Every IPCEI participant fills in the same Commission spreadsheet, and no other document translates so directly into money. Here is how the funding gap questionnaire is built, and the two conditions it enforces.
The funding gap questionnaire (FGQ) exists to prove one thing: that your project has a financing deficit which the aid will close, and no more than close. It enforces two cumulative conditions. First, the total aid in discounted terms may not exceed the funding gap, the net present value shortfall of the project over its whole lifetime. Second, the total aid in nominal terms may not exceed total eligible costs. The aid is capped by the lesser of the two. Notably, there is no aid-intensity percentage anywhere in this logic; intensity as a share of eligible costs is a concept the IPCEI Communication simply does not use.
One workbook, three layers of tabs, two conditions.
Three layers of tabs
– The core tabs, Factual scenario, Counterfactual scenario, WACC, Terminal Value and Depreciation, come from the Commission and their structure is untouchable: no deleting rows or tabs, no overwriting formulas, and any change flagged explicitly. No number should be hard-coded; every figure should trace to a formula or an assumption tab.
– The revenue tabs (main revenue, cost savings, adjacent and upgraded products) are also imposed, because the Commission wants every revenue stream of the project visible in a standard format.
– Additional tabs are yours. Applicants are encouraged to add tabs with assumptions, breakdowns, quotes and market studies. This is where a strong file distinguishes itself.
Time comes first
The template is built around the project timeline, so the dates are filled in before anything else: the valuation year (in principle the year of notification, aligned with project start), the start and end of the R&D&I phase, the FID phase, the start of mass production, and the last year of detailed projections. Everything beyond that last year lives in the terminal value. Eligible costs stop at the end of FID; revenues and costs run to the end of the lifecycle. One practical limit from the current AI-wave template: projections must not extend beyond 2085 without consulting DG COMP, or the formulas break.
A final discipline: the FGQ and the project portfolio are read side by side and must never contradict each other. The portfolio's proportionality section is where every figure in the workbook gets its explanation.
The takeaway. The FGQ is not an annex; it is the financial core of your aid notification. Fill the timeline first, keep every number formula-driven, and put your energy into the additional tabs, because that is where the Commission looks when it asks why.
Sources
– IPCEI Communication, OJ C 528, 30.12.2021 (EUR-Lex)
– European Commission – IPCEI overview (DG Competition)
– European Commission, Funding gap template for IPCEI projects (RDI & FID), version 3.2 adjusted for IPCEI AI, April 2026 (distributed to applicants via national authorities)
– DG COMP Unit H23, IPCEI AI workshop for direct participants and Member States: project portfolio, funding gap and spillovers, 12 June 2026 (workshop materials)