International Planetary Exploration Missions Co-Investigator

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date: September 27, 2013

Application deadline: November 15, 2013

1. Introduction

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) would like to advance scientific knowledge of the Solar System and the Universe through enhancing the participation of approved Co-Investigators on international planetary exploration missions.

A Co-Investigator (Co-I) is a member of the mission team who is critical for the conduct of the mission by contributing unique expertise and/or capabilities needed for its successful completion. A Co-I must have a well-defined role in the mission investigation, and serve under the direction of a mission or instrument Principal Investigator (PI). Typical planetary mission Co-I responsibilities may include a role in instrument calibration, data product generation, science requirements validation, science model development, strategic science planning or science operations planning. In return for their commitment to these roles, Co-Is also participate in science analysis activities within the science team as agreed with the mission/instrument PI and according to mission "rules of the road" which define authorship of mission publications and data-sharing.

This opportunity is uniquely available to approved Co-Is of missions at Canadian institutions where the mission does not have an existing CSA agreement for science team support. A list of eligible missions and projects is provided in Section 3.2.

In addition, this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is consistent with the terms and conditions of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution Program to the support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component.

Please read the following AO thoroughly before submitting your application. It 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. AO Objectives

The objective of this AO is to support Co-I activities and investigations related to missions in planetary science.

CSA current priorities for planetary missions to be addressed by this AO are described in Section 3.

The key results for CSA expected from selected proposals are

  • increased output of scientific knowledge associated with Canada's participation in international planetary exploration missions.
  • increased supply of scientists with PhDs in Canada who also have experience in space mission science operations activities and data analysis.

This solicitation is anticipated to be repeated in future years with an updated list of Eligible Projects.

3. Eligibility Criteria

3.1 Eligible Recipients

For this AO, only Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions are eligible.

In addition, the PI of the grant must be an approved Co-I of an eligible mission. A letter from the Mission or Instrument PI, or from the relevant international Space Agency, is required as demonstration of this status. The letter must identify the mission and science investigation as appropriate, and include confirmation of mission Co-I status and summary of the role and responsibilities.

Due to the nature of this AO, proposals from teams will not be accepted unless each faculty member is endorsed by name in the letter demonstrating Co-I status. The involvement of graduate students supporting a PI in the proposed research activities and science operations is actively encouraged. Students do not need to be named in the letter demonstrating Co-I status, but it is the Applicant's responsibility to ensure that work conducted as a result of this funding complies with relevant mission agreements such as Rules of the Road for data sharing.

International collaboration is also actively encouraged and is expected to be conducted through no exchange of funds, except as stated in Section 6.2.

3.2 Eligible Projects

To be eligible for CSA funding, Projects must:

  1. Be associated with an international planetary exploration mission that has been selected by its lead agency (i.e. beyond conceptual development) and for which CSA does not have an existing agreement for science team participation,
  2. Have planetary science knowledge objectives that are aligned with CSA Exploration Priorities, Goals and Objectives, and,
  3. Comply with the definition of a Project below.

Priority missions for the purpose of this AO are:

The relevant CSA Space Exploration goal is to 'Gain knowledge about the solar system and the Universe', particularly:

  • The origin and evolution of the solar system: Identify the characteristics of the asteroids and comets that form the building blocks of the solar system, and discover the evolutionary history of the planets, their moons, and their atmospheres.
  • Habitability and life detection: Determine if life is, or ever was, present beyond Earth, focusing on astrobiological investigations of environments that support (or supported) life; find exoplanets and characterize their atmosphere.

Detail on current Canadian planetary science objectives can be found in the document 'Canadian Scientific Priorities for the Global Exploration Strategy'.

For the purpose of this AO, Projects are defined as a scientific investigation using mission data and for which a Co-I role is necessary in order to influence instrument development or science operations planning and decision making, and through which an advance in scientific knowledge can be expected through the production of peer-reviewed scientific publications. The investigation may be based on data analysis, laboratory experiments and instruments, theory, modelling, simulation, and/or analogue activities and field instruments. In addition, financial support may be included for relevant Co-I mission activities, including but not limited to, the following:

  • Calibration and characterisation of mission instrument(s)
  • Data product development
  • Development of research tools for data analysis
  • Development of tools to enable public participation in the mission
  • Science operations and training

For activities that will take place during the mission development phase, please ensure that research activities are written in such a way as to continue meaningfully in the event of a launch delay.

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 grant or contribution funding 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.

For a list of eligible costs, see Section 6.2.

3.3 Links To CSA Priorities

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to at least one of the objectives and investigations outlined in 'Canadian Scientific Priorities for the Global Exploration Strategy'

3.4 Links To G&C Program Objectives

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to the achievement of the following objective:

  • To support the development of science and technology relevant to the priorities of the CSA;

4. Applications

4.1 Required Documentation

Applicants must submit a completed Application as described below.

The Application must include the following:

  • A completed typed original application form (PDF (272 kilobytes) or Word (172 kilobytes) templates) signed by the Duly Authorized Representative;
  • Three (3) hard copies of the application;
  • A copy of the application (identical to the signed paper copy) on a standard electronic media (USB flash drive, CD or DVD);
  • Letters from other funding contributors confirming their contributions (if applicable);
  • Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information Act and Privacy Act form signed by the Duly Authorized Representative; and
  • For organizations in Québec, M-30 Supporting documentation form PDF Document - 114 Kilobytes (KB) completed and signed by the Duly Authorized Representative.
  • Letter of support from Mission or Instrument PI confirming status of the Applicant as an approved project Co-I.

Any missing supporting document or any incoherence between the requested documents and the information provided within the documents may lead to the rejection of the proposal on that sole basis.

Due to the nature of this AO, proposals from teams will not be accepted unless each faculty member is endorsed by name in the letter demonstrating Science Team Member status.

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

Applications must be mailed to the CSA at the following address:

Planetary Missions: Co-Investigator: Announcement of Opportunity
c/o Diane Roy
Exploration Strategic Planning, Space Exploration Development
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert
, Quebec
J3Y 8Y9

  • Proposals must be received at CSA no later than 5:00 p.m. EST, Friday, November 15, 2013.
  • Applications sent by e-mail will not be accepted.
  • Incomplete applications will not be considered.

The questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA's website in the "9.0 Frequently Asked Questions" of this AO. The CSA will respond to questions received before 5:00 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, October 23, 2013.

4.2 Service Standards – Complete Applications

Applicants will be notified in writing of decisions regarding their application. Applications that have been selected will be announced on the CSA website under this AO.

The CSA has set service standards related to delays in processing requests, the acknowledgement of receipt, funding decision and payment processes.

Acknowledgement: The CSA's goal is to acknowledge receipt of proposals within 2 weeks of receiving a completed application package.

Decision: The CSA's goal is to respond to the proposal within 16 weeks of receiving a completed application package or closing date of the AO and, to send for signature a grant/contribution agreement, within 12 weeks after formal approval of the proposal.

Payment: The CSA's goal is to issue payments within 4 weeks of the successful fulfillment of requirements outlined in the grant agreement or on May 15, 2014, whichever is later.

Compliance with these service standards is a shared responsibility. The applicant must submit all required documentation in a timely fashion. Service standards may vary by AO.

5. Evaluation

5.1 Screening Criteria

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

5.2 Evaluation Process

Only applications that have passed the screening criteria listed in Section 5.1 will be considered further. Once the initial screening completed, an evaluation committee will assess screened-in applications according to criteria described in Section 5.3.

The evaluation committee will be multidisciplinary with expertise in the fields relevant to the applications, and may include members from academia, Canadian and international government and non-governmental organisations. A minimum of three evaluators will assess each proposal. The evaluation committee will ensure a uniform final score and provide a ranking of proposals.

The evaluation will result in applications being categorized as Pass or Fail with minimum total score and score per criteria as described in Appendix A.

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

The determination of the amount of support will take into consideration availability of CSA funds, the total cost of the project as well as the other confirmed sources of funds invested by other stakeholders and the Applicant.

5.3 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation committee will assess screened-in applications according to the following criteria. These are further described in Appendix A.

Benefits to Canada:

  • Relevance of research investigation and Co-I role to mission objectives
  • Advancement of knowledge relevant to the CSA Exploration Program.

Results:

  • Publication and science dissemination plan
  • Enhancement of pool of space experts

Resources:

  • Budget and other funding sources

Feasibility:

  • Methodology
  • Research plan and schedule

Risk and mitigation strategies:

  • Project risks (financial, managerial, scientific and/or technical) and mitigation strategies

6. Funding

6.1 Available Funding

The maximum grant funding per Project available through this AO is $50,000 in Canadian dollars per year over 3 years.

During the second year, the CSA may consider renewing the grant for a period to be determined upon the following condition:

  1. Recipients send a notice to the CSA requesting an extension at the latest six months before term accompanied by proper justification as may be determined by the CSA.

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

The CSA reserves the right not to accept any proposals or to reduce the amount of the grants at its entire discretion.

Approved proposal will be eligible for total government (federal, provincial/ territorial and municipal) assistance of up to 100% 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 a project, the applicant will be required to disclose all sources of funding. To determine the amount of financial support it will offer, the CSA will consider the total project cost and funding from other stakeholders and the applicant.

The applicant should plan for a nominal award start on or soon after May 15, 2014.

6.2 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 grant, with the CSA.

The eligible costs for grants under this AO are the following:

  • access fees;
  • accommodation and meals allowances;
  • acquisition, development and printing of materials;
  • acquisition or rental of equipment;
  • aircraft and watercraft charter services;
  • consultants services;
  • cost for carrying out environmental screening and/or impact studies;
  • costs related to obtaining security clearance;
  • data acquisition;
  • data management;
  • laboratory analyses services;
  • licenses and permits fees;
  • material and supplies;
  • overhead (administrative) costs (not to exceed 20% of eligible costs for universities and 15% for other eligible recipients);
  • participation fees at conferences, committees and events;
  • 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;
  • publication and communication services;
  • registration fees;
  • salaries and benefits;
  • training;
  • translation services; and
  • travel.

Laboratory or field instrumentation is an eligible cost under the category equipment purchase or rental.

Up to $5000 over the term of the grant may be used for travel to Canada of an international collaborator for the purpose of the proposed work.

7. Funding Agreements

7.1 Payments

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

For grant agreements, payments will be made in a lump sum or in instalments as described in the signed agreement. Grant funding agreements will include a clause stipulating the obligation for the recipients to confirm, once a year in the case of multi-year agreements, their eligibility to this Program Component and to inform the CSA in writing of any changes to the conditions used in determining their entitlement and eligibility to this Component.

7.2 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.

7.3 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.

7.4 Organisations in Québec

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 complete, sign and include the M-30 Supporting Documentation Form PDF Document - 114 Kilobytes (KB) with their application.

7.5 Performance Measurement

The CSA will ask the recipients to report on certain elements of projects such as:

In Knowledge

  • Knowledge Production (including publications)
  • Presentations
  • Intellectual Property (including patents)

In Capacity

  • Project's Research Team (including Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) supported)

In Collaboration

  • Partners contributions
  • Partnerships
  • Multidisciplinarity

As a courtesy, the CSA would like to receive a copy of publications arising from the work, and to be informed in advance of significant press releases or media interest resulting from the work.

8. Privacy Notice Statement

The CSA will comply with federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act with respect to 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 File no ASC PPU045). 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 Act and Privacy, at the CSA.

Telephone: 450-926-4866
Email: danielle.bourgie@asc-csa.gc.ca

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

At any point of the process, you are invited to share with us your comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the AO, the program or the process. You can use the anonymous Web-Based Comments and Suggestions Box.

The questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website. The CSA will respond to questions received before 5:00 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, October 23, 2013.

Appendix A Evaluation Grid Form

Scoring and weights

Each criterion will be rated on a letter scale from A to D with A being the highest score. A numerical weight is associated with each letter.

There is an overall minimum score of 60 to pass, as well an individual minimum requirements on all criteria individually. The Applicant is advised to read Evaluation Criteria carefully when preparing the proposal.

1. Benefits to Canada

Benefits to Canada criterion score

Max. 30
Min. 20

1.1. Relevance of research investigation and Co-I role to mission objectives

This element evaluates the relationship between the proposed research objectives and Co-I role and associated mission objectives, and asks the question, "If the research objectives are achieved, how significant a contribution is this to mission objectives?" The intent is to prioritize research that requires membership of the mission science team, and that will have most impact through direct alignment with mission objectives. This criterion does not address the feasibility of achieving research objectives which is addressed under Feasibility criteria.

Poor: The proposed research objectives are weakly related to the associated mission objectives and/or are weakly-defined so that likely advances are difficult to assess, and/or do not require membership Co-I role to advance. (Score: D=4)

Average: The proposed research objectives are reasonably well defined and are related to one or more of the associated mission objectives. Planned results would advance knowledge relevant to the mission objective(s). There is a clear relationship between the Co-I role and responsibilities and proposed research investigation. (Score: C=8)

Good: The proposed research objectives are well-defined, with a clear relationship to one or more of the associated mission objectives, and are in line with the Co-I's role and responsibilities which are important to the mission. Planned results would advance knowledge relevant to the central theme(s) of the approved mission objective(s). (Score: B=12)

Excellent. The proposed research objectives are well-defined, and present evidence of a well-thought out strategy to address the central themes of one or more of the associated mission objectives, in line with the Co-I's role and responsibilities which are essential to the mission. Planned results would advance knowledge relevant to the central theme(s) of the approved mission objective(s) significantly, with a high probability of providing a definitive answer to the inherent questions. (Score: A=15)

1.2. Advancement of knowledge relevant to the CSA Exploration program.

This criterion evaluates the originality of the research and its potential to advance CSA Space Exploration goals as listed in the AO, and community objectives as described in the "Canadian Scientific Priorities for the Global Exploration Program" report.

Poor: The research does not address CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives and/or is a reapplication of previous work. The project lacks novel concepts and will not contribute to advancement of new knowledge. (Score: D=2)

Average: The research addresses CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives in a general way and could advance knowledge in the field of planetary exploration. (Score: C=8)

Good: The probable results are likely to advance knowledge central to CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives. The proposed research involves novel or original concepts or methods, and/or builds on previous work. (Score: B=12)

Excellent: The probable results are likely to advance knowledge about the planet Mars central to CSA Space Exploration goals and community objectives and have a broad, long-term impact beyond the immediate field of study. The proposal is distinguished by highly novel or original scientific or technical concepts or methods, and/or builds significantly on previous work. (Score: A=15)

2. Results

Results criterion score

Max. 30
Min. 17

2.1. Publication and science dissemination plan

This criterion evaluates the PI's commitment to disseminating results from the mission. It is anticipated that initial publications will be collected for launch and first results special issues, typically around launch, and 3 to 9 months after the start of science operations.

Poor: The proposal does not include plans for publication or science dissemination. (Score: D=0)

Average: The proposal includes one or more scientific publications and conference presentations and these appear feasible. (Score: C=8)

Good: The proposal includes publications and conference presentations with one or more targeted at launch and first results special issues, and demonstrates a strong commitment to science dissemination. Publications and presentations appear feasible and are likely to raise Canada's profile in the research field. Copies of publications will be provided to CSA as a courtesy. (Score: B=12)

Excellent: The proposal includes a well-thought-out and structured scientific publications and dissemination plan that includes publications targeted at launch and first results special issues and demonstrates a strong commitment to science dissemination. HQP are encouraged as authors, thus advancing the careers of the next generation. The scientific publication and dissemination plan appears feasible and is likely to raise Canada's profile in the broader research field, considerably. Copies of publications will be provided to the CSA as a courtesy, and data products produced as a result of this work (where relevant) will be delivered to a public database in a timely manner. (Score: A=15)

2.2. Enhancement of pool of space experts

All approved Science Team members have been evaluated as experts in a relevant field of study as part of the mission selection process. This criterion evaluates specifically the opportunity for development of Applicant's expertise through the proposed research, new collaborative research opportunities with other Science Team Members, and opportunities presented to junior researchers in the Applicant's group. Quality of opportunity rather than quantity is evaluated, as the number of young researchers that can be engaged is funding-dependent.

Poor: The Applicant has limited or no experience in the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise during the course of the project is doubtful. (Score: D=1)

Average: The Applicant has demonstrated experience in most of the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise is credible and will broaden his or her expertise. (Score: C=5)

Good: The Applicant has demonstrated experience in most of the scientific methods and technical approaches needed to complete the proposed work, and the acquisition of new needed expertise is credible and will broaden his or her expertise. The proposed work is a new collaboration with one or more international Science Team Member(s), or provides responsibilities to one or more junior researcher(s) in the Applicant's group that will allow them to develop new core expertise in the methodologies central to the proposed research and provides them with experience of mission science operations. (Score: B=10)

Excellent: The Applicant is world-leading in the proposed science methods and technical approaches and the proposed work includes novel applications that will enhance international recognition of the Applicant's group. The proposed work is a new collaboration with one or more international Science Team Members and provides roles and responsibilities to junior researchers in the Applicant's group that allow them to acquire expertise needed to become future leaders in this field, and provides them with experience of mission science operations. (Score: A=15)

3. Resources

Resources criterion score

Max. 15
Min. 8

Budget completeness and justification

This criterion evaluates whether the budget is adequate for the proposed work and whether it is justified. Questions to be asked are whether the work could be done for lower cost, or whether costs are highly underestimated.

Poor: The budget and justification sections of the form are incomplete and inadequate information is presented to make an assessment, or the budget appears highly over-estimated or under-estimated for the proposed work and inadequate justification is provided. (Score: D=1)

Average: Overall, the budget appears adequate for the proposed work and reasonable justification is provided, but questions remain about some cost items. (Score: C=8)

Good: The budget appears adequate and reasonable for all elements of the proposed work and is well justified. (Score: B=10)

Excellent: The budget appears adequate and reasonable for all elements of the proposed work and is well justified. The budget leverages other sources of funding or significant in-kind contributions. (Score: A=15)

4. Feasibility of the Project

Feasibility of the Project criterion score

Max. 20
Min. 12

4.1 Feasibility of the research methodology

This criterion evaluates the feasibility of the proposed research methodology to meet the proposed research objectives. This criterion does not evaluate the relevance of the proposed research objectives to the mission which is evaluated in criterion 1: Benefits to Canadians or the expertise of the team to execute the research which is evaluated in 2.2 Enhancement of pool of space experts.

Poor: The research methodology is poorly defined and/or there is a high likelihood that the research objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methods. (Score: D=1)

Average: The research methodology is somewhat defined but details are lacking, and/or, better approaches can be found in the literature to achieve the same objectives. There is a reasonable likelihood that the research objectives will be achieved. (Score: C=5)

Good: The research methodology is well defined. Proposed scientific methods and technical approaches are well-understood and have been applied to similar projects as demonstrated by a literature review. There is a high likelihood that the research objectives will be achieved. (Score: B=8)

Excellent: The research methodology is well defined. Innovative scientific methods and/or technical approaches are needed and described. A thorough literature review justifies the approaches and their feasibility. There is a high likelihood that the research objectives will be achieved. (Score: A=10)

4.2 Feasibility of the research plan and schedule

This criterion evaluates the clarity, completeness and feasibility of the research plan including a clear identification of the roles and responsibilities, contribution and level of involvement of each of the team members. It also evaluates management experience with similar projects and the likelihood that the work will be completed on schedule and within budget. This is also an especially important criterion for missions that have not yet launched. The applicant needs to demonstrate a proposed research schedule that is robust to launch delays – e.g. no immediate dependence on data.

Poor: The research plan is poorly defined and/or there is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inadequate or unavailable resources, and/or the schedule is incomplete and/or highly under- or over-estimated, or strongly dependent on a launch date which may slip. (Score: D=1)

Average: The work plan is somewhat defined but details are lacking. The work could be completed on schedule and within budget, but some doubts remain concerning the availability of resources, or dependencies on a mission launch date which may slip. (Score: C=4)

Good: The work plan is well defined. The resources required are well described and well suited for the work to be carried out. The applicant has managed previous similar projects and the likelihood that the defined work will be completed on schedule and within budget is high, as the work plan is robust to launch delays where relevant. (Score: B=7)

Excellent: The work plan is well defined. The resources required are well described and well suited for the work to be carried out. A well thought out management plan is in evidence (e.g., detailed work breakdown and related expenses, scheduled milestones, time allocations for team members, discussion of possible technical/management risks, etc.). The likelihood that the work will be completed within schedule and budget is very high, and the work plan is robust to launch delays where relevant. Experience as a Science Team Member on previous missions demonstrates a strong likelihood of active engagement and high productivity throughout mission operations. (Score: A=10)

5. Risk and mitigation strategies - Project risks (financial, managerial, scientific and/or technical) and mitigation strategies.

Risk and mitigation strategies criterion score

Max. 5
Min. 2

This criterion evaluates the top three risks associated with the project and the mitigation strategies for each risk.

Poor: The proposal does not identify key risks that are evident, or some key risks are identified but related mitigations strategies are missing. (Score: D=0)

Average: The proposal defines appropriate risks and their mitigation strategies, but important information is lacking in the proposed mitigation strategies, or significant risk would remain after the proposed mitigation strategy is implemented. (Score: C=2)

Good: The proposal includes an analysis that identifies few risks due to a well thought out management approach, and a conservative technical approach. The analysis is credible, and reasonable mitigation strategies are presented for the risks identified. (Score: B=4)

Excellent: The proposal includes a thorough and credible risk analysis of all aspects of the project, with an appropriate assessment of probability of occurrence, and detailed and appropriate mitigation strategies. (Score: A=5)

Evaluation score

Total Max. 100
Total Min. 60