Space Technology Development Program Industrial Capability-Building Contribution: STDP AO3

Announcement of Opportunity

Publication date: June 8, 2015

Application deadline: August 7, 2015

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. AO Objectives
  3. Eligibility Criteria
  4. Applications
  5. Evaluation
  6. Funding
  7. Funding Agreements
  8. Privacy Notice Statement
  9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
  • Eligible Recipients: Eligible recipients are limited to for-profit organizations established and operating in Canada.
  • Non-Repayable Contributions
  • Maximum Amount per Project : $2,000,000
  • Minimum Amount per Project: $200,000
  • Maximum Timeframe of the Project: 36 months

1. Introduction

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) is issuing this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to support the development of Canadian industrial capabilities in the area of space technologies with the aim of increasing the commercial potential of Canadian space companies to secure its fair share of the New Space Economy. Within Canada's Space Policy Framework, the Canadian Government underlines the fact that space yields more commercial opportunities than ever. It is therefore not surprising that "Positioning the Private Sector at the Forefront of Space Activities" has been identified as one of its core principles. The Framework also mentions that the lifeblood of the space industry is innovation, which in turn rests on research and development (R&D). Working with industry, the Government of Canada will encourage opportunities in R&D and innovation by increasing its support for technology development, especially in areas of proven strength such as robotics, optics, satellite communications and space-based radar, as well as in areas of emerging expertise.

It is indeed paramount that the Canadian space industry remains strong, healthy and relevant, and that it has the required readiness to respond to national demand and the necessary competitiveness to secure its fair share of commercial and institutional markets worldwide. Only through innovation and continued investments in R&D can Canada ensure that it has the industrial depth and breadth to remain a valued player in the international arena.

The Space Technology Development Program (STDP) of the CSA has the mandate to support the development, sustainment and enhancement of industrial technological capabilities in the space domain that are of strategic importance to Canada. In light of the above, this AO will award non-repayable contributions to support the development of industrial capabilities. It is intended to support the industry's responsiveness to future market demand and the maintenance of its global competitiveness.

Applicants are asked to read the following AO thoroughly before submitting their applications. This AO was prepared to help applicants complete the application process, and outlines key elements, including mandatory criteria for eligibility, details on eligible projects and the selection process. In the event of any discrepancies between this AO and the individual funding agreements governing a project, the latter document(s) will take precedence.

2. AO Objectives

The objective of this AO is as follows:

To support the development of Canadian industrial capabilities in the area of space technologies for the purpose of increasing the commercial potential of Canadian space companies.

3. Eligibility Criteria

3.1 Eligible Recipients

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

3.2 Eligible Projects

The CSA's STDP aims to support the strengthening of industrial capabilities (new concepts, products and/or know-how) related to basic R&D of space technologies.

The technology themes eligible under this AO include the following list as mentioned in Canada's Space Policy Framework:

Notes:

The high-level theme titles are meant to be broad guidelines. It is the applicant's responsibility to select which theme title best characterizes the proposed project. Only proposals that do not fit in any of the eligible projects will be screened out using the eligible project screening criterion (see section 5.1).

Eligible projects do not include software and application development activities related to Earth Observation data. Specifically related to Earth Observation data, there is a separate CSA program called Earth Observation Applications Development Program (EOADP) that would cover such activities.

Mission concept studies are not eligible.

A project may consist of several activities to attain its final objectives or results. Any logical breakdown or combination of these activities can constitute a funded project. However, purposely breaking down a project into numerous activities or sub-activities to obtain more than the maximum 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.

3.3 Links to CSA Priorities

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

3.4 Links to Program Objectives

This AO supports STDP objectives and contributes to the following objectives of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution (G&C) Program:

3.5 Basic R&D Definition

Eligible projects supported under this AO must comply with the following definition for basic R&D by providing the required justification within section 5 of the Application Form (Information with respect to basic R&D provided only in the proposal will not be used for screening the project):

"Any pre-commercial technology activities that are carried out to resolve unknowns regarding the feasibility of space concepts in the space sector."

The following due diligence process will be applied to determine whether projects are compliant with this definition. To that end, justification provided in section 5 of the Application Form must:

R&D activities supported under this AO shall be undertaken in Canada.

4. Applications

4.1 Required Documentation

The application must include the following:

Note: The completed application form and the full proposal shall be two separate files, each with self-contained information including cross-references, if required and as appropriate.

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

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

Sid Saraf
Manager, Technology Development
Canadian Space Agency
6767 Route de l'Aéroport
Saint-Hubert, Quebec J3Y 8Y9

Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the Frequently Asked Questions (Section 9).

4.2 Service Standards – Complete Applications

Applicants will be notified in writing of decisions regarding their application. Selected applications will be announced on the CSA website. The CSA has set the following service standards for processing times, acknowledgement of receipt, funding decisions and payment procedures.

Acknowledgement: The CSA's goal is to acknowledge receipt of the completed application package within 5 business days of the AO's closing date.

Decision: The CSA's goal is to respond to the proposal within 10 weeks of the AO's closing date and to send a contribution agreement for signature within 4 weeks after formal approval of the proposal.

Payment: The CSA's goal is to issue payment within 6 weeks of the successful fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the contribution agreement.

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

5. Evaluation

5.1 Eligibility Criteria

5.2 Point Rated Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated according to the following point rated criteria:

  1. Innovation and Market Need (25%)
    • 1.1. Degree of Innovation
    • 1.2. Market Assessment
  2. Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (25%)
    • 2.1. Team Technical Expertise
    • 2.2. Project Clarity, Completeness, Feasibility and Risk Assessment
  3. Outcomes and Benefits to Canada (50%)
    • 3.1. Development of Industrial Core Capabilities
    • 3.2. Competitive Advantage
    • 3.3. Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP)
    • 3.4. Path to Commercial Potential

The word limit to support each of the previous criteria and the scoring grid is specified in Appendix A.

5.3 Evaluation Process

Only applications that have passed the eligibility assessment listed in Section 5.1 will be given further consideration.

Once the eligibility criteria are confirmed, evaluators will assess the screened applications according to the criteria listed in Section 5.2. Evaluators shall be experts in the field relevant to the applications and may include representatives of other Canadian government departments. An application must receive an overall minimum score of 65% as well as minimum specified thresholds to be considered for funding. Contribution agreements will be offered to the applicants in the final ranking order of the proposals to maximize the use of available funding (Section 6).

Before a final decision is made, the CSA's Program Manager responsible for this AO may seek input and advice from other organizations, including (but not limited to) federal, provincial, territorial and municipal government agencies and organizations.

The amount of support will be determined according to the total eligible cost of the project, as well as the other sources of funds invested by other stakeholders and the applicant.

6. Funding

6.1 Available Funding and Duration

The total funding available under this AO is $10 million with the following maximum and minimum per project:

The maximum duration for any project is 36 months.

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

Approved proposals will be eligible for a total government (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) assistance of up to a maximum of 75% of total eligible project costs. Thus, the maximum assistance of $2 million will be available for projects with $2.67 million of total eligible project costs.

Company financial statements for the last two years and the most recent interim results will be requested from successful applicants as a condition to signing a contribution agreement. It is not required to submit financial statements with the application.

Applicant must identify all sources of funding in their application and confirm that information in a funding agreement if the project is selected for funding. Upon completion of a project, the recipient must also disclose all sources of funding. To determine the amount of its financial support, the CSA will consider the total eligible project cost as well as funding obtained by the recipient from other organizations/sources.

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

6.2 Eligible Costs

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

Eligible costs are limited to one or a combination of the following categories (see definitions):

7. Funding Agreements

7.1 Payments

The CSA and each successful applicant (the recipient) will sign a funding agreement. This is a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project.

Payments for contribution agreements 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 reimbursed.

7.2 Audit

The recipient of a funding agreement shall keep proper records of all documentation related to the funded project, for the duration of the project and for six (6) years after the completion date of the project, in the event of an audit. This documentation shall be available upon request.

7.3 Conflict of Interest

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

Note: Employees of the CSA are not eligible to participate in any way in any application under this AO.

7.4 Intellectual Property

All intellectual property developed by the recipient in the course of the project shall vest in the recipient.

7.5 Performance Measurement

The CSA will ask the recipients to report on the following topics at the end of their projects:

Knowledge Creation

Capability Building

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 the federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act with respect to applications received. By submitting personal information, an applicant is consenting to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the following Privacy Notice Statement, which explains how the 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 G&C 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 and biographical information) included in the rejected proposals will be stored in a CSA Personal Information Bank for five (5) years and then destroyed (Personal Information File no. ASC PPU045). Personal information included in the successful proposals will be kept along with the proposal results for historical purposes. These data are protected under the Privacy Act. According to the Privacy Act, the data linked to an 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 shall 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) will be made available to the public on the CSA website.

For additional information on privacy matters prior to submitting a proposal, please contact:

Access to Information and Privacy
Canadian Space Agency
Telephone: 450-926-4866
Email: asc.aiprp-atip.csa@canada.ca

9. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

It is the responsibility of the applicants to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, if necessary, before submitting an application.

For any questions related to the AO, applicants shall use the following generic email address asc.lecedessetc-thegandccoe.csa@canada.ca. Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this AO. The CSA will respond to questions received before 12:00 noon (EDT), July 24 , 2015.

At any point, applicants are welcome to share with the CSA their comments or suggestions regarding the AO, the program or the process. Applicants may either use the generic email address or the generic web-based Comments and Suggestions Box.

Question 1:

  1. Can applications be submitted as part of a partnership with industry and/or academia? What additional information would be required in order to submit such a proposal? Can partnerships include non-Canadian members?

  2. Would flight opportunities be possible under this framework given that the budget is within that described?

Answer 1:

  1. As per section 3.1: Eligible recipients are limited to for-profit organizations established and operating in Canada. Universities and not-for-profit organizations can be included in the work as subcontractors but are not eligible as recipients of the contribution agreements.

    Canadian industry can partner if properly registered in Canada as a single legal business entity and constitute an eligible recipient. The intent of this AO is to provide funding to enhance the R&D capacity of the Canadian industry and, as such, R&D activities supported under this AO shall be undertaken in Canada. Foreign consultants as subcontractors are acceptable as eligible costs to the Canadian business entity as long as reasonable efforts to find Canadian consultants/subcontractors have been demonstrated.

  2. This AO does not include the cost related to flight opportunities. Please see details within sections 3.2 Eligible Projects, 3.5 Basic R&D Definition, and 6.2 Eligible Costs of this AO.

Question 2: After reading the STDP AO 3, our company is interested to submit a project and we would like to validate if "Software for Ground-Based Systems and Data Analytics for Space Assets" and/or "Software for Space Robot Autonomy" are eligible themes under the "Robotics" high-level theme title?

Answer 2: Each application and proposal will be screened for eligibility (see section 5.1) based on its entire content, and not the title alone, following the closing date of this AO. Please refer to section 3.2 which states that the high-level theme titles are meant to be broad guidelines. It is the applicant's responsibility to select which theme title best characterizes the proposed project.

Question 3: Section 3.2 of the STDP AO3 (June 8, 2015) says "... purposely breaking down a project into numerous activities or sub-activities to obtain more than the maximum contribution funding is not allowed for what is considered to be one project." Can one company win multiple STDP projects, and thus more than the maximum single-project contribution funding, if the projects are completely unrelated to each other and thus not considered to be one project?

Answer 3: Yes, one company may win multiple projects if the projects are completely unrelated and thus not considered to be one project.

Question 4: In regards to the eligible themes, in particular optics which is a broad theme: In terms of eligibility, if the application is related to earth observation but is also applicable to space application would it be eligible? In other words if the application is transposable in different environments where it can be applied in earth and space observations would it qualify?

Answer 4: The AO aims to support the strengthening of industrial capabilities (new concepts, products and/or know-how) related to basic R&D of space technologies. Eligible projects do not include software and application development activities related to Earth Observation data. Specifically related to Earth Observation data, there is a separate CSA program called EOADP that covers such activities.

Technologies that have commercial potential in the space environment as well as terrestrial spin-offs may be eligible. Each application and proposal will be screened for eligibility (see section 5.1) based on its entire content following the closing date of this AO.

Question 5: What are forms of eligible contributions for the 25% that completes the CSA 75% contribution (i.e. cash, in-kind, etc...)?

Answer 5: Eligible costs are direct expenses that are associated with the delivery of the approved project and that are required to achieve the expected results of the project (Section 6.2).

Please also see note in the Application Form, Section 4 – Sources of Funding: in-kind contributions are not considered eligible sources of funding. The funding amount should be expected to be an incurred cost by the applicant.

Question 6: In the case where more than one organization is not only involved in the project but furthermore seek to share the required total 25% investment, is this recognizable, or must all investment come from the lead recipient, as in past AOs?

Example: Company A receives the award, and works with Company B and Company C as subcontractors or consultants. If Company A invests say 15% of the total eligible project costs, and Company B invests another 5% of total project cost, and Company C invests another 5%, then can the sum of the three investment amounts (15% + 5% + 5%) be considered as fulfilling the total 25% investment requirement, assuming it is fully documented? Or would the amount recognized by CSA be only the 15% invested by the recipient Company A?

Answer 6: The entire 25% incurred expense must come from the recipient of the agreement.

Please see note in the Application Form, Section 4 – Sources of Funding: in-kind contributions are not considered eligible sources of funding. The funding amount should be expected to be an incurred cost by the applicant.

In the example provided, only the 15% of incurred cost by the recipient A would be considered eligible. However, if Company A is invoiced by Company B and Company C for the remaining 10% of eligible costs and this invoice is paid, then Company A will have incurred a total expense of 25%.

Question 7:

  1. In order to respond to the point-rated evaluation criteria in Annex A, can we provide a dedicated section within the required word-count limits for each criteria that summarizes what is provided in the more detailed project description, or do the word-count limits for each criteria apply to the entire detailed project description?
  2. With respect to the declaration of sources of funding in the detailed budget, is it possible to use the amounts received from claims to the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program (SR&ED)?
  3. In terms of financing, is it possible to make a claim to the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Incentive Program (SR&ED) for the portion of the project that is funded by the company (e.g. the 25% eligible costs if the government support reaches 75%)?

Answer 7:

  1. The word count limits for each criterion provided in Annex A only applies to the information provided within the proposal that will be used to support the evaluation of each criterion. If a detailed description of the project is provided elsewhere in the proposal then the word count limit does not apply.
  2. The goal of the declaration of sources of funding is to list all financial partners and to demonstrate to CSA that the total government (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) assistance related to this project does not go over the limit of 75% of total eligible costs.
  3. For each proposed project, total government (federal, provincial/territorial and municipal) assistance must not be over 75 % of total eligible project costs. In the example provided, the 75% of total government assistance is already met.

Question 8: Can the closing date for the AO be extended?

Answer 8: The closing date for the AO cannot be extended and remains before 12:00 noon (EDT), August 7, 2015 (please see section 4.1).

Question 9: Would you please clarify how the proposal should be structured? The Appendix A Point-Rated Evaluation Criteria section provides word limits on 3 major evaluation criteria. Is this the entire proposal? Are we allowed to provide other sections within the proposal to describe the proposed technology? How much details in required?

Answer 9: The proposal needs to include the information as per section 4.1 of the AO.

Note that the point-rated evaluation criteria section is one part of the proposal and only that part is subject to the word count limits as provided in Appendix A of the AO. The objective of providing word count limits to that section is to keep all the proposals as equivalent as possible, as well as to limit the resources required in order to evaluate all the applications.

For the remainder of the proposal, additional information is required, as deemed appropriate by the applicant.  The main objective of this additional information is to have on file a more comprehensive understanding of the project, in the case the application is successfully awarded a contribution agreement. However, note that the entire screened-in proposal will be read during the evaluation process.

Question 10: What would be an acceptable document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant?

Answer 10: The document that confirms the legal name of the applicant is the Certificate of Incorporation or the Letters Patent of Incorporation.

Question 11: What is the predicted award date of the above referenced solicitation?

Answer 11: Please see section 4.2 of the AO. It is estimated that the contribution agreements may be signed by November 2015. However, please note that this is subject to change.

Question 12: What is the meaning of: "proposed TRL expected to be reached (up to TRL 6)." as it appears in section 3.5, point #5, of the Announcement of Opportunity?

Answer 12: It is required that the applicant provide, within section 5 of the application form, the expected maturity level of the proposed technology at the completion of the project. The expected maturity level of the proposed technology at the completion of the project can be anywhere from TRL 1- to TRL 6. Maturity levels above TRL 6 will not be accepted.

TRLs are a set of management metrics that enable discipline-independent assessments of the maturity of a particular technology and the consistent comparison of maturity between different types of technology — all in the context of a specific system, application and operational environment.

The following Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions must be used:

Technology Readiness Level Definition
TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported
TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated
TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept
TRL 4 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)

Question 13: Is there possibility to extend the STDP AO3 deadline of August 7th 2015?

Answer 13: The closing date for the AO cannot be extended and remains before 12:00 noon (EDT), August 7, 2015 (please see section 4.1 and Question 8).

Appendix A Point-Rated Evaluation Criteria

Application must receive an overall minimum score of 65% as well as minimum specified thresholds to be considered for funding. Contribution agreements will be offered to the applicants in the final ranking order of the proposals to maximize the use of available funding (see Section 6). The following point-rated criteria will be evaluated using 4 benchmark statements. Each benchmark statement will receive the following percentage of maximum points according to the following scale:

  1. Poor: 25%
  2. Average: 50%
  3. Good: 75%
  4. Excellent: 100%

1. Innovation and Market Need (25% of overall score)

Maximum: 20 points
Minimum: 10 points (50%)

1.1 Degree of Innovation

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the novelty associated with the new concepts, products and/or know-how to be developed. Innovation can range from sustaining innovations that improve the performance of existing products (but do not create new markets) to disruptive innovations that offer an entirely different value proposition leading to the creation of new markets. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: There is little or no innovation being applied to the development of the proposed concepts, products or know-how.

Average: A moderate level of innovation is being applied that will lead to improved performance of existing concepts, products and/or know-how.

Good: A high level of innovation is being applied that will lead to the development of leading-edge concepts, products and/or know-how.

Excellent: The level of innovation is transformative and will lead to the development of new concepts, products and/or know-how for new markets.

1.2 Market Assessment

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 1500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the applicant's understanding of the market needs associated with the proposed technology. It includes a thorough analysis of market demand. Incidentally, this criterion also evaluates whether the proposal addresses the existence and number of competing alternatives on the market. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: The applicant is not aware of the current market share pertaining to the technology being developed and the many competitive alternatives already existing on the market. The proposal does not identify the factors that drive demand for this technology or the relevant customers and competitors. The proposal does not present a strategy for competing with the alternatives.

Average: The proposal somewhat identifies the factors that drive demand for this technology, but does not identify the relevant customers and competitors. Some competitive alternatives exist on the market but the proposal provides an incomplete plan for competing with the alternatives. The proposal does not contain any supporting market research/data. The applicant is not clearly aware of the current market share pertaining to the technology to be developed.

Good: The proposal identifies the factors that drive demand for this technology and the relevant customers and competitors, but this is supported by limited market research/data. A limited number of competitive alternatives exist on the market, and the proposal provides a detailed plan for competing with those alternatives. The applicant is aware of the current market share pertaining to the technology to be developed.

Excellent: The proposal clearly identifies the factors that drive demand for this technology and the relevant customers and competitors, and is well supported by market research/data. Very few or no competitive alternatives exist on the market. The applicant is aware of the current market share pertaining to the technology to be developed. The proposal provides a comprehensive plan for competing with any alternatives.

2. Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment (25% of overall score)

Maximum: 20 points
Minimum: 10 points (50%)

2.1 Team Technical Expertise

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the combined technical qualifications and experience of the team assembled to carry out the proposed work. Résumés appended to the proposal will be assessed for this criterion.

Poor: The technical team has demonstrated limited or no qualifications and experience with closely related technologies.

Average: The technical team has demonstrated some qualifications and experience with closely related technologies and/or the team has a moderate track record of successfully developing related technologies. Key qualifications are missing to form a comprehensive team.

Good: The technical team has worked actively with closely related technologies and has a track record of successfully developing technologies of comparable scope and complexity. The proposed technical team possesses all the qualifications and experience required to perform the proposed work.

Excellent: The technical team is highly experienced and has a proven track record of successfully developing closely related technologies of comparable scope and complexity. The proposed team possesses all the qualifications and experience required to perform the proposed work.

2.2 Project Clarity, Completeness, Feasibility and Risk Assessment

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 1500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the completeness and effectiveness of the proposed implementation plan in directing the project to successful completion. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: The implementation plan is poorly defined, incomplete or difficult to understand. There is a high likelihood that the objectives will not be met due to inappropriate methodology, budget, schedule, key risks or availability of resources.

Average: The implementation plan is somewhat defined but lacks details or clarity. Doubts remain regarding the technical methodology of the proposed work or the likelihood that the objectives will be met.

Good: The implementation plan is complete and well defined. The proposed methodology seems adequately suited for the proposed work to be carried out. The expectation that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is credible.

Excellent: The implementation plan is complete, very well defined and coherent. The methodology described is logical and well suited for the proposed work to be carried out. The likelihood that the proposed work will meet the set objectives and be completed on schedule and within budget is high.

3. Outcomes and Benefits to Canada (50% of overall score)

Maximum: 40 points
Minimum: 26 points (65%)

3.1 Development of Industrial Core Capabilities

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 1000 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the potential of increasing industrial capabilities 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. This readiness is reflected by the breadth and depth of the technological domains in which the Canadian industry is active. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: The proposal does not substantiate a valuable enhancement of Canadian industry's core capabilities that would enable the applicant to respond to space needs.

Average: The proposal provides a limited and/or vague description of the benefits to be gained by the Canadian industry. Industry's readiness to respond to space needs is only somewhat improved by this enhancement to core capabilities.

Good: The proposal clearly substantiates how the enhancement of the applicant's core industrial capabilities will enable it to better respond to space needs.

Excellent: The proposed project would significantly enhance Canadian industry's capabilities and would clearly increase the breadth and/or depth of the Canadian space industrial capabilities as a whole, enabling it to better respond to national space needs.

3.2 Competitive Advantage

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 1000 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion assesses the merit and potential of the proposed project to positively affect the company's competitive advantage and/or overall market share. It is recognized that an improvement in the company's overall market share (or competitive advantage) 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 unlikely to impact the company's competitive advantage.

Average: The proposed project is likely to improve the company's competitive advantage and/or overall market share, and a strategy/plan to market has been identified.

Good: The proposed project will improve the company's competitive advantage and/or overall market share. A credible strategy/plan to market is included along with interest of partners/clients and their requirements are known.

Excellent: The proposed project will substantially improve the company's competitive advantage and overall market share. A detailed and credible strategy/plan to market is included along with formally expressed interest of clients (Letters of Intent, MOUs, MOAs, etc.) indicative of potentially significant sales, and the clients' requirements have already been provided.

3.3 HQP

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the degree to which this project will help retain and enhance the number of skilled workers as well as their knowledge and expertise through their involvement in this project. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: HQP provide minimal value to the project or HQP roles; responsibilities and accountability are poorly defined. Less than 35% of the level of effort is provided by HQP.

Average: HQP provide reasonable value to the project and HQP roles; responsibilities and accountability are reasonably defined. HQP provide between 35% and 50% of the level of effort required to successfully complete the project.

Good: HQP provide high value to the project and HQP roles; responsibilities and accountability are well defined. HQP provide between 50% and 80% of the level of effort required to successfully complete the project.

Excellent: HQP provide very high value to the project and HQP roles; responsibilities and accountability are very well defined. HQP provide over 80% of the level of effort required to successfully complete the project.

3.4 Path to Commercial Potential

(Please limit the proposal pertaining to this criterion to 1500 words)

Maximum: 10 points

This criterion evaluates the applicant's roadmap for implementing the technology in space. This criterion seeks answers to the following:

Poor: No relevant future space missions have been identified for this technology. The proposal provides a poor or no post-project strategy to further develop the technology in order to achieve commercial potential.

Average: The proposal somewhat identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an average post-project strategy with limited information on budget and schedule to further develop the technology in order to achieve commercial potential.

Good: The proposal identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides a good post-project strategy with information on budget and schedule to further develop the technology in order to achieve commercial potential.

Excellent: The proposal clearly identifies relevant future space missions targeted for this technology. The proposal provides an excellent post-project strategy with clear information on budget and schedule to further develop the technology in order to achieve commercial potential.

Date modified: