Cfs en

Project: [insert project number] — [insert acronym] — [insert call identifier]
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CERTIFICATE ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT (CFS)

(To be filled out by the CFS practitioner, printed on their own letterhead and signed (on paper). The ToR need to be
signed by both the participant and the practitioner). The AUP checklist and the report need to be signed by the
practitioner. The scanned PDF should be submitted by the beneficiary through the Portal (both for themselves and
their affiliated entities.)
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. Background and subject matter

A certificate on the financial statements (CFS) must be provided for entities that participate as
beneficiary or affiliated entities (‘participants’) in EU grants — provided that it is required
under the Grant Agreement and that certain thresholds are met (see EU Grant Agreement Data
Sheet and Article 24.2 and AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement, art 24.2).
The purpose of the CFS is to provide the EU granting authority with findings to be able to
assess whether costs that are declared on the basis of actual costs or costs according to usual
cost accounting practices (if any) and, if relevant, also revenues comply with the conditions
set out in the Grant Agreement.
The present Terms of Reference set out the procedures to be performed, define the scope and
applicable standards of the CFS and who may deliver it.
2. Scope and applicable standards
The CFS is a report on (factual) findings based on agreed-upon procedures (AUP).
The engagement is to perform agreed-upon procedures (AUPs) regarding the eligibility of
the costs (and, if relevant, also revenues) declared under grant agreement [insert project
number] — [insert acronym] (‘the Grant Agreement’). It is not an assurance engagement;
the CFS practitioner does not provide an audit opinion, nor expresses assurance.
The following standards apply:
 the International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 (revised) Agreed-upon
Procedures Engagements as issued by the International Auditing and Assurance
Standards Board (IAASB)
 the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International
Independent Standards) issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for
Accountants (IESBA), including the independence requirements
 the International Standard on Quality Control 1 Quality Control for Firms that
Perform Audits and Reviews of financial statements, and Other Assurance and Related
Services Engagements (or equivalent).
Supreme audit institutions applying INTOSAI-standards may carry out the procedures
according to the corresponding International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAIs)
and Code of Ethics issued by INTOSAI instead of the International Standard on Related
1
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Services (ISRS) 4400 (revised) and the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by
the IAASB and the IESBA.
The CFS must be issued according to the highest professional standards. The practitioner
must comply with the present Terms of Reference, including the agreed-upon procedures
checklist and report template — without modifying them. The work must be planned in a way
that the engagement can be performed effectively. The practitioner must use the evidence
obtained from the procedures performed as the basis for the report. Matters which are
important for the findings and evidence that the work was carried out in accordance with the
Terms of Reference must be documented. The findings must be described in sufficient detail
and include the affected amounts, to allow the participant and the EU granting authority to
ensure appropriate follow-up.
3. Practitioners who may deliver a certificate
The participant is free to choose a qualified external auditor, including its usual external
auditor, provided that:
 the auditor is independent from the participant and
 the provisions of Directive 2006/43/EC1 (or similar standards) are complied with.
Although ISRS 4400 (revised) states that independence is not a requirement for engagements
to carry out agreed-upon procedures, this is one of the qualities to ensure an unbiased
approach and therefore required for CFS practitioners. Compliance with the IESBA Code’s
independence requirements is therefore mandatory.
However:
 public bodies can choose an external auditor or a competent independent public

officer. In this latter case, independence is usually defined as independence ‘in fact
and in appearance’ (e.g. that the officer is not involved in drawing up the financial
statements). It is for each public body to appoint the public officer and ensure their
independence. The certificate should refer to this appointment.
 pillar-assessed entities can choose their regular internal or external auditors in

accordance with their internal financial regulations and procedures as assessed by the
European Commission in accordance with Article 154(3) of Regulation 2018/10462.
The CFS costs themselves can be charged to the EU project and the choice of practitioner
therefore has to comply with the cost eligibility criteria, in particular lowest price or best
value for money and no conflict of interest as set out in the Grant Agreement (for the detailed
conditions, see AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement, art 6.2.C*).
The CFS does not affect the granting authority’s right to carry out its own assessment or audit
on the eligibility of the costs covered. Neither does it preclude the bodies mentioned in Article
25 of the Granting Agreement (e.g. granting authority, European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),
1
Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of
annual accounts and consolidated accounts or similar national regulations (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87).
2
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the
financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘Financial Regulation’) (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018,
p. 1).
2
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), European Court of Auditors (ECA), etc) from
exercising their rights under the Grant Agreement.
4. Procedures to be followed and expected results
The procedures to be carried out by the practitioner are listed in the agreed-upon procedures
checklist below. The checklist is an integral part of these Terms of Reference.
The engagement should be undertaken on the basis of inquiry and analysis, (re)computation,
comparison, other accuracy checks, observation, inspection of records and documents and by
interviewing the participant (and the persons working for them) as described in the agreed-
upon procedures.
The ‘result’ column in the checklist has three different options of findings:
 YES — means that the standard finding is confirmed and that no exception needs to be
reported
 NO — means that the standard finding cannot be confirmed and that an exception
needs to be reported (either because the practitioner carried out the procedures but
cannot confirm the standard finding or because the practitioner was not able to carry
out a specific procedure, e.g. because it was impossible to reconcile key information
or data were unavailable)
 N.A. — means that the standard finding is ‘not applicable’ and that the procedure did
not have to be carried out. The reasons for the non-application must be obvious, e.g.
no cost was declared under a certain category; conditions for a certain procedure are
not met, etc. For instance, for participants with accounts established in a currency
other than the euro the procedure related to participants with accounts established in
euro does not apply. Similarly, if no additional remuneration is paid, the standard
finding(s) and procedure(s) for additional remuneration do not apply.
The reference document for the confirmation of standard findings are the rules set out
in the Grant Agreement, as explained in the AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement*. The
agreed-upon procedures make reference to the relevant Grant Agreement provisions and cost
categories, to enable the practitioner to find them easily.
SIGNATURES
For the practitioner For the participant
[forename/surname/function] [forename/surname/function]
[address]
[signature] [signature]
[date] [stamp] [date] [stamp]
3
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES CHECKLIST
General eligibility conditions and ineligible cost
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — General eligibility conditions and ineligible costs
Grant
Agreement Cost Category Procedures Standard Finding
Article
Art. 6.1, 6.3 GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS AND INELIGIBLE COSTS
Article 6.1 GENERAL For all cost categories: The standard finding for this
and 6.3 ELIGIBILITY procedure is included as first
For the sample of each cost category, the practitioner checked that the costs declared in the financial statements fulfil the
CONDITIONS finding in each cost category
following general eligibility conditions for actual costs:
AND (see below):
INELIGIBLE  The costs are identifiable and verifiable, in particular recorded in the participant's accounts in accordance with the
“The costs were eligible (no
COSTS accounting standards applicable in the country where the participant is established and with the participant's usual cost
ineligible components),
accounting practices (i.e. used consistently by the participant for all similar activities, not just for the EU action, except
identifiable and verifiable,
for modifications required to comply with rules under the Grant Agreement).
linked to the action and
 The costs are actually incurred by the participant (proof of payment, no re-invoicing to other entities). incurred by the participant
(proof of payment, no re-
 The costs are incurred in the period set out in art. 4 (with the exception of costs relating to the submission of the final
invoicing to other entities)
periodic report, which may be incurred afterwards; see art. 21 GA and the corresponding AGA — Annotated Grant
during the duration of the
Agreement* section).
action in accordance with its
 The costs are declared under the correct budget category set out in art. 6.2 and Annex 2 GA. usual cost accounting
practices.”
 The costs are incurred in connection with the action (i.e. a direct link between the cost and the action activities as
described in the description of the action (Annex 1 GA) can be established in the accounting system or other supporting
documents).
 The costs comply with the applicable (national) law (e.g. on taxes, labour and social security).
 The cost do not contain any ineligible elements (listed in art. 6.3; e.g.cost declared under other EU grants (‘double-
funding’), or excessive or reckless expenditure).
‘Excessive’ means paying significantly (25%) more for products, services or personnel than the prevailing market rates or the
1
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
usual practices of the participant (and thus resulting in an avoidable financial loss to the action).
‘Reckless’ means failing to exercise care in the selection of products, services or personnel (and thus resulting in an avoidable
financial loss to the action (25%)).
‘Double-funding’ means that costs or contributions cannot be declared under other EU grants (or grants awarded by an EU
Member State, non-EU country or other body implementing the EU budget) except where the Grant Agreement explicitly
provides for synergy actions (art. 6.3(b)).
Personnel costs (A.1-A.4)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)
Grant Result
Article (YES/NO/N.A.)
Article 6.2.A A. PERSONNEL COSTS
Article 6.2.A A. The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this cost
PERSONNEL category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover 10% of
COSTS all persons for which costs were declared, with a minimum sample of 10
persons (or all persons if less than 10 worked on the action).
The practitioner sampled _____ persons out of a total of _____.
Article
A.1 EMPLOYEES OR EQUIVALENT
6.2.A.1
Article A.1 For the persons included in the sample and working under an employment 1) The cost used for the calculation of the daily rate YES/NO/N.A.
6.2.A.1 EMPLOYEES contract or equivalent appointing act: were eligible (no ineligible components), identifiable
OR and verifiable, linked to the action and incurred by
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility and ineligibility
EQUIVALENT the participant (proof of payment, no re-invoicing to
of costs (see above).
other entities) during the duration of the action in
Actual personnel cost for employees (or equivalent) are to be calculated in accordance with its usual cost accounting practices.
2
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
accordance with the formula set out in art 6.2.A.1 GA and the corresponding 2) The persons worked for the participant on the basis YES/NO/N.A.
AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement* section. of an employment contract or equivalent appointing
act.
It is the task of the practitioner to check that the elements for the calculation
of actual personnel cost declared to the granting authority are correct and in
compliance with the rules and that the formula has been correctly applied. 3) The persons were i) directly hired by the participant YES/NO/N.A.
The elements to be checked are: in accordance with its national legislation, ii) under
the participant's sole technical supervision and
 actual personnel cost incurred, including any eligible components and responsibility and iii) remunerated in accordance with
excluding any ineligible components the participant's usual practices.
 number of months of employment during the reporting period, used
for the calculation of the maximum declarable-day equivalents 4) The persons’ employment time during the action YES/NO/N.A.
corresponds to the number of months used for the
 working-time factor, used for the calculation of the maximum calculations of the maximum declarable-day
declarable-day equivalents equivalents.
 number of day-equivalents worked for the action, as recorded in the
monthly declaration or another reliable time recording system 5) The persons’ working-time factor(s) corresponds to YES/NO/N.A.
(correctly converted using one of the accepted formulas, see art. 20 GA the factor(s) used for the calculation of the maximum
and the corresponding AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement* section) declarable-day equivalents.
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner checked 6) The persons were assigned to the action according to YES/NO/N.A.
the following information/documents provided by the participant: the monthly declaration of day-equivalents worked in
 a list of the persons included in the sample indicating the period(s) the action, or internal written instructions,
during which they worked for the action, their position (classification organisation chart or other documented
or category) and type of contract (or other document proving the management decision
working-time factor)
7) The maximum declarable day-equivalents for the YES/NO/N.A.
 the payslips of the employees included in the sample as well as
person have been correctly calculated according to
documents providing proof of payment (checked at least two salary
the following formula (or as adapted for specific
payments per person per year);information concerning the
cases, see art 6.2.A.1 GA and the corresponding AGA
3
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
employment status and employment conditions of personnel included — Annotated Grant Agreement* section).
in the sample, in particular their employment contracts or equivalent
8) The maximum declarable day-equivalents used for YES/NO/N.A.
 the participant's usual policy regarding payroll matters (e.g. salary
the calculation of the personnel cost are correctly
policy, overtime policy, variable pay/bonuses)
rounded (up or down to the nearest half day-
 applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security equivalent).
 monthly declarations/ time records of the employees included in the
sample and 9) Daily rate was correctly calculated (actual personnel YES/NO/N.A.
costs during the months within the reporting period
 any other document that supports the personnel costs declared. divided by maximum declarable day-equivalents).
The practitioner also checked the eligibility of all components (see art. 6) and
recalculated the personnel costs for employees declared in the financial 10) Day-equivalents worked on the action were recorded YES/NO/N.A.
statement(s) through reapplication of the personnel cost formula with the in a monthly declaration, signed by the person and
data from the accounting system (project accounting and general ledger), their supervisor, or were recorded in another reliable
payroll system, time recording system and supporting documents proving the time-record system.
working time factor.
11) If another reliable time-record system was used, time YES/NO/N.A.
worked on the action has been correctly converted
into day-equivalents according to one of the accepted
formulas (see art. 20 GA and the corresponding AGA
— Annotated Grant Agreement* section).
12) Personnel cost declared for the persons for each YES/NO/N.A.
reporting period were correctly calculated ({day-
equivalents worked} x {daily rate})
13) If any, cost declared under specific cases (e.g. for HE: YES/NO/N.A.
parental leave) were correctly calculated and in
accordance with art 6.2.A.1 GA and the
4
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
corresponding AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement*

section.
14) There were no discrepancies between the personnel YES/NO/N.A.

costs charged to the action and the costs recalculated
by the practitioner in accordance with the formula.
A1. If project Additional procedures if ‘project-based remuneration’ is paid: 15) The amount of project-based remuneration paid YES/NO/N.A.
based re- corresponded to the participant’s usual remuneration
For employees (or equivalent) whose level of remuneration (daily rate,
muneration practices and was consistently paid whenever the
hourly rate) increases when and because the employee works in (EU,
same kind of work or expertise was required.
national or other) projects:
Apart from carrying out the procedures indicated above, to confirm the 16) The criteria used to calculate the project-based YES/NO/N.A.
standard findings in the next column, the practitioner: remuneration were objective and generally applied
 checked relevant documents provided by the participant (employment by the participants regardless of the source of
contract or project-based contract, collective agreement, the funding used.
participant’s usual policy on remuneration, criteria used for its
calculation, the participant’s usual remuneration practice for projects 17) The daily rate to be used for the EU Grant’ financial YES/NO/N.A.
funded under national funding schemes statements is the lower of the action daily rate and
the national project daily rate.
 recalculated the action daily rate per person as follows: {actual
personnel costs for work on the action (incl. project-based
supplementary payments, bonuses, increased salary, etc) during the
months within the reporting period} divided by {day-equivalents
worked by the person on the action during the months within the
reporting period}
 recalculated the (theoretical) national project daily rate as follows:
{theoretical personnel costs for similar work in a national project over
the same number of months as the reporting period} divided by
{maximum declarable day-equivalents}
5
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
 compared the action daily rate with the national project daily rate; the
daily rate to be used for the EU grant financial statement will be the
lower of the two
 checked documents providing proof of payment (checked at least two
salary payments per person per year).
The maximum declarable day-equivalents for each reporting period are
calculated as follows:
(215 / 12) multiplied by the number of months [during which the person is
employed] within the reporting period) multiplied by the working time
factor [e.g. 1 for full-time, 0,5 for 50% part time etc].
If there are no regulatory requirements and the participant does not have
internal rules defining objective conditions on which the national project
daily rate can be determined, but it can demonstrate that its usual practice is
to pay bonuses for work in national projects, the national project daily rate is
the average of the remuneration that the person received in the last
complete year (calendar, financial or fiscal year) before the end of the
reporting period for work in national projects calculated as follows:
{(total personnel costs of the person in the last complete year) minus
(remuneration paid for EU actions during that complete year)}
divided by
{215 minus (days worked in EU actions during that complete year)}
‘EU actions’ are ‘EU grants’ as defined in the Grant Agreement (i.e. awarded
by EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, including EU executive
agencies, EU regulatory agencies, EDA, joint undertakings).
‘Total personnel costs’ covers all types of contracts with the person that
qualify as personnel costs under art. 6.2.A.
6
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
A1. If average Additional procedures in case ‘average personnel costs (unit costs 18) The personnel costs included in the financial YES/NO/N.A.
personnel calculated by the participant in accordance with its usual cost accounting statement were calculated in accordance with the
costs practices)’ is used: participant's usual cost accounting practice and were
applied in consistent manner, regardless of the
Apart from carrying out the procedures indicated above, the practitioner
source of funding.
carried out following procedures to confirm standard findings in the next
column:
19) The employees were charged under the correct YES/NO/N.A.
 obtained a description of the participant’s usual cost accounting category.
practice to calculate unit costs
 checked whether the participant’s usual cost accounting practice was 20) Total personnel costs used in calculating the unit YES/NO/N.A.
applied for the financial statements subject of the present CFS costs were consistent with the expenses recorded in
the statutory accounts and excluded any ineligible
 checked that the employees included in the sample were charged costs or costs included in other budget categories.
under the correct category (in accordance with the criteria used by the
participant to establish personnel categories) by reviewing the 21) Any estimated or budgeted element used by the YES/NO/N.A.
contract/HR-record or analytical accounting records participant in its unit-cost calculation were relevant
 checked that there is no difference between the total amount of for calculating personnel costs, used in a reasonable
personnel costs used in calculating the cost per unit and the total way (i.e. do not play a major role in calculating the
amount of personnel costs recorded in the statutory accounts hourly rate) and corresponded to objective and
verifiable information. If the budgeted or estimated
 checked documents providing proof of payment (checked at least two figures represent less than 5% of the declared unit
salary payments per person per year) cost, it is considered that they do not play a major
 checked whether actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of role and can be accepted. If the budgeted or
budgeted or estimated elements and, if so, examined whether those estimated component is higher than 5%, then it
elements used are actually relevant for the calculation, objective and needs to be compared with the actual costs.
supported by documents.
7
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
Article
A.2 NATURAL PERSONS WITH A DIRECT CONTRACT3
6.2.A.2.
Article A2. NATURAL For natural persons included in the sample and working with the participant 22) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
6.2.A.2 PERSONS under a direct contract other than an employment contract, such as identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
WITH DIRECT consultants (no subcontractors): incurred by the participant (proof of payment, no re-
CONTRACT invoicing to other entities) during the duration of the
action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
practices.
To confirm standard findings in the next column, the practitioner checked
following information/documents provided by the participant: 23) The persons worked for the participant as a self- YES/NO/N.A.
 the contracts, especially the cost, contract duration, work description, employed natural person (e.g. some types of in-house
place of work, ownership of the results and reporting obligations to the consultants) under a direct contract or a contract
participant signed between the participant and a legal entity fully
owned by the person (with no other employees).
 the employment conditions of staff in the same category to compare
costs 24) The persons worked under conditions similar to those YES/NO/N.A.
 monthly declarations/ other reliable time records of the natural of an employee (including regarding teleworking
persons included in the sample and arrangements / presence requirements at the
premises).
 any other document that supports the costs declared and its
registration (e.g. invoices, accounting records, proof of payment,etc). 25) The cost of the persons were not significantly YES/NO/N.A.
different from costs for employees of the participant
performing similar tasks (up to 50% can be accepted
in relation to the average daily rate of employees
performing similar tasks, or 25% in relation to the
highest daily rate of employees performing similar
tasks (which ever of the two amounts is the lowest).
3
The person must be hired under either: a direct contract signed between the participant and the natural person (not through another legal entity; e.g. a temporary agency) or a contract
signed between the participant and a legal entity fully owned by that natural person and which has no other staff than the natural person being hired.
8
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
26) The results of work carried out belong to the YES/NO/N.A.

participant, or, if not, the participant has obtained all
necessary rights to fulfil its obligations as if those
results were generated by itself (e.g. through
obtaining adequate licences).
27) The person was assigned to the action according to YES/NO/N.A.

internal written instructions, organisation chart or
other documented management decision.
28) Day-equivalents worked on the action were recorded YES/NO/N.A.

in a monthly declaration, signed by the person and
their supervisor, or were recorded in another reliable
time-record system.
29) Time worked on the action has been converted into YES/NO/N.A.
day-equivalents.
30) The cost used for the calculation of the daily rate for YES/NO/N.A.
the person do not include ineligible cost.
31) the daily rate has been calculated with one of the YES/NO/N.A.
following 3 alternatives:
- If the contract specifies a fixed daily rate, this
rate must be used. In case an hourly rate is set
instead of a daily, multiply the hourly rate X 8
- -If the contract states a fixed amount of work
and a fixed amount of days/hours, the global
amount for the work must be divided by the
number of day-equivalents. If hours are
9
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
mentioned, convert into equivalent days by X 8

- If the contract states a fixed amount for the work
but does not specify the daily or hourly rate or
total amount of days or hours to be worked, the
global amount for the work must be divided by
the pro-rata of 215 corresponding to the
duration of the contract
32) Personnel cost declared for the person for each YES/NO/N.A.
reporting period were correctly calculated ({day-
equivalents worked (rounded up or down to the
nearest half-day)} x {daily rate})
33) If a number of day equivalents is used in the YES/NO/N.A.

calculation of the amount per ‘unit’ (daily rate), the
participant has not declared more day-equivalents
worked on the action than the number of day-
equivalents used to calculate the daily rate
(consistency with the denominator)
Article
A.3 SECONDED PERSONS BY THIRD PARTY AGAINST PAYMENT
6.2.A.3
Article A.3 For personnel seconded by a third party against payment and included in 34) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
6.2.A.3 SECONDED the sample (not subcontractors): identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
PERSONS incurred by the participant (proof of payment, no re-
invoicing to other entities) during the duration of the
action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
To confirm standard findings in the next column, the practitioner checked practices.
following information/documents provided by the participant:
35) Seconded personnel are covered by a secondment YES/NO/N.A.
10
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
 their secondment contract(s) notably regarding costs, duration, work agreement between the participant and the
description, place of work and ownership of the results employer of the seconded person, the seconded
personnel reported to the participant’s and worked
 for the reimbursement by the participant to the third party for the
on the participant’s premises (unless otherwise
resource made available (seconded personnel against payment): any
agreed with the participant).
documentation that supports the costs declared (e.g. contract, invoice,
bank payment, and proof of registration in its accounting/payroll, etc)
36) The results of work carried out belong to the YES/NO/N.A.
and reconciliation of the financial statement(s) with the accounting
participant, or, if not, the participant has obtained all
system (project accounting and general ledger) as well as any proof
necessary rights to fulfil its obligations as if those
that the amount invoiced by the third party did not include any profit
results were generated by itself (e.g. through
(i.e. that the daily rate paid by the participant is not higher than the
obtaining adequate licences).
daily rate actually paid by the third party to the seconded person,
applying the calculation rules of the Grant Agreement)
37) Their costs were not significantly different from those YES/NO/N.A.
 any other document that supports the costs declared (e.g. invoices, for staff who performed similar tasks under an
etc) and proof of payment. employment contract with the participant (or
Normally, the practitioner should consider cost difference compared with differences are justified under the specific case of
staff who performed similar tasks under an employment contract with the secondment from other countries)
participant as significant if they are 50% or more above the average daily rate
of employees performing similar tasks, or 25% or more above the highest 38) The costs declared were supported with YES/NO/N.A.
daily rate of employees performing similar tasks (which ever of the two documentation and recorded in the participant’s
amounts is lower). However, in the specific case of persons seconded against accounts.
payment from a third party located in a different country than the
participant’s one, the costs can be higher than 50% in relation to the average 39) The secondment did not entail any profit in the YES/NO/N.A.
daily rate of employees performing similar, or higher than 25% in relation to calculation of personnel cost for the seconded person
the highest daily rate of employees performing similar tasks (whichever is the (neither for the participant nor for the seconding
lower), if the participant can demonstrate that its usual practice is to pay for third party).
secondments at the level of the actual remuneration of the seconded person.
Article A.4 SME OWNERS AND NATURAL PERSON

6.2.A.4
11
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
N/A
Article A.5 VOLUNTEERS

6.2.A.5
N/A
Subcontracting costs (B.)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Subcontracting costs (B.)
Grant Result
Article 6.2.B B. SUBCONTRACTING COSTS
Article 6.2.B B. The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this
SUBCONTRACT cost category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover
ING 10% of all subcontracts for which costs were declared, with a minimum
sample of 10 subcontracts (or all if less than 10 subcontracts were
declared).
The practitioner sampled _____ subcontracts out of a total of _____.
For the subcontracts included in the sample: 40) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
incurred by the participant (proof of payment, no re-
12
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
checked that: practices.
 the use of subcontractors was foreseen in Annex 1 GA (or declared
41) The subcontracts were not made between YES/NO/N.A.
following the ‘simplified approval’ procedure if allowed by the Grant
participants (unless in line with specific cases set out
Agreement; see art. 6.2.B)
in the AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement, art.
 the total estimated costs of subcontracting are set out in Annex 2 GA 6.2.B*)
(or declared following the ‘simplified approval’ procedure if allowed
by the Grant Agreement; see art. 6.2.B) 42) The use of subcontracting was foreseen in Annex 1 YES/NO/N.A.
 subcontracting costs were declared in the subcontracting category of GA and the total estimated costs of subcontracting
the financial statement were set out in Annex 2 GA (or use and cost were
declared following the ‘simplified approval’
 subcontracting costs declared in the financial statements are procedure if allowed by the Grant Agreement; see
reconciled with the data in the accounting system art. 6.2.B) and costs were declared in the financial
 costs claimed can be traced to underlying bank statements showing statements under the subcontracting category.
amount paid and date of payment by the participant
43) Subcontracts were awarded using the participant’s YES/NO/N.A.
 there are supporting documents proving that the selection and usual purchasing practices and, if applicable, other
award procedure were based on the usual purchase practices of the documents/procedures required for compliance with
participant and, if applicable, national law on public procurement national law on public procurement.
 the subcontracts were awarded using the participant’s usual
purchasing practices/internal procedures, that these ensure best 44) Subcontracts were awarded according to the YES/NO/N.A.
value for money (or if appropriate the lowest price) and that there principle of best value for money (best price-quality
are procedures in place to ensure the absence of conflict of interests ratio) or the lowest price. If an existing contract, a
by: framework contract or a usual provider is used, the
participant provided proof (e.g. documents of
 reviewing the subcontract award process, including, bid requests to different providers, different offers, proof
evaluation, and selection process to ensure that the award of assessment of offers and/or assessment of market
corresponded to the evaluation in accordance with the prices) demonstrating that the original selection
requirements set out for the subcontract and that the fulfilled these criteria
13
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
participants staff involved in the award procedure were subject 45) The participant applied procedures to ensure the YES/NO/N.A.
to conflict of interest rules (e.g. requiring them to declare absence of conflict of interest and based on our
conflict of interests) examination nothing came to our attention that could
indicate a potential conflict of interest. The
 reviewing the qualifications of the subcontractor: to ensure that
participant has provided the required written
they correspond to the requirements set out for the subcontract
confirmation. If an existing contract, a framework
 reviewing the subcontract to ensure that it contains conflict of contract or a usual provider was used, the participant
interest provisions (e.g. requirements for the subcontractor to provided proof (e.g. requests to different providers,
disclose any conflicts of interest) proof of assessment of offers and/or assessment of
market prices) demonstrating that the original
 receiving a written confirmation from the participant that
selection fulfilled these criteria
subcontracts were awarded in accordance with the principle of
best value of money and no conflict of interest.
46) the subcontracts ensure that the contractual YES/NO/N.A.
For participants that are ‘contracting authorities/entities’ within the obligations set out in art. 9.3 are also imposed on the
meaning of the EU Public Procurement Directives 2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EU subcontractor.
or 2009/81/EC, the practitioner verified that the subcontracting complied
with the applicable national law on public procurement. 47) The subcontracts were not awarded to other YES/NO/N.A.
The practitioner also examined the subcontracts to identify that the participants of the consortium or Affiliated Entities.
participant’s contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement are also
imposed on subcontractors (Art. 9.3 GA): 48) All subcontracts were supported by signed YES/NO/N.A.
agreements between the participant and the
 proper implementation subcontractor.
 conflict of interest
49) There was evidence that the services were provided YES/NO/N.A.
 confidentiality and security by the subcontractors.
 ethics and values
 visibility
 other specific rules for carrying out the action
 information obligations
14
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
 record keeping
 checks, reviews, audits, investigation rights of the granting authority,
OLAF, ECA and EPPO.
In addition, the practitioner also checked that:
 there were signed agreements between the participant and the
subcontractor
 the subcontracts were not awarded to other participants or to
affiliates, unless they have a framework contract or the affiliate is
their usual provider, and the subcontract is priced at market
conditions
 there was evidence that the services were provided by
subcontractor.
In the case of framework contracts, the practitioner checked that the
selection of the provider was done in line with the usual practice of the
participant and awarded on the basis of best-value-for-money or lowest
price and absence of conflict of interest. The framework contract does not
necessarily have to be concluded before the start of the action.
Purchase costs (C.) — General eligibility conditions
15
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — General eligibility conditions for purchase costs (C.)
Grant
Cost
Agreement Procedures Standard Finding
Category
Article
Article 6.2.C C GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PURCHASE COSTS
Article 6.2.C GENERAL For all purchase cost categories: The standard finding for this
ELIGIBILITY procedure is included as first
For the sample of each purchase cost category, the practitioner checked that the costs declared in the financial statements
CONDITIONS finding in each cost category
fulfil the following eligibility conditions for purchase costs:
FOR (see below):
PURCHASE  The purchases were made in conformity with the participant’s usual purchasing practices/internal procedures —
 “Purchases were made
COSTS provided these ensure purchases with best value for money (key elements to appreciate the respect of this principle are
using the participant’s
the award of the contract to the bid offering best price-quality ratio, under conditions of transparency and equal
usual purchasing
treatment), or if appropriate the lowest price, and that there are procedures in place to ensure the absence of conflict
practices and, if
of interests. If an existing contract, a framework contract or a usual provider is used, the participant provided proof (e.g.
applicable, other
requests to different providers, proof of assessment of offers and/or assessment of market prices) demonstrating that
documents/procedures
the original selection fulfilled these criteria.
required for compliance
 The practitioner received written confirmation from the participant that purchases were made in accordance with the with national law on
principle of best value of money and no conflict of interest. public procurement.
 For participants that are ‘contracting authorities/entities’ within the meaning of the EU Public Procurement Directives  Purchases were made
2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EU or 2009/81/EC, the practitioner verified that the procurement complied with the applicable according to the principle
national law on public procurement. of best value for money
(best price-quality ratio)
or the lowest price.
 The participant applied
procedures to ensure the
absence of conflict of
interest and based on our
examination nothing
came to our attention
that could indicate a
potential conflict of
interest. The participant
has provided the required
16
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — General eligibility conditions for purchase costs (C.)
Grant
Cost
Category
Article
written confirmation.”
Travel and subsistence (C.1)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Travel and subsistence costs (C.1)
Grant Result
Article TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE COSTS

C.1
6.2.C.1
Article C.1 TRAVEL N/A

6.2.C.1 AND
SUBSISTENCE
C.1 If unit
costs
C.1 If actual The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this cost
costs category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover 10% of
all travel instances (related cost for transport, accommodation and
subsistence are together counted as one instance) for which costs were
declared, with a minimum sample of 10 travels (or all if less than 10 travels
were declared).
The practitioner sampled _____ travels out of a total of _____.
17
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
For the travels included in the sample: 50) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility of purchase action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
costs (see above). practices.
To confirm standard findings in the next column, the practitioner reviewed
the sample and checked that:
 travel and subsistence costs were consistent with the participant’s
usual policy for travel. In this context, the participant provided
evidence of its normal policy for travel costs (e.g. use of first class
tickets, reimbursement by the participant on the basis of actual costs, a
per diem, carbon offsetting contributions) to enable the practitioner to
compare the travel costs charged with this policy.
 for cases of combined travel, the participant kept evidence not only of
the actual cost of the subsequent travel leg(s), but also of the cost of
the theoretical direct return travel after the end of the work for the
action.
 travel costs are identified and allocated to the action (e.g. trips are
directly linked to the action, during the action period, etc) by examining
relevant supporting documents such as minutes of meetings,
workshops or conferences, their registration in the correct project
account, their consistency with time records or with the
dates/duration of the workshop/conference.
51) Purchases were made using the participant’s usual YES/NO/N.A.

purchasing practices and, if applicable, other
documents/procedures required for compliance with
national law on public procurement.
18
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Result
52) Purchases were made according to the principle of YES/NO/N.A.

best value for money (best price-quality ratio) or the
lowest price.
53) The participant applied procedures to ensure the YES/NO/N.A.

absence of conflict of interest and based on our
examination nothing came to our attention that could
indicate a potential conflict of interest. The
confirmation.
54) Costs were incurred, approved and reimbursed in line YES/NO/N.A.

with the participant’s usual policy for travels.
55) There was a link between the trip and the action. YES/NO/N.A.
56) The supporting documents were consistent with YES/NO/N.A.

each other regarding subject of the trip, dates,
duration and reconciled with monthly declaration of
time worked on the action / other reliable time
records and accounting.
57) The supporting documents are addressed to the YES/NO/N.A.

participant.
58) Costs of a combined travel were charged to the action YES/NO/N.A.

only up to the cost that would have been incurred if
the travel would have been made exclusively (proven
by records) for the action and allowing combined
travel is the usual practice of the participant.
19
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Equipment (C.2)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Equipment costs (C.2)
Grant Cost Result

Article Category (YES/NO/N.A.)
Article C.2 EQUIPMENT COSTS

6.2.C.2
Article C.2 EQUIPMENT The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this
6.2.C.2 cost category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover
10% of all items for which costs were declared, with a minimum sample
of 10 items (or all if less than 10 items were declared).
The practitioner sampled _____ items out of a total of _____.
C.2 If For the equipment included in the sample: 59) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
depreciation identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility and
only incurred by the participant (proof of payment, no re-
ineligibility of costs (see above).
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility of purchase action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
costs (see above). practices
To confirm the standard findings in the next column for purchases of
equipment, infrastructure or other assets used for the action 60) Purchases were made using the participant’s usual YES/NO/N.A.
(‘equipment’), the practitioner checked that: purchasing practices and, if applicable, other
documents/procedures required for compliance with
 they were entered in the accounting system and written off in national law on public procurement.
accordance with the participant’s usual accounting practices and
with international accounting standards; they were correctly 61) Assets were purchased according to the principle of YES/NO/N.A.
allocated to the action (with supporting documents such as delivery best value for money (best price-quality ratio) or the
note invoice or any other proof demonstrating the link to the action) lowest price.
 the extent to which the equipment was used for the action (as a
percentage) was supported by reliable documentation (e.g. usage 62) The participant applied procedures to ensure the YES/NO/N.A.
20
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Cost Result

overview table) examination nothing came to our attention that

could indicate a potential conflict of interest. The
 any costs reductions (rebates, discounts) have been taken into
account
confirmation.
 confirmed the existence of the equipment and ensured that is the
same equipment purchased 63) There was a link between the Grant Agreement and YES/NO/N.A.
the equipment charged to the action.
 if the action was suspended, that no depreciation costs were
charged during the grant agreement suspension period.
64) The equipment charged to the action was physically YES/NO/N.A.
Purchases between participants are in principle not accepted, unless in inspected and traceable to the accounting records
exceptional and properly justified cases (e.g. participant A is the usual and the underlying documents.
supplier of participant B for a generic consumable that participant B needs
for the action). If a participant needs supplies from another participant, it 65) The purchases were not made between participants YES/NO/N.A.
is the latter participant that should charge them to the action as cost. (unless in line with specific cases set out in the AGA
The practitioner recalculated the depreciation costs and checked that: — Annotated Grant Agreement, art 6.2.B and 6.2.C*)
 the depreciation is calculated on the acquisition value 66) The depreciation costs were calculated in line with YES/NO/N.A.
 the depreciation costs were accumulated during the action duration applicable audit standards and the participant’s usual
accounting practices (normally at the earliest as of
 the depreciation costs were calculated for each reporting period the reception of the equipment and its availability for
according to the rate of use for the project (if the participant does use), for each reporting period.
not use the equipment exclusively for the action, only the portion
used on the action may be charged)
67) The amount charged corresponded to the rate of YES/NO/N.A.
 the participant did not charge depreciation from a date before actual usage for the action.
reception of the equipment. Eligible depreciation of an equipment
begins when it is available for use in the action 68) Costs for renting or leasing equipment do not exceed YES/NO/N.A.
the depreciation costs of similar equipment, do not
 the depreciation costs do not exceed the equipment purchase price.
include any financing fees and there is no double
The depreciable amount (purchase price) of the equipment must be
charging of costs.
21
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Cost Result

allocated on a systematic basis over its useful life (i.e. the period
during which the equipment is expected to be usable). If the
equipment’s useful life is more than a year, the participant cannot
charge the total cost of the item in a single year unless the Grant
Agreement explicitly foresees that option.
Apart from depreciation costs, costs for renting or leasing equipment,
infrastructure or other assets, are also eligible as equipment costs if they
do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure
or assets and do not include any financing fees. If the equipment was not
purchased but rented or leased, the practitioner should also check that the
costs:
 do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment,
infrastructure or assets
 do not include any financing fees (e.g. finance charges included in
the finance lease payments or interests on loans taken to finance the
purchase)
 there is no double charging of costs (e.g. no charging of depreciation
costs for equipment previously funded at full cost by an EU grant).
C.2 If full cost The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility and 69) The costs were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
only ineligibility of costs (see above). identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
incurred by the participant during the duration of the
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility of purchase
action (proof of payment, no re-invoicing to other
costs (see above).
entities).
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner
checked that: 70) Purchases were made using the participant’s usual YES/NO/N.A.
For ‘equipment, infrastructure or other assets’ (‘equipment) selected in purchasing practices and, if applicable, other
the sample, that are charged as full capitalised costs (instead of documents/procedures required for compliance with
depreciation cost), the practitioner checked that national law on public procurement.
22
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Cost Result

 the Grant Agreement explicitly allows that purchases of equipment 71) Purchases were made according to the principle of YES/NO/N.A.
specifically for the action (or developed as part of the action tasks) best value for money (best price-quality ratio) or the
may be declared as full capitalised costs lowest price.
 the costs fulfil the cost eligibility conditions applicable to their
72) The participant applied procedures to ensure the YES/NO/N.A.
respective cost categories
 such capitalised costs correspond to the costs incurred in the examination nothing came to our attention that could
purchase or for the development of the equipment, infrastructure indicate a potential conflict of interest. The
or other assets participant has provided the required written
confirmation..
 they are recorded under a fixed asset account of the participant in
compliance with international accounting standards and the
participant’s usual cost accounting practices 73) The cost eligibility conditions applicable to their YES/NO/N.A.
respective cost categories are fulfilled
 there is no double charging of costs (in particular, no charging of
depreciation costs for the prototype or pilot plant to the grant or 74) The Grant Agreement allows for purchases of YES/NO/N.A.
another EU grant). equipment, infrastructure or other assets specifically
Costs for renting or leasing such equipment are also eligible if they do not for the action (or developed as part of the action
exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or tasks) to be declared as full capitalised costs
assets and do not include any financing fees. If the equipment was not
purchased but rented or leased, the practitioner should also check that 75) Full capitalised costs were recorded under fixed costs YES/NO/N.A.
the costs: account in the participant’s accounting records in
compliance with international accounting standards
 do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, and the participant’s usual accounting practices.
 do not include any financing fees (e.g. finance charges included in 76) Full capitalised costs correspond to the costs incurred YES/NO/N.A.
the finance lease payments or interests on loans taken to finance in the purchase or for the development of the
the purchase) equipment and there is no double charging of costs
 there is no double charging of costs (e.g. no charging of
77) Costs for renting or leasing equipment do not exceed YES/NO/N.A.
depreciation costs for equipment previously funded at full cost by an
the depreciation costs of similar equipment, do not
EU grant)
include any financing fees and there is no double
23
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Cost Result

Equipment that does not comply with the specific conditions for full charging of costs.
cost (e.g. equipment purchased prior to the action but used for the action)
must be declared using the normal depreciation cost.
C.2 If The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility and 78) The standard findings under cost category C.2 YES/NO/N.A.
depreciation ineligibility of costs (see above). (depreciation only) are fulfilled
and full cost for
The procedure analysed above under cost category C.2 (depreciation only)
listed 79) The costs were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
is performed.
equipment identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and
Moreover, for equipment purchased specifically for the action (or incurred by the participant during the duration of the
developed as part of the action tasks) costs may exceptionally be declared action (proof of payment, no re-invoicing to other
as full capitalised costs, if these assets are listed under art. 6.C.2. entities).
For equipment that is charged at full acquisition cost, to confirm the
standard findings in the next column, the practitioner checked that: 80) The cost eligibility conditions applicable to their YES/NO/N.A.
respective cost categories are fulfilled
 the Grant Agreement explicitly allows that the equipment may be
declared as full capitalised costs. Such equipment must be listed in 81) The equipment whose costs were declared as full YES/NO/N.A.
art. 6.C.2. capitalised costs were listed under art.6.C.2 as
 the costs fulfil the cost eligibility conditions applicable to their equipment whose costs may be declared as full
respective cost categories capitalised costs
 such capitalised costs correspond to the costs incurred in the 82) Full capitalised costs were recorded under fixed costs YES/NO/N.A.
purchase or for the development of the equipment, infrastructure account in the participant’s accounting records in
or other assets compliance with international accounting standards
 they are recorded under a fixed asset account of the participant in and the participant’s usual cost accounting practices.
compliance with international accounting standards and the
participant’s usual cost accounting practices. 83) Full capitalised costs correspond to the costs incurred YES/NO/N.A.
in the purchase or for the development of the
 there is no double charging of costs (in particular, no charging of
equopment and there is no double charging of costs
depreciation costs for the prototype or pilot plant to the grant or
another EU grant).
84) Costs for renting or leasing equipment do not exceed YES/NO/N.A.
24
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Grant Cost Result

Costs for renting or leasing such equipment are also eligible if they do not the depreciation costs of similar equipment, do not
exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or include any financing fees and there is no double
assets and do not include any financing fees. If the equipment was not charging of costs.
purchased but rented or leased, the practitioner should also check that
the costs:
 do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment,
 do not include any financing fees (e.g. finance charges included in
the finance lease payments or interests on loans taken to finance
the purchase).
 there is no double charging of costs (e.g. no charging of
depreciation costs for equipment previously funded at full cost by an
EU grant).
C.2 if full cost The procedure analysed above under cost category C.2 (full cost only) is 85) For the costs declared as full capitalised costs, the YES/NO/N.A.
and performed. standard findings under cost category C.2 (full cost
depreciation for only) are fulfilled
However, for the equipment used for the action that are listed under art.
listed
6.C.2, the costs must be declared as depreciation costs. For these assets,
equipment 86) The costs of the equipment listed under art. 6.C.2 YES/NO/N.A.
the practitioner:
were declared as depreciation costs
 checked that they are listed under art. 6.C.2 as equipment whose
costs must be declared as depreciation costs 87) For the costs declared as depreciation costs, the YES/NO/N.A.
 performed the procedure analysed above under C.2 (depreciation standard findings under cost category C.2
only). (depreciation only) are fulfilled
Other goods, works and services (C.3)
25
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Other goods, works and services (C.3)
Grant Cost Result

Article Category (Y/N/N.A.)
Article C.3
OTHER GOODS, WORKS AND SERVICES
6.2.C.3
Article C.3 OTHER The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under
6.2.C.3 GOODS, this cost category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should
WORKS AND cover 10% of all items for which costs were declared, with a minimum
SERVICES sample of 10 items (or all if less than 10 items were declared).
For the other purchases included in the sample: 88) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
identifiable and verifiable, linked to the action and incurred
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility and
by the participant (proof of payment, no re-invoicing to
ineligibility of costs (see above).
other entities) during the duration of the action in
The practitioner carried out the general checks for eligibility of accordance with its usual cost accounting practices
purchase costs (see above).
Purchases of other goods, works and services for the action must be 89) Purchases were made using the participant’s usual YES/NO/N.A.
calculated on the basis of the costs actually incurred. Such goods, purchasing practices and, if applicable, other
works and services include, for instance, consumables and supplies, documents/procedures required for compliance with
promotion, dissemination, protection of results, translations, national law on public procurement.
publications, certificates and financial guarantees, if required under the
Agreement. 90) Purchases were made according to the principle of best YES/NO/N.A.
value for money (best price-quality ratio) or the lowest price.
checked that: 91) The participant applied procedures to ensure the absence of YES/NO/N.A.
 purchases of other goods, works and services were declared conflict of interest and based on our examination nothing
eligible (as costs actually incurred) in the Grant Agreement came to our attention that could indicate a potential conflict
of interest. The participant has provided the required written
 the contracts did not cover tasks described in Annex 1 GA (these confirmation.
should be charged as subcontracting costs)
 the goods, works or services were purchased specifically for the 92) Contracts for works or services did not cover tasks described YES/NO/N.A.
in Annex 1 GA.
26
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Other goods, works and services (C.3)
Grant Cost Result

Article Category (Y/N/N.A.)
action and they were correctly allocated to the action (with 93) Costs were allocated to the correct action and the goods YES/NO/N.A.
supporting documents such as delivery note invoice or any other were not placed in the inventory of durable equipment.
proof demonstrating the link to the action)
94) The costs were charged in line with the participant’s YES/NO/N.A.
 the actual existence of the sampled items by physical inspection
accounting practices and were adequately supported.
 the goods were not placed in the inventory of durable equipment
(otherwise they should be charged as equipment costs) 95) Correct and complete entry made in the accounting system YES/NO/N.A.
 the costs charged to the action were accounted in line with the of the participant.
participant’s usual accounting practices. If it is the participant’s
usual accounting practice to consider some of these costs (or all
of them) as indirect costs, they cannot be declared as direct
costs.
Other cost categories (D.)
Financial support to third parties (D.1)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Financial Support to third parties (D.1)
Grant Cost Category Result

Article
(YES/NO/
N.A.)
Article 6.2.D D OTHER COST CATEGORIES
Article FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES (AS ACTUAL COSTS)

D.1
6.2.D.1
27
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

Article
(YES/NO/
N.A.)
6.2.D.1 D.1 The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this cost
FINANCIAL category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover 10% of
SUPPORT TO all items for which costs were declared, with a minimum sample of 10 items
THIRD (or all if less than 10 items were declared).
PARTIES
For the FSTP items included in the sample: 96) The cost were eligible (no ineligible components), YES/NO/N.A.
The practitioner checked that the costs for providing financial support to action in accordance with its usual cost accounting
third parties ((in the form of grants, prizes or similar forms of support; if any): practices.
 were declared eligible in the Grant Agreement
97) The costs for providing financial support to third YES/NO/N.A.
 the maximum amount of financial support to each third party is not parties were declared eligible in the call conditions
more than the amount per recipient set out in the Data Sheet or and the Grant Agreement.
otherwise agreed with the granting authority and in compliance with
the applicable call conditions under which the Grant Agreement has 98) The costs did not exceed the maximum amount of YES/NO/N.A.
been issued financial support to each third party.
The practitioner also:
99) The support has been awarded in line with the YES/NO/N.A.
 reconciled the list of recipients for whom costs have been claimed with conditions defined in Annex 1 GA.
the proposals and project documentation.
 checked the existence of signed agreements/acceptance forms 100) The (minimum) conditions for the support are set YES/NO/N.A.
between the participants and the recipients. Unless otherwise out in Annex 1 GA and that these were also already
provided for in the call conditions, financial support to third parties part of the proposal.
needs to be given directly from the EU grant participant to the (final)
recipients, without further intermediaries.
 checked if there were audits undertaken by the participant on the
28
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

Article
(YES/NO/
N.A.)
recipients. Trace the cost adjustments to the financial statements to

the EU and ensure that they were taken into account.
The practitioner checked that the support is implemented in accordance with
the conditions set out in Annex 1 GA that must ensure objective and
transparent selection procedures and include at least the following minimum
conditions:
 for grants (or similar):
 the maximum amount of financial support for each third party
(‘recipient’); this amount may not exceed the amount set out in
the Data Sheet or otherwise agreed with the granting authority
 the criteria for calculating the exact amount of the financial
support
 the different types of activity that qualify for financial support, on
the basis of a closed list
 the persons or categories of persons that will be supported and
 the criteria and procedures for giving financial support
 for prizes (or similar):
 the eligibility and award criteria
 the amount of the prize and
 the payment arrangements
 for other kinds of financial support to third parties:
 the maximum amount of financial support for each third party
(‘recipient’); this amount may not exceed the amount set out in
the Data Sheet or otherwise agreed with the granting authority
29
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

Article
(YES/NO/
N.A.)
 the criteria for determining the exact amount

 the types of activities to be funded
 the types of recipients eligible.
If a call allows financial support to third parties, directly or via implementing
partners, in repayable form such as (micro)loans or other financial
instruments with a long-term character that exceed by their nature the
duration of the action and Annex 1 GA must provide for specific conditions
on cost eligibility and acceptance. The practitioner checked that these
specific conditions are fulfilled.
The practitioner checked that the support is implemented in compliance
with specific call conditions (if any).
Internally invoiced goods and services (D.2)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Internally invoiced goods and services (D.2)

Article D.2 INTERNALLY INVOICED GOODS AND SERVICES

6.2.D.2
Article D.2 The practitioner draws a sample to carry out the procedures under this cost
6.2.D.2 INTERNALLY category. The sample should be selected randomly. It should cover 10% of
INVOICED all items for which costs were declared, with a minimum sample of 10 items
30
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

GOODS AND (or all if less than 10 items were declared).

SERVICES
For the internally invoiced items included in the sample: 101) The cost were eligible (no ineligible YES/NO/N.A.
components), identifiable and verifiable, linked to the
action and incurred by the participant (proof of
payment, no re-invoicing to other entities) during the
‘Internally invoiced goods and services’ means goods or services which are duration of the action in accordance with its usual
provided within the participant’s organisation directly for the action and cost accounting practices.
which the participant values on the basis of its usual cost accounting
practices. This budget category covers the costs for goods and services that 102) The methodology of the practitioner included at YES/NO/N.A.
the participant itself produced or provided for the action. least the method to determine the amount per unit
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner used, adequate supporting records and documents to
checked that: prove the number of units declared, details of the
number of units declared and the amount per unit
 the units have been actually implemented (used or produced) used making up the total costs claimed etc.
 the units were necessary for the implementation of the action
103) The number of units for internal invoices have YES/NO/N.A.
 the participant did not declare costs covered by the unit cost also been actually implemented (used or produced) and
under other cost categories necessary for the implementation of the action.
 the specific eligibility conditions set out in the Grant Agreement (if any)
were complied with. 104) The costs declared as internal invoices do not YES/NO/N.A.
include costs declared under other cost categories.
Costs of internally invoiced goods and services must be declared as unit costs
in accordance with usual cost accounting practices of the participant. The 105) The specific eligibility conditions set out in the YES/NO/N.A.
usual cost accounting practices of the participant must define both the unit Grant Agreement (if any) have been fulfilled.
(e.g. hour of use of wind tunnel, one genomic test, one electronic wafer
fabricated internally, etc) and the methodology to determine the cost of the
106) The costs of internally invoiced goods and YES/NO/N.A.
unit.
services included in the financial statement were
calculated in accordance with the participant’s usual
31
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner: cost accounting practices.
 obtained records and documents supporting the costs claimed as unit
107) The usual cost accounting practices used to YES/NO/N.A.
costs to understand the methodology used
calculate the costs of internally invoiced goods and
 obtained a description of the participant’s usual cost accounting services were applied by the participant in a
practice to calculate costs of internally invoiced goods and services consistent manner regardless of the source of
(unit costs) funding.
 checked whether the participant’s usual cost accounting practice was
applied for the financial statements subject of the present CFS 108) It is the usual practice of the participant to YES/NO/N.A.
calculate a unit cost for these good or service based
 ensured that the participant’s usual cost accounting practices to on objective criteria that are verifiable.
calculate unit costs is being used in a consistent manner, regardless of
the source of funding 109) Unit costs have been applied in a consistent YES/NO/N.A.
 checked that the same unit cost has been applied in a consistent manner in other transactions not involving EU grants.
manner in other transactions not involving EU grants
110) The unit cost is calculated using the actual costs YES/NO/N.A.
 checked that any ineligible costs or any costs claimed under other for the good or service recorded in the participant’s
budget categories, have not been taken into account when calculating accounts, excluding any ineligible cost, costs included
the costs of internally invoiced goods and services (see art. 6) in other budget categories, or costs of resources that
 checked whether actual costs of internally invoiced goods and services do not belong to the participant and which it uses
were adjusted on the basis of budgeted or estimated elements and, if free of charge
so, verified whether those elements used are actually relevant for the
calculation, and correspond to verifiable information. Estimates 111) The cost items used for calculating the actual YES/NO/N.A.
represents less than 5% of the declared costs costs of internally invoiced goods and services were
relevant, and correspond to verifiable information.
 for all programmes except Horizon Europe: checked that any costs of
items which are not directly linked to the production of the invoiced
112) Costs of items used for calculating the costs YES/NO/N.A.
goods or service (e.g. supporting services like cleaning, general
internally invoiced goods and services are supported
accountancy, administrative support, etc. not directly used for
by evidence and registered in the accounts.
production of the good or service) have not been taken into account
when calculating the costs of internally invoiced goods and services
113) Allocation keys used are those defined in the YES/NO/N.A.
32
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

 for all programmes, except Horizon Europe: checked that costs of participant participant’s usual costs accounting
resources that do not belong to the participant and which it uses free practices used for the non EU funded projects
of charge (e.g. personnel or equipment of a third party provided free of
charge), have not been taken into account when calculating the costs
of internally invoiced goods and services (see art. 6), because those
costs are not in its accounts (see art. 6.1(a)(v))
 checked that any costs of items used for calculating the costs internally
invoiced goods and services are supported by evidence and registered
in the accounts.
 for Horizon Europe: checked that the amount per unit, for providing 114) The amount per unit has been calculated using YES/NO/N.A.
internally the good or service, has been calculated using the actual the actual direct and indirect costs recorded in the
direct and indirect costs recorded in the participant’s accounts, participant’s accounts, attributed either by direct
attributed either by direct measurement or on the basis of cost drivers measurement or on the basis of costs drivers as
in line with participant’s accounting practices. defined in the participant participant’s usual costs
accounting practices
Indirect costs (E.)
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Indirect costs (E.)
Grant Cost Result

Agreement Category Procedures Standard Finding
Article 6.2.E E. INDIRECT COSTS
Article 6.2.E E. INDIRECT N /A
33
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Indirect costs (E.)
Grant Cost Result

COSTS
If flat-rate
Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro
Grant Cost Result

Article 21.3 CURRENCY FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND CONVERSION INTO EUROS
Article 21.3 CURRENCY For the samples from all cost categories: 115) YES/NO/N.A.
CONVERSIO
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner Pparticipants with accounts established in euro converted
N
reviewed the samples selected in all cost categories for cost incurred in costs in accordance with their usual accounting practice.
currencies other than the euro and checked:
OR
 for participants with accounts established in euros: costs incurred in
For participants with accounts established in a currency
another currency were converted into euro by applying the
other than euro, cost were correctly converted (in
participant’s usual accounting practices
accordance with art. 21.3 GA and the corresponding AGA
 for participants with accounts established in a currency other than — Annotated Grant Agreement* section).
euros: exchange rates used for converting local currency into euros or
other currencies into local currencies were in accordance with art. 21.3
GA and the corresponding AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement*
section.
34
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
Revenues
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Revenues
Grant Cost Result

Article 22.3.4 REVENUE
REVENUES N/A
If no profit
rule is NOT
activated in
the GA Data
Sheet OR the
entity is a
non-profit
orgranisatio
n
If the no- For revenue transactions: 116) The accounting system allows to identify YES/NO/N.A.
profit rule is expenses and revenues related to the action.
activated in
examined transactions of revenues to identify any income generated by the
the GA Data 117) The participant has declared all revenues (i.e. YES/NO/N.A.
action, such as:
Sheet AND income generated by the action) in the interim
the entity is  sale of equipment or assets bought for or generated by the project and/or final reports.
a for-profit (limited to the claimed eligible cost of purchase); admission fee to a
organisation conference carried out by the consortium; sale of the proceedings of a
: conference.
‘Revenue’ is all income generated by the action, during its duration (see art.
4), for participants that are profit legal entities.
For Horizon Europe only: Revenue does not include income from exploitation
of results, see Annex 5 GA (e.g. commercialising a product or service)
35
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Revenues
Grant Cost Result

The practitioner also confirmed that revenues related to the action, if any,
were duly booked in the participant’s accounts and declared to the granting
authority.
In-kind contributions
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — In-kind contributions
Grant Cost Result

Art. 9.2 IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS BY THIRD PARTIES
Art 9.2 IN-KIND N/A

CONTRIBUTI
ONS
If in-kind
contribution
s allowed
but not
eligible
If in-kind For all cost categories: 118) Cost for in-kind contributions were foreseen in Annex YES/NO/N.A.
contribution 1 GA (or approved via a technical report) and
For in-kind contributions provided by third parties free-of charge declared
s allowed declared under the relevant cost category.
as eligible direct costs by the participants which use them (under the same
36
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — In-kind contributions
Grant Cost Result

and eligible conditions and relevant cost category as if they were their own): 119) The rights of bodies mentioned in art. 25 are also YES/NO/N.A.
(only Horizon ensured towards the third party giving in-kind
To confirm the standard findings in the next column, the practitioner checked
Europe) contributions
in the sample of each cost category that:
 costs for in-kind contributions were correctly declared in line with art.
6.1 and 9.2
 the third parties and their in-kind contributions are mentioned in
Annex 1 GA (or approved via a technical report)
 in line with art. 6.1, costs declared as in-kind free-of-charge do not
exceed the direct costs incurred by the contributing third party for the
in -kind contribution, by obtaining invoices, accounting entries etc.
The practitioner also checked that there were binding agreements between
the participant and the third party that ensured the rights of bodies
mentioned in art. 25 are also ensured towards the third party giving in-kind
contributions.
SIGNATURE
For the practitioner
[forename/surname/function]
[address]
[signature]
[date] [stamp]
37
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES REPORT ON THE CERTIFICATE ON THE

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (CFS)
To
[Organisation full name
address]
The purpose of this CFS is to provide the EU granting authority with findings in accordance
with the agreed-upon procedures (AUP) set out in the Terms of Reference, in order to be able
to assess whether certain costs (and, if relevant, also revenues) comply with the conditions set
out in the EU grant agreement. This report is solely intended for this purpose.
The agreed-upon procedures have been set and determined as appropriate by the EU granting
authority.
The agreed-upon procedures engagement involves our performing the agreed-upon
procedures set out in the Terms of Reference, as agreed with the participant. We do not assess
the appropriateness, nor do we provide an audit opinion or assurance. Had we performed
additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been
reported.
We, [full name of the practitioner (firm)], established in [full address/city/country],
represented for signature of this CFS by [name and function of an authorised representative],
hereby report that
1 — We are qualified/authorised to deliver this CFS [(for additional information, see
appendix to this certificate)] and are not subject to any conflict of interest.
2 — We have performed the agreed-upon procedures engagement in accordance with the
Terms of Reference (including the agreed-upon procedures checklist, which forms an
integral part of the Terms of Reference), and in particular the following standards:
 the International Standard on Related Services (ISRS) 4400 (revised) Agreed-upon
Procedures Engagements as issued by the International Auditing and Assurance
Standards Board (IAASB)
 the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including
International Independent Standards) issued by the International Ethics Standards
Board for Accountants (IESBA), including the independence requirements
 the International Standard on Quality Control 1 Quality Control for Firms that
Perform Audits and Reviews of financial statements, and Other Assurance and
Related Services Engagements (equivalent).
3 — We have performed the agreed-upon procedures on costs and revenues declared in the
financial statement(s) of [organisation legal name (short name)], PIC [number], under
EU Grant Agreement No [insert number] — [insert acronym], covering the following
reporting period(s): [insert reporting period(s)].
The relevant costs and revenues subject to this report amount to:
1
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
 total actual costs of EUR [insert cost amount]
 total unit cost in accordance with usual cost accounting practices of EUR
[insert cost amount] and
 total revenues of EUR [insert revenue amount].

In accordance with the Terms of Reference, specific cost categories based on unit costs
(other than unit costs in accordance with usual cost accounting practices), flat-rates or
lump sums were not subject to this report. The financial statement(s) for the relevant
reporting period(s) contained such costs amounting in total to EUR [insert number].
4 — The costs and revenues declared in the financial statement(s) are compliant with the
legal and financial provisions of the EU Grant Agreement in accordance with the
agreed-upon procedures set out in the Terms of Reference.
With the following exceptions:

[insert exception findings and corresponding amounts (if quantifiable), or insert
‘N/A‘ if no findings:
N.[insert number of not confirmed standard finding] – [insert cost category] –
[insert amount per reporting period or ‘N/A‘ (if not quantifiable)]: [provide
factual explanation of ‘NO’-result finding e.g. calculation error, lack of supporting
document, non-compliance with national law etc.]
[Repeat as needed]
Additional observations and explanations:

[insert any additional information, including specification and reasons for the non-
applicability of any agreed upon procedure in the case e.g. no cost declared under
one of the cost categories]
5 — The participant paid a price of EUR [insert amount]) (including VAT of EUR [insert
amount]) for this CFS. [OPTION 1: These costs are eligible under the grant and
included in the financial statement.][OPTION 2: These costs were not charged to the
grant.]
Annexes: Terms of Reference and AUP checklist (signed and completed)
SIGNATURE
For the practitioner
[forename/surname/function]
[address]
[signature]
[date] [stamp]
2
EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024
HISTORY OF CHANGES
VERSION PUBLICATION CHANGE
DATE
1.0 20.12.2021 Initial version (new MFF).
1.1 15.03.2023 Small clarification in certificate text
2.0 15.02.2024 Full version rework.

Cfs en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cfs en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cfs en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project: [insert project number] — [insert acronym] — [insert call identifier]

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CERTIFICATE ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT (CFS)

1. Background and subject matter

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

 public bodies can choose an external auditor or a competent independent public

 pillar-assessed entities can choose their regular internal or external auditors in

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES CHECKLIST

General eligibility conditions and ineligible cost

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — General eligibility conditions and ineligible costs

Art. 6.1, 6.3 GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS AND INELIGIBLE COSTS

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

Personnel costs (A.1-A.4)

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

Article 6.2.A A. PERSONNEL COSTS

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

corresponding AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement*

14) There were no discrepancies between the personnel YES/NO/N.A.

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

26) The results of work carried out belong to the YES/NO/N.A.

27) The person was assigned to the action according to YES/NO/N.A.

28) Day-equivalents worked on the action were recorded YES/NO/N.A.

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

mentioned, convert into equivalent days by X 8

33) If a number of day equivalents is used in the YES/NO/N.A.

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

Article A.4 SME OWNERS AND NATURAL PERSON

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Personnel costs (A.1-A.6)

Article A.5 VOLUNTEERS

Subcontracting costs (B.)

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Subcontracting costs (B.)

Article 6.2.B B. SUBCONTRACTING COSTS

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Subcontracting costs (B.)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Subcontracting costs (B.)

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

CFS AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES — Subcontracting costs (B.)

Purchase costs (C.) — General eligibility conditions

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024

Article 6.2.C C GENERAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PURCHASE COSTS

EU Grants: CFS: V2.0 – 15.02.2024