| Popis: |
In-kind contributions provide an effective and economically efficient mechanism to deliver products and services required by the PRACE Infrastructure. Indeed, while the development and delivery of many of those are (or will be) funded under the first two Implementation Phases (PRACE-1IP and 2IP), a number of them could not be addressed under this framework due to budgetary constraints, restrictions on eligibility of costs or because they encompass tasks or contributions for which the expertise or assets of the PRACE members are essential. It cannot be assumed that PRACE will always be supported with EC funding and therefore, in the future, in-kind contributions will underpin much of the work of the PRACE legal entity. In-kind contributions have the added benefit of providing an inclusive framework in which all PRACE partners should feel that they can receive value from PRACE, as well as providing value to PRACE. In this report, in-kind contributions have been defined as “any non-monetary contribution to PRACE, and accepted by PRACE, for which it is possible to assign a nominal value for voting rights”. A set of key principles that any contributions will have to abide by in order to be acceptable to PRACE has also been proposed, including: - Value for money; - Relevance to PRACE goals; - Ability to audit; - Transparent and equitable accounting; - Environmental considerations. A review of the current frameworks for managing in-kind contributions at the X-Ray Free-Electron Laser (XFEL) and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) has been undertaken. This has been a useful exercise but these models are not entirely applicable to PRACE as the in-kind contributions are not yet focussed on the long-term provision of a service, which is PRACE’s primary goal. However, some of the good practises around accounting mechanisms, non-delivery and disputes provide a good foundation for PRACE to build on. The relative merits of models for costing contributions, including models where the costs of a person-month is either fixed by the contributor(s), or by PRACE directly, and alternatives where PRACE would only suggest a maximum cost have been explored, and led to the view that PRACE would be better served by retaining the flexibility to select the most appropriate model on a case by case basis. Options for the determining the delivery of contributions have been classified under 3 models: the first based on the concept of “calls for proposals” where the PRACE Director issues internal calls based on PRACE’s actual needs (Model A); the second known as “Member Directed”, where only general guidelines are issued and partners propose the nature of their contributions (Model B); and finally the “PRACE Directed” model, where contributions are directed, with PRACE putting in place multi-partner teams (Model C). The models are described in detail, and the advantages and disadvantages of each model for the PRACE association and the member(s) contributing the in-kind contributions are analysed. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each model is presented as a table in the document. This deliverable builds on work undertaken in the preparatory phase of the PRACE project and described in its deliverables. It will also lay the foundations for deliverable D2.3.2 in the 1IP project. The authors understand that in-kind contributions need to be dealt with immediately within PRACE so the recommendation is that the PRACE Council and PRACE Director work with the options presented in this document, without choosing one option as preferred at this stage. The experience of working with in-kind contributions and in dealing with the issues that arise will be invaluable in determining some further recommendations in D2.3.2 which discusses the wider funding model for PRACE. |
