Notice

Annex F - Evaluation Criteria

Updated 30 September 2022

Assessors scoring sheet for “Launch UK Technology Investment: Call for grant proposals”

Proposals should be assessed using the criteria and scoring scale shown below, designed to identify those proposals which offer the best Value for Money (VFM) overall. Assessors should complete the scoring sheet and provide a supporting narrative to justify their assessments against the following criteria:

Criteria	Weighting	Scoring Criteria
1. Competitiveness/Relevance	30%	Considers the applicability of the technology/product/innovation to launch market/sector and the degree to which the product, technical or service has the potential to be disruptive in the market, fill a gap in the UK supply chain or bolster existing capabilities. Highest scoring proposals will provide reliable evidence that their proposal has the potential of acquiring a UK and/or global market share. Proposals will demonstrate strong understanding of the current marketplace and how their technology/product/innovation will create a new market and/ or disrupt existing markets. Proposals will evidence a clear vision and roadmap of the milestones that will be required to ensure market entry is timely to retain relevance and competitive advantage. Moderate scoring proposals will provide reliable evidence of how their proposal meets the purpose of the call. Proposals will demonstrate a good understanding of the current market but a limited understanding of how their technology/product/innovation will create a new market and/ or disrupt existing markets. Low scoring proposals will demonstrate little or no consideration of the potential market for their technology/product/ innovation and with little or no evidence to support claims made for market size. There will be a disconnect between development of the solution and a structured route to exploitation
2. Technical feasibility	20%	Considers the technical feasibility of the proposed project. All proposals will have to outline their technical case for their proposal. All proposals will need to demonstrate that there is clear development route through TRL’s. Highest scoring proposals will provide a comprehensive technical case. Proposals will provide a thorough plan and evidence base to show how their technology will develop within the programmes funding window. Proposals will provide a timeline of past developments to showcase how they have arrived at their current point and roadmap the future development of the technology past the point of funding. If the technologies have heritage, the proposals will include examples of where it has been used in the past. The technical plan will include the requirements, facilities and capabilities needed to deliver the proposal. Proposals will detail and schedule realistic project deliverables with strong consideration given to the technical or scientific risks of the project. Moderate scoring proposals will provide a good technical case. The proposals will demonstrate a good chance of technical success, with any weaknesses recognised alongside opportunities to address and correct. Good project plan of how the technology will develop over the period covered by the call with some thought given to technical risks, mitigation or impact. Low scoring proposals will not demonstrate a sound technical case. The technology outline will be unrealistic and show low chance of the developments being achievable. Little or no thought given to technological risks and mitigation.
3. Innovation	10%	Considers how innovative the technology/capability/product/service being proposed including its continued novelty, originality, newness to space and suitability of the work proposed, including assessment of risk and benefits. Highest scoring proposals will provide a comprehensive demonstration of what is innovative about their proposed product, service or technology (to date and over the period covered by the call) with a high and matured likelihood of successful project outcomes. Proposals will include robust plans and evidence to demonstrate the advancement/performance of their innovation. Proposals will describe the high-risk/high return potential of their innovation and include excellent commercial and/or scientific opportunities. Moderate scoring proposals will demonstrate a good demonstration of what is innovative about their proposed product, service or technology. Proposals give some thought on the high-risk/high return potential of their innovation. Some consideration of how advancement/performance of their innovation will be demonstrated. Low scoring proposals will not demonstrate what is innovative about their proposed product, service or technology and/or propose limited technological advancement. Unrealistic project deliverables with little or no thought as to risks, mitigation or impact
4. Benefit to the UK and catalysing investment	30%	Considers why the innovation should be funded and the total investment and contract revenue expected to be injected into the UK space sector: potential applications and the benefits it offers over existing products or services who and how will benefit from the product/technology, and the timeliness and critical stages of the project that will unlock investment and secure contract revenue as a result of undertaking the activity. 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 UK-based employment and contract opportunities. It will include a coherent and coordinated strategy to catalyse investment through new investment or contract revenue as a result of further developing the project. 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 regards to the projects benefits and investment realisation plan. Moderate scoring proposals will provide some 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.
5. Management & Planning	20%	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.

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.