successful evaluation, grant signature, payment or acceptance of any work package. The live call conditions, application form, detailed budget table, Model Grant Agreement and Funding & Tenders Portal remain controlling. PRINCEPS provides proposal-development and implementation-planning support; it does not provide legal, audit or grant-award advice.

Editorial note: This is PRINCEPS analysis for general information. It does not replace the official work programme, topic conditions, submission system, grant rules or professional advice specific to an application.