The KA120 application, section by section

The form looks administrative. It isn’t: every box feeds one of the four scored criteria — Relevance (10), Objectives (40), Activities (20), Management (30). Write each answer knowing which meter it moves.

Context and organisation profile → Relevance (10)

The evaluator is checking one thing: is this organisation what the accreditation is for? Describe your real activity, your learners, your staff numbers — in the field you’re applying in. If you’re applying as a consortium coordinator, this section must show the profile of intended members and the added value of grouping them: why is the consortium better than each member alone?

Needs → the foundation of Objectives (40)

Weak applications state generic needs (“digitalisation”, “internationalisation”). Scoring applications evidence them: a staff survey, an inspection report, dropout numbers, a language audit. Every need you name here should reappear later attached to an objective — and nothing should appear later that wasn’t named here. Evaluators check that thread.

Erasmus Plan: objectives → Objectives (40)

The heart of the form, and of the score. The pattern that works — need (evidence) → objective (number + date) → how mobility contributes → how you’ll measure — is covered in depth in our Erasmus Plan guide. Two form-specific traps:

• The form asks for implementation timing. “Realistic and sufficiently ambitious” is literally in the criteria — an undated objective reads as unscoreable, and unscoreable means low.
• Monitoring has its own criterion line (“appropriate and concrete arrangements”). A recurring calendar entry — who reviews which indicator, when — outscores a paragraph of evaluation prose.

Erasmus Plan: activities → Activities (20)

Estimated participant numbers and profiles per year. The criterion says realistic — for your size, staff turnover and management capacity. Under-promising slightly beats inflating: remember that under the allocation rules, executing less than 75% of a granted budget cuts your next base allocation by 25%. Numbers you can deliver are worth more than numbers that impress.

Erasmus Plan: management → Management (30)

The category that kills otherwise strong applications, because it’s scored half-empty by default:

• Task distribution — named roles, not “the coordinator will handle everything”.
• Resources — hours, budget lines, leadership involvement (it’s a criterion line of its own).
• Continuity — what survives if your coordinator changes jobs. Write the handover down.
• Integration — how results enter everyday work: staff meetings, teaching practice, curriculum. For consortia, this criterion applies to the whole consortium.

Frequent questions

Where do we find the official form?

On the EU application platform, via your national agency's website. The Commission also publishes template forms for preparation — draft your answers in a document first, then paste; the platform is not a writing environment.

Do consortium coordinators need to list all members in the application?

No. You must describe the purpose and intended composition of the consortium, but an exact member list is not required at application stage. Substantial changes to composition after accreditation do require a new application.

What supporting documents help?

Your own strategy documents — an internationalisation strategy, a development plan, documents from your supervising authority. The Guide explicitly allows supporting the application with them, and they make your needs section verifiable.