Form

Direct Air Capture and Greenhouse Gas Removals Phase 2: questions and responses

Updated 8 July 2022

BEIS has provided anonymised replies to any questions asked regarding this competition which, in our judgement, are of material significance to all bidders.

All bidders should take these replies into consideration when preparing their own bids for Phase 1 and BEIS will evaluate bids on the assumption that they have done so.

All updated material and this document can be found on the gov.uk programme page.

Clarifications to the guidance notes

Eligibility criteria

Question 14 on the application form has been updated to give a ‘N/A’ option for projects who are not applying as part of a consortium.

4.4.1 Stage 1: Application

The reference to Regulation 28 in The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 should be Clause 19(6) of the The Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Programme scope questions

Question 1: (Page 18) Could you please clarify how third-party costs (Sub-contractor, Materials) are covered? This section suggests no contingency can be added. Where fixed-price quotes in this category are not available prior to the Ph2 bid, estimates will need to be made. Will third-party costs be paid based on the actual costs incurred by the projects, or will they be based on the estimates included in the Ph2 bid?

BEIS would expect the contractor to obtain quotes from suppliers. If, when the goods are supplied the price is higher than the quote, BEIS will cover this extra cost if the savings can be made elsewhere in the payment plan.

Question 2: (Page 22) Are hypothetical decommissioning costs required to be estimated if the project intends to further develop the equipment at the end of Phase 2 rather than decommission the asset?

No, if the project considers decommission costs are not required then this does not have to be included. However, if for any reason the project does require decommissioning at the end of the project and no amount has been estimated then projects will be liable for these costs.

Question 3: Please could you provide further guidance on what evidence base would be required to satisfy the following criteria for Lot 2: “Projects in Lot 2 must have a minimum capacity of 1,000 tCO2e per annum. For the avoidance of doubt, projects are required to install and operate at these minimum capacities during Phase 2.This means that for solutions which are configured of multiple identical small units (modules), a sufficient number of modules should be installed during Phase 2 to demonstrate the minimum capacity (100 or 1,000 tCO2e per annum).” For example, how many hours operation would be considered acceptable?

Please see page 36 of the guidance document for full details: The appropriateness and credibility of the plans for the operational/trial period. The duration of the operational/trial period should be clearly defined and be long enough to demonstrate the following:

• Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) methodology
• Reliability, sufficient to allow the next stage of the commercialisation plan to be adopted
• Batch/cyclical processes, if relevant
• Operation during different seasons/weathers, if relevant
• Operation with a range of feedstocks, if relevant

Acceleration support questions

Question 4: (Page 11) Our consortium includes SMEs but is not led by one. Is this support available for our partners?

No. The support will only be available to Lead Organisations who qualify as an SME.

Question 5: Can a small consortium (but one that is part of a larger establishment) have access the accelerator funding?

Only Project Lead Organisations who meet the definition of a Small Medium Enterprise (SME) can receive Acceleration Support. Consortium size does not influence eligibility for this support. Please refer to the table below for details on what size of business BEIS consider to be SMEs.

Company Category	Staff Headcount		Turnover		Balance Sheet Total
Medium	<250 people	AND	≤£45m	OR	≤£39m
Small	<50 people	AND	≤£9m	OR	≤£9m
Micro	<10 people	AND	≤£2m	OR	≤£2m

Question 6: How much funding is available for Acceleration Support?

Funding is dependent on the companies’ individual needs, these will be identified in a “Needs Assessment” at the start of the programme. This “Needs Assessment” will inform the development of an acceleration plan. Companies will receive support tailored to their level of need.

Question 7: What form does the Acceleration Support funding take? Financial support? Expert advice?

The type of support available is outline on page 11 of the Guidance notes. It consists of expert advice led by our partners, the Carbon Trust but may, if appropriate include support for engaging with investors. There is no additional standalone financial support.

Question 8: (page 11) Would Acceleration Support be available to SME members of consortiums led by non-SMEs?

No. The support will only be available to Lead Organisations who qualify as an SME.

Question 9: Our consortium includes SMEs, but is not led by one. Is this support available for our partners?

No. The support will only be available to Lead Organisations who qualify as an SME.

Eligibility criteria

Question 10: Q14 in the online application: How should we answer if not a consortium, as ‘no’ sounds like we can’t deliver - but it is simply an N/A response?

This has been updated to include an N/A response.

Deliverables

Question 11: Should final deliverables be submitted beyond March 2025, would terms still be entitled to payment for those deliverables?

No, all deliverables must be submitted and approved by the Monitoring Officer by 31st March 2025.

Assessment criteria

Question 12: Do the assessors for Phase 2 applications have access to the Phase 1 design report?

The project should extract specific evidence from their Phase 1 final reports to inform their responses in the Phase 2 application form. The assessor will not have access to Final Phase 1 design report.

Question 13: Are Phase 2 applicants permitted to reference their Phase 1 final report in the application? Or, does the Phase 2 application have to be a fully standalone document?

The project should extract specific evidence from their Phase 1 final reports to inform their responses in the Phase 2 application form and that the assessor will not have access to Final Phase 1 design report.

Please see Section 8: Assessment Criteria (p 27) of the Guidance Notes for Phase 2 – “The assessment criteria below are based on the Phase 1 assessment criteria with amendments to the criteria and weightings to reflect that Phase 2 is a pilot project and to allow the outcomes of the Phase 1 Design Studies to be assessed. The criteria allow contractors to extract specific evidence from their Phase 1 final reports to inform their responses in the Phase 2 application form. There are also additional questions to ensure that responses cover the full set of criteria for Phase 2.”

Question 14: Criterion 1 asks for a description of our MRV methodology, but the reporting requirement in April 2023 also asks for our MRV methodology. The latter date seems appropriate, as the MRV approach needs to be designed and engineered into the system as it is an additional scope requirement from Phase 1. As such, it looks like the application requirement is to provide an outline of how we will determine a suitable MRV methodology (but not specify a methodology), and by April 2023 to have formalised the MRV methodology after its engineered solution has been developed. Could you kindly advise on what the requirement is for MRV in the application? Is it just our approach as to how we will identify a suitable method?

The MRV methodology should be stated in the application form since this should have been determined during Phase 1 – if, once tested on the system during Phase 2 or as a result of further work the methodology needs to be revised then this will be appropriate. All projects will need to describe the methodology they intend to use for Phase 2.

Question 15: General question on criterion attachments - Our P&IDs alone are over 10 pages! Please can you change the page limit on attachments that allow for technical drawings (or non text-based pages) to have no limit (or if we can reference documents issued in our Phase 1 study)?

The page limit will not increase for the following reasons. The applications form asks for ‘key technical drawings’ of the pilot project, which may include P&IDs, and stated that ‘highest marks will be awarded to applicants that can demonstrate that the engineering designs produced during Phase 1 are credible and sufficient’. Therefore, the applicant does not need to provide a full set of P&IDs. Instead, the applicant could attach a process flow diagram or just a few of the most critical P&IDs - e.g. of the core system(s) – and explain in the text in the application form that these are representative of the full set of P&IDs.

Question 16: How will our Phase 1 work and report be assessed, or is our entry to Phase 2 solely decided on our application strength? Are we limited to only use evidence that has been developed in our Phase 1 reports?

The application is designed so that applicants can incorporate substantial parts of the Phase 1 final report. The assessors will not see the final report but this will have already been assessed by the monitoring officer.

Question 17: For question 6b pt2, is this answer expected to be quantitative in terms of the full additional value received by BEIS, and if so, please could you provide guidance on how to price up BEIS having exclusive IPR?

This question relates to the difference in the price between developing the technology (i.e. IP) for a commercial client as opposed to an SBRI contract. This should be quantitative and can be described as a percentage difference.

Question 18: (Criterion 1 page 29) Does “work during Phase 1” include parallel development work not funded under the Phase 1 contract?

Phase 2 applications must be based on the feasibility/design study carried out in Phase 1. Any other information through research or work completed outside Phase 1 can be used to inform and support the Phase 2 application but it must be referenced.

Contract and funding

Question 19: The guidance states that, for Consortium bids: “the lead company (project co-ordinator) will be the recipient of the contract (the supplier) and will be responsible for managing payment of the other project partners” (para 4.4.3). In addition, the guidance recognises that: “BEIS understands, however, the difficulties which small businesses may face when financing this type of project” (para 9.1). The involvement of SMEs provides access to state of the art technologies, yet it does come with some financial and commercial risk for the project, and particularly the lead company. On that basis:

(1) Is it expected that the lead company will hold the risk of any non-performance, breach or insolvency of the consortium members?

(2) Would BEIS accept provisions allowing the lead company to withdraw from the project with BEIS, without liability, in the event of non-performance, breach or insolvency of a consortium member?”

(3) In the circumstances where the lead company is a large enterprise but members of the consortium are SMEs, does the answer to either questions 1 or 2 above change?

(1) Yes and BEIS would expect the consortium agreement to cover this risk and be a legal document.

(2) A Project can withdraw from the competition but the lead contractor would be liable for any infringements of the BEIS contract. The risk regarding a consortium member in terms of non-performance etc. should be covered by the consortium agreement as noted above.

(3) No

Question 20: (Page 25)

Part i: The following has been stated as a criteria that the projects should not breach: “Total spend to date within 25% (over or under) of margins determined at project outset” . Would it be possible to clarify whether this means that projects will be assessed on a cumulative spend incurred at each 6-month (stage gate) interval against the cumulative spend for the same period in the original forecast spending plan at project inception?

Part ii: Would budget change requests be considered in the above assessment?

(i) The assessment will be done on the cumulative spend.

(ii) We would expect projects to remain within the 25 percent of forecast plan unless a change request has been made and approved by BEIS.

Question 21: The online application does not allow match funding. How do we incorporate discussions around the ‘swimming pool’ analogy and engineering that are not direct requirements of the innovation? How should we answer this question? (This question relates to how to incorporate work going on outside the boundaries of Phase 2)

The boundaries for Phase 2 project and related funding should be clearly described (see 5.1.3 for details of an end-to-end solution).

The key principle of an SBRI is that 100% funding is provided to deliver the scope/requirements of the competition and as such match funding to deliver this aspect of your project is not permitted. However, if there are related activities not directly linked to delivering the objectives of this competition but you want to include them from your own perspective and don’t require BEIS funding to complete then these can be funded as you see fit.

Question 22: With regards to end date of 31 March 2025:

If the project is delayed for any reason, including factors out of our control such as supplier delay and/or planning/environmental permission delays (we have been advised there may be a 12 month waiting period from the Environment Agency and market supply issues are growing significantly), how will projects be able to proceed if construction overruns this deadline? What if construction completes, but allows only a very short testing window (say 1-3 months) before 31/3/25?

Some timing issues may only arise halfway through the Phase 2 window (construction or supplier issues etc), meaning the programme will have already invested significantly in a project that will not be able to meet the time frame.

What ramifications would there be if delayed? Would Phase 2 applicants have to return funding if projects don’t complete by 31/03/25?

The contract ends on the 31st March 2025. All deliverables should be completed and approved by this date. In addition, the pilot plant should have been running successfully as noted in the guidance document. Any potential delays must be highlighted with the monitoring officers at an early stage as a change request. The change request panel will then decide whether this is a viable request.

Question 23: With regards to costs:

Our Phase 1 FEED study has concluded with a Class 2 +/- 20% CAPEX figure. Are projects bidding with Class 2 costs estimates of £5m +/- 20% in scope, as it may result in a £6m spend? If it is in scope, are applicants required to prove they can fund the additional costs on top of BEIS funding?

What happens if due to unforeseen conditions (including ongoing market conditions with large price fluctuations) formalised commercial cost projections may have short commercial validity and/or other costs may arise. How will this increase in spend be allowable within the SBRI, especially if part of the core innovation? What happens if this happens part way through the project, will BEIS require repayment of funds if the conditions of 100% funding can’t be upheld?

Are applicants allowed to cover their own internal staffing costs and other OPEX so that the funding can be solely spent on the core technology?

The core principals of an SBRI are that this is a risk/benefit sharing arrangement. BEIS will supply funding capped at an agreed value and the project would be expected to cover any unforeseen costs (hence why no contingency is allowed).

Staff working directly on the project should be included in the OPEX.

Question 24: In the finance form, is it acceptable to omit salary & employer contribution costs and instead give an overall employer cost, as per the Phase 1 form, as well as IUK? When running projects internally, all technical resource is considered as having the same cost rate.

No it is not acceptable to omit salary & employer contribution costs.

Question 25: Is a project partner also classed as a sub-contractor (so Project Costs in Criterion 6 still apply) but a sub-contractor might not be a project partner, please could you distinguish the two terms?

A project partner is considered to be part of the consortium and therefore would have signed a consortium agreement with the lead contractor. A sub-contractor is a supplier to the project.

Question 26: What makes a sub-contractor an essential or critical sub-contractor?

Essential and critical sub-contractors are necessary for the successful completion of the pilot project.

Question 27: What is meant by subcontractor commitment? We would assume supply/purchase agreements are required no sooner than the consortium agreement with Project Partner (i.e. 1 month after contract award)?

Sub-contractor commitment can be a letter of commitment/support, purchase or supplier agreement, etc.

Question 28: Is the term ‘Contractor’ as referred to in section 4.4.3 – Stage 3 Contract Award just the Lead Contractor or the Lead Contractor along with the Project Partners i.e. the Consortium?

As stated in the terms and conditions “the “Contractor” means the person who agrees to supply the Services and includes any person to whom all or part of the Contractor’s obligations are assigned pursuant to Condition 4”

Question 29: (Page 58) – Eligible and ineligible costs implies that this is not a Fixed Price Quotation as described on p41, but a capped Cost Reimbursable contract. To explain, if the actual cost of the project exceeds that of the cap, will that extra cost fall solely to the bidder, and if the actual cost is lower than the quotation, would the client take that saving? In that in NEC terms would this be best described as a zero fee Target Cost contract with 100% gainshare to the client and 100% painshare to the contractor? If actual costs exceed those of the quotation (in total or as subdivided), will those costs be reimbursed up to the price of the quotation, or to the price cap of the Lot?

This is correct in that the contract is a capped price contract and costs are reimbursable based on actual costs up to the contract value. Anything over that is down to the applicant to cover. As noted in question 23 one of the key principles of SBRI’s is that this is a risk/benefits sharing exercise where we provide the funding and the applicant has to cover any overruns or unexpected costs.

This is not an NEC contract.

Question 30: It is common on multi-year government contracts for inflationary risks to be shared: with the bidder guaranteeing a fixed price for the first year; and after the first year the government carrying the national inflation risk via an indexing mechanism (e.g. CPI or RPI); and concurrently after the first year for the bidder to carry the risk of commodity variance above or below the index. Given the currently highly volatile energy prices and increasing inflation, will BEIS apply indexation to the maximum project cost (be that the quotation or the price cap of the Lot)?

The agreement is to pay the eligible costs incurred capped at the total value of the contract. As such any inflation elements will be covered by applicant.

Question 31: Please can you clarify if there is a residual value for materials at the end of the project net decommission cost should this be shown as a credit against costs, or excluded from the project cost calculation?

The finance form has examples of how equipment with a residual value at the end of the project should be treated for project costing purposes.

Question 32: One of the items needs to be covered in the Phase 1 final report - ‘Cost savings compared with exclusive development contracts.’ This statement is clarified in the Phase 1 Q&A document, saying ‘This is to demonstrate that the services would be cheaper than if we had procured each project individually.’ We are still not sure what should be included here for our specific project.

This question relates to the difference in the price between developing the technology (i.e. IP) for a commercial client as opposed to an SBRI contract. This should be quantitative and can be described as a percentage difference.

Question 33: (5.1.9 Page 18) How does the 100% BEIS funding condition apply if only part of the end-to-end process is in Phase 2 scope and development work will proceed in parallel with separate funding on other process stages?

Projects in Lot 1 can pilot part or parts of a GGR process or, where the applicant believes an end-to-end solution can be successfully piloted by 31st March 2025, the entire process. The boundaries for this part of the process need to be clearly stated and 100% of costs should relate to work carried out within these boundaries.

Question 34: (5.1.14 page 19) Must the Project Team Coordinator be a UK entity?

No, but the pilot project needs to be located within the UK and at least 50% of the work needs to be carried out in the UK.

Question 35: (7.1 page 24) If only part of the end-to-end process is in Phase 2 scope and development work will proceed in parallel with separate funding on other process stages, is it expected that reporting will cover the other parts of the full end-to-end process?

Projects in Lot 1 can pilot part or parts of a GGR process or, where the applicant believes an end-to-end solution can be successfully piloted by March 2025, the entire process. The boundaries for this part of the process need to be clearly stated and 100% of funding should relate to work carried out within these boundaries. Reporting will cover what is within the project boundaries.

Question 36: (7.1 page 25) Regarding “BEIS may ask for fully accessible models”, is it recognised that some models may only be “fully accessible” with appropriate software licences?

T&Cs state that accessibility must be at no cost to BEIS.

Clauses 27 (4) & (5):

(4) The Contractor hereby grants to the Authority a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence at no cost to the Authority, to use any Background Intellectual Property used in the performance of the Services, that is essential to the functioning and use of the Arising Intellectual Property.

(5) The Contractor shall procure for the Authority any worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free licence, at no cost to the Authority, from any third party, to use any Intellectual Property Rights that are essential to the functioning and use of the Arising Intellectual Property.

Question 37: (page 17, 5.1.3) “Projects in Lot 2 must have a minimum capacity of 1000 tCO2e per annum. For the avoidance of doubt, projects are required to install and operate at these minimum capacities during Phase 2”.

Is a demonstration of 1,000 tCO2e per annum by March 2025 a Phase 2 objective rather than a contractual obligation.

The Guidance document forms part of the contract for all Projects as it did in Phase 1. It is a contractual obligation to demonstrate capture of CO2 at the levels stated in the contracts of successful applicants i.e. Lot1 100tpa CO2e, Lot 2 1000 tpa CO2e

Question 38: (page 42, 9.1) What is the mechanism for drawdown of funds?

“BEIS will not make payments in advanced of need. For this project, BEIS wishes to make payments to suppliers on evidence of delivery of outputs agreed in the milestone plan and approved by the monitoring officer”.

As per Phase 1. Monitoring officers will need to approve deliverables (including supporting documentation for costs incurred) for each Milestone Payment before invoices will be paid by BEIS.

Question 39: (page 15, 4.4.3) “For Phase 2, the contract will be based on the BEIS pre-commercial procurement contract terms and conditions, which accompany this guidance” Do not believe these have been issued with the Phase 2 Guidance Note, can BEIS confirm and supply a copy of these terms?

They are linked to the Phase 2 application form. All projects were emailed this on 13th December 2021.

Question 40: (page 21, 6.2): How do you define profit for ‘project team members’ in the context of eligible costs ?

Profit is defined as any charges over and above costs incurred.

Question 41: What happens if the project is unable to proceed past a milestone due to factors outside of the project team’s control e.g. planning or permits not granted, objectors delay project construction. Are costs incurred to date still claimable?

The contract ends on the 31st March 2025. All deliverables should be completed and approved by the monitoring officer by this date. In addition, the pilot plant should have been running successfully as noted in the guidance document. Any potential delays must be highlighted with the monitoring officers at an early stage as a change request. The change request panel will then decide whether this is a viable request.

If a project is terminated due to frustration of the contract, any reasonable costs incurred will be paid.

Question 42: P22, 6.3: How will funds be available if removal of materials and/or other decommissioning activities are required to be undertaken after March 2025?

“There is no possibility of extending financial support beyond March 2025”

If decommissioning costs are included in the project application and is required for a physical asset (as noted in 6.3) to be decommissioned after March 2025, this funding will be available. However, decommissioning will need to be undertaken by a defined date in agreement with BEIS.

If the Applicant wishes to retain the demonstration plant after 31st March 2025, then the responsibility for decommissioning costs will pass to the contractor.

Question 43: (page 18, 5.1.12) “Phase 2 Pilot Projects must be completed – including all reporting requirements – by 31 March 2025 at the latest”

(page 21, 6.1): “Funding under this Competition is only available until 31 March 2025. All project activities, including reporting and payments, for Phase 2 (should you be successful) will need to be completed by this date”

Can monitoring, data gathering and decommission continue after this date, including payment?

All deliverables must be submitted and approved before the 31st March 2025 as per the milestone plan. For decommissioning see above.

After completion of the contract, and assuming that it has not been decommissioned, contractors can continue to take advantage of the pilot plant at their own cost.

Question 44: How will changes to the project team for Phase 2 be treated. For example, if the project lead were to change between partners already in the project, or if new partners were added to the project team that weren’t involved in Phase 1?

This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. BEIS recognises that during project delivery team members may change however, if the project is applying to Phase 2 with a different lead contractor, the bidding contractor will need to provide details in Section 14 of the application form including the name of the proposed new lead contractor, the reasons for the change and any potential impacts on project design/delivery. There will be additional checks through the Due Diligence process for any applications which request a change in the lead contractor. Any changes must be agreed in writing with BEIS.

Please note that applications for Phase 2 must be based on the design approved in Phase 1.

Question 45: Please could you give us an example of how we are to interpret the following guidance “For the selection of Phase 2 projects, proposals will also be assessed to determine whether the applicants have provided reasonable price reductions to reflect the risk-benefit sharing IPR conditions of the pre-commercial procurement contract for this competition. The sharing of risks and benefits is key to the pre-commercial procurement/SBRI approach and at Phase 2 applicants will be expected to offer a price reduction compared to the price applicable on the open market”

This question relates to the difference in the price between developing the technology (i.e. IP) for a commercial client as opposed to an SBRI contract. This should be quantitative and can be described as a percentage difference.

Application form and declarations

Question 46: What is the actual close date, and time, of Phase 2 applications? Is it 23:59 on 26 Jan or some other time on 27 Jan?

As stated on the application form/SmartSurvey cover page the deadline is 14:00 hrs 27th January 2022.

Question 47: Timing - Considering we are closing FEED studies, writing a Phase 1 report and a publishable report all in December (as well as holidays!), it seems a little onerous to have opened the Phase 2 competition in December. My last engagement with BEIS told me that Phase 2 would open in Jan with closing dates in Feb. This timeline is extremely demanding and challenging to meet given existing workloads. Please can the closing date be revised to mid-February?

All projects are required to have all deliverables in by the 31st December. In order to give time for these to be assessed revised if necessary and approved BEIS has offered a variation to the contract i.e. an extension to 31st January 2022.

Question 48: If one of our suppliers is completing Declaration 4 within the appendix, do they also need to complete Declarations 1-3?

Sub-contractors will need to complete part 1 & 2 of declaration 4. Please see details on page 13 Consortium Bids.

Terms and conditions

Question 49: Our understanding is that the intended effect of clause 18(2) is to make all liability for breach of contract (as well as liability in tort or for breach of statutory duty) subject to the cap in clause 18(7). So if, for instance, (Contractor) was to breach to warranty in clause 15(6) to provide the Services with all due skill, care and diligence (not, of course, that we are anticipating any such breach), (Contractor’s liability would be capped according to clause 18(7)?

Clause 18(2) states as follows:

The Contractor shall be liable to the Authority for any loss, damage, destruction, injury or expense, whether direct or indirect, (and including but not limited to loss or destruction of or damage to the Authority’s property, which includes data) arising from the Contractor’s breach of contract or duty (whether arising in negligence, tort, statute or otherwise).

Clause 18(2) is subject to the liability cap provided for in Clause 18(7) by virtue of the wording in that Clause.

Bids Except in relation to death or personal injury as referred to in Condition 18(1), and subject to Conditions 18(5) and 31(15) the amount of liability under this clause shall be limited to a sum of £4,000,000 or twice the contract value, whichever is the greater, or such other sum as may be agreed in writing between the Head of Procurement on behalf of the Authority and the Contractor.

Based on our understanding of the provision BEIS would agree that as Clause 15(6) is a contractual obligation then the cap would apply to a breach by the Contractor of that Clause 15(6).

Question 50: P44 – IP – BEIS requires an unrestricted licence, and bidders to identify the price reduction for this not being an exclusive licence, but P21 instructs that “the project costs quoted must reflect the actual costs at a ‘fair market value’”. How would BEIS like us to offer that price reduction on p44 without conflicting with the need to reflect actual cost on p21? Would a simple percentage discount on the total project cost (compiled from projected market rates) be acceptable?

This question relates to the difference in the price between developing the technology (i.e. IP) for a commercial client as opposed to an SBRI contract. This should be quantitative and can be described as a percentage difference.

Question 51: Please provide clarification on the requirements necessary to meet clause 28.7 of the standard BEIS Terms and Conditions. In particular, we would like to understand what the expected threshold for compliance on commercialisation of this technology would be, whilst acknowledging that the lead contractor are the official Contractor but the technology has been developed by a sub-contractor.

All project partners (including sub-contractors) are subject to the terms and conditions.

With respect to clause 28(7) in the T&Cs of this competition BEIS defines ‘commercial exploitation’ as any activity carried out with the aim of progressing the technology towards commercial deployment.