Guidance

Annex D: Evaluation criteria

Published 15 August 2024

Introduction

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:

1. skills development (50% weighting in overall score)
2. strategic alignment (20% weighting in overall score)
3. benefit to the UK (10% weighting in overall score)
4. management and planning (20% weighting in overall score)

1. Skills development - scoring criteria

Highest scoring (7 - 10)

• proposals will provide a comprehensive demonstration of what skills gap in spaceflight/launch skills they will they address in the UK space sector with a high and matured likelihood of successful project outcomes
• proposals will detail and schedule project deliverables with strong consideration given to project risks
• proposals will include plans and evidence to demonstrate the advancement/performance of their projects and the skills acquired through it

Moderate scoring (4 – 6)

• proposals will demonstrate a good demonstration of what skills gap in spaceflight/launch skills they will they address in the UK space sector with a high and matured likelihood of successful project outcomes
• proposals will demonstrate a good chance of success, with any weaknesses recognised alongside opportunities to address and correct
• proposals give some thought on the high-risk/high return potential of their skills proposal
• good project deliverables over the period covered by the call with some thought given to technical risks, mitigation, or impact
• some consideration of how advancement or performance of their skills development will be demonstrated

Low scoring (1 - 3)

• proposals will not demonstrate what spaceflight skills gap will they address in the UK space sector with a high and matured likelihood of successful project outcomes
• unrealistic project deliverables with little or no thought as to risks, mitigation or long-term impact

2. Strategic Alignment - scoring criteria

Considers the applicability of the skills initiative proposal to fill a spaceflight/launch skills gap in the UK supply chain or bolster existing skills capabilities, for example the extent to which the skills developed may improve the UK’s spaceflight offering and the future UK workforce. All proposals will need to demonstrate that their skills initiative has strong market potential and a clear development route through student experience to realise its full potential.

Highest scoring (7 - 10)

• 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 skills gap in the spaceflight marketplace and how their initiative will be able to address skills gaps in the UK spaceflight supply chain or bolster existing skills capabilities
• proposals will evidence a clear vision and roadmap of the skills development milestones that will be required to ensure the relevant skills gaps are addressed in the market to develop the relevant workforce needed in the space sector and enhance the UK competitive advantage

Moderate scoring (4 – 6)

• proposals will provide reliable evidence of how their proposal meets the purpose of the call
• proposals will demonstrate a good understanding of the current skills gap in the spaceflight marketplace and how their initiative will be able to address skills gap in the UK spaceflight supply chain or bolster existing skills capabilities

Low scoring (1 – 3)

• proposals will demonstrate little or no consideration to the current skills gap in the spaceflight marketplace nor to how their initiative will address the skills gaps in the UK supply chain
• there will be a disconnect between skills development and a structured route to supporting the needs of the space sector supply chain

3. Benefit to the UK

Considers why the skills-focused initiative proposed should be funded and the total additional investment and contract revenue into the UK space sector expected to be stimulated by UK Space Agency funding, potential benefits of the skills developed, who and how will benefit from the acquired skills and the skilled workforce, and the timeliness and critical stages of the project. All proposals will need to demonstrate that the investment sought from the UK government represents clear value to the UK, through measurable benefits for the UK economy and unlock additional advantages to the UK Space Sector. Also, proposals should demonstrate consideration of supporting UK-based employment and opportunities that will arise from the proposal. Proposals must outline how the investment sought from the UK government provides value to the UK and the UK economy.

In particular, please specify the new skills to be developed by the competition participants and what will be the additional long-term impact on the competition participants (for example, increased interest in STEAM subjects). It is recommended to also include information on what skills gaps in the UK spaceflight/launch sector will be addressed and what will be the long-term impact on the UK spaceflight/launch market. In addition, proposals should provide details of how the newly acquired skills will improve the participants’ employability in the next 5 years, as well as how will the participants impact the UK workforce and the UK skills provision in the next 5 years.

Highest scoring (7 – 10)

• proposals will provide evidenced and detailed evidence of the benefits that government funding would enable them to provide to the UK economy, including UK-based employment and contract opportunities and quantified where possible
• proposals include a coherent and coordinated strategy to catalyse skills development including timelines and outcomes
• the costs of any activities proposed for grant funding are clearly outlined, evidenced and strongly linked to outcomes and benefits – clearly setting out how these will be evaluated and measured as well as clearly articulating the UK-based employment and opportunities that will arise from your proposal

Moderate scoring (4 – 6)

• proposals will provide some evidence of the benefits that the initiative will deliver and how government funding of the initiative will deliver benefits to the UK economy
• proposals are costed and consider the outcomes and benefits that will be delivered through the initiative as well as how these will be evaluated
• the proposal will include direction and aims to skills development although without a robust strategy

Low scoring (1 – 3)

• proposals provide little, poor or no evidence of the benefits that the government funding would enable them to provide to the UK economy
• 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 long-term skills development

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 in order to achieve their project aims on time and within budget.

Highest scoring (7 - 10)

• proposals will demonstrate an approach to risk and programme management that is aligned with industry best practice
• an experienced team will be identified and appropriate resource identified 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 initiative 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 (4 – 6)

• 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 (1 – 3)

• 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