Programs

• Home
• Programs

Page updated on 04/15/2026 - Published on 06/19/2018

Guidelines for the Submission and Selection of Proposals in the Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program

Current guidelines as from December 19, 2022.

The Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP) aims to strengthen the relationship between Higher Education and Research Institutions and corporations by funding cooperative research projects.

For this purpose, the RPTIP offers funding for research projects at a higher education and research institutions in the state of São Paulo, developed in cooperation with researchers from research centers of corporations located in Brazil or abroad and co-financed by them.

The projects must be developed under the responsibility of a Principal Investigator who holds a PhD or equivalent title (evaluated based on their curricular summary) and is a formal employee of a public or private Research institution in the state of São Paulo that has been proposed to host the project.

Proposals for the RPTIP must be submitted through the on-line system SAGe ("Sistema de Apoio à Gestão"), available at: fapesp.br/sage. Within SAGe (under the "Manuais" link), it is possible to find documents that explain how to register users, prepare and submit proposals for grants, and request the registration of Institutions.

1) Purpose and characteristics (back to index)

The Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP) aims to strengthen the relationship between Higher Education and Research Institutions and corporations by funding cooperative research projects.

For this purpose, the RPTIP offers funding for research projects at a higher education and research Institution in the state of São Paulo, developed in cooperation with researchers from research centers of corporations located in Brazil or abroad and co-financed by them.

FAPESP funding is directed exclusively to the higher education and research institution.

Once the research project is developed cooperatively, the results are expected to contribute to the creation of knowledge or technological innovations of interest to the partner company, as well as contributing to the advancement of knowledge and the training of highly qualified human resources. Partner companies must necessarily contribute to the research project's funding with a matching contribution from their own funds or from third parties.

In order to effectively fund the approved projects, a Letter of Agreement must be signed between the Higher Education and Research Institution hosting the project, the Partner Company(ies), FAPESP, and the Partner Research Institutions, specifying each party's commitment to the activities to be carried out, the amounts contributed by the Parties, the disbursement schedule committed to by the Partner Company(ies), and the clauses on Intellectual Property. The Research Project approved by FAPESP must be included as a descriptive annex of the activities to be developed.

Grant Proposals submitted to the RPTIP are received by FAPESP in two ways:

a) on spontaneous demand: the proposal must be submitted by mutual agreement between the Principal Investigator and the partner company(ies).

b) in response to Calls for Proposals linked to agreements between FAPESP and corporations.

FAPESP has the right to monitor the development of the project, including the implementation of the innovation.

1.1) Modalities (back to index)

Proposals received under the RPTIP may fit into the following modalities:

a) RPTIP 1

The RPTIP 1 modality considers joint projects between researchers or groups of researchers from higher education and research Institutions in the state of São Paulo and companies or groups of companies in Brazil or abroad, aimed at developing innovations in projects whose exploratory phase is already practically complete.

FAPESP will fund up to 20% of the project costs, depending on the size of the budget presented. The partner company(ies) involved will be responsible for contributing the remaining funds required as a counterpart.

Additional investments in innovation development must be justified through a preliminary cost-benefit analysis.

b) RPTIP 2

The RPTIP 2 modality considers joint projects between researchers or groups of researchers from Higher education and research institutions in the state of São Paulo and companies or groups of companies in Brazil or abroad, aimed at developing innovation associated with low technological and commercialization risks.

In general, the project will involve incremental innovation, encompassing the stages of exploration and certification (although this category may include cases of radical innovation), and will demonstrate the socioeconomic benefits that the project's success will have on its respective production or service sector.

FAPESP will fund up to 50% of the project cost, depending on the size of the budget presented. The company(ies) involved will be responsible for contributing the remaining funds required as a counterpart.

c) RPTIP 3

The RPTIP 3 modality considers joint projects between researchers or groups of researchers from Higher education and research institutions in the state of São Paulo and companies or groups of companies in Brazil or abroad, aimed at developing research for technological innovation associated with high technological risks and low commercialization risks, but with high "fertilizing or germinating" power.

The project must be revolutionary in nature, and the resulting innovation may cause an impact (substantial changes) across an entire sector.

Incremental innovation projects with a significant socioeconomic contribution to the country may be classified as RPTIP 3 when the partner company(ies) are small or medium-sized.

FAPESP will fund up to 70% of the project cost, depending on the size of the budget presented. The company(ies) involved will be responsible for contributing the remaining funds required as a counterpart.

2) Duration (back to index)

Up to 60 months.

3) Application date (back to index)

Proposals may be submitted:

a) on spontaneous demand: at any time throughout the year.

b) in response to Calls for Proposals: in accordance with the deadlines indicated in the respective Call.

4) Definitions (back to index)

a) Principal Investigator (PI): the researcher who assumes responsibility for the preparation and submission of the proposal and for the scientific and administrative coordination of the project, if approved by FAPESP.

b) Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI): the researcher of the team, designated by the Principal Investigator and approved by FAPESP, with an excellent research background and whose participation is well specified in the submitted research project and essential for its development.

c) Associate Researcher (AR): researchers of the team, designated by the Principal Investigator and approved by FAPESP, who assume responsibility for contributing to parts of the research project.

d) Host Institution: the Institution that hosts the research project and, in general, the Institution where the Principal Investigator is based. The Host Institution must assume commitments regarding the storage and access to materials and equipment and provide institutional support for the research project and for the management of any intellectual property that may be created.

e) Partner Company: the company that participates in the development and funding of the research project, in partnership with the Educational and research institution that will host the project, with the provision of matching funds, under the terms defined in these guidelines. The participation of at least one partner company is mandatory for the request for Grant in the RPTIP support opportunity.

f) Partner Research Institution: Higher education and/or research institutions, whether public or private, that will collaborate in developing the research project submitted to FAPESP. Partner Research Institutions must declare their agreement to participate in the project by attaching a specific document to the proposal. Participation by Partner Research Institutions in the project is not mandatory.

g) Research Project for Technological Innovation: Project involving the creation of scientific and technical knowledge, with the aim of developing or improving a product, process, system, or service of business or social interest.

h) Basic Research: Set of works aimed at acquiring new knowledge for understanding phenomena, seeking the development of products, processes, or systems.

i) Applied Research: Set of works aimed at acquiring new knowledge for improving innovative products, processes, or systems.

j) Experimental Development: Set of systematic works, based on pre-existing knowledge and obtained through research or practical experience. Its objective is to verify or demonstrate the technical or functional feasibility of new innovative products, processes, systems, or services, or a clear improvement on those already produced.

k) Exploratory Phase: In this phase, the innovation is designed, applying scientific and technical knowledge and using a laboratory, if necessary. It involves directed or applied research activities. It is at this phase that the technical and economic analysis is carried out. If it is positive, continuing work towards the certification phase will be recommended.

l) Certification Phase: Stage of experimental development and determination of the definitive specifications and the main components of the solution proposed by the exploratory phase. Engineering models, prototypes, and, if necessary, pre-series or pioneer batches are used.

m) Incremental Innovation: The one that leads to gradual improvements.

n) "Market pull" innovation: Its development is ruled by market demand. Incremental innovation is usually of the "market pull" type.

o) Radical or revolutionary innovation: The one that leads to substantially different changes in the market.

p) "Technology push" innovation: Its development is motivated by the intention to apply a new scientific and technological concept (radical innovations).

q) Technological Risks: Possibilities of failures in the identification and application of technical and scientific knowledge.

r) Commercialization Risks: Risks of market non-acceptance of the implementation stage.

s) Letter of Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation: cooperation agreement signed between signatories for the implementation of projects selected under the Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP). The purpose of this agreement is to regulate the rights and obligations between FAPESP, the Partner Company(ies), the Host Institution of the process, and the Partner Research Institutions.

5) Application requirements (back to index)

5.1) Principal Investigator and Co-Principal Investigators (back to index)

a) Have no pending responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., issuance of reviews and return processes, delivery of Scientific Report and Financial Report). Proposals for which the PI has unfulfilled responsibilities with FAPESP, which are overdue by more than 60 (sixty) days, will not be reviewed.

b) Hold a PhD or equivalent title.

c) Be a formal employee of the Research institution in the state of São Paulo proposed to host the project.

c.1) Accreditation on a postgraduate program at the Institution does not configure employee status nor does it waive this requirement.

c.2) FAPESP might accept, under certain conditions, an affiliation that does not configure employee status. However, this must be robust in terms of commitment to the academic activities of the Research Institution of the state of São Paulo. In such cases, prior to the submission of the proposal, an inquiry must be submitted to FAPESP's Scientific Directorate, through the channel "Converse com a FAPESP", informing:

c.2.1) the nature of the institutional association;

c.2.2) the number of hours per week dedicated to research which is implied in this association;

c.2.3) the associated source of funding;

c.2.4) the duration of such association.

c.3) Retired Teachers associated with an Institution in the state of São Paulo, whether public or private, must inform that they are retired teachers and present, at the time of the submission, a document demonstrating the nature of the institutional association.

c.4) The Co-Principal Investigator may be a formal employee of a Research Institution in the state of São Paulo other than the Institution proposed to host the project.

d) Have availability, measured by work regime and current number of advisees.

e) Have proven experience in managing research and development projects.

f) Have demonstrated ability to address scientific and technical issues.

g) Inform whether they are applying for or receiving a grant from other sources for the same purpose as the research proposal submitted.

h) Co-Principal Investigators must explicitly state that they are aware of and agree to the terms of the proposal and their duties in the project.

5.2) Host Institution (back to index)

a) Acknowledge the infrastructural needs demanded by the project, according to the information declared in the document: Anexo II - Information approved by the Host Institution on institutional infrastructure.

6) Required conditions and obligations (back to index)

6.1) Principal Investigator (back to index)

For the duration of the Grant, the Principal Investigator must meet the following conditions and obligations:

a) Remain with no pending responsibilities with FAPESP (i.e., issuance of reviews and return process, delivery of Scientific Report and Financial Report). Noncompliance will lead to blocking the PI’s funding.

b) Be aware of the obligations specified in the Grant Contract.

b.1) Noncompliance with the rules and the terms specified in the Grant Contract may imply the cancellation of the Grant and the obligation to return funds already released by FAPESP, in updated amounts.

c) When requested by FAPESP, provide grant/fellowship/scholarship reviews in their field of knowledge, free of charge and within the deadlines stipulated.

d) Consult FAPESP before committing to activities that will require the Principal Investigator's absence from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, according to CTA Ordinance no. 74/2023, available at fapesp.br/16110.

d.1) In the event of an exceptional situation that requires the Principal Investigator to be away from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, FAPESP may consider requests on an exceptional and duly justified basis.

e) Consult FAPESP before accepting any financial support from any other funding entity, whether public or private, for the execution of the research project related to the Grant awarded.

f) Do not modify the project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without the prior consent of FAPESP.

g) Submit Scientific Reports and Financial Report within the deadlines specified in the Grant Contract, accompanied by the required documentation.

h) Make all arrangements to ensure the success of the approved research project.

i) Refer to FAPESP's support in theses, papers, books, conference abstracts and any other publication or form of dissemination of activities resulting, completely or partially, from a Grant from the Foundation, as foreseen in Clause 7 of the Grant Contract and described at fapesp.br/11789.

j) In the event that the research project funded by FAPESP has also been awarded financial support from any other public or private source, the researcher is obligated to inform and refer to the support, with clear indication of its source, in all forms of dissemination mentioned in the previous item.

k) Take the necessary steps to ensure that, through the service offered by the Host Institution, the full texts of papers or other types of scientific communication resulting (in whole or in part) from the project funded by FAPESP and published in international journals are made available in an institutional repository of scientific works. This should be in accordance with the open access policy of each journal, as soon as the manuscripts are approved for publication, or in the shortest time compatible with the restrictions of each journal, and in any case no later than 12 months from the date of publication. FAPESP Policy for Open Access to Publications Resulting from Grants and Scholarships is available at fapesp.br/12632.

l) Verify, in a timely manner, whether the execution of the project produces or could potentially produce results, in whole or in part, which might be the object of protection by Patent of Invention, Utility Model, Industrial Design, Software or any other form of protection of Intellectual Property rights, subject to FAPESP's Intellectual Property Policy, available at fapesp.br/17939.

m) Be aware of and respect the guidelines contained in FAPESP's Code of Good Scientific Practices, available at fapesp.br/boaspraticas.

n) Ensure that the data generated during the project is properly managed.

o) Always use the updated versions of the rules, forms and procedures, available at fapesp.br and fapesp.br/sage.

6.2) Co-Principal Investigators (back to index)

For the duration of the Grant, Co-Principal Investigators must meet the following conditions and obligations:

a) Take all the steps assigned to them in the approved research project to ensure its success.

b) When requested by FAPESP, provide grant/fellowship/scholarship reviews in their field of knowledge, free of charge and within the deadlines stipulated.

c) Consult FAPESP, through the Principal Investigator, before committing to activities that will require their absence from the Host Institution for more than 90 days, according to CTA Ordinance 74/2023, available at fapesp.br/16110.

d) Consult FAPESP, through the Principal Investigator, before accepting any financial support from any other funding entity, whether public or private, for the execution of the same research project related to the Grant awarded.

e) Refer to FAPESP's support in theses, papers, books, conference abstracts and any other publication or form of dissemination of activities resulting, completely or partially, from a Grant from the Foundation, as described at fapesp.br/11789.

f) Ensure adequate protection of any intellectual property rights resulting from projects supported by FAPESP, along with the Principal Investigator.

g) Ensure proper management of the data produced during the project, along with the Principal Investigator.

6.3) Host Institution (back to index)

For the duration of the Grant, the Host Institution must meet the following conditions and obligations:

a) Manage all aspects related to the processing of the Letter of Agreement necessary for releasing funds approved in the project.

b) Ensure that the researcher and the group of researchers participating in the project receive all the institutional support necessary for its realization, as previously agreed with the Principal Investigator.

b.1) Particularly, the researcher and the research group participating in the project shall be provided with physical space for the proper installation and operation of equipment, permission to use all facilities (laboratories, computer networks, libraries, databases, etc.), and access to all services (laboratory, administrative, import technicians, etc.) available at the Institution and relevant to the execution of the project.

c) Reimburse FAPESP for the entire investment made if the project is hindered or made unfeasible due to noncompliance with the previous item and without the prior consent of FAPESP.

d) Be aware that failure to comply with the institutional support described in items "b" and "b.1" above and in the Grant Contract may affect the progress of future proposals submitted to FAPESP by researchers of the Unit.

e) Provide a support service rendered by the Institution's libraries, aimed at managing, guiding researchers, indexing, and making available in the institutional repository the full texts of papers or other types of scientific communication resulting from research and projects partially or fully supported by FAPESP and published in international journals. FAPESP Policy for Open Access to Publications Resulting from Grants and Scholarships is available at fapesp.br/12632.

7) Restrictions (back to index)

The Principal Investigator is forbidden to:

a) Be a Principal Investigator on another current Grant in the following modalities: Thematic Project Grant; Young Investigator Grant; Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (RIDC); Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (ERC/ARC); Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP); or in Calls for Proposals, when this condition is described in the respective notice.

a.1) The Principal Investigator may submit a new proposal for a Grant in the modalities indicated, within their respective guidelines, during the term of a RPTIP Grant. If it is approved, it can only begin after the previous RPTIP Grant has ended.

b) Be a Co-Principal Investigator on another current Grant in the following modalities: Thematic Project Grant; Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (RIDC); Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (ERC/ARC), Research Partnership for Technological Innovation Program (RPTIP); or in Calls for Proposals, when this condition is described in the respective notice.

c) Expend Grant resources outside the term of the Grant Contract.

d) Modify the approved research project (initial plan, dates, etc.) without the prior consent of FAPESP.

e) Use FAPESP funds for non-fundable expenses or for any purpose other than those approved, except under the conditions available at fapesp.br/17938.

8) Fundable items (back to index)

The research project budget submitted to FAPESP must be detailed and each item must be specifically justified in relation to the project's objectives. Funds awarded by FAPESP are exclusively destined for Higher Education and Research Institutions in the state of São Paulo and must be used in accordance with the guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports of Grants and Scholarships/Fellowships, available at fapesp.br/17938.

Fundable items include:

8.1) Costing expenses of the research project (back to index)

a) Permanent material acquired in the country and imported;

a.1) Multi-User Equipment: FAPESP will consider requests for acquiring large equipment under the Multi-User Equipment Program (MEU) only in exceptional and well-justified circumstances. After analyzing justifications, and if there is a recommendation to award equipment considered multi-user, the Principal Investigator will be instructed to open a new FAPESP process in the MEU modality to implement the equipment award. Rules and procedures for this submission can be found at fapesp.br/11195.

b) Consumable supplies acquired in the country and imported;

c) Third-Party Services contracted in the country and abroad;

c.1) When the application includes costs to pay for third-party corporate entity services at the project's Host Institution or Partner Research Institutions, the justification for these services must be detailed and itemized, including a breakdown of the cost of the requested service into consumable material, personnel, and others. The respective Institution must bear all personnel costs. The cost of the service requested will be analyzed, including compatibility with other providers of similar services.

d) Transportation Expenses and Daily Fees for activities directly linked to the proposed research, including for Visiting Researchers;

e) Scholarships/Fellowships as Associated Submission, according to the rules described at fapesp.br/17940, of the following opportunities:

e.1) Technical and Academic Training.

8.2) Research Overhead (back to index)

The RPTIP Research Overhead consists solely of Fringe Benefits, to be used in accordance with the rules available at fapesp.br/17937.

8.3) Non-fundable items (back to index)

Salaries of any kind, non-technical and occasional third-party services, civil constructions resulting in increase in the constructed area and administrative services and materials are non-fundable.

Other prohibitions concerning the use of funds granted by FAPESP are specified in the Guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports, available at fapesp.br/17938.

9) Counterpart (back to index)

The budgetary participation of the parties involved in partnership projects will vary according to the degree of innovation and technological risk of each proposal. The criteria established in item 1.1 will be used in its definition.

If the amount of the counterpart contribution presented by the Partner Company or Host Institution exceeds the amount budgeted in the Letter of Agreement, the surplus will be considered a voluntary contribution, for which the contributor is solely and exclusively responsible.

9.1) Counterpart from the Partner Company (back to index)

9.1.1) Only items that are necessary and directly linked to the objectives of the research project may be accounted for in the partner company's financial contribution, including the following items:

a) funds allocated to capital goods or equipment, provided that, after completion of the project, they remain under the ownership of Higher education and research institutions located in the state of São Paulo;

b) funds allocated to Scientific Initiation, Masters, Doctorate (without MSc) (DD), Doctorate Scholarships, and Post-Doctoral Fellowships, with amounts at least equal to those of FAPESP Scholarships/Fellowships for these support opportunities (monthly fees, plus Research Overhead and Moving Cost Allowance);

c) funds allocated to costing expenses for consumable materials, travel, and third-party services directly linked to the project;

d) funds allocated to the research infrastructure of the Host Institution associated with the project;

e) funds for salary supplementation for teachers or researchers hired by Higher education and research institutions participating in the project;

f) funds to reimburse the partner higher education and research Institution for the internal personnel costs of the team allocated to the project (cost of staff members proportional to the number of hours dedicated to the project);

g) funds for hiring (for the duration of the project) researchers or support technicians who are necessary for the research work and will work exclusively on the development of the project in Higher education and research institutions;

h) funds for field research and for presenting works at scientific and/or technological events;

i) Overhead or fee for internalization of counterpart funds at the Host Institution, limited to 5% of the project value in the case of calls for proposals.

9.1.2) If the Grant is awarded, the release of funds will be conditional upon the Principal Investigator providing FAPESP with proof of the partner company's contribution to the Institution.

9.1.3) Hours worked by technical staff from the partner company, even when dedicated to the project, cannot be included in the counterpart contribution.

9.1.4) Special or omitted situations related to partner companies' contributions will be analyzed specifically, on a case-by-case basis, by FAPESP's Executive Board.

9.2) Institutional Counterpart (back to index)

9.2.1) The proposal should provide information on the funds that will be allocated by the Host Institution for the execution of the Project.

a) A counterpart from the Host Institution may include the following items, among others:

a.1) Human resources: resources used to pay project staff linked to the Institution (including the principal investigator, co-principal investigators, students with current scholarships/fellowships, and support staff). The human resources counterpart must take into account the cost of each staff member proportional to the number of hours dedicated to the project.

a.2) Infrastructure: use of the physical space that the Institution will make available for the execution of the project;

a.3) Equipment: amount equivalent to the number of hours that the equipment already owned by the Institution will be used for the execution of the project;

a.4) Consumable materials to be purchased with funds from the Institution;

a.5) Participation in Congresses;

a.6) Other expenses proven to be necessary for the execution of the project.

9.2.2) Any funds eventually awarded by FAPESP and the partner company will not be considered as compensation from the Institution.

9.2.3) The presentation of the institutional counterpart is a condition for the proposal to be accepted by FAPESP.

10) Proposal submission format (back to index)

Proposals for the RPTIP must be submitted through the on-line system SAGe ("Sistema de Apoio à Gestão"), available at: fapesp.br/sage. Within SAGe (under the "Manuais" link), it is possible to find documents that explain how to register users, prepare and submit proposals for Grants, and request the registration of Institutions.

10.1) Staff description (back to index)

In addition to the Principal Investigator, the staff may include:

a) Co-Principal Investigators;

b) Associate Researchers;

c) Scholarship/Fellowship Recipients;

d) Students without a Scholarship/Fellowship, with well-defined tasks in the research project;

e) Technical support staff;

f) Administrative staff;

g) Consultants: when the proposal includes a request for funds to pay for third-party consulting services to be subcontracted, these consultants must be included in the proposal staff, with the respective role of "Consultant".

Staff members must be included when filling out the application in the SAGe's "Dados Gerais do Projeto" > "Pessoas Envolvidas" tab. All staff members must have an up-to-date registration in the SAGe system, containing a copy of their ID card.

10.2) Documents required to apply for the RPTIP (back to index)

The following documents are required to apply for the RPTIP:

a) Research Project.

b) Curricular summary of the Principal Investigator and each of the Co-Principal Investigators and Associate Researchers, including those from the partner company.

c) Results of previous grants: if the Principal Investigator has participated as Principal Investigator, or Co-Principal Investigator, or as a beneficiary of other Grants or Scholarships/Fellowships awarded by FAPESP in the last 5 years, they must submit a document containing its results, project titles and process numbers. If the Principal Investigator has not participated in FAPESP Grants or Scholarships/Fellowships in this period, they must submit a document containing the following sentence: "The Principal Investigator has not received support from FAPESP in the last 5 years under the conditions defined in the guidelines".

d) Individual activity plans for each Technical Training and/or Academic Training Fellowship requested:

d.1) For each Fellowship, an Activity Plan prepared according to the template available for download on SAGe must be submitted with the initial proposal. It must include the title and summary of the activity plan, intended objectives, work plan, justifications for choosing the Fellowship level and for the proposed activity plan.

d.2) It is not necessary to refer to the name of the Fellowship recipients when sending the Grant proposal. If the Fellowship is approved, the Principal Investigator of the Grant shall arrange a selection process to select the Fellowship recipients.

e) Budgets from authorized representatives/vendors: for each permanent material requested with a unit value greater than ten minimum wages, the researcher must submit three budgets or a letter of exclusivity and explanation of why the request is reasonable, if there is only one vendor.

f) Manifestation of the Head of the Host Institution, according to the template available for download on SAGe.

g) Information approved by the Host Institution on the institutional infrastructure, according to the model in Annex II available for download on SAGe, describing the institutional support and the infrastructure available and to be provided for the development of the project, including:

g.1) Current academic, administrative and technical support services at the Host Institution;

g.2) Facilities;

g.3) Personnel hired by the Host Institution to support the project.

This document, which must follow the template available for download on SAGe, must be signed by the Principal Investigator and the Head of the Host Institution with the authority to guarantee the commitments contained therein and shall be attached to the Grant Contract if the proposal is approved.

h) Equipment park: description of the Host Institution's scientific equipment park.

FAPESP requests that the Host Institution maintains a list (updated annually) to be made available to researchers with the institutional seal.

A list of the existing equipment at the Host Institution (including equipment with a purchase price of $20,000 or more) must be submitted with the following information for each item:

h.1) Type, manufacturer and model (for example: Oscilloscope Tektronix mod. 7904);

h.2) Relevant characteristics (for example: 500 MHz; 1mV; single beam);

h.3) Nature: national or imported material;

h.4) Year of acquisition;

h.5) Value when acquired;

h.6) Institutional responsible for access to equipment.

i) Description of each staff member's responsibilities. Briefly describe each of the suggested Co-Principal Investigators and Principal Investigator responsibilities in the project, explaining the scientific and technological challenges proposed to be addressed in order to achieve the objectives.

j) Description of the activities carried out by the staff. A brief description (up to one paragraph) of the activities of each associate researcher, scholarship/fellowship recipient, and student without scholarship/fellowship included on the staff activities on the project is required.

k) Consent form signed by the Head of a Partner Research Institution participating in the project.

l) Intellectual property form, according to the template available for download on SAGe.

l.1) It is not mandatory that the project submitted to FAPESP involve pre-existing intellectual property or presuppose the existence of technology ready to be transferred. In general, the technology will be developed jointly during the execution of the project. In any case, however, the researcher needs to fill out the Intellectual Property Form.

l.2) It is recommended that the Principal Investigator contact their Institution's Innovation Center to complete the form.

m) Activity plans for academic scholarships/fellowships awarded by partner company(ies).

n) Documents from the partner company(ies) (only in cases of proposals submitted on spontaneous demand):

n.1) Documents supporting the partner company's experience in carrying out and managing technological innovation projects;

n.2) Company's Articles of Incorporation and minutes of the directorate's election;

n.3) Consent of the partner company, according to the template available in SAGe;

n.4) Consolidated budget by item and funding sources: the amounts requested from FAPESP must be identified, as well as those committed by the company and the Host Institution. Proposals that do not include the Host Institution's counterpart information will not be reviewed;

n.5) Detailed budget of the RPTIP company: to be filled in exclusively with the amount to be contributed by the partner company(ies);

n.6) Certificates of tax compliance (may be submitted later, during the contracting stage, if the proposal is approved):

n.6.1) Brazilian Registry of Legal Entities (CNPJ) cards of the company;

n.6.2) Certificate of no outstanding federal tax liabilities and federal government debt;

n.6.3) Certificate of no outstanding tax debts owed to the state of São Paulo;

n.6.4) Certificate of compliance with the Guarantee Fund for Length of Service - FGTS (CRF).

10.3) Letter of Agreement (back to index)

10.3.1) For the funds awarded by FAPESP to be released if the proposal is approved, a Letter of Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation must be signed between the project's Host Institution, partner company(ies), FAPESP, and Partner Research Institutions, specifying:

a) each party's commitment to the activities to be carried out;

b) the amounts contributed by the parties;

c) the schedule of financial disbursements committed by the partner company(ies);

d) the definition and schedule of expected results at each stage of the project;

e) the clauses on Intellectual Property (IP) regarding: definition of ownership of the results' IP; provision for the division of royalties or any assets due to the use of intellectual property rights resulting from the supported project, according to each party's participation; and the possibility of FAPESP assigning the same rights to other public or private institutions, in the latter case upon payment.

10.3.2) The following must be included as Annexes to the Letter of Agreement:

a) a copy of the Grant Contract;

b) a copy of the research project approved by FAPESP as a descriptive appendix of the activities to be developed.

10.3.3) The Letter of Agreement must be submitted by the Principal Investigator to FAPESP within 120 days from the date of issue of the process Grant Contract. Exceptionally, FAPESP may extend the deadline for submission of the document by up to 60 days. If the Letter of Agreement is not submitted within the established deadline, the award will be canceled.

10.3.4) FAPESP recommends that the processing of the Letter of Agreement be initiated immediately after issuance of the Grant Contract and that the Principal Investigator monitor the process to avoid delays in the execution of the project. It is also recommended that the Innovation Center of the Host Institution be involved in the preparation of the document.

11) Authorizations required by Law to perform the research (back to index)

It is responsibility of the Principal Investigator and the Host Institution to request, obtain and hold all legal and required authorizations for the proper execution of the project, which must be issued by the control and inspection bodies relating to the nature of the research, when so required.

If the proposal is approved, the Grant Contract will contain a clause requiring that the Principal Investigator and the Host Institution have such authorizations and demonstrate them to FAPESP whenever requested.

12) Intellectual Property (back to index)

FAPESP's rules regarding the intellectual property of the results of projects supported by the Foundation are described at fapesp.br/17939.

13) Review of applications (back to index)

13.1) Review process (back to index)

Applications sent to FAPESP for different types of support opportunities are reviewed using the peer review system (fapesp.br/analise).

For awarding RPTIP Grant, the review done by Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, based on the reviewers' opinions, intends to identify those proposals that are considered excellent in six components: a) Research Project; b) Principal Investigator's Academic background; c) Research Staff; d) Institutional Support; e) Requested budget; and f) Specific RPTIP criteria.

The review process is carried out in five stages and involves the participation of ad hoc reviewers, Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators.

The five stages of the review process are listed and described below:

a. Eligibility of the proposals and indication of reviewers by the Area Coordinators.

b. Analysis and issue of reviews by the ad hoc reviewers.

c. Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators.

d. Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators.

e. Scientific Director's decision and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees.

13.1.1) Eligibility and indication of reviewers for the eligible proposals by the Area Coordinators

In this phase, the Area Coordinators verify that the requirements specified in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of these guidelines are totally met. For eligible proposals, the Area Coordinators indicate which ad hoc reviewers to consult for issuing a review. Requests that are considered ineligible are sent to the Associate Coordinators for analysis and final decision. If the Associate Coordinators agree that the proposal is ineligible, it returns to the Principal Investigator with a review clarifying the reasons for the decision.

13.1.2) Analysis and issue of review by the ad hoc reviewers

The ad hoc reviewers are specialists in the field of the projects being proposed. They analyze the proposals and issue reviews that contemplate each of the criteria mentioned in section 13.1.6. Their detailed reviews form the basis for the subsequent steps of the analysis.

13.1.3) Analysis and recommendation by the Area Coordinators

The Area Coordinators analyze the proposals based on the reviews issued by ad hoc reviewers and conclude by issuing a recommendation to the Scientific Directorate on the case. Analyses by Area Coordinators take place within each field of knowledge.

13.1.4) Analysis and recommendation by the Associate Coordinators

Associate Coordinators examine proposals and compare the recommendations of Area Coordinators with the reviews of ad hoc reviewers. Particularly, they verify consistency with FAPESP's excellence benchmarks and whether all the criteria in section 13.1.6 and, if necessary, those in section 13.1.7 were properly considered during the analysis. If there are any discrepancies, they are sent to the Area Coordinators for discussion. Finally, recommendations are conducted to the Scientific Director.

Evaluations by the Associate Coordinators take place separately for different major fields of knowledge.

13.1.5) Scientific Director's decision and analysis by the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees

Based on the analysis of the Area Coordinators and Associate Coordinators, the Scientific Director makes the final decision. When there are any doubts or there is a mismatch between the Coordinators' recommendations, the proposals are discussed with the Associate Coordinators before the final decision is taken. The Scientific Director's decision is submitted for analysis by the Executive Board, which will deliberate ad referendum of the Board of Trustees.

13.1.6) Review criteria

In the analysis by the ad hoc reviewers (section 13.1.2), Area Coordinators (section 13.1.3) and Associate Coordinators (section 13.1.4), the criteria used to classify the proposals are listed below and included in the reviewers' opinion form.

Each request is analyzed considering six components: a) Research Project; b) Academic background of the Principal Investigator; c) Research Staff; d) Institutional Support; e) Budget requested; and f) Specific RPTIP criteria.

a) Research Project

a.1) Definition and relevance of objectives.

a.2) Scientific justification and adequacy of the methods employed.

a.3) Relationship between the proposal and its respective state of the art.

a.4) Adequacy of the quantity and activity plans proposed for the Fellowships as Associated Submissions requested in the proposal.

a.5) Feasibility of project implementation from a technical, economic/financial, and commercial/marketing perspective.

a.6) Originality and importance of the intended contribution to the project's field of knowledge.

a.7) Adequacy of the deadline proposed for the development of the project.

a.8) Adequacy of the funds requested in relation to the significance of the intended scientific or technological contribution (quality and impact of the results).

a.9) If successful, the project will produce technological innovation.

a.10) The technological innovation achieved will bring significant benefits to the partner company(ies).

a.11) The technology to be transferred was developed totally or partially by the project staff.

b) Academic background of the Principal Investigator

b.1) Quality and regularity of scientific and/or technological output. Important elements for this analysis are: list of publications in journals with a selective editorial policy; published books or book chapters; patents in which they appear as inventors; other forms of intellectual property; research results effectively transferred and adopted by companies or the government; and any other information that may be relevant.

b.1.i) The fundamental document to be considered for the analysis of this item is the curricular summary (fapesp.br/6351) presented with the proposal.

b.1.ii) Periods of leave of absence on the part of the applicant due to maternity/paternity leave, disability, temporary disabilities or intensive care for ill, elderly or disabled people will be considered by FAPESP in the analysis of the curricular summary, under the terms of PR Ordinance nº 171/2024.

b.2) Demonstrated leadership experience in research and development projects related to the subject of the proposal under analysis.

b.3) Results obtained by the applicant with previous funding from FAPESP, based on the information provided above in section 10.2.c.

b.4) Other remarks about the researcher's scientific, technological and academic output, which are relevant to the analysis of the viability and scientific quality of the proposal.

c) Research Staff

c.1) Quality and regularity of the staff's scientific and/or technological output, considering the scientific and/or technological challenges of the project.

c.2) The role of each staff member is clearly specified, based on the information provided above in section 10.2.j and 10.2.k.

c.3) Adequacy of the staff's researchers to the project's objectives and activities.

c.4) Previous experience of staff members in joint research and/or technological development.

c.5) The participation of researchers from the partner company(ies) in the project is compatible with the counterpart presented and satisfactory for the exchange of information among the partners.

c.6) Participation at an appropriate level by Scientific Initiation and/or Postgraduate students.

d) Institutional Support

d.1) Adequacy of the institutional, physical and support staff infrastructure offered by the institution(s) where the project will be carried out.

e) Requested budget

e.1) Necessity of the equipment and permanent materials required to carry out the project, also taking into account the infrastructure already available at the Institution and the applicant's ability to use it.

e.2) Assessment of whether there are permanent materials and equipment for which FAPESP should or could request the creation of a system for access by third parties not involved in this Project.

e.3) Necessity of the consumable material required to carry out the project.

e.4) Necessity and suitability of third-party services to carry out the project, also assessing whether:

e.4.i) Third-Party Services are only of a technical and occasional nature, as required by FAPESP rules; and

e.4.ii) If, in any case, it can be reasonably expected that the service requested should be provided by the project's Host Institution in return for FAPESP's support.

e.5) Adequacy of the other values and items requested in relation to the objectives of the proposed project.

e.6) The partner company's counterpart is adequate.

e.7) The Host Institution's counterpart is adequate.

e.8) The ratio between the project costs and the expected benefits is adequate.

f) Specific RPTIP criteria

The following specific criteria will also be considered when analyzing applications for the RPTIP, in relation to the following items of the project, institutions, and partner companies:

f.1) Applicants' capacity.

f.2) Technical and scientific capacity.

f.3) Managerial capacity.

f.4) Economic and financial capacity.

f.5) Importance of the intended innovation.

f.6) Originality.

f.7) Bibliographic basis.

f.8) Goal setting and implementation.

f.9) Relevance of the research for the social and economic development of the state of São Paulo.

f.10) Market analysis.

f.11) Adequacy of the methodology.

f.12) Definition and coordination of researchers' tasks and responsibilities.

f.13) Adequacy of the infrastructure of applicants and own funds allocated to the project.

f.14) Feasibility of the execution.

f.15) Management skills.

f.16) Budget adequacy.

f.17) Compliance with the specific criteria of the modality (RPTIP 1, 2, or 3) into which the project fits.

f.18) Experience in conducting research projects for technological innovation and ownership of results, including patent rights and sales or marketing rights.

13.1.7) The most common shortcomings observed in applications for the RPTIP

These are the most common deficiencies observed in the analysis of applications for RPTIP:

a) Regarding the Project, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. Poorly defined, excessive or incongruous objectives.
2. Excessively limited objectives.
3. Unoriginality.
4. Poorly formulated research challenges.
5. Minor contribution to the field of knowledge.
6. Insufficient scientific basis / inadequate methodology.
7. Questionable feasibility of the execution.
8. Questionable technological innovation output.
9. The innovation resulting from the project will not bring significant benefits to the partner company.
10. Inadequate of the quantity and activity plans proposed for Technical Training (TT) Fellowship recipients.
11. Inadequate deadline.
12. The technology to be transferred was not developed by the project staff(s).
13. The submitted project does not naturally fit within the lines of research of the applicant group.

b) Regarding the Principal Investigator's Academic Background, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. Insufficient experience in the research area in which the research project is inserted, which may compromise its viability.
2. Scientific or technological output that does not attest to significant achievement as a result of their research activity, except under the conditions provided for in PR Ordinance no. 171/2024.

c) Regarding the Staff, as indicated on the reviewers' opinion form:

1. The quality and regularity of the staff's scientific and/or technological output are unsatisfactory, considering the scientific and/or technological challenges of the project.
2. The contribution of each proposed co-principal investigator is not clearly specified.
3. The contribution of other staff members is not clearly specified.
4. One or more staff members have no prior experience.
5. Insufficient participation by graduate and postgraduate students.
6. There is no participation of researchers from the partner staff.

d) Regarding the Institutional Support:

1. The Institutional Support provided for in Annex II of the proposal does not meet FAPESP's requirements for administrative and management services.
2. The research infrastructure offered by the Host Institution does not allow for the perfect development of the proposed research project.

e) Regarding the Budget:

1. Items requested in the budget are not sufficiently justified.
2. Excessive cost considering the expected scientific or technological contribution or the probability of success of the project.
3. Overestimated budget.
4. The partner company's counterpart is inadequate.
5. The institution's counterpart is inadequate.
6. The ratio between the project costs and the expected benefits is inadequate.

13.2) Analysis deadline (back to index)

The expected average duration of the FAPESP review process for this support opportunity is approximately 180 days, assuming there are no incidents such as due diligence or return without a reviewers' opinion.

a) This number represents an average. Therefore, this does not mean that applications that are submitted 180 days prior to the estimated start of the grant will necessarily be evaluated within this time frame. Since the expected average time frame is 180 days, there will certainly be cases in which the period for a decision will be longer than that.

b) Requests for a RPTIP will be sent to four or more reviewers. For this reason, the review process may take longer than expected.

c) Considering that the specialists who participate in the review process of the proposals submitted to FAPESP (ad hocreviewers, area coordinators and associate coordinators) are mostly members of the academic community, and that in the period from December to January the Universities and Research Institutions in the state of São Paulo go on break and academic vacation, the Proposals submitted from October to January may suffer additional delays.

d) For each support opportunity, a typical period necessary to complete the review process is estimated. FAPESP takes responsibility for making every effort to observe this limit. However, the Foundation cannot guarantee that this condition will be always fulfilled, since FAPESP's top priority is to ensure the quality of the review and selection process.

e) In fact, the most important part of the review process cannot be fully controlled by FAPESP: all applications are sent out to adhoc reviewers for their opinion, and it is not always possible, despite FAPESP's efforts, to obtain a return process within the regular review deadline.

f) Furthermore, reviewers frequently ask for clarifications before submitting their final review and occasionally FAPESP itself may decide to send the application to additional reviewers if it considers that the submitted reviews are insufficient to make a well-founded final decision.

g) However, experience shows that in most cases the expected average deadlines are met, as can be seen from "Estudo Tempos/FAPESP", available at fapesp.br/estatisticas/analise.

h) Considering the above and in order to allow for appropriate planning, FAPESP requests researchers to submit their proposals at least 12 months prior to the desired starting date of the research project.

13.3) Appeals for reconsideration (back to index)

FAPESP guarantees to the applicant, upon submission of a well-founded reconsideration request for the initial decision, the right to a new review of the application. Reconsideration requests must be made in accordance with the guidelines described at fapesp.br/17928.

14) Scientific Report (back to index)

a) Scientific Reports must be presented on the date specified in the Grant Contract.

b) Partial and final Scientific Reports should be prepared according to the template available at fapesp.br/18117/.

c) Documents required to submit the Scientific Report:

c.1) Document with Descrição Sucinta e Justificada do uso de Reserva Técnica e Benefícios Complementares. Since, in RPTIP, Research Overhead consists only of Fringe Benefits, only the use of these funds should be described and justified in the form.

c.2) Formulário para Encaminhamento de Relatório Científico de Auxílios duly completed and signed (only for processes in printed format).

d) Presentation format:

d.1) Processes submitted via the SAGe system must have Scientific Reports submitted electronically, as described in the "Submissão de RC" manual, available at SAGe, under the link "Manuais".

d.2) For paper-based processes, Scientific Reports must be submitted in printed form, sent by post or delivered in person to FAPESP. In this case, the forms for submitting the report and describing the use of Research Overhead and Fringe Benefits must be signed by the Principal Investigator.

15) Financial Report (back to index)

a) The Guidelines for the Use of Funds and Financial Reports are available at fapesp.br/17938.

b) Financial Reports must be submitted on the dates specified in the Grant Contract. Guidance on submitting the Financial Report is available at fapesp.br/prestacaodecontas.

c) The Financial Reports of the company's counterpart (proving the application of funds in the subitems approved by FAPESP and provided for in the Grant Contract) must be submitted by the researcher on the dates established in the Grant Contract for the rendering of accounts for the funds awarded by FAPESP.

d) FAPESP allows the principal investigator to appoint SAGe account users who support them in the preparation of the Financial Report in the SAGe system. Detailed guidance on preparing and submitting the electronic Financial Report, as well as on appointing support users, can be found in the Researchers' Support Manuals, available at the "Manuais" link, at SAGe.

16) Proof of payment of the Company's counterpart (back to index)

Starting from the beginning of the duration indicated in the Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator must submit proof of the company's contribution of funds, along with the respective transfer proofs and receipts from the Institution to FAPESP's Financial Management Department every six months. Failure to provide proof of transfers will result in the suspension of fund release by FAPESP. The same will occur if the funds are not contributed within the stipulated period.

17) Changes to the award (back to index)

a) By signing the Grant Contract, the Principal Investigator acknowledges that the conditions and funds awarded by FAPESP are sufficient to enable the execution of the approved project, barring unpredictable circumstances.

b) For this reason, the researchers are advised to sign the Grant Contract only after having assured themselves that the conditions, items and values of the budget approved by FAPESP are, under normal circumstances, enough to fully guarantee the successful execution of the project in question.

c) In the case of uncertainty, as accepting the grant, researchers are advised to tick the box "Solicito Mudanças" and immediately submit a well-founded change request, which will be analyzed by FAPESP.

d) Recognizing that in certain cases, after the initial award, there may be circumstances that affect the development of the project and require changes to the agreed conditions, FAPESP accepts that requests may be made to amend the Grant Contract, under the conditions detailed at fapesp.br/17926.

---