Industrial Capacity-Building Contributions in the Area of Spacecraft Platforms

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date:

1. Introduction

The mandate of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)'s Space Technology Development Program is to support the development, sustainment and enhancement of industrial and technological capacities in space areas of strategic importance to Canada.

Under the current economic climate, it is paramount that the Canadian space industry remains strong, healthy and relevant with the required readiness to respond to the national demands and the necessary competiveness to secure its fair share of commercial and institutional markets worldwide. Only through innovation and through continued investments in Research and Development (R&D) can Canada ensure that it has the industrial depth and breadth to remain a valued player in the international arena.

In light of the above, this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) aims to support Industrial Capacity Building related to the development of industrial capabilities which could range from developing novel concepts and /or products/services to improving industrial processes related to spacecraft platforms. It is intended to support industry's responsiveness to future market demands and its maintenance of global competitiveness.

The maximum funding for each project under this non repayable contribution is under $100,000 for a maximum 12 months.

This AO has been prepared to assist applicants through the application process and it outlines important elements including mandatory criteria for eligibility and the selection process.

In the event of any discrepancies between this AO and the individual funding agreements governing a project(s), the latter document(s) will take precedence.

2. Link to CSA Priorities

This AO focuses on the CSA's priority of building industrial capacity, meaning those projects that aim to develop new products, services and/or technical know-how, or to improve industrial processes. Industrial capacity building therefore encompasses all projects aimed at strengthening the industrial core capabilities with particular focus on developing its people, knowledge and/or competitive advantage.

3. Link to Program Objectives

This AO supports the following Space Technology Development Program (STDP) objectives and contributes to the objectives of the CSA Class Grants & Contributions (G&C) Program.

  • To support the development of technology relevant to the priorities of the CSA; and/or
  • To foster the continuing development of a critical mass of highly qualified people in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA.

4. AO Objective

The objective of this AO is as follows:

Increased/maintained technological capacity of Canadian industry (know-how, processes, and/or products).

4.1 AO Theme

Projects supported under this AO have to comply with the following technology area:

Spacecraft Platforms

The CSA's STDP would like to support the strengthening of industrial capabilities relating to the development of spacecraft platforms. The development of industrial capabilities could range from developing novel concepts and /or products/services to improving industrial processes related to spacecraft platforms. The success of future space missions depends on available platforms being highly performing, stable, adaptable, and affordable. The specific platform areas eligible under this AO are as follows:

  • Command and Data Handling System
  • Communications system and Antennas
  • Power Supply and Distribution System
  • Propulsion
  • Thermal Control
  • Attitude Determination and Control System
  • Guidance, Navigation and Control System
  • Structures and Mechanisms

There are no restrictions with respect to the size of the platform for which the technologies and related processes are being supported under this AO.

A project may consist of several activities to attain its objectives or results. Any logical breakdown or combination of these activities can constitute a funded project. However, breaking down a project into numerous activities or sub-activities to obtain more than the maximum contribution finding is not allowed for what is considered to be one project. Furthermore, even if the maximum funding for one project is not reached, the completion of a funded activity does not automatically guarantee funding of the remaining activities of the project.

5. Eligible Recipients

Eligible recipients are limited to for-profit organizations established and operating in Canada.

6. Contact Information

To obtain additional information regarding this AO, please contact:

Sid Saraf

Manager, Technology Development

Canadian Space Agency

6767, route de l'Aéroport

Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

E-mail: STDP_AO@asc-csa.gc.ca

Each question and answer related will not be responded to directly but posted on the CSA website under the Frequently Asked Questions section of this AO.

7. Selection Process

7.1 Screening Criteria

Applications must meet the screening criteria. The screening process will determine if the application:

  • Is linked to at least one of the Program Objectives (see Section 3);
  • Represents an eligible project as defined in Section 4;
  • Represents an eligible recipient as defined in Section 5;
  • Meets program funding provisions (see Section 9);
  • Includes the required documentation and declarations (see section 11); and
  • Has been completed and signed by the Duly Authorized Representative.

7.2 Evaluation Criteria

An evaluation committee will assess screened-in applications according to the following criteria: benefits to Canada, feasibility, resources, results, risks and mitigation measures. Please note the word limit to support each of the following evaluation as described in Appendix A.

1. Benefits to Canada

1.1 Strengthening or Development of Industrial Core Capabilities (word count limit: 500 words)

2. Feasibility

2.1 Clarity, Completeness and Feasibility of Project (word count limit: 2000 words)

Resources

3.1 Access to Resources (word count limit: 500 words)

4. Results

4.1 New or Improved Products, Services or Industrial Processes (word count limit: 500 words)

4.2 Development of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) (word count limit: 500 words)

4.3 Industrial Positioning (word count limit: 500 words)

5. Risk and mitigation strategies

5.1 Identification of Project Risks and Specification of Mitigation Strategies (word count limit: 500 words)

7.3 Evaluation Process

Only applications that have passed the screening criteria listed in section 7.1 will be considered further. An evaluation committee will assess each application based on evaluation criteria listed in section 7.2. Committee evaluators will be experts in the field relevant to the applications and may include representatives of other Canadian government departments and non-government agencies and organizations.

Before a final decision is made, the CSA may seek input and advice from others, including, but not limited to federal, provincial/territorial and municipal government agencies, etc.

The determination of the amount of support will take into consideration the total cost of the project as well as the other sources of funds invested by other stakeholders and the applicant.

7.4 Notification and Announcement

Applicants will be notified in writing regarding the decisions related to their application. Successful applications will be announced and posted on the CSA website.

8. Service Standards

CSA has set service standards for the timely delivery of the acknowledgement of receipt, funding decision and payment processes.

Acknowledgement: CSA goal is to acknowledge receipt of proposals within 5 business days of receiving a completed application package.

Decision: CSA goal is to send for signature agreements for compliant and selected proposals under this AO within 8 to 10 weeks after the AO closing date.

Payment:

The CSA goal is to issue payments within 6 weeks of the successful fulfillment of requirements outlined in the contribution agreement.

The achievement of these service standards is a shared responsibility. The applicant must submit all required documentation in a timely fashion. Service standards may vary by Announcement of Opportunity.

9. Funding

The maximum funding per contribution agreement to an eligible recipient is under $100,000 over a maximum of 12 months. The total funding available under this AO is approximately $1.0 million.

The overall number of contributions awarded and their level will depend on the availability of funds.

CSA will be provided the minimum level of funding required to secure the agreed upon project in support of overall project objectives.

Approved proposal will be eligible for total government (federal, provincial/ territorial and municipal) assistance of up to 75% of total project costs.

Recipients are required to identify all sources of funding in their application and to confirm this information in a funding agreement if the project is selected for funding. In addition, upon completion of the project, the applicant will be required to disclose all sources of funding.

10. Eligible Costs

Eligible costs are direct expenses associated with the delivery of the approved project that is required to achieve the results to which it relates. Expenses will be covered subject to the applicant signing a funding agreement, in the form of a contribution, with the CSA.

Costs will include one or a combination of the following categories:

  • acquisition or rental of equipment;
  • consultants services;
  • data acquisition;
  • laboratory analyses services;
  • material and supplies;
  • overhead (administrative) costs (not to exceed 15%);
  • PST, HST and GST net of any rebate to which the recipient is entitled to and the reimbursement of any taxes for goods and services acquired in a foreign country net of any rebate or reimbursement received in the foreign country;
  • salaries and benefits; and
  • travel.

11. Applications

11.1 Application Requirements

Supporting material required will include, but not be limited to, the following: a detailed description of a project; demonstrating that the evaluation criteria and that the program objectives are met; funding requested under the Program; an implementation schedule; an itemized, balanced budget for a project, indicating projected expenditures, cash flow requirements, and confirmed and potential revenues and other sources of funds; and the names, titles and telephone numbers of persons responsible for managing a project.

11.2 Application Content and Forms

The Application must include the following:

  • A completed typed original application form (Word Document - 172 KB) signed by the Duly Authorized Representative;
  • An electronic copy of the application (identical to the signed paper copy) on a standard electronic media (USB flash drive, CD or DVD), in case of discrepancy, the hardcopy will take precedence;
  • A copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the Applicant;
  • Letters from other funding contributors confirming their contributions (if applicable);
  • Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information and Privacy Act form signed by the Duly Authorized Representative
  • For organizations in Québec, if applicable, M-30 Supporting documentation form completed and signed by the Duly Authorized Representative.

Applications must be post-mailed to the CSA before noon (12:00), October 22, 2012 at the following address to the attention of:

Sid Saraf

Manager, Technology Development,

Canadian Space Agency.

6767, route de l'Aéroport

Saint-Hubert (Québec) J3Y 8Y9

Note: Applications sent by e-mail will not be accepted.

Incomplete applications will not be considered.

It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application complies with all relevant federal, provincial/territorial and municipal laws.

12. Privacy Notice Statement

The CSA will comply with federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act vis-à-vis applications received under this Component. By submitting your personal information, you are consenting to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the following Privacy Notice Statement which explains how Applicant's information will be managed.

Necessary measures have been taken to protect the confidentiality of the information provided by the Applicant. This information is collected under the authority of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution Program to support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology - Research Component, and will be used for the evaluation and selection of proposals. Personal information (such as contact information, biographical information, etc.) included in the rejected proposals will be stored in a Personal Information CSA Bank for 5 years and then destroyed (Personal Information Bank to be registered with Treasury Board Secretariat soon). Personal information included in the successful proposals will be retained along with the results of their proposals for historical purposes. These data are protected under the Privacy Act. According to the Privacy Act, the data linked to one individual and included in the proposal being evaluated can be accessed by the specific concerned individual who has rights with respect to this information. This individual may, upon request, (1) be given access to his/her data and (2) have incorrect information corrected or have a notation attached.

Applicants should note that for all agreements over $25,000, information related to the funding agreement (amount, grant or contribution, name of the recipient and project location) through this Component and the purpose of the funding will be made available to the public on the CSA website.

If you need additional information on privacy matter before sending your proposal, contact Danielle Bourgie, Coordinator, Access to Information and Privacy, at the Canadian Space Agency.

Telephone : 450-926-4866

E-mail :Danielle.Bourgie@asc-csa.gc.ca

13. Funding Agreement

13.1 Payments

The CSA and the successful Applicants (hereinafter referred to as the Recipients) will sign a funding agreement. This represents a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project.

Payments for contribution agreements (including advance payments) will be made in accordance with the process and the reporting requirements described in the signed funding agreement. Upon notice of a successful application, the CSA will have no liability until a funding agreement is signed by both parties. Only eligible costs incurred after the funding agreement is signed and indicated in the agreement will be paid and/or reimbursed.

13.2 Conflict of Interest

In the funding agreement, the Recipient will certify that any former public office holder or public servant it employs complies with the provisions of the relevant Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Former Public Office Holders and the Value and Ethics Code for Public Servants respectively.

13.3 Intellectual Property

All Intellectual Property that arises in the course of the project shall vest in the recipient.

When applicable, the funding agreement will include a provision granting to CSA a non-exclusive, irrevocable, world-wide, free and royalty-free licence in perpetuity to use or sub-licence the use of any such Intellectual Property contained in recipient reports for non-commercial governmental purposes.

13.4 Organizations in Quebec

An organization in Quebec whose operations are partially or fully funded by the province of Quebec may be subject to An Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif, L.R.Q., chapter M-30.

Under sections 3.11 and 3.12 of An Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif, L.R.Q., chapter M-30 (hereinafter referred to as Act) certain entities / organizations, as defined in the meaning of the Act, such municipal bodies, school bodies, or public agencies, must obtain an authorization by the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes du Québec (SAIC), as indicated by the Act, before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada, its departments or agencies, or a federal public agency.

Consequently, any entity that is subject to the Act is responsible for obtaining such authorization before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada.

Applicants from Quebec must, if applicable, complete, sign and include the M-30 Supporting Documentation Form with their application.

14. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The following list compiles all the questions and answers received and forwarded by the CSA since the opening of this AO. This list is given for information purposes only; always refer to the AO to obtain the information on which all the proposals received will be evaluated by the CSA.

Please note that all enquiries about this AO must be addressed to the contact person identified in the AO.

Question

Does the term spacecraft platform include space robotic arms? Or are you specifically referring to satellite bus components only. Specifically, would a proposal related to an improved space robotic force moment sensor be eligible?

Answer

The term spacecraft platform does not include space robotic arms. We are specifically referring to satellite bus components only. A proposal related to improved space robotic force moment sensor is not eligible.

Question

As stated in Section 4.1 of the Announcement of Opportunity on "Industrial Capacity-Building Contributions in the Area of Spacecraft Platforms", this STDP aims at strengthening the industrial capabilities relating to the development of spacecraft platforms. It is understood that "spacecraft" refers to a "vehicle, vessel or machine designed to fly in space". However, given Canada's past achievements in the development of planetary rovers, could the definition of "spacecraft platform" be generalized, in the particular context of this RFP, to include planetary rovers as well?

Answer

In the context of this Announcement of Opportunity, the definition of "spacecraft platform" cannot be generalized to include planetary rovers.

Question

In section 11.2 of the Announcement of Opportunity (AO) it says "Applications must be post-mailed to CSA before noon (12:00), October 22, 2012 at..."

Does this mean that:

  • the application must be received by the post office before the stated time and date (i.e. the proof of mailing should bear the date/time stamp prior to 12:00 noon on October 22)? Or
  • it has to reach CSA before 12:00 noon, October 22 by mail (Canada Post)? Or
  • Can this application be couriered / delivered to the address indicated before the stated date/time?

Answer

The application has to reach CSA before 12:00 noon, October 22, 2012. The application can be mailed/couriered/delivered to the address indicated any time before 12:00 (noon), October 22, 2012.

Question

I noticed that when I printed the AO on September 26th, in section 7.1, the second bullet was missing a 'section number', which has been since updated.

  • Have there been any more modifications to the AO documents/forms since then?
  • Will we be notified of any further amendments/and how?

Answer

  • No, there have been no modifications to the AO documents/forms since then, to date.
  • No significant changes are expected. Please review the AO FAQ section to see if a significant change has been made to the AO.

Question

We have government approved daily rates. Can we use these rates?

Answer

Yes

Question

Notwithstanding the posted answer in section 14 of the AO regarding a clarification question differentiating between a spacecraft and a robotic manipulator system, could CSA please confirm whether the AO recognizes platform technologies for planetary exploration such as exploration probes, landers or even rovers as eligible for this call or whether the AO exclusively targets orbital spacecraft platforms only, i.e. satellites, microsatellites and nanosatellites?

Answer

Platform technologies for planetary exploration such as exploration probes, landers, or even rovers are not eligible for this AO. The AO exclusively targets orbital spacecraft platforms.

Question

Can topics from with the Guidance, Navigation and Control System area of the Spacecraft Platform AO include technologies related to spacecraft formation flight or spacecraft rendezvous?

Answer

Yes, topics from within the Guidance, Navigation, and Control System area of the Spacecraft Platform AO includes technologies related to spacecraft formation flight or spacecraft rendezvous.

Question

Would supporting technology, e.g. development of a spacecraft equipment test bed, also be considered as an eligible project?

Answer

Supporting technology (e.g. development of a spacecraft equipment test bed) is not considered an eligible project.

Eligible projects will be the ones where know-how in at least one of the areas listed in section 4.1 of the AO is increased. In this respect, the CSA makes no distinction between design, development or manufacturing of products vs. development of analytical, verification or simulation models in these areas. However, for the latter, CSA will not support projects pertaining to the development or purchase of simulation infrastructure or other spacecraft test equipment that are currently available commercially, as in these cases, the developed know-how is diverted from the listed areas.

Question

Would creation of a simulation-based test environment for development and verification of ADCS, GNC, and C&DH be considered eligible under this AO? Our understanding is that such undertaking would significantly improve industrial processes related to development, integration and operations of S/C platforms.

Answer

Eligible projects will be the ones where know-how in at least one of the areas listed in section 4.1 of the AO is increased. In this respect, the CSA makes no distinction between design, development or manufacturing of products vs. development of analytical, verification or simulation models in these areas. However, for the latter, CSA will not support projects pertaining to the development or purchase of simulation infrastructure or other spacecraft test equipment that are currently available commercially, as in these cases, the developed know-how is diverted from the listed areas.

Question

Unfortunately, it took time to build a consortium and secure the participation of relevant HQP with the synergetic capabilities required to reach our objectives for this ITT. For this reason, we would like to request a two-week extension, bringing the due date of the proposal to November 5th instead of October 22nd, 2012.

Answer

No, the due date can not be extended and remains October 22nd, 2012.

Question

With regard to the direction for bid submissions contained in the subject document: "Applications must be post-mailed to the CSA before noon (12:00), October 22, 2012 at the following address: ...", could you please confirm that the direction provided above means that our response should be mailed via Canada Post to the CSA address in the document before noon (12:00), October 22, 2012.

Answer

The application has to reach CSA before 12:00 noon, October 22, 2012. The application can be mailed/couriered/delivered to the address indicated before 12:00 (noon), October 22, 2012.

Question

Please confirm it is allowable for hand delivery of our response to the bid receiving area at the CSA facility Monday October 22nd prior to noon.

Answer

Yes

Question

Please confirm that if key resources' resumes are added to our response as an Annex, they will not be considered in the "word count limitation" but are added for information purposes only.

Answer

Resumes will not be considered in the word count limitation if provided as an Annex.

Question

Can we deliver the proposals on Sunday (Oct. 21) preceding the deadline; is there someone to receive it at the CSA (or else a drop-box)? It would be very helpful for us if that was possible. If this is the case, please give us directions on how, where, and when.

Answer

No. There is no one to receive hand delivered proposals during the weekends. Hand delivered proposals will only be accepted during business hours and before noon (12:00), October 22, 2012.

Question

In Section 9 of the Announcement of Opportunity on "Industrial Capacity-Building Contributions in the Area of Spacecraft Platforms" the following is stated: "Approved proposal will be eligible for total government (federal, provincial/ territorial and municipal) assistance of up to 75% of total project costs."

Could you please clarify this statement? Does it entail that 25% of the project must be funded by other sources than CSA (e.g. the bidder shall contribute 25% of the project cost)? Or, does it mean that the project may be funded by government sources other than CSA up to 75% of the total project cost (e.g. CSA 25%, other sources: 75% for a total of $400,000)? Or, does this statement mean something else, in which case, may you please clarify?

Answer

At least 25% of the project must be funded by other sources than the government (i.e. the bidder shall contribute at least 25% of the total project cost). The maximum funding per contribution agreement to an eligible recipient, by the CSA, is under $100,000 over a maximum of 12 months.

Question

Should applicants submit their financial statements in a separate and sealed envelope only to be opened by the authorized persons?

Answer

The CSA is required to comply with federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act and all related policies for the protection of property and information of federal government in relation to applications received, including the financial statements. The financial statements are confidential and protected documents under these two Acts. Only authorized persons have access to these documents. Applicants may, if they wish, submit their financial statements in a separate and sealed envelope. However, the envelope must be sent with the application, otherwise it could be considered incomplete.

Appendix A - Evaluation Grid Form

Scoring and weights: Each evaluation criterion below will be rated on a letter scale from A to D, with D being the highest rating. A numerical weight is associated with each letter defined as follows

A = 0 %

B = 40 %

C = 70 %

D = 100 %

1. Benefits to Canada

Benefits to Canada criterion score

Max. 10

1.1 Strengthening or Development of Industrial Core Capabilities (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 500 words)

This criterion evaluates the potential of increasing industrial capabilities in the field of spacecraft platforms through the advancement of knowledge (know-how) or improvement of the state-of-the-art. It also assesses how the proposed project will contribute to enhancing Canadian industry's ability to meet national space needs and its ability to be competitive in the global market. This readiness and competitiveness is reflected in the breadth and depth of the technological domains in which the Canadian industry is active.

  • Will the proposed work lead to the creation of new or enhanced Canadian industrial capabilities?
  • How will these new or improved capabilities enable the applicant to respond to national space needs (industry's readiness) as well as compete in the global market (industry's competitiveness)?

Poor. The proposal does not substantiate a valuable enhancement of Canadian industry's capabilities in the area of spacecraft platforms that would enable the applicant to respond to space needs or compete in the global market.

Average. The proposal provides a limited and/or vague description of the benefits to be gained by the Canadian industry or the proposed project only somewhat enhances Canadian industry's capabilities in the area of spacecraft platforms that would enable the applicant to respond to space needs or compete in the global market.

Good. Good. The proposed project enhances Canadian industry's capabilities in the area of spacecraft platforms that would enable the applicant to respond to national space needs as well as compete in the global market. The proposal clearly defines the benefits, but these remain somewhat limited from the standpoint of increasing the breadth and/or depth of the Canadian space industry.

Excellent. The proposed project will significantly enhance Canadian industry's capabilities in the area of spacecraft platforms that would enable the applicant to respond to national space needs as well as compete in the global market. It will clearly increase the breadth and/or depth of the Canadian space industry capabilities as a whole.

2. Feasibility of the project

Feasibility of the project criterion score

Max. 10

2.1 Clarity, Completeness and Feasibility of Project (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 2000 words)

This criterion evaluates the clarity, completeness and feasibility of the proposed project plans. It also evaluates the likelihood that the work will be completed on schedule and within budget.

  • Are the project objectives and methodology clearly described and understandable?
  • Does the methodology seem realistic, efficient and well-suited to the project objectives?
  • Given the proposed work plan, is the timeline realistic in meeting the objectives?

Poor. The work plan is poorly defined and/or there is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methods or schedule.

Average. The work plan is somewhat defined but lacks details. Doubts remain regarding the work being completed on schedule or the proposed methodology achieving the set objectives.

Good. The work plan is well defined. The proposed methodology seems adequately suited for the work to be carried out. The management plan is reasonable but lacks some specifics. The expectation that the defined work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule is credible.

Excellent. The defined work plan is fully clear and complete. The methodology described is logical and well suited for the work to be carried out. A well thought out management plan is in evidence (e.g., detailed work breakdown, scheduled milestones, time allocations for team members, etc). The likelihood that the defined work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule is very high.

3. Resources

Resources criterion score

Max. 10

3.1 Access to Resources (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criteria to 500 words)

This criterion evaluates the applicant's ability to gain access to the required personnel, facilities, equipment or services pertinent to the proposed project. It also, where applicable, assesses the nature and extent of financial and/or in-kind contributions confirmed by all parties.

  • Is the proposed team composed of an acceptable and realistic mix of expertise required to undertake the proposed project?
  • What are the required resources (personnel, facilities, laboratories, field sites, specialized equipment, etc.) and does the applicant have access to them?
  • Does the project include financial and/or in-kind contribution? By whom? At which level?
  • If applicable, have contributing organizations confirmed in writing their funding or in-kind contribution?

Poor. The proposal does not include all adequate resources required. There are also no leveraged funds or in-kind contributions from the applicants or other organizations.

Average. The proposal identifies all required resources, but it is unclear as to the role and/or benefit of each resource. Funds may come from an organization other than the CSA but have yet to be confirmed. A budget is provided along with a basic justification for projected expenses, but lacks some details and clarity.

Good. The proposal identifies all required resources. The project benefits from leveraged funds and in-kind contribution(s). Funds to be provided by other organizations have been confirmed. The provided budget seems reasonable.

Excellent. The proposal identifies all required resources and clearly specifies the relevance and importance of each resource to the project. Confirmed funds and/or in-kind contribution(s) leveraged from external organization(s) are significant and essential for the success of the project. The provided budget is detailed and justified.

4. Results

Results criterion score

4.1 New or Improved Products, Services or Industrial Processes (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criteria to 500 words)

Max. 10

This criterion evaluates the originality of the proposed project and assesses if and how the new or improved products and services will lead to improved performance over current state-of-the-art and market opportunities. In the case of industrial processes, it evaluates how the new or improved processes will contribute to more efficient operations, increased production capability and/or cost reduction for the applicant. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

  • Does the proposed project have the potential to lead to long-term advances in the field of spacecraft platforms?
  • Do the new product and/or service have the potential of creating or expanding market opportunities?
  • Does the new process(es) have the potential to lead to more efficient operations, increased production capability and /or cost reduction?
  • How novel are the current stated objectives of the proposed project and to what degree will they build on previous work and impact our overall knowledge of spacecraft platforms?

Poor. The project is not expected to lead to any significant long-term technological advances, and/or is a near complete reapplication of previous work. The project lacks novel concepts and will not contribute to the advancement of new knowledge.

Average. The project could advance knowledge in the field of spacecraft platforms. However, the work is largely a derivative of previous work. The proposal does not demonstrate how the expected results could benefit operational efficiency, increased production capability, cost reduction, or future space missions.

Good. The project stands to advance knowledge in the field of spacecraft platforms. The proposed project somewhat involves novel or original concepts or methods, and/or builds on previous work. The proposal demonstrates, although somewhat unclear or vague, benefits which the expected results could have with respect to operational efficiency, increased production capability, cost reduction, or future space missions.

Excellent. The project will clearly advance knowledge in the field of spacecraft platforms and can realistically lead to broad, long-term impact in terms of improved performance and market opportunities. The proposed project is distinguished by highly novel or original scientific or technical concepts or methods, and/or builds significantly on previous work. The proposal strongly and clearly demonstrates how the new ideas to be developed have a strong chance of leading to benefits to operational efficiency, increased production capability, cost reduction, or future space missions.

4.2 Development of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criteria to 500 words)

Max. 10

This criterion evaluates the new skills and know-how that the applicant's team members will acquire through their involvement. This criterion seeks answers to the following

  • How many HQP are expected to be developed by contributing directly to the project?
  • How important is each HQP contribution to the success of the project
  • What specific skills and know-how are expected to be gained?

Poor. No HQP are identified as being included in the proposal or the skills and know-how to be gained by the identified HQP is not specified.

Average. The proposed project involves at least one HQP but the level of involvement and/or the importance of that involvement of each participating HQP are not adequately described.

Good. The proposed project involves at least two HQP but either the level of involvement by each HQP, or the importance of their involvement to the project success, or the specific benefits to be gained by each HQP involved is not described.

Excellent. The project involves more than two HQP, out of which one or more are Post-doctoral Fellows and/or research associates. There is a detailed description of how each HQP will benefit from participating and a convincing argument as to why their respective participation is essential to the success of the project.

4.3 Industrial positioning

Max. 10

This criterion assesses the superiority, merit and capacity of the proposed project (for product, service, or process development/improvement) to positively affect the company's competitive advantage and overall market share. It is recognized that an improvement in the company's overall market share can be achieved through creating a new market, penetrating for the first time an existing one and/or increasing one's position in an already accessed market.

Poor. The proposed project is likely to offer some business opportunities.

Average. The proposed project is likely to improve the company's competitive advantage and overall market share.

Good. The proposed project will establish technical expertise and/or superiority in Canada, which will improve the company's competitive advantage and overall market share. The marked interest of partners/clients is shown and their requirements are known.

Excellent. The proposed project will establish a world-class level of technical expertise and/or superiority, which will substantially improve the company's competitive advantage and overall market share. The formally expressed interest of clients (i.e.: Letters of Intent, MOUs, MOAs, etc.) is indicative of potentially significant sales and the clients' requirements have already been provided.

5. Risk and mitigation strategies

Risk and mitigation strategies criterion score

Max. 10

5.1 Identification of Project Risks and Specification of Mitigation Strategies (please limit the section of the proposal pertaining to this criteria to 500 words)

This criterion evaluates key risks associated with the project and the mitigation strategies for each risk. It includes a thorough analysis of the project's financial, managerial and technical risks and seeks to answer the following:

  • Does the proposal describe in details the potential risks associated with this project?
  • Is a detailed and realistic schedule provided?
  • Are the mitigation strategies for each risk correctly addressed and realistic?
  • What is the probability that such risks would occur?

Poor. The proposal does not identify key risks and their associated mitigation strategies, or some risks are identified but related mitigations strategies are missing.

Average. Either some key risks are missing or their mitigation strategies are/or risk evaluation occurrence probability are deemed unrealistic or incomplete.

Good. Key financial, managerial and technical risks and their mitigation strategies are identified, but there are either a few details missing with the risk mitigation strategies or with the risk evaluation occurrence probability presented.

Excellent. All financial, managerial and technical risks and their identified mitigation strategies are relevant and clearly described. The risk evaluation occurrence probability is deemed realistic.

Evaluation score

Total Max. 70