GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Cluster 5 · Climate, Energy and Mobility

On-site robotic and automated techniques for building renovation and new construction

HORIZON-CL5-2027-05-D4-05 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingIA · lump sumDeadline 15 September 2027around EUR 6.75 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-CL5-2027-05-D4-05

TopicHORIZON-CL5-2027-05-D4-05
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-CL5-2027-05 — BATTERIES and ENERGY
DestinationUsing energy in buildings and industry in an efficient, affordable and sustainable way (2026-27)
Type of actionInnovation Actions · lump sum
Opening5 May 2027
Deadline15 September 2027
Budgetaround EUR 6.75 million per project · 3 projects expected · EUR 20.25 million in total
TRL at the endTRL 6–8
Part B page limit45 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Project results are expected to contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 Improved resource efficiency compared to current practices.
  2. EO2 Improved accuracy (designed vs. as-built) of on-site renovation and construction works, compared to current best practices.
  3. EO3 Significant reduction in time spent by building professionals on site.
  4. EO4 Reduced GHG emissions at the construction site.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 The energy performance of the European building stock is improved at an accelerated pace, contributing to the EU's energy security, while the buildings and the built environment have reduced climate and environmental impact throughout their life cycle.
  2. EI2 The energy renovation and construction of buildings are cost-efficient, affordable and less disruptive.
  3. EI3 The buildings are increasingly interacting with the users, energy system and their environment while operating in an integrated, resilient, secure, smart and flexible manner.
  4. EI4 The buildings and the built environment are more climate resilient, accessible, inclusive and delivers multiple benefits which improve the quality of life, health and well-being for all users.
  5. EI5 The energy efficiency of EU energy intensive industries is improved, their consumption of fossil fuel and their GHG and other pollutants emissions are drastically reduced, notably through cost-effective electrification, use of renewable energy, heat recovery, thereby preserving / enhancing their global competitiveness.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
  • Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

  • “Proposals are expected to address all of the following:.”
  • “At least one of the proposed techniques should involve 3D printing.”
  • “Proposals must address the energy renovation of existing buildings but may also address new constructions.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

  • Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
  • Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
  • TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–8 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
  • Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”

Impact pathway and traps

  • The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
  • The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
  • Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
  • Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.
The scope, as published

The rate of deep renovation of buildings can be accelerated by modernising the construction sector and embracing the latest developments in robotics and automated systems. There is need for further development of techniques using innovative on-site robotic and other automated systems that make renovation and construction works more sustainable, less disruptive, faster as well as more accurate, cost effective and resource efficient, while delivering, at least, the same building elements’ energy performance compared to current best practices. Proposals are expected to address all of the following: Demonstrate innovative on-site robotic and automated techniques for building renovation and the construction of new buildings. At least one of the proposed techniques should involve 3D printing; Develop techniques that are specifically for building-site applications (e.g. solutions focusing on prefabrication in workshops/factories away from the building site are out oof the scope), flexible to adapt to various building typologies and, where possible, to materials and components already on the market; Ensure that the proposed techniques appropriately take into account aspects of on-site workers’ safety and human-robot collaboration; Demonstrate the proposed techniques in at least three demonstrations to investigate their applicability for a variety of building typologies and climatic conditions, duly justified to represent a relevant part of the European building stock. Proposals must address the energy renovation of existing buildings but may also address new constructions. Selected proposals could consider the involvement of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) whose contribution could consist of scientific advice and technical analysis of solutions and technologies, support to the transfer of research output to standards, and access to the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment research infrastructure for full-scale testing of buildings.

Technology readiness, as published

Activities are expected to achieve TRL 6-8 by the end of the project – see General Annex B. Activities may start at any TRL.

Other topics in HORIZON-CL5-2027-05

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.