Circular No. 12/2009/TT-BKHCN guiding the evaluation and acceptance of scientific and technological research topics and pilot production projects at the national level.

CIRCULAR

Guidelines for evaluating and accepting scientific and technological research topics and national pilot production projects

________________________________

Pursuant to the Law on Science and Technology promulgated on June 22, 2000;
Pursuant to Decree No. 28/2008/NĐ-CP dated March 14, 2008, promulgated by the Government stipulating the functions, tasks, powers, and organizational structure of the Ministry of Science and Technology;

The Ministry of Science and Technology guides the evaluation and acceptance of scientific research and technology development topics, and national pilot production projects using state budget funds as follows:

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Scope of Regulation

Article 1. This Circular stipulates the evaluation and acceptance, recognition of results, termination of contracts, and handling of violations concerning scientific research and technology development topics, and pilot production projects using state budget funds under the National Key Science and Technology Programs, Scientific and Technological Projects, and independent national tasks (hereinafter referred to collectively as topics or projects).

For topics and projects using state budget funds in the field of social sciences, the evaluation and acceptance, recognition of results, termination of contracts, and handling of violations shall be regulated by separate documents.

Article 2. The evaluation and acceptance of topics and projects related to national secrets, special characteristics of security and defense, and certain urgent and sensitive tasks shall be decided by the Minister of Science and Technology (hereinafter abbreviated as MOST) for each specific case.

Article 2. Applicability

Clause 1. Organizations and individuals involved in the evaluation of topics and projects as specified in Clause 1 of Article 1 of this Circular.

Clause 2. Functional units under the MOST, and functional units under the managing agencies overseeing Scientific and Technological Projects.

Article 3. Principles of Evaluation

The evaluation of topics and projects must comply with the following principles:

Point 1. Based on the signed scientific research and technology development contract (hereinafter abbreviated as contract) and the evaluation contents prescribed in this Circular.

Point 2. Ensuring democracy, objectivity, honesty, and accuracy.

Point 3. Conducting according to the procedures and formalities prescribed in this Circular.

Article 4. Evaluation Methods

The evaluation is carried out in two levels including the basic-level acceptance evaluation (hereinafter abbreviated as basic-level evaluation) and the national-level acceptance evaluation (hereinafter abbreviated as national-level evaluation) as follows:

Clause 1. Basic-Level Evaluation

The basic-level evaluation only assesses the results of the topic or project through the advisory council for basic-level acceptance evaluation (hereinafter abbreviated as basic-level evaluation council) conducted by the organization responsible for the topic or project.

Clause 2. National-Level Evaluation

The national-level evaluation includes assessing the results of the topic or project and assessing the implementation of the topic or project:

Point a. Assessing the results of the topic or project is carried out through the advisory council for national-level acceptance evaluation (hereinafter abbreviated as national-level evaluation council);

The national-level assessment of the results of the topic or project is only conducted for those topics or projects ranked "Achieved" by the basic-level evaluation council;

For topics or projects with research outcomes that are measurable products (including computer software...), the authenticity of technical parameters and technical documentation will also be reviewed by a panel of experts before the national-level evaluation council convenes its session.

Point b. Assessing the implementation of the topic or project is assigned to:

- The Program Steering Committee, in collaboration with the Office of National Key Programs, for topics or projects under the National Key Science and Technology Programs (hereinafter abbreviated as program);

- Functional Departments under the MOST, in collaboration with the Office of National Key Programs, for topics or projects under the program where the Program Steering Committee member serves as the head;

- Functional Departments under the MOST, in collaboration with the managing agency, for independent national topics or projects;

- Functional units under the managing agencies, in collaboration with the MOST, for topics or projects under Scientific and Technological Projects.

The organizations assigned to conduct evaluations as specified in Point b, Clause 2 of this Article are collectively referred to as National-Level Evaluation Organizations.

Article 5. Funding for Evaluation Organization

1. The evaluation funding at the basic level shall be sourced from the project implementation budget.

2. The evaluation funding for national-level projects shall be sourced from the annual science and technology budget of the Ministry of Science and Technology or the managing agency.

3. Any additional costs incurred to complete products and documents according to the requirements of the evaluation committees at various levels shall be borne by the project leader and the leading organization.

Chapter II

BASE LEVEL EVALUATION

Article 6. Basic Level Evaluation Documentation

The basic level evaluation documentation includes the following materials:

1. A comprehensive report on the results of the project (in accordance with the template provided in Appendix 1-1 attached hereto); scientific and technological products of the project in quantity and quality as stipulated in the contract.

2. Comments on the implementation organization of the project leader (in accordance with the template provided in Appendix 1-2 attached hereto).

3. Contract and project description.

4. Documentation on measurement, inspection, assessment, and testing of project products conducted by authorized organizations (specialized laboratories, metrology centers, technical appraisal centers, etc.), along with confirmation documents and related materials regarding the publication, release, acceptance, and utilization of research outcomes (if applicable).

5. Minutes of periodic inspections of project implementation by the program steering committee, the managing agency, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

6. Financial settlement report of the project.

7. Design drawings (for machine or equipment products), original survey data, field notebooks, or original record books of the project.

Article 7. Deadline for Submission of Documentation and Basic Level Evaluation Organization

1. Not later than thirty days before the end date specified in the contract or extension document, the project leader shall submit ten copies (duplicates) of the basic level evaluation documentation to the leading organization, including:

a) Four sets of documentation as prescribed in Article 6 of this Circular to be sent to the chairman of the council, the reviewing members, and retained by the leading organization for the council meeting;

b) Six sets of documentation as prescribed in Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Article 6 of this Circular to be sent to the remaining members.

2. The leading organization shall verify the completeness and validity of the documentation in accordance with the regulations. Valid documentation must be submitted to each council member at least seven days prior to the meeting.

3. The basic level evaluation organization must be carried out and completed before the completion date of the project as recorded in the contract or extension document.

Article 8. Basic Level Evaluation Council

1. The basic level evaluation council shall advise the head of the leading organization on evaluating the project results against the contract and any agreed-upon adjustments.

2. The basic level evaluation council shall be established by the head of the leading organization, consisting of seven to nine members including the chairman, vice-chairman, two reviewing members, one scientific secretary, and other council members. The number of representatives from the leading organization shall not exceed half of the total council members.

The leading organization may appoint a person as the scientific secretary and may also appoint one person as a reviewing member.

The project leader and individuals directly involved in the project shall not serve as council members.

3. Requirements for basic level evaluation council members:

a) Possess expertise in science and technology, economics, and management relevant to the project's research area;

b) Be reputable experts willing to participate in the evaluation council with high responsibility, honesty, and objectivity;

c) The chairman and reviewing members, in addition to the above conditions, must be experienced experts with deep knowledge in their field, holding a doctoral degree or higher academic title of associate professor or above, and having published relevant scientific works within the last five years.

In special cases, the decision rests with the head of the leading organization.

Article 9. Responsibilities and Authorities of Members of the Basic Level Evaluation Council

1. Members of the basic level evaluation council shall have the following responsibilities and authorities:

a) Study the evaluation dossier and materials at the basic level, provide comments on the research project results (according to the model guidelines in Appendix 1-3 or Appendix 1-4 attached hereto), and submit the comment form to the main organizing entity before the council's meeting;

b) Bear personal responsibility for advisory opinions during the evaluation process;

c) Not disclose information about the evaluation results before their official announcement, and not misuse the results of the research projects contrary to the laws on intellectual property;

d) In necessary cases, request the project leaders and main organizing entities to provide project materials for the evaluation purposes.

2. The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Reviewer Member, and Scientific Secretary, in addition to the responsibilities and authorities of council members stipulated in Clause 1 of this Article, shall also have the following responsibilities:

a) The Chairperson shall coordinate with the main organizing entity of the research project to decide on the organization and chairing of the basic level evaluation council meetings; confirm the completion of the evaluation dossier of the project leader according to the council's conclusion (according to the model guidelines in Appendix 1-10 attached hereto);

b) The Vice-Chairperson shall manage the council in the absence of the Chairperson;

c) The Reviewer Member shall be responsible for reviewing, commenting, and deeply evaluating the research results of the project; submit the comment form on the project to the main organizing entity no later than two days prior to the council meeting;

d) The Scientific Secretary shall assist the Chairperson in checking, preparing materials, and other necessary conditions for the meeting; send copies of the comment forms from the Reviewer Members to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Members before the council meeting; record discussion opinions, draft, and complete the basic level evaluation minutes according to regulations.

Article 10. Meeting of the Basic Level Evaluation Council

1. The main participants in the council meeting include members of the basic level evaluation council, representatives of the main organizing entity of the research project, representatives of the managing authority, representatives of related units under the Ministry of Science and Technology, and representatives of the Program Management Board (for projects within a program).

2. The council meeting must have at least 2/3 of the total number of council members present, including the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, and all Reviewer Members must be present.

3. The project leader may attend and explain issues related to the implementation results of the project at the council meeting.

4. The working procedure of the council:

a) The Scientific Secretary reads the decision to establish the council and introduces the participants and representatives;

b) The representative of the main organizing entity presents the main contents and requirements for the evaluation and acceptance;

c) The Chairperson chairs the meeting in the following sequence:

- The project leader reports a summary of the research results;

- Reviewer Members read their comment forms on the project;

- The Scientific Secretary reads the comment forms of absent members (if any) for the council's reference;

- Council members ask questions to the project leader regarding the results and related issues of the project;

- The project leader answers the council's questions;

- The council discusses in private and conducts an evaluation of the project (according to the model guidelines in Appendix 1-5 or Appendix 1-6 attached hereto);

- The council elects a Counting Committee and proceeds to vote: The Counting Committee consists of three members, including one head; valid ballots are those that evaluate at one of the two levels "Pass" or "Fail".

- The head of the Counting Committee announces the ballot counting results for the project (according to the model guidelines in Appendix 1-7 attached hereto);

- The Chairperson drafts the evaluation conclusion, specifying clearly the contents that need to be revised and supplemented to perfect the project (according to the model guidelines in Appendix 1-8 or Appendix 1-9 attached hereto);

- The council discusses to agree on each content of the conclusion; in case the council evaluates the classification as "Fail", it must clearly identify the contents and work performed correctly according to the contract for the Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority to consider and handle according to current regulations;

- The council approves the minutes.

Article 11. Content of basic-level assessment and classification of research topics and projects

1. Content of research topic outcome evaluation:

a) The appropriateness of the research methods, surveys, calculations, and reliability of the research equipment actually used;

b) The sufficiency in quantity, volume, and type of main scientific and technological products compared to the quantity, volume, and type of products stipulated in the contract;

c) The quality level (stability and reproducibility of the achieved results) and scientific and technological requirements met by the main products;

d) The completeness, clarity, authenticity, and logical consistency of the comprehensive report on the research topic outcomes and necessary accompanying documents (design documents, technology documents, intermediate products, cited documents...).

2. Content of project outcome evaluation:

a) Organization of project implementation;

b) The sufficiency in quantity, volume, and type of main scientific and technological products of the project;

c) The degree of technological completion, quality, and scientific requirements met by the main products of the project;

d) The completeness, clarity, authenticity, and logical consistency of the comprehensive report on the project outcomes and necessary accompanying documents (design documents, technology documents, intermediate products, cited documents...).

3. Classification of research topics and projects:

The basic-level assessment council classifies research topics and projects into one of two levels: "Pass" or "Fail" as follows:

a) Level "Pass" if the research topic or project receives at least two-thirds agreement from the council members present regarding the completion of the contents specified in Clause 1 of this Article for research topics or the contents specified in Clause 2 of this Article for projects.

Research topics and projects classified at the "Pass" level will be subject to state-level evaluation.

b) Level "Fail" if the research topic or project does not meet the requirements specified in Point a, Clause 3 of this Article.

Article 12. Handling and Reporting Basic-Level Evaluation Results

1. For research topics and projects evaluated at the "Pass" level by the council within thirty days from the date of the evaluation result, the head of the research topic or project is responsible for completing the dossier according to the council's conclusion.

The leading organization coordinates with the council chairman to supervise and confirm the completion of the dossier to prepare for state-level evaluation.

2. In cases where the research topic or project is classified at the "Fail" level, it may be considered for an extension of the implementation period to complete the research contents but not exceeding six months according to the following regulations:

a) To be considered for an extension, the research topic or project must be recommended for an extension by the council, and the leading organization and the head must submit a request (accompanied by the dossier, minutes of the basic-level evaluation, and handling plan) through the program steering committee (for topics and projects under programs) to the Ministry of Science and Technology or the managing agency;

b) Within fifteen days from receiving the request, the Ministry of Science and Technology will review and notify its opinion on the extension for topics and projects under programs and independent topics and projects. The managing agency will notify its opinion on the extension for topics and projects under science and technology projects after obtaining the unified opinion of the Ministry of Science and Technology;

c) After the extension period, the re-evaluation will be conducted according to the content and procedure of this Circular but not more than once for each topic or project.

3. The Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing agency will handle according to current regulations based on the conclusions of the basic-level assessment council for the following cases:

a) Not eligible for extension as provided in Clause 2 of this Article;

b) Eligible for extension as provided in Clause 2 of this Article but the re-evaluation result still remains at the "Fail" level.

4. The leading organization is responsible for retaining the original dossier of the basic-level assessment of the research topic or project as stipulated in Article 6 of this Circular.

Chapter III

NATIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT

Article 13. Evaluation File national level

The national-level assessment dossier of research topics and projects includes the following documents:

1. A letter requesting from the leading organization of the research topic or project sent to the National Assessment Organization (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-1 attached to this Circular).

2. The basic-level assessment dossier as specified in Article 6, supplemented and completed according to the requirements of the basic-level assessment council.

3. Decision on establishment of the council and minutes of the basic-level assessment.

4. Confirmation letters from authors regarding the order of names in the list of authors implementing the research topic or project (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-2 attached to this Circular).

5. Report explaining the contents that have been supplemented and completed according to the council's conclusion, confirmed by the head of the leading organization and the chairman of the basic-level assessment council.

6. Evaluation of the implementation organization of the research topic or project (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-3 attached to this Circular).

Article 14. Time limit for submission of files and organization of national-level evaluation

1. Within thirty days from the date of the conclusion of the basic-level evaluation council, the head of the project or the main organizing entity of the topic or project shall be responsible for submitting thirteen sets (copies) of the national-level evaluation file to the National Evaluation Organization, including:

a) Five sets of files as prescribed in Article 13 of this Circular to be sent to the chairman of the council, the reviewer members, the expert group members, and retained at the National Evaluation Organization for the council's meeting;

b) Eight sets of files comprising the documents as prescribed in Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Article 6 that have been completed after the basic-level evaluation and Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Article 13 of this Circular to be sent to the remaining council members.

2. The National Evaluation Organization shall check and confirm the completeness and validity of the files according to the regulations or request the head of the project or the main organizing entity of the topic or project to supplement and complete the files (if necessary).

The valid filing submission date shall be recorded on the receipt form (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-4 attached to this Circular).

3. Valid files shall be sent by the National Evaluation Organization to each council member at least seven days before the preparatory meeting.

4. The national-level evaluation must be organized and completed within sixty days from the date of receiving valid evaluation files.

Article 15. National Evaluation Council and Expert Group and the expert team

1. The National Evaluation Council shall be responsible for advising the Minister of Science and Technology and the head of the managing agency to evaluate the results of topics and projects as prescribed.

2. The Expert Group (established in cases where the topic or project has testable products) shall be responsible for checking and appraising the reliability and authenticity of the products of the topic or project as required by the council.

3. The National Evaluation Council and the Expert Group shall be established by the Minister of Science and Technology based on the proposal of the Program Management Board through the Office of Key Programs for topics and projects under the program or of the relevant Departments of the Ministry of Science and Technology for independent national-level topics and projects and topics and projects under the program headed by members of the Program Management Board.

The head of the managing agency shall decide to establish the National Evaluation Council and the Expert Group for topics and projects under the Scientific and Technological Project.

4. Requirements for members of the National Evaluation Council:

a) Possess expertise in science and technology, economics, and management relevant to the project's research area;

b) Shall be reputable experts willing to participate in the council with high sense of responsibility, honesty, and objectivity;

c) The chairman and the reviewer members of the council, in addition to the above requirements, must be experts with experience, deep understanding of their field, holding a Doctorate degree or having a scientific title of Associate Professor or higher, and having published related scientific works in the last five years.

Special cases shall be decided by the Minister of Science and Technology and the head of the managing agency.

5. In addition to the requirements stipulated in Clause 4 of this Article, members of the council must also comply with the following conditions:

a) Members of the basic-level evaluation council may participate in the national-level evaluation council but not more than three (03) members, among whom the chairman and the reviewer members of the basic-level evaluation council cannot serve as the chairman, vice-chairman, or reviewer members of the national-level evaluation council;

b) The head of the project and individuals directly involved in implementing the project shall not be members of the evaluation council for that project;

c) The head of another project under the same program may participate in the national-level evaluation council but not more than two (02) members and shall not serve as the chairman, vice-chairman, or reviewer member;

d) The Program Management Board may participate in the national-level evaluation council for projects under the same program but not more than one (01) member and shall not serve as the chairman or vice-chairman of the council or reviewer member.

6. The National Evaluation Council shall consist of nine to eleven members including the chairman, vice-chairman, two reviewer members, and other council members, of which:

a) Two-thirds of the members shall be experts in science and technology with expertise matching the research field of the topic or project;

b) One-third of the members shall be experts in economics and management representing production and business organizations capable of applying the research results of the topic or project, administrative agencies, and other organizations related to the research field of the topic or project.

7. The Expert Group shall consist of three to five members including members of the council and external experts (if necessary) led by the chairman or vice-chairman of the council.

Members of the Expert Group must be experienced experts with deep knowledge in scientific and technological fields, holding a Doctorate degree or having a scientific title of Associate Professor or higher, and having published related scientific works in the last five years.

Special cases shall be decided by the Minister of Science and Technology and the head of the managing agency.

8. Experts, particularly reviewers of the advisory council determining tasks or selecting prioritized topics or projects, shall be specially invited to join the council. If necessary, one expert working at the main organizing entity of the topic or project may be invited to serve as a council member.

9. The council shall have two administrative secretaries, one being the secretary of the program and the other being an employee of the Office of Key National Programs (for topics under the program), or a specialist from the relevant units of the managing agency (for topics and projects under the scientific and technological project) or a specialist from the relevant departments of the Ministry of Science and Technology (for independent national-level topics and projects and topics and projects headed by members of the Program Management Board).

Article 16. Responsibilities and authorities of council members and expert team members

1. Council members responsible for national-level evaluation have responsibilities and authorities:

a) To study the national-level evaluation files and documents, comment on the results of the research topic or project (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-5 or Appendix 2-6 attached to this Circular); send the comment form to the National Evaluation Organization to organize the evaluation meeting;

b) Bear personal responsibility for advisory opinions during the evaluation process;

c) Not disclose information about the evaluation results before their official announcement, and not misuse the results of the research projects contrary to the laws on intellectual property;

d) To request the National Evaluation Organization, the main organizing body, and the head of the research topic or project to provide necessary documents for the evaluation process.

2. The chairman, vice-chairman of the council, critical reviewer, and scientific secretary, in addition to the responsibilities and authorities of council members as stated in Clause 1 of this Article, also have the following responsibilities:

a) The chairman of the council coordinates with the National Evaluation Organization to decide the meeting time and preside over the council's evaluation meetings; confirm the completion of the evaluation file of the research topic or project head according to the council's conclusion (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-14 attached to this Circular);

b) The Vice-Chairperson shall manage the council in the absence of the Chairperson;

c) Critical reviewers are responsible for reviewing, commenting, and deeply evaluating the research results of the topic or project and sending the comment form on the topic or project to the National Evaluation Organization two days before the council's evaluation meeting;

d) The scientific secretary assists the chairman in recording opinions during the meetings, drafting and completing the national evaluation minutes according to the council's conclusions at the evaluation meeting.

3. Responsibilities of expert team members:

a) To inspect and review scientific and technological products (product samples, models, design drawings, test reports, applications, measurement and inspection documents, testing and evaluation of products of the topic or project certified by competent authorities... according to Appendix 2-7A attached to this Circular)

b) To conduct field surveys and request organizations to measure technical parameters of the product (if necessary);

c) To prepare a review report (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-7B attached to this Circular) and send it to the National Evaluation Organization two days before the council's evaluation meeting.

4. The administrative secretary has the responsibility to prepare all necessary documents and conditions as prescribed to serve the council's meetings.

Article 17. Sessions of the national-level evaluation council

1. The main participants in the sessions of the national-level evaluation council include council members, representatives of the main organizing body, representatives of the managing authority, representatives of related units under the Ministry of Science and Technology, and representatives of the program management board for topics or projects within programs.

2. The council session is organized into two parts: preparatory session and evaluation session. A valid council session must have at least 2/3 of the members present, including the chairman or vice-chairman, and must have sufficient critical reviewers.

The evaluation session is held after the council members receive the expert team's review report (if any) and the critical reviewers' comment forms on the topic or project.

The head of the topic or project may attend and explain issues related to the implementation results of the topic or project at the preparatory council session.

3. The preparatory session includes the following contents:

a) The administrative secretary reads the Decision establishing the council, introduces the members and attendees;

b) The representative of the National Evaluation Organization states the main contents and requirements for the acceptance evaluation as stipulated in this Circular.

c) The Chairperson chairs the meeting in the following sequence:

- The council elects a scientific secretary;

- The head of the topic or project presents a summary of the scientific and technological results;

- Council members ask questions to the head of the topic or project about the results and related issues of the topic or project;

- The project leader answers the council's questions;

- The head of the expert team presents the plan and content of the review;

- The council exchanges and agrees on the technical parameters that need to be measured and re-inspected, and requests the Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority to invite authorized organizations to conduct measurements and tests (if necessary); agree on the work plan and time for the expert team and the evaluation session.

4. The evaluation session

The chairman of the council chairs the evaluation session in the following order:

- The head of the expert team reads the report on the review results of the topic or project;

- The critical reviewer reads comments on the topic or project;

- The Scientific Secretary reads the comment forms of absent members (if any) for the council's reference;

- Council members exchange opinions with the expert team members and critical reviewers about the results of the topic or project;

- The council discusses in private; council members score and evaluate the classification of the topic or project (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-8 or Appendix 2-9 attached to this Circular);

- The council elects a ballot committee consisting of three council members, including one chairperson. The council proceeds with voting to evaluate the results of the topic or project;

- The ballot committee prepares the minutes and reports the voting results (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-10 or Appendix 2-11 attached to this Circular);

- The chairman drafts the evaluation conclusion (according to the model guidance at Appendix 2-12 or 2-13 attached to this Circular). In case the council evaluates as "Not Achieved," it must clearly identify the contents and tasks completed according to the contract for the Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority to consider and handle according to current regulations;

- The council discusses to agree on each content of the conclusion and approve the minutes;

- Representatives of management agencies make statements (if any).

Article 18. Content and scoring scale for evaluating outcomes of research topics

The State Evaluation Council evaluates the outcomes of research topics using a scoring form (in accordance with the model provided in Appendix 2-8 attached to this Circular) with a maximum score of 100 points, specifically as follows:

1. Research methods, survey techniques, calculations, and research equipment actually used (maximum score 15);

2. Adequacy in quantity, volume, and types of main scientific and technological products compared to the quantities, volumes, and types of products stated in the Description and Contract (maximum score 20);

3. Quality level and scientific requirements achieved by the main products mentioned in the Description and Contract (maximum score 25);

4. Quality of the final report on the research topic and necessary accompanying documents, including design documents, technology documents, intermediate products, cited documents... (maximum score 10);

5. Publication of research results (articles, publications, etc.) in reputable domestic and international journals (maximum score 6);

6. Results from participating in master's and doctoral training (maximum score 3);

7. Registration for protection of industrial property rights and plant variety rights (maximum score 6);

8. Quality of products and scientific level of products exceeding the registration level compared to the Contract or having significant scientific and technological significance (maximum score 5);

9. Impact on economy, society, and environment (maximum score 10).

Article 19. Content and scoring scale for evaluating outcomes of projects

The State Evaluation Council evaluates the outcomes of projects using a scoring form (in accordance with the model provided in Appendix 2-9 attached to this Circular) with a maximum score of 100 points, specifically as follows:

1. Project implementation organization (maximum score 15);

2. Adequacy in quantity, volume, and types of main scientific and technological products of the project compared to the quantities, volumes, and types of products stated in the Project Description and Contract (maximum score 25);

3. Degree of technological completion, quality, and scientific requirements achieved by the main products compared to the Contract through technology documents, product quality, production scale... (maximum score 30);

4. Quality of the final report on the project and necessary accompanying documents, including design documents, technology documents, intermediate products, cited documents... (maximum score 10);

5. Registration for protection of industrial property rights and plant variety rights (maximum score 5);

6. Quality of products and scientific level of products exceeding the registration level compared to the Contract or having significant scientific and technological significance (maximum score 5);

7. Impact on economy, society, and environment (maximum score 10).

Article 20. Principles of scoring and classification of outcomes of research topics and projects

1. Scoring principles

a) The scoring of research topic and project outcomes is based on the provisions of Article 18 of this Circular for research topics or Article 19 of this Circular for projects;

b) A valid evaluation form is one that scores equal to or less than the maximum score specified for each evaluation item;

c) The score of a research topic or project is the average of the total scores recorded in valid evaluation forms.

2. Classification of research topic outcomes

Based on the scoring results of the research topic, the State Evaluation Council classifies the research topic into two levels: "Achieved" or "Not Achieved".

a) The "Achieved" level for research topics is divided into three categories:

- Excellent Category: The research topic achieves a total score of 90 to 100 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 must reach 60 points and achieve at least one of the following results:

+ At least one article published in an international specialized scientific journal (or has a confirmation letter about the number and publication time of the journal);

+ Has been granted at least one certificate for industrial property rights protection, plant variety rights;

+ Has a product exceeding the quality and scientific requirements stipulated in the contract and having significant scientific and technological and socio-economic significance.

- Good Category: The research topic achieves a total score of 75 to under 90 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 must reach 50 points or more and achieve at least one of the following results:

+ At least two articles published in national specialized scientific journals;

+ At least one monograph published (or has a confirmation letter about the manuscript being approved for printing and the printing time of the publisher).

- Average Category: The research topic achieves a total score of 60 to under 75 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 must reach 50 points or more.

b) The "Not Achieved" level for research topics in cases where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 is below 50 points or the total evaluation score is below 60 points.

3. Classification of project outcomes

Based on the scoring results of the project, the State Evaluation Council classifies the project into two levels: "Achieved" or "Not Achieved".

a) The "Achieved" level for projects is divided into three categories as follows:

- Excellent Category: The project achieves a total score of 90 to 100 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 19 must reach 70 points;

- Good Category: The project achieves a total score of 75 to under 90 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 19 must reach 60 points or more;

- Average Category: Achieves a total score of 65 to under 75 points, where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 19 must reach 60 points or more.

b) The "Not Achieved" level for projects in cases where the total score of items 1, 2, and 3 of Article 19 is below 60 points or the total evaluation score is below 65 points.

Article 21. Evaluation of Implementation Organization

The state evaluation organization conducts an assessment and classification of the implementation organization of the research topic or project (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-3 attached hereto), specifically as follows:

The evaluation of the implementation organization of the research topic or project includes:

a) Progress evaluation;

b) Evaluation of the situation regarding the use and mobilization of funds.

2. The classification of the implementation organization of the research topic or project is divided into two levels: "Achieved" or "Not Achieved", specifically as follows:

a) The level "Achieved" when all conditions are met:

- Submitting the evaluation dossier on time;

- Using funds and mobilizing capital for implementing the research topic or project in accordance with current regulations.

b) The level "Not Achieved" if there is a violation of any of the following cases:

- Submitting the evaluation acceptance dossier not within the prescribed time limit as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 7 or Clause 1, Article 14 of this Circular;

- Seriously violating financial management principles (with a conclusion from the competent inspection or audit agency) or failing to ensure the corresponding funding as registered.

Article 22. Handling and Reporting the Results of the Evaluation national level

1. For research topics or projects classified at the level "Achieved", within 15 days from the date of the state-level evaluation result, the head of the research topic or project shall complete the dossier according to the opinions and conclusions of the council and submit it to the state-level evaluation organization.

The state-level evaluation organization shall coordinate with the chairman of the council to inspect and supervise the completion of the evaluation dossier of the research topic or project. The chairman of the council confirms the completion of the dossier by the head of the research topic or project.

2. In the case where the research topic or project is classified at the level "Not Achieved" and has not been extended during the basic-level evaluation process, it may be considered for an extension of the implementation period but not exceeding six months according to the following provisions:

a) To be considered for an extension, the research topic or project must be recommended for an extension by the evaluation council, and the main organizing body and the head of the research topic or project must submit a request (along with the dossier, evaluation record at the state level, and handling plan) through the program steering committee (for research topics or projects under programs) to the Ministry of Science and Technology or the main managing body;

b) Within 15 days from receiving the request, the Ministry of Science and Technology will consider and notify its opinion on the extension for research topics or projects under programs and independent research topics or projects; the main managing body will consider and notify its opinion on the extension for research topics or projects under scientific and technological projects after reaching a consensus with the Ministry of Science and Technology.

c) After the extension period, the re-evaluation will be conducted according to the content and procedure of this Circular but not more than once for each topic or project.

3. The Ministry of Science and Technology and the main managing body shall base their handling decisions on the council's evaluation conclusions and handle cases according to current regulations as follows:

a) Not eligible for extension as provided in Clause 2 of this Article;

b) Having been extended according to the provision in Clause 2 of this Article but the evaluation result remains at the level "Not Achieved".

4. In the case where the research topic or project has an evaluation result of the implementation organization at the level "Not Achieved", the Ministry of Science and Technology and the main managing body shall base their handling on the degree of violation and proceed according to the provisions set out in Clause 3, Article 25 of this Circular and related legal documents.

5. The head of the research topic or project shall register the retention of the research topic or project results according to Decree No. 159/2004/ND-CP dated August 31, 2004 of the Government on scientific and technological information activities and submit the confirmation of registration of the research topic or project results to the Program Office for research topics or projects under programs, or relevant Departments for independent research topics or projects, and functional units under the main managing body for research topics or projects under scientific and technological projects.

Chapter IV

RECOGNITION OF THE RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH TOPICS AND PROJECTS, TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS, AND HANDLING OF VIOLATIONS

Article 23. Recognition of Research Project Results

The recognition of research project results shall apply to both cases evaluated at the "Pass" and "Fail" levels.

1. The content of recognizing the implementation results includes:

a) The evaluation result of the research project;

b) The implementation organization result.

2. Documents for recognition include:

a) Minutes of the national evaluation council meeting;

b) Evaluation report on the implementation of the research project;

c) Confirmation of registration and retention of the research project results;

d) Report on completing the acceptance dossier (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-14 attached hereto).

3. Recognition of research project results:

a) The program director board, program offices, functional departments under the Ministry of Science and Technology, and functional units under the managing authority are responsible for compiling the documents specified in Clause 2 of this Article for research projects within their management scope and submitting them to the Ministry of Science and Technology or the managing authority for issuance of the recognition decision.

b) Within thirty days from receiving all the documents stipulated in Clause 2 of this Article, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority are responsible for reviewing and issuing the recognition decision on the evaluation results (according to the model provided in Appendix 2-15 attached hereto).

Article 24. Liquidation of Contracts

1. Upon completion of the research project, the project director must submit the final settlement report to the competent authority.

2. After the decision recognizing the evaluation results of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the managing authority will conduct an assessment, inventory, and handover of products and assets purchased with the project funds.

3. The liquidation of contracts between parties involved in signing the contract will be carried out after the final settlement and asset inventory of the project have been completed.

The procedures for contract liquidation are detailed in another document issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Article 25. Handling Violations

1. Depending on the circumstances and degree of violation, the project director may be subject to examination and handling as follows:

a) The Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority will examine and handle according to the regulations on selecting and evaluating organizations and individuals in charge of state-level scientific and technological tasks accompanying Decision No. 10/2007/QĐ-BKHCN dated May 11, 2007 of the Minister of Science and Technology in the following cases:

- The acceptance evaluation result is at the "Fail" level and not accepted for extension of time to complete the results;

- The project is suspended during implementation by the competent authorities due to violations of management principles;

- Failure to fully repay recovered funds for the project according to the contract;

- Submission of the evaluation dossier outside the prescribed time in Clause 1 of Article 7 or Clause 1 of Article 14 of this Circular.

b) In case of serious violations of financial management principles for project funds (with conclusions from authorized inspection and audit agencies) or discovery of false information in the dossier, documents, and data leading to a "Pass" evaluation result, such results will be revoked and handled as "Fail" and the person will not be allowed to lead state-level tasks for five years.

c) In case of failure to register and retain project results, the person will not be assigned to lead state-level tasks until these procedures are completed as required.

2. Organizations in charge of research projects will not be assigned to lead state-level tasks in the following cases:

a) Failure to fully repay recovered funds for the project according to the contract;

b) Having one state-level task overdue for basic acceptance evaluation for twelve months or more.

Special cases are decided by the Minister of Science and Technology.

3. Civil servants and employees of organizations in charge of research projects and science and technology management agencies who violate evaluation regulations will be disciplined according to the Civil Servant Law.

4. Members of the evaluation council who violate evaluation regulations will be punished according to Decree 127/2005/NĐ-CP of the Government dated May 31, 2005 on administrative penalties in scientific and technological activities and will not be invited to participate in evaluation councils for three years from the date of the penalty decision.

5. In case of discovering violations by the council, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the managing authority may request the council to amend, supplement, re-evaluate, or establish a new council to ensure that the evaluation is conducted objectively, accurately, and in accordance with regulations.

Article 26. Complaints and Reports

1. Organizations and individuals implementing projects and programs and other related organizations and individuals have the right to file complaints about administrative decisions and evaluation results of the council; individuals have the right to report violations by organizations and individuals during the organization of project evaluations.

2. The handling of complaints and reports shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law on complaints and reports.

Chapter V

IMPLEMENTATION

Article 27. Guidance on Implementation

1. The Ministry of Science and Technology shall organize guidance, supervision, and inspection of the implementation of this Circular for organizations and individuals participating in state-funded projects and programs.

2. Ministries, ministerial-level agencies, government agencies, provincial people's committees, and centrally governed city people's committees shall apply this Circular to study, develop, and promulgate regulations on the evaluation and acceptance of research outcomes of projects and programs within their jurisdiction.

Article 28. Effective Date

This Circular takes effect 45 days from the date of issuance and replaces Decision No. 13/2004/QĐ-BKHCN dated May 15, 2004 of the Minister of Science and Technology on the issuance of "Regulations on the Evaluation and Acceptance of State-Funded Scientific and Technological Projects" and Decision No. 04/2007/QĐ-BKHCN dated March 19, 2007 of the Minister of Science and Technology on the amendment and supplementation of certain articles of the "Regulations on the Evaluation and Acceptance of Scientific and Technological Projects."

In the course of implementation, if there are difficulties, units are requested to reflect them to the Ministry of Science and Technology for guidance on implementation./.