Notice

Annex F - Evaluation criteria and marking of proposals

Updated 25 October 2023

Proposals will be assessed using the criteria and scoring scale shown below, designed to identify those proposals which offer most alignment to the aims of the Opportunity, most innovative proposed activities and the best Value for Money (VFM) overall. Assessors will provide a supporting narrative to justify their assessments against the following criteria:

• Activity Proposal (35% weighting in overall score)
• Relevance to the requirement (25% weighting in overall score)
• Benefit to the UK and catalysing investment (20% weighting in overall score)
• Sound management and planning (20% weighting in overall score)

0.1 Activity proposed

Considers proposal to deliver investment focused high impact programmes aimed at accelerating high potential UK companies and supporting them through their investment journey. Proposals will describe what they plan to deliver with funds available.

Highest scoring proposals will provide a comprehensive demonstration of what is innovative about their proposed activity or programme and will detail how they intend to deliver outcomes. Proposals will detail realistic deliverables with strong consideration given to the investment focused activities or programme to be delivered. Proposals will include robust plans and evidence to demonstrate how they will deliver and impacts.

Moderate scoring proposals will provide adequate demonstration of their proposed activity or programme and will provide some detail how they intend to deliver outcomes. Proposals will detail deliverables with adequate focus on the investment activities or programme to be delivered. Proposals will include acceptable demonstration how they will deliver and impacts.

Low scoring proposals will not fully demonstrate the proposed activity or is unclear what is proposed to be delivered. Unrealistic deliverables are described with little or no thought as to risks, mitigation or impact.

0.2 Relevance to the requirement outlined in sections 3 of the Announcement of Opportunity document

Considers how proposed activity or programme will create high impact investment opportunities and the outcomes they would expect to deliver.

Highest scoring proposals will provide reliable evidence that their proposal is highly likely to deliver the requirement as set out in section 3 of the Announcement of Opportunity. Proposals will demonstrate strong understanding of the current private investment landscape and will clearly describe their connections and how they will leverage it deliver the requirement.

Moderate scoring proposals will provide reliable evidence of how their proposal can meet the delivery requirement and may include a high-level narrative on the private investment networks they have access to and will leverage for this programme. Proposals will detail how they will meet the requirement well but may demonstrate a limited understanding the private investment landscape or limited access to these networks.

Low scoring proposals provide little or no detail how they intend to deliver the requirement as set out in section 3 of the Announcement of Opportunity. There will be little or no evidence to support their understanding of the private investment landscape or that they have sufficient access to those networks to realistically deliver the requirement with this grant funding.

0.3 Benefit to the UK and catalysing investment

Considers why proposed activity or programme should be funded and the total investment expected to be injected into the UK space sector during this pilot within the timeframe of the funding agreement and potential investment beyond due to ongoing relationships with the individuals supported by them in this programme. All proposals will need to demonstrate that the investment sought from the UK Government represents clear value for the UK public, through measurable benefits for the UK economy and unlock additional investment and contract revenue into the UK Space Sector.

Highest scoring proposals will provide excellent, detailed evidence of the benefits that the government funding would enable them to provide to the UK economy, including investment opportunities, and if any jobs will be created.  It will include a coherent and coordinated strategy to catalyse investment through new investment beyond this intervention and include a quantitative assessment as to the potential scale of additional revenue and investment unlocked as a result of participating in their activity or programme. The costs of any activities proposed for grant funding will be very well justified and strongly linked to outcomes and benefits. Risk, maturity and uncertainty will be well developed and made clear through the application in regard to benefits and investment realisation plan.

Moderate scoring proposals will provide some or high level evidence of the benefits that the government funding would enable them to provide to the UK economy and some justifications for grant funding are adequately linked to outcomes and benefits. The proposal will include direction and aims to catalyse investment although without a robust strategy.

Low scoring proposals provide little, poor or no evidence of the benefits that the government funding would enable them to provide to the UK economy OR the costs of any activities proposed for grant funding are poorly justified and not linked to outcomes and benefits. There will be little to no evidence of a strategy to catalyse investment.

0.4 Management and planning

Considers the strength of the proposal including background, experience and track record of the team, the credibility of the proposed project delivery plan, and the value for money aspects of the project. All proposals will need to demonstrate that they have an effective structure in place for managing the administration of the grant requested and demonstrate that they have a sound approach to planning to achieve their project aims on time and within budget.

Highest scoring proposals will demonstrate an approach to risk and programme management that is aligned with industry best practice. A strong team will be identified and resourced to enable the grant funding to be administered correctly. The project will demonstrate a balanced and skilled team able to drive both the development of the innovation and route for exploitation to secure the benefits outlined in the proposal. Risks to the project management will be clearly identified with detailed mitigations, providing a clear picture of the practicality and viability of the proposal. Proposals will demonstrate that supply chain risk has been considered and mitigating actions have been evaluated to protect the ability to meet delivery milestones as planned. Value for money will be considered as well as good time management and clear and focused documentation of progress.

Moderate scoring proposals demonstrate an approach to risk and programme management that is partially aligned with industry best practice. Moderate evidence of risks will be provided, alongside general mitigations, with some evidence of an appropriately resourced delivery team. Proposals recognise supply chain risk and have some broad ideas on how to react and meet delivery milestones as planned. Proposals will consider value for money as well as project documentation but with limited thought as to how their time will be best focused.

Low scoring proposals provide poor evidence or fail to demonstrate consideration of suitable risks and mitigations. No or little consideration of value for money and poor explanation of time management.

1. Scoring Guidance

The proposals should be scored on the scale of 1 to 10 for each criteria using the table below as a guide to the scale.

Score	Assessment
0	No response is offered in respect of the criteria.
1	An incomplete or very poor response, which fails to address the criteria; and/or the response is not credible, with no evidence to support the claims made meaning there is no confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘low scoring’ against the scoring criteria shown in the table above.
2	A poor response which only partially addresses the criteria and would require significant revision to become acceptable; and/or very limited, and inadequate, evidence to support the claims made meaning low confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘low scoring’ against the scoring criteria shown in the table above.
4	A limited response with deficiencies apparent against the criteria, requiring some revision to become acceptable; and/or limited evidence provided supporting the claims made meaning limited confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘low scoring’ against the scoring criteria.
5	An acceptable response which could have been expanded upon, with identified weaknesses correctable; and/or just sufficient evidence provided in support of the claims made meaning a reasonable confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘moderate scoring’ against the scoring criteria.
7	A good response which addresses the criteria well, with identified weaknesses readily correctable; and/or solid evidence provided in support of the claims made meaning a solid level of confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘moderate scoring’ against the scoring criteria.
9	A very good response which addresses the criteria very well with very few weaknesses; and/or good evidence provided in support of the claims made meaning a high level of confidence of success; and/or the response is assessed as ‘highest scoring’ against the scoring criteria.
10	An excellent response which is considered to absolutely address the criteria without weakness; and/or compelling evidence provided in support of the claims made meaning success is considered to be virtually assured; and/or the response is assessed as ‘highest scoring’ against the scoring criteria.