Receiving an Erasmus+ rejection is disappointing. But the rejection comes with something valuable — a Quality Assessment report that tells you exactly how your application was scored, criterion by criterion, and why each section received the score it did.
Most organisations file the rejection email and do not look at the Quality Assessment report again. That is a significant missed opportunity. The report is a detailed brief for your resubmission — and a resubmission built systematically from Quality Assessment feedback has a substantially higher probability of success than a first application written without that information.
This guide explains what the Quality Assessment report contains, how to read it correctly, how to identify the highest-leverage fixes, how to use the complaints procedure where appropriate, and how to structure your resubmission for the next call.
📋 Key Takeaways
- Every rejected application that passes admissibility and eligibility checks receives a Quality Assessment report — it is your right to receive it
- The report contains your numerical score per criterion AND written evaluator comments — both are essential for resubmission planning
- The notification timeline is indicatively 4 months after deadline for KA1 and 5 months for KA2 — plan your resubmission timeline from these dates
- Complaints must focus on procedural errors and manifest errors of assessment — not on disagreeing with the evaluation result
- The most effective resubmissions fix the 1–2 criteria that scored weakest, then review the rest for consistency — not a full rewrite from scratch
- Reserve list applications need smaller improvements than below-threshold rejections — target the tiebreaker criterion (Relevance) specifically
When will you receive your Quality Assessment report?
The 2026 Programme Guide provides the following indicative timelines for notification of results:
| Action type | Managing agency | Indicative notification timeline |
|---|---|---|
| KA1 — mobility projects | National Agency | 4 months after deadline |
| KA2 — cooperation projects (KA210, KA220) | National Agency | 5 months after deadline |
| KA2/KA3 centralised (CoVE, KA280, CBHE, Jean Monnet) | EACEA | 6 months after deadline (award decision) |
For a 5 March KA210 deadline this means results arrive indicatively in August. For the February KA1 round, indicatively in June. These are indicative timelines — National Agencies sometimes take longer during busy periods. If you have not received notification 6 months after your deadline, contact your National Agency directly.
The Quality Assessment report is typically sent together with — or shortly after — the grant notification. If you receive a rejection notification without a Quality Assessment report, contact your NA and request it explicitly. It is your right under the EU Financial Regulation to receive feedback on your evaluation.
What the Quality Assessment report contains
The format of Quality Assessment reports varies slightly between National Agencies — but all must include the same core elements as required by the European Commission evaluation guidelines.
A standard KA210 or KA220 Quality Assessment report contains:
- Your score for each criterion — the numerical score awarded per criterion, shown against the maximum for that criterion
- Your total score — the sum of all criterion scores, shown against the 100-point maximum and the 60-point overall threshold
- A pass/fail indicator per criterion — showing whether each criterion met its individual minimum threshold
- Written evaluator comments per criterion — typically 2–5 sentences per criterion explaining the rationale for the score awarded, citing specific strengths and weaknesses in your application
- An overall outcome — rejected (below threshold), unsuccessful (above threshold but below funded band) or reserve list
Example Quality Assessment extract — KA210
Relevance: 17/30 ✅ Pass (above 15 minimum)
“The application provides a clear problem statement and cites relevant national data for the partner countries. However, the needs analysis lacks specificity regarding the target group — the description of ‘adult educators in the non-formal sector’ is too broad to assess whether the documented need is genuine and well-defined. The EU added value argument is asserted rather than demonstrated — the application does not explain why the proposed outcomes require transnational cooperation rather than national development.”
This is the kind of specific, actionable feedback that makes a Quality Assessment report so valuable. Every sentence in the evaluator’s comments points to a specific weakness and implicitly describes what a stronger version would contain.
How to read your Quality Assessment report: a systematic approach
Do not read the Quality Assessment report immediately after receiving the rejection notification. The emotional response to rejection makes it difficult to read the feedback analytically. Wait a day or two, then approach it as a diagnostic document — not a verdict.
Step 1 — Record the scores
Create a simple table with each criterion, the maximum score, the minimum threshold, your score and whether you passed or failed that criterion. This gives you an immediate visual of where the application fell short.
| Criterion | Maximum | Minimum | Your score | Result | % of max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance (KA210) | 30 | 15 | 17 | ✅ Pass | 57% |
| Quality of Project Design | 30 | 15 | 12 | ❌ Fail | 40% |
| Quality of Partnership | 20 | 10 | 14 | ✅ Pass | 70% |
| Impact | 20 | 10 | 11 | ✅ Pass | 55% |
This example application scored 54 total, failed Quality of Project Design at 40%, and was rejected. The diagnosis is clear: Quality of Project Design is the priority fix, followed by improving Relevance and Impact which both passed but only just.
Step 2 — Categorise the evaluator comments
For each criterion, read the evaluator comments and categorise every issue as one of four types:
- Missing component — something the evaluator expected to find that was not present at all (e.g. “no evaluation plan was included”)
- Generic writing — content that was present but too vague or non-specific to score well (e.g. “the needs analysis describes a general European trend without specific evidence”)
- Structural problem — a logical issue in how sections connect (e.g. “the objectives described in Section A are not addressed by the activities in Section B”)
- Factual error or misunderstanding — where the evaluator may have misread something or where your application was unclear about a specific point
Missing components and generic writing are the most common categories and the easiest to fix. Structural problems require more substantial revision. Factual errors are candidates for the complaints procedure.
Step 3 — Identify cascade failures
Some weaknesses damage multiple criteria simultaneously. A weak needs analysis typically causes low Relevance and low Quality of Project Design (because objectives cannot be convincingly grounded without a documented need). Vague objectives damage Quality of Project Design and Impact (because if objectives are not measurable, the evaluation plan has nothing to measure and the dissemination plan cannot describe specific outcomes).
If you can identify one or two structural weaknesses that caused failures across multiple criteria, fixing those has the highest leverage — one fix improves multiple scores simultaneously.
Step 4 — Prioritise fixes
Not all fixes are equal in terms of score impact. Prioritise by:
- Any criterion that failed the minimum threshold — these must be fixed before anything else
- The criterion with the largest gap between your score and the maximum — highest room for improvement
- The cascade fixes — issues that affect multiple criteria at once
- Marginal improvements to criteria that already passed but scored low — only after the above are addressed
Reading evaluator comments: what they really mean
Evaluator comments are written in a specific administrative register that takes some practice to decode. Here are the most common comment patterns and what they are actually telling you:
| Evaluator says… | What it actually means | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| “The needs analysis lacks specificity” | You described a general theme, not a documented problem for a specific target group | Rewrite with specific target group, specific evidence, gap analysis |
| “The objectives are broad and not measurable” | Your objectives are themes (“to improve quality”) not outcomes (“to develop and pilot…”) | Rewrite each objective with action verb + specific output + target group + timeline |
| “The EU added value is not adequately demonstrated” | You stated that the project is international but did not argue why it must be | Explain specifically why results cannot be achieved in one country |
| “The partnership rationale is not clearly described” | You described what partners do, not why they are the right ones for this project | Add a strategic rationale for each partner — what specific value they bring |
| “The work plan lacks coherence” | Activities do not visibly connect to objectives; or timeline is not realistic | Map each activity explicitly to an objective; check timeline feasibility |
| “The dissemination plan is generic” | “We will share on social media” is the minimum — not a differentiating approach | Name specific channels: EPALE, sector networks, professional events, authority bodies |
| “No evaluation plan is described” | This section was missing entirely or in one sentence | Add 3–5 measurable indicators with timeline and responsible persons |
| “The sustainability plan is not convincing” | You wrote “the project will have lasting impact” without explaining how | For each output: name who uses it after the project, in what context, reaching how many |
The complaints procedure: when and how to use it
The 2026 Programme Guide specifies that applicants can submit a complaint if they believe their rejection was based on an error in the selection procedure. The complaints procedure is more limited than most applicants assume — it is not an appeal of the evaluation result.
What you CAN complain about
- Procedural irregularities — the evaluation procedure was not followed correctly (wrong evaluators assigned, evaluation outside the allowed timeline)
- Factual errors — the evaluator’s comments contain demonstrably incorrect factual statements about your application (e.g. “no needs analysis was provided” when your application clearly contained one in Section 2.1)
- Manifest errors of assessment — where the evaluator’s score is obviously incoherent with their written comments (e.g. comments describe the section positively but award 0 points)
- Lack of coherence between scores and comments — specifically cited in the Programme Guide as valid complaint grounds
- Conflict of interest — evidence that an evaluator had a personal or professional relationship with a competing applicant
What you CANNOT complain about
- Disagreement with the evaluator’s qualitative judgment (“our needs analysis was strong and we disagree with the low score”)
- Repetition of the content of your proposal
- General dissatisfaction with the evaluation outcome
- Arguments that your project deserved higher scores based on its inherent quality
The Programme Guide is explicit: “Repetition of the content of the proposal or disagreements with the result or reasoning of the technical evaluation will not be considered.”
How to submit a complaint
The complaints deadline and procedure are stated in the rejection notification letter — read it carefully and act promptly. For NA-managed actions, complaints are submitted to your National Agency. For EACEA-managed actions, the EU Funding and Tenders Portal procedure applies.
A well-structured complaint is short and specific: identify the exact evaluator comment or score that constitutes the error, cite the specific section of your application that demonstrates the error, and state the grounds (factual error, incoherence between score and comment, etc.). Do not write a general defence of your project.
Practical advice on complaints
In our experience, formal complaints rarely result in a change of outcome — National Agencies uphold evaluator assessments in the vast majority of cases unless there is a clear procedural error or demonstrable factual mistake. The time spent preparing a complaint is almost always better invested in building a stronger resubmission. Use the complaints procedure only when you have identified a genuine procedural error or clear factual mistake — not as a general channel for expressing disagreement with the evaluation result.
Building your resubmission strategy
The most effective resubmissions are not full rewrites — they are targeted revisions built directly from Quality Assessment feedback. A full rewrite risks introducing new problems while failing to address the specific weaknesses the evaluator identified.
For below-threshold rejections (total score under 60, or any criterion below minimum)
Priority 1 is rebuilding the section or sections that failed the minimum threshold. This typically means one of: the needs analysis (most common Relevance failure), the objectives and work plan (most common Quality of Project Design failure), or the dissemination and sustainability (most common Impact failure).
Approach the rebuild by reading the evaluator comments as a specification document — they tell you exactly what was missing. Write the new version of the section against each comment, making it directly evident that you have addressed each weakness.
For reserve list applications (above 60, not funded)
You were close. The changes needed are smaller — but they need to be targeted at the right criteria. In ex-aequo situations (where applications have the same total score), the tiebreaker for KA210 and KA220 is Relevance first, then Impact. Even if your Relevance score passed the threshold, improving it from 19/30 to 23/30 can be the difference between the reserve list and the funded band.
For reserve list applications, focus on:
- Strengthening the needs analysis — adding more specific evidence, stronger target group definition, clearer gap analysis
- Tightening the EU added value argument — making it specific to why your results require this particular transnational approach
- Improving the dissemination plan with more specific channels
- Checking whether your National Agency published national priorities for the current call that you could more explicitly address
What not to change
Sections that scored well should not be substantially changed. If the evaluator gave positive comments about your partnership rationale (14/20) or your work plan coherence, leave those sections largely intact. Rewriting strong sections introduces risk of making them weaker while the effort is better spent on weak ones.
Changing the project concept entirely is rarely the right response to a rejection. Unless the evaluator’s comments suggest a fundamental problem with the project idea itself, the concept is usually sound — the writing and evidence base are what need strengthening.
The resubmission calendar
For a 5 March 2026 KA210/KA220 deadline — results arrive indicatively in August 2026. The next call round options are:
- October 2026 Round 2 — if your National Agency organises a second round (check your NA website). This gives approximately 2 months from receipt of results to the October deadline — tight but achievable for targeted revisions
- March 2027 Round 1 — the next annual call. This gives 6–7 months from receipt of results — sufficient time for a thorough revision and, if needed, partner review
For a 12 February 2026 KA152/KA153 deadline — results arrive indicatively in June 2026. The next opportunity is the October 2026 Round 2, giving approximately 4 months for revision.
Need Help Reading Your Quality Assessment?
GrowthProjects.eu reviews Quality Assessment reports and builds resubmission plans for KA210 and KA220 applications. We identify the highest-impact fixes and either guide your revision or write the improved sections directly. Most rejected applications can be funded in the next call with targeted improvements.
Free initial consultation · October 2026 and March 2027 resubmission support
A resubmission checklist
Before resubmitting — check every item
- ☐ Quality Assessment report has been read in full and every evaluator comment has been categorised
- ☐ Each below-threshold criterion has been substantially revised based on evaluator comments
- ☐ The needs analysis is now specific: named target group, minimum 3 sources, gap analysis present
- ☐ Objectives are measurable: each includes an action verb, specific output, target group and timeline
- ☐ EU added value is argued, not stated: explains why results require this transnational approach
- ☐ Partnership rationale explains strategic fit — not just organisational profiles
- ☐ Evaluation plan includes at least 3 measurable indicators with timeline and responsible persons
- ☐ Dissemination names specific channels beyond social media
- ☐ Sustainability describes specifically how each output will be used after the project ends
- ☐ Sections that scored well have been reviewed for consistency with revisions but not substantially changed
- ☐ National Agency’s published national priorities for the current call have been checked and addressed where applicable
- ☐ Erasmus+ Results Platform checked — no closely overlapping new funded projects in the interim
- ☐ All partners are aware of and have confirmed the revised application before submission
- ☐ OID status is current and validated for all partner organisations
- ☐ Page limit is within bounds
- ☐ Submission deadline is confirmed and application submitted at least 2 hours before 12:00 Brussels time
Frequently asked questions
Is it worth resubmitting if my application scored under 50?
It depends on what the evaluator comments say. A score under 50 means multiple criteria failed or were scored very low — which typically points to fundamental weaknesses in the project concept or writing. Read the evaluator comments carefully. If they identify fixable issues (weak needs analysis, missing components, generic writing) then resubmission with substantial revision is worth pursuing. If they suggest fundamental problems with the project idea itself, it may be worth reconsidering the concept before resubmitting.
Can I change the project concept significantly when resubmitting?
Yes — there are no restrictions on how much you change the application between calls. You can change the project title, activities, partners and even the action (from KA210 to KA220 if your organisation has since gained experience). The Quality Assessment report is feedback on a specific submitted application, not a binding framework for resubmission. However, if the concept scored reasonably well (60–70 range) the most efficient path is targeted revision, not concept change.
Can I add a new partner when resubmitting?
Yes. A new partner who brings stronger strategic fit or complementary expertise is a legitimate improvement between calls. If your original partner rationale was weak, adding a partner with a clearly differentiated profile can improve your Partnership score significantly. Make sure the new partner has a valid OID well before the submission deadline.
How many times can I resubmit the same project?
There is no limit. The same project can be submitted in every subsequent call until it is either funded or you decide to discontinue. Projects that were eventually funded after 2–3 rejections are common — each rejection provides feedback that makes the next version stronger.
Does my National Agency know I am resubmitting the same project?
Yes — NAs can track project histories. This is not a problem. What matters is that each submission is assessed on its own merits against the current call’s evaluation criteria. A significantly improved resubmission will score better than the original regardless of its submission history.
Ready to turn your rejection into a funded project?
GrowthProjects.eu specialises in Quality Assessment analysis and resubmission support for KA210 and KA220 applications. Share your rejection report with us and we will identify the highest-priority fixes and either guide your revision or write the improved sections. Our first consultation is always free.
All Quality Assessment procedures, notification timelines and complaints grounds cited in this article are based on the official Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026 (Version 1, published 12 November 2025), pages 433–435 (evaluation procedure and complaints) and Part B award criteria sections for KA210 and KA220. The indicative notification timelines (4 months KA1, 5 months KA2 NA-managed, 6 months KA2 EACEA) are confirmed from the Programme Guide. GrowthProjects.eu is an independent consultancy and is not affiliated with any National Agency, the European Commission or EACEA.
